The problem started when he bought a $28 charger from New World Video's online store. They list the item as usually shipping in 1 to 2 days, but the next day they called him to tell him the charger was on back-order, and instead they could sell him a $99 off-brand charger. After he hesitated, they cut the price to $45 to sweeten the deal—but it was still $17 over what he originally intended to spend, and for a different product altogether.

Joshua set up a blog to publicize the subsequent email exchange he had with New World Video, and on it he clearly explains why the company is engaging in bait and switch tactics:

The website said (and STILL says) in stock at the low (lower than any other website) price of $28. The rep said it was on backorder and gave me NO option to wait. She immediately tried to sell me another product for $90 saying that I must really need the item fast since I had ordered with expedited shipping!

In his emails to Joshua, an NWV rep named Scott argues that the company never promised the item was in stock, only that it "usually ships in 1 to 2 days."

Curiously, neither item says "in stock" on the site, but both say they usually ship in 1 or 1-2 days. These are screen caps from 13 October 2008:

We think Scott's trying to hide behind a technicality, but okay, let's assume he and the company he represents are legit (despite the fact that Joshua's bait and switch accusation isn't the only one on resellerratings.com). Assuming you're honest, there's an easy solution to this problem with future customers, Scott. Simply keep your website updated so that the stock situation accurately reflects your store's true inventory as closely as possible. Oh, and if you do have inventory issues, don't call customers to try to upsell them a product that's three times more expensive.

Until then, we'll agree with Joshua—you're pulling a bait-and-switch on customers, despite what you say on your home page.

New World Video Direct - Scam or Misunderstanding? [Blogspot]

RELATED:
NWV Direct retailer website

"Amazon temporarily gags Spore critics, deletes and restores all customer reviews" [ArsTechnica] (Thanks to Nathan!)

[Parent company] Event Tickets LLC has an unsatisfactory rating from BBB due to its performance, which includes nearly 100 instances of non-delivery of tickets, nearly another 100 complaints involving refunds and exchanges, and on about 200 occasions, the company has failed to even respond to BBB or consumers to resolve issues.

Remember, avoid this company when buying tickets. We've heard only bad things about them, and have yet to hear of any sort of resolution or follow-up story that would make us change our minds.

"BBB Warns Sports Fans, Concert-Goers, and Theater Buffs: Beware of TicketsMyWay.com" (Thanks to Cheriset!)
(Photo: Getty)

Amy points out that "the next cheapest 'New York City' hotels Expedia offers" are all in New Jersey, and all above $58/night.

Check out the full article for more reviews on the cheapest places you can stay in NYC.

"A few details about Expedia's '$58/night in NYC' ad" [NewYorkology]

Walsh told Villarreal:

“We don’t want to go down any path that starts to go down toward censorship,” Walsh said. “I really believe First Amendment rights are very important. I don’t want the solution to the problem to be bigger than the problem itself.”

Walsh and the NIMF oppose the proposed legislation that the Parents Television Council has been promoting by (incorrectly) claiming that GTA IV rewarded "points for drunk driving."

"What we really need to do is get kind of in the middle. [Philmguy]

So that's the summary. Here's the full story in Jesus' own words:

Hello Consumerist...
 
I found myself swayed by the curiosity of knowing my credit score and I chose to go to the very adamantly advertised freecreditreport.com. Once I was at their website I found out that the free credit report was not really free to begin with, since you had to provide your credit card information and sign for a monthly plan of "free" credit reports and credit change notices. Since I was already there I said, "What the Hell?... Lets do it anyways!". I completed the sign up process and the website announced that I could access my credit reports once I received a confirmation e-mail which I never received, hence I could never access my credit reports.
 
I was fully aware that I could cancel the service at any time, but I totally forgot about this because my workload augmented and three months later, when i had a chance to look i noticed that my credit card statement had several more charges (14.95) from freecreditreport.com that reminded me of the "missing confirmation email" and my "never checked" credit report. I tried to sign in on their website, but the password and username where not valid. I expected that since i had never confirmed my account by clicking on the link provided in these kind of emails, then I thought well maybe my username and password where indeed wrong and I went to their forgot your password section and they ask for your full name and social security no., so i thought well this might get me somewhere... I entered my info and the screen said record does not exist.
This is where I tried to cance it... and that is when the s*%& hit the fan.
 
