Some Issues That Irked the Public in 1990
Following is a select assortment of consumer concerns and aggravations, as reflected in reader calls and letters this past year. The goal: to put into perspective some products and services that confronted, and maybe confounded, consumers.
This year that perspective outweighs everything. The most heated consumer flaps pale against the threat of Middle Eastern animosities and the number of people struggling to survive on our own streets. The result is some impatience with consumption itself.
The environment, now a widespread cause, is increasingly exploited. Its proponents aren’t like the purists of the 1960s, making their own goods, scaling down, trying a simpler life. The Green Consumer buys different goods, but the usual amount, often with price no object: Shopping ingredients are a luxury for the well-to-do.
They face more buzzwords now, impressively specific--”biodegradeable,” “70% recycled,” “all-cotton”-- but sometimes deceptive. This year’s winner: A pair of Leggale socks printed with the oval label, “NATURAL 100% ALL COTTON,” with a sticker attached giving the ingredients as 70% cotton and 30% nylon, and noting, “This stamp of 100% natural all cotton is purely decorative.”
Furthermore, buzzwords are costly. One must pay $12 (36 cents apiece) for 33 Dovetails, “plastic-free” disposable diaper pads sold in environmental catalogues. A similar product made by Weyerhaeuser is sold in supermarkets and chain stores as diaper “doublers” for about $3 for 40 (7 cents apiece). The difference: Dovetails are a half inch bigger all-round, with a rayon outer sheet--a raw material slightly more “biodegradeable” but apparently no more expensive than Weyerhaeuser’s polypropylene. Is it the buzzword?
Gas prices went up and down more than usual--mostly up, given events in the Persian Gulf. Complaints about profiteering intensified when retailers didn’t follow wholesalers in coming down again. “The industry is now simply exploiting the fear of war to exploit consumers,” said New York City’s commissioner of consumer affairs, Mark Green, outraged that the average retail price of gas rose 3 cents there even when wholesale prices went down 19 cents.
Why can’t gas station owners, like everyone else, seize any chance to make extra money? Even odder, why won’t all those people who complain that their usual station is higher than the guy down the street simply shift their patronage?
There were more than the usual complaints about declining retail service, now mixed with comments--not sympathetic--on the slipping fortunes of some retailers. Everyone talks of the problems of department stores, lamed by discount competition, maimed by the financial woes of their corporate purchasers and increasingly ignored by consumers, who are justifiably suspicious of their “sale” advertising.
The wonder is why they can’t find anything special to sell except this pale and laughable version of discounting. Some are trying “customer service,” but it’s no more substantial than their sale prices--the mere announcement of dedication with no change in number or tone of personnel.
If there are any real merchants left in the business, they need a new handle on why they’re here--whether it’s location, full line of goods, individual service or whatever.
There has been much Sturm and Drang over Caller ID, a telecommunications “advance” that is drawing a lot of criticism and controversy even before it’s widely marketed. A clever addition to “custom calling” features, it’s billed as the saving of women harassed by obscene callers: It displays a caller’s number to the person called, who can then refuse to answer the phone or threaten to turn the caller over to police.
There’s some question whether it’s really worthwhile, given other ways of screening calls (answering machines) and other ways of catching creeps (a feature called Call Trace). This way may actually be dangerous: The direct threat of discovery and reprisal may spur some creep to more threatening action.
There’s even more question whether Caller ID is fair to non-creep callers, because it discloses their number to any commercial enterprises they call. Indeed, a lot of 800 and 900 numbers have been “seizing” callers’ numbers for years to compile telemarketing lists.
Given such privacy issues, Caller ID has been kept out of some states, or been allowed only if callers are given (or sold) the capability of blocking their number’s display. As a result, some phone companies could be selling disclosure to some people and privacy to others, sometimes even one and the same.
One can’t help but be amazed at the time and energy spent on a gimmick that could be junked with no effect on human life or lifestyle. With people living on the streets, this is what technology and business are producing for us to fight about.
There must be more important concerns.
