Comments on: Can We Trust the Consumer to Make Good Decisions?

By: Empower the Consumer via Transparency « Crastinate

Empower the Consumer via Transparency « Crastinate — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:01:11 +0000

[...] what improvements I, the consumer, am willing to pay for and what I am not? And is the consumer trustworthy enough to make this [...]

By: Ely Rosenstock

Ely Rosenstock — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:49:12 +0000

Gian, I think my friend put the flashlight in the trash so tracking the manufacturer down might be tough.

By: Gian Trotta

Gian Trotta — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 14:51:43 +0000

Ely, any way to ID the manufacturer of the flashlight, even privately via email.

I know many people who would be interested in following that up.
Gt

By: ricardo

ricardo — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:47:09 +0000

hilarious story in the moment… Until a dad doesn’t read the label and his little kid plays with it and it blows on him. Was it a huge explosion? Prob not. Little kids are notorious for putting things in their mouth. Bad situation. We all pay a ridiculous amount for a phone bill. Yes companies need to make money and there are numerous cost involved to produce. But were still getting robbed.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 01:06:29 +0000

Ricki- There is no law in the Unites States that specifically ties Quality (as represented by price) to expectations, but the concept of a “reasonable person” is built into the product liability case law.
“The reasonable person is one who acts with prudence. To avoid liability, product design must assure that the reasonable person will not be injured.” (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4114196&isnumber=4114190)
This traditionally refers to proper usage of said product and could be used in a case where someone expects a 5 cent hammer to break a concrete wall. You would argue a “reasonable person” would not use a cheap product for such an undertaking.
Likewise, you would argue a reasonable person would assume you could use a flashlight for more than a couple of minutes without it exploding in your hand.

By: Ricki

Ricki — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:01:45 +0000

When things like these are discussed the “If this was in the united states … something, something lawsuit in the range of xxx billions” always comes up.

Im am not familiar with U.S. legislation but in Denmark there is a law that applies in these cases. Can’t remember it precisely, but it states that a consumer should expect the quality of the product to be a guide as to how this product will perform. (”Quality” as in the ISO standard way, where it means “is there a reasonable link between the price and the product”). To stop my own ramblings..

If someone paid 5 cents for a hammer, then goes home and tries to break a 10 foot concrete wall with it, breaks the hammer and ends up with something pointy in his eye….. He should have been able to deduct that a 5 cent hammer is not a tool for such a job.

Could someone please tell me if a similar law applies in the U.S?
I have a feeling, that most of the cases where we hear about large companies paying huge amounts to poor idiots, does not tell the whole story?

On the other hand.. flashlights, laptops and coffee should not explode. Good thing he didn’t took a nasty fall on top of the detonating flashlight.

By: Barry

Barry — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:00:24 +0000

David -

The often-cited ‘hot cup of coffee at McDonalds’ case was quite legitimate – read more about it here:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

I think consumers can be trusted to the extent that we expect an “average person” to be able to reasonably make an educated decision based on the information in front of them.

As examples:
- When you order coffee at a restaurant, you expect it to be the same temperature as coffee served at home, or at other locations, NOT 30 degrees hotter.
- When you buy a flashlight, you expect it to perform like other flashlights (last for more than several minutes, and not explode), despite what the fine print states

Yes, the consumer is ultimately responsible for making an educated purchasing decision. But until we have a universal “try before you buy” policy, those decisions are going to be made based on marketing, product packaging, and general word of mouth. So their “universe” of knowledge about the product/service being purchased is somewhat limited in scope, and the consumer should be able to expect “market average” results from anything being purchased.

By: Matt @ Steadfast Finances

Matt @ Steadfast Finances — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:19:48 +0000

Sad to say, I don’t think we can trust consumers. If we could, do you really think those late night infomercials with the “experts” selling those lame personal finance books or foreclosure toolkits would have a job? Doubtful.

I think we’ve moved from a society of basic needs to one of culturally imposed self indulgence. A way of “I’m entitled to the best of everything” but most people have no way of affording that lifestyle.

On a more comical side, perhaps metaphorical “happy place” bruising should be the new battle cry of the unhappy consumer. Screw the Alamo, I’ve got bruised [beep]!!!

By: David L Good

David L Good — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:41:37 +0000

I have to agree with Barry. But craziness aside (such as an exploding flashlight or a $19,000 phone bill) I think this brings up some good issues on other items — such as the ‘hot cup of coffee’ at McDonald’s. A lady goes through the drive thru, orders a hot coffee, and when the coffee spills in her lap she sues McDonald’s because the coffee was too hot (I assume “burn” was used in court).

As regular people we are able to avoid life threatening situations on a daily basis. I think that shows we CAN be pretty smart. The problem on the consumer side is that we’ve grown used to “it’s someone else’s fault, and they’re going to pay!” We blindly listen to marketing or simply ignore the directions — and when something goes wrong it’s instantly someone else’s fault, and we’re going to sue the living tar out of ‘em.

What we can’t do is separate ‘consumer’ intelligence from every day intelligence. It’s the same people we’re talking about, so I would assume if someone can balance a checkbook, play a sport, work seven different remotes for their entertainment center, purchase a new car/home, and work in a somewhat interesting job… they should be able to take some responsibility when things go wrong with a purchased item.

The exploding flashlight, however, is a different story. If the user gets a shock because he was using the flashlight in his swimming pool — his bad. If it blows up in his hand — manufacturer’s bad. If the manufacturer WARNS of exploding flashlight and STILL sends it to market… (and I HATE to say this) but it sounds like it’s time to go to court.

By: Barry

Barry — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:08:55 +0000

That’s a crazy story – he paid fifty bucks??? I can get you exploding flashlights for a tenth of that!

All kidding aside, consumers are basically placing their trust into the retailer and manufacturer when they buy an item. Yes, they are ultimately responsibly for reading the fine print. But flashlights should not explode, and phone bills should not cost $19,000. Companies should constantly be playing “what if…” in the mind of the consumer, and yes – it is up to the government to set regulations and guidelines.