I tried cancelling the account 4 times and the call either got dropped or i was on hold for ages. I was not expecting anything outrageous from them... I only wanted a full refund for a service that i was charged for and not even used. The people on the other side of the phone were condesending to say the least. They treated me like a child that is asking to play with mommy's diamond necklace. They gave me phony reasons on why I should keep their service, (even though i could not access it) they told me things like: "are you sure you want to cancel because according to our records there has been suspicious activity in your credit history" as if some dark figure was using my social security no. to conquer the world.
 
I finally got them to cancel my account, but the lady hung up on me without talking about a refund of any sort, so I called back and explained the situation to a guy named "Guy" (corporate no. 35897) and he said that a refund was out of the question since they had monitored my scores daily and the service was in fact provided. I politely disagreed and explained for the 6th time that i had not even accessed my profile once. He raised his voice and repeated that a refund was out of the question, as if the louder voice was going to make me understand their logic resolution "Let us Screw this guy". He said that the only ones that could offer me a full refund was their customer satisfaction department, so I asked to be transferred to that department and he said that could not be done. I asked to ask to a supervisor and he defiantly said "why do you want to talk to one?, he is going to tell you the same thing i am". I was pretty mad, but i kept my cool and asked the number to this department and their e-mail and he said that they did not have one and that the only way to get a hold of them was through a letter and I said "Come on man!!! Y'all have a website, but not email addresses. He agreed to give me a refund for the last month and hung up and forgot to tell me the address to the Customer Satisfaction Dept... I don't want to call them again and go through that crap again.

 
Can you advise me on this matter?
 
Jesus [redacted] from South Texas.

RELATED
Consumerist posts about FreeCreditReport.com

"10 Largest Data Breaches Since 2000 - Millions Affected" [Flowing Data via BoingBoing]
(Image: Flowing Data)

ATK chose the following criteria to test their mugs: heat retention, spill-proofness, clean taste, handles (no handles = easier to grab while driving), sippability, visibility (whether or not it blocks your view of the road when you're near the bottom of the drink), cleaning, the ability to fit into a wide range of mug holders, and stability.

Top Two Picks

The Thermos Stainless Steel Travel Mug was the best of the bunch, particularly because of its radial symmetry that allows you to pick it up and sip from any direction without worrying about orientation (*snicker*). Because it took a while for excess liquid to drain back in, there was some risk of splashing on bumpy drives.


Their other pick was the OXO Click LiquiSeal Travel Stainless Mug, which "is comfortable to hold and has excellent insulation" but had some small issues with liquid getting trapped in an inner layer and around the button. They don't suggest the plastic version, however.


Oddball Favorite
They also liked the compact Nissan Dual Purpose Can Insulator/Travel Cup, although not as a travel mug: "It's an unsatisfactory beverage cup—the lid doesn't have any closure, and it leaked like a sieve—but it's a good can insulator and holder. A soda can fit in snugly and stayed well chilled." They demonstrated it on the show, and it looks like a stainless steel can cozy with a screw-on lid to completely cover your drink.

Bottom Rung Losers
At the very bottom of their "Do Not Want" list were two ceramic/stoneware mugs—they were poor insulators and didn't have traps to contain any liquid overflow.

"Equipment Corner: Commuter Coffee Mugs" [America's Test Kitchen] (Free registration required)

(Photo: The Infamous Gdub)

Two ozone-based purifiers, EdenPure Area Model and the EcoQuest Fresh Air, "do a poor job of removing smoke and dust, and they emit very high levels of ozone." Consumer Reports slaps a "Not Acceptable" for use by homeowners label on them. (More memories of Granny.)

Of course, the most heavily marketed purifiers we know of are from Sharper Image. So how did the company fare?

Consumer Reports also tested air purifiers from market leaders Oreck and Sharper Image. The Sharper Image Hybrid GP Germicidal Air Purifier is $500 and the Oreck tower, the XL Professional Air Purifier, is $700. But Consumer Reports says neither did a good job of cleaning the air.

A much less expensive air purifier did a much better job and earned top-ratings. It's the Whirlpool Whispure model number AP45030S for $230. It uses only a filter to clean the air, so it doesn't emit any ozone at all.

"CONSUMER REPORTS: Air purifiers" [9 News Colorado]

RELATED
"Air cleaners, how to choose" [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: Getty)

We know Tivo has always had a problem figuring out how to generate revenue, and we love our Tivo. But if this data is so valuable, why isn't Tivo paying its customers for it first? They've already put out plenty of money on the devices and on subscription fees—offering up free demographic data seems above and beyond a fair agreement.

The next big revolution in marketing needs to come from consumers realizing that demographic data has real value, and that they should be compensated fairly for it. Or actually, since most of us do realize that, what we need is a way to formally announce "ownership" of it so that it can be protected, aggregated, and sold directly.

"TiVo to offer advertisers viewer data: report" [Reuters]

RELATED
"TiVo Serves Up Portrait of the Ad-Zappers" [Wall Street Journal]
(Photo: Tivo and Getty)

According to new ratings numbers from Nielsen that take into account consumers who watch recorded programs up to three days after they were aired, about half of DVR owners don't skip commercials.

From the AP:

"The numbers are exactly what we thought," said Alan Wurtzel, president of research at NBC Universal. He said the data for some shows, such as "The Office," — which he said had higher C3 ratings than traditional ratings — "confirm our concern that we need to get credit for time-shifted viewing." Other NBC shows, like "Law and Order: SVU," had lower C3 ratings.

The new system is a compromise between advertisers and broadcasters after years of squabbling over the best way to measure how many people watch commercials.

Last year, Nielsen began measuring DVR viewership over the seven days following the original prime-time telecast. The networks argued that those numbers — which added as many as 2 million viewers for some shows — should be used as the basis for ad rates. But the advertisers countered that many DVR users fast-forward through the ads, so they would be paying for nothing.

It turned out that nearly half of DVR users actually watch commercials, according to data Nielsen released in May. The two sides settled on the three-day period because Nielsen says 95 percent of all DVR viewing for prime-time shows is done within that period.

Brill said the new ratings are only a "baby step" in the direction of measuring actual commercial viewership. That's because C3 rates the average viewers during all commercial minutes of a program, not for specific commercials. She wants Nielsen to deliver by-the-second ratings.

"Then," she said, "we'll know exactly what we're paying for."

"Even without a DVR, 12% of CBS'"60 Minutes" and Fox's "Don't Forget the Lyrics" missed the commercials."

Between DVR watching and live broadcast, CBS's Survivor: China brought in 6.51 million viewers, and 5.23 million of them watched the commercials.

Only 5.16 million people watched it live. Where did the rest come from? DVRs. Conclusion: People watch commercials. Why? No clue.

Answer to Vexing Question: Who's Not Watching Ads [WSJ]
Few Surprises As Nielsen Rates Ads [AP]
(Photo:Jerry7171)

The top five:

1. Cacao Reserve by Hershey's Extra Dark
2. Lindt Excellence Extra Fine Dark
3. Chocolove Organic Dark
4. Valrhona Le Noir Amer Dark Bittersweet
5. Scharffen Berger Semisweet Pure Dark

True chocolate lovers may want to skip ahead to a real chocolate review website, seventypercent.com, which has reviews of some of the bars mentioned by Consumer Reports, as well as dozens of other fancy-schmancy versions.

Resources: www.seventypercent.com

Dark chocolate, Ratings [Consumer Reports]

(Photo: SpooSpa)

Slate's top pick is (sadly) the $225 Lippincott Umbrella, but their runner ups are a couple of far-more-affordable ones in the $30 range, from Sharper Image and Hammacher Schlemmer. And in light of yesterday's post about ethical shopping, we present the winner of last year's Treehugger contest to design an eco-friendly, sustainable umbrella (which, as if to illustrate the challenge of ethical "shopping", isn't available for sale).

Protect yourself from April showers [Slate]

(Photo: d'n'c)

Their top pick is a 9,500 BTU model from Sharp. Consumersearch.com picks a Sharp model as well, saying that "almost every review we found for this model comments that it's quiet, making it a good choice for a bedroom. A nice plus for this model is that condensate doesn't need to be emptied. Rather, condensation is sent out through the exhaust hose."

Consumersearch.com also cautions, "Bear in mind that portable air conditioning units require more BTUs than window AC units to cool a room of comparable size." And we should note that Slate's review process is thoroughly unscientific, and doesn't address energy efficiency at all. In general, you should look for the highest EER (energy efficiency rating) you can find. However, consumersearch.com warns that EER measurement isn't standardized on portable models the way it is on window units, so don't rely solely on this when comparing models.

And we were kidding about taking one camping.

Resources: consumersearch.com

Are some portable ACs superior to others? [Slate.com]

(Photo: pink hats, red shoes)

Advertising "Free ratings and profiles for every lawyer so you can choose the right lawyer," Avvo promises to guide consumers to the "right lawyer" like Consumer Reports guides consumers to the right shampoo. Avvo was controversial from the get-go, and called a flat-out scam by Seattle class-action lawyer Steve Berman, who is now suing Avvo for deceptive practices and violations of Washington's consumer protection laws.

It is an interesting idea: that lawyers can be rated like vaccuum cleaners or wine. Many many lawyers have long survived on referrals from satisfied clients and other attorneys, but Avvo take the approach that a lawyers public record is enough. Avvo suggests the following "fundamental" requirements:

• Good standing with the state bar association: In other words, the bar association—which licenses attorneys in your state—believes this lawyer is fit to practice law.
• No disciplinary sanctions: A sanction is a disciplinary action taken against a lawyer by the state regulatory agency. A sanction can be a minor reprimand, or it can be a very serious punishment like suspension or disbarment from practicing law. If you see a sanction on an attorney's record, proceed with caution.
• Experience with cases like yours: Most lawyers concentrate in a few areas of the law. Once you know what these areas are, it's easier to find lawyers with the experience and skills that are relevant to your situation.
• Good communication skills: Regardless of your legal issue, you want someone who keeps you informed and stays in touch, every step of the way. Legal matters can be confusing and your attorney is your advocate and guide. Don't settle for anything less.

All seem like good requirements. It makes lawyers nervous to include disciplinary sanctions as a "fundamental," but assuming the state professional responsibility board is doing its job well, I don't see any problem with that. Just know that a disciplinary "sanction" may be due to something like a trust accounting or recordkeeping error, so a "sanction" doesn't necessarily mean a lawyer is unethical or even sloppy. Nobody's perfect.

Avvo also recomments you consider:

• Is this lawyer's office convenient to your home or office?
• How much does the lawyer charge?
• Is this lawyer recommended by former clients?
• Do you care where your lawyer went to law school or how many years they've been practicing law?

All these are also good things to consider. So why all the fuss? The complaint just filed in federal district court (read the complaint at WSJ Law Blog) in Washington gives a few examples:

• After lawyer Enrico Salvatore Leo added to his profile two softball awards he won, his rating increased .6 points.
• Deborah Rhode, an Avvo board member and Stanford Law professor, scored a perfect 10, while Larry Kramer, the dean of the Stanford Law, scored a 5.7.
• Justice Ginsburg and Justice Alito received the same rating as Lynne Stewart, the government lawyer currently serving a prison term relating to her conduct in a recent terrorism trial.

Umm, maybe the system needs a bit of work. There are also features allowing clients to rate lawyers, which leads one to wonder whether vote spamming to lower competitors' ratings will become a problem. And, fundamentally, lawyers really aren't like vacuum cleaners. Sure, you can check for the fundamentals, but you won't know whether you can work with a lawyer or have confidence in their work from a ratings web site. You can try, but whether this will actually serve legal consumers in a meaningful way remains to be seen.

It will be interesting to see how the lawsuit comes out, especially since Super Lawyers, another lawyer-rating service, is under attack, as well. — SAM GLOVER

[via WSJ Law Blog]

Example:

A man in an elevator is shot in the head (blood sprays on the wall of the elevator car and it pools under him on the floor). Two men are shot in the head (we see bloody wounds and blood pools under them on the floor). A man is shot in the head (blood pours from the wound and pools on the floor). A man shoots a man in the head, and he falls onto a table and then the floor (we see blood on his head).

Kids-in-mind [via BoingBoing]

Starbucks may be the world's largest coffee shop chain in the world, but what they serve isn't as good as what McDonald's brews, Consumer Reports says."

"In the March issue, the magazine called the fast food giant's Premium Roast "cheapest and best...." Consumer Reports sent "trained testers" to two of each restaurant's locations, where they drank coffee with no cream or sugar.

They characterized McDonald's coffee as "decent and moderately strong. Although it lacked the subtle top notes needed to make it rise and shine, it had no flaws," and complained that Starbucks was "strong, but burnt and bitter enough to make your eyes water instead of open."

We've yet to try McDonald's new joe, but we've always been partial to making our own coffee, anyway. —MEGHANN MARCO

A triple-venti-Americano-decaf surprise? [MSNBC]

Just pray the car companies had good beta testers to weed out the bugs... — BEN POPKEN

Large car
Audi A6 manufactured in Dec. 2006 and later

Midsize cars
Audi A4
Saab 9-3
Subaru Legacy equipped with optional electronic stability control

Minivans
Hyundai Entourage
Kia Sedona

Luxury SUVs
Mercedes M class
Volvo XC90

Midsize SUVs
Acura RDX
Honda Pilot
Subaru B9 Tribeca

Small SUVs
Honda CR-V
Subaru Forester equipped with optional electronic stability control

In a video press release, IIHS says manufacturers are improving car safety, noting that, "Increasingly, people don't have to die in vehicle crashes."— BEN POPKEN

Also Rans, inside.

ALSO-RANS
Rear protection isn't good

IIHS says, "These vehicles earned good ratings in front and side crash tests. They have electronic stability control, standard or optional. They would have won 2007 TOP SAFETY PICK awards if their seat/head restraints also had earned good ratings. Instead rear crash protection is rated acceptable, marginal, or poor (Honda reports that the seat/head restraints in the only Civic model with electronic stability control wouldn't be rated good)."

Acceptable rear protection
Audi A3
BMW 3-series 4dr
Lexus IS 250/350

Marginal rear protection
Acura TL
Honda Odyssey
Lexus ES 350
Lexus GS 350
Toyota Camry
Toyota FJ Cruiser
Toyota Prius
Toyota RAV4

Poor rear protection
Honda Accord 4dr
Infiniti M35
Nissan Quest
Toyota Avalon
Toyota Sienna

So here's what I'm going to do as a citizen. I'm not going to watch the Simpson show or even look at the book. I'm not even going to look at it. If any company sponsors the TV program, I will not buy anything that company sells — ever.

Does he mean it? Should we stop buying the products that pay for his meals? Shall we watch the interview so we can write down who is sponsoring what? Well, the piece isn't exactly a model of clarity. He spends most of the editorial talking about the "elite media" and late-term abortion: "Of course, babies have no legal rights in the eyes of The New York Times. " And so on.

We posit that he's the FOX moral outrage clean-up crew, but will take his advice under consideration. —MEGHANN MARCO

American Culture Hits Its Lowest Point Ever [FOXNews]

Could you post a call for opinions about auto dealership ratings sites like dealerrater.com? A dealership I'm considering boasts a good rating on the site, but I have no idea whether it's full of shills. I'm much too cynical to believe that this many people reallyreally like any car dealer.

I'd love recommendations for other sites, if people know any. Thanks!

Whachoo got under the hood? — BEN POPKEN

Speaking on behalf of the MPAA, Vice President of Corporate Communications Kori Bernards said:

"We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees," said Kori Bernards, the MPAA's vice president for corporate communications. She said Dick spied on the members of the MPAA's Classification and Rating Administration, including going through their garbage and following them as they drove their children to school.

"We were concerned about the raters and their families," Bernards said. She said the MPAA's copy of "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" is "locked away," and is not being copied or distributed.

Sadly, as of August 1st, the Ecstasy Testing Project is out of funds, and any new testing must be paid for by the pill submitter at $115 a pop. They are soliciting a grant to repotentiate the project, but for now it has mellowed, with only two pills tested this month.

If looking up every flight by hand sounds like a pain in the ass, WSJ's Personal Journal is reporting that FlightStat's information will soon be integrated into online ticket booking systems like the newly-launched Pricegrabber Travel. While most carriers maintain around a 98% chance that their planes will actually leave the ground, it'll be nice to know that your chances of making the puddle jump from Westwego to Weehawken will be better if you book a friend.

FlightStats Home via Personal Journal