Gauging the Influence of the Consumers Unions of the World Views of a Consumer Economist
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GAUGING THE INFLUENCE OF THE CONSUMERS UNIONS OF THE WORLD VIEWS OF A CONSUMER ECONOMIST E. Scott Maynes, Cornell Universityl ~~~~~~~~~~ABSTRACT.~~~~~~~~~~ 3. What vehicles for influence (e.g., Influence : " t he effects of actions, behavior, product testing, advocacy offices) and opinions on others." This paper explores does each employ? the various dimensions of t he influence of t he Consumers Unions of the world and proposes My next two questions deal with what we need to measurements of each. Dimensions explored know : include a selective, a nnotated bibliography of publications that deal with t h eir influence, 4 . What has been the short-run influence estimates of the growth of U. S. consumer of each CU on (1) its readers/users organizations, a listing of t he "vehicles" for and (2) the public in i ts country? influence employed by Consumers Unions of U. S .A. (e.g., Consumer Reports), a model t hat depicts 5 . What has been the long-run influence the stages of influence t hrough which consumers of each CU on (1) its readers/users pass in the short - run (aware of it, approve of and (2) the public in i ts country? it, etc.) , and a benefit/cost model of the long run i nfluence of the Consumers Unions (e.g. , My paper consists primarily of five tables better choices . l onger life. etc.). which, suitably filled in, will answer these questions. The main publications of t he t hree largest Consumers Uni ons--Consumer s Unions of U.S .A. For completeness, I list four additional (hereafter CU), Consumers' Association of t he questions, worthy of consideration, that are United Kingdom (CA), and Sti ftung Warentest of excused for lack of space : Wes t Germany (SW)--are purchased by 2% to 5% of households in their countries and are cons ulte d 6. What evidence do we have r egarding t he by 8% to 20% of households. By these two influence of each CU on the consumer measures of "i nfluence," t hese are influential movement . in its own country and i nstit utions. Yet most people--even consumer internationally? affairs professi onal s , even their staffs--are unaware of the f ull extent of the influence of 7. What evidence do we have regarding t he these organizations. influence of each CU on the f unct ioni ng of both domestic and The central task of this paper is to specify the i nternational consumer markets? dimensions of influence of the Consumers Unions Perfecting con sumer markets is (hereafter CU's) and to spell out ways of probably a major avenue for helping documenting the various dimen sions of infl uence . disadvantaged consumers. My approach is (1) to pose important questions 8. What evidence do we have of the effect pertaining to t he various dimensions of of each CU on consumer policy both in influence and (2) to specify the kind of its own country and internationally? information--and implicitl y, t he type of inquiry--that would provide persuasive answers 9. What i s t he image of each CU? Is it to the questions posed. regarded as " t rustworthy, " "useful," "doing a good job," etc.? THE SIGNIFICANT QUESTIONS THE DOCUMENTATION OF INFLUENCE My first t hree questions deal with what we know (or can know readily): A Selective, Annotated Bibliography 1. What publications--books . book Assembled in Table 1 is a sel ective, annotated chapters. articl es, theses--best b ibliography of publica tions on the three major describe the CU ' s and spell out CU ' s --CU, CA, and SW, culled from an extensive, various aspects of t heir influence? but still incomplete search. What I have sought is a select list that would best convey 2. What has been t he growth of influence the essence of each CU. The reader is warned of CU ' s as compared with other that my list i s likely to be incomplete and consumer organizations over the last parochial . Recognizing this, I invite your four decades? suggestions regarding possible addit ions , deletions, and substitutions. What s truck me in assembling this list was the paucity of writing on these important lProfessor, Consumer Economics and Hous ing . institutions. To document t he "stories " and 110 influence of the CU's, we desperately need more It doubled again between 1970 and 1990, as shown writing and research. I ~ill be adding to this by Table 2, attaining a circulation of 4.5 literature; I urge you to joing me in this million. Thus, 5% of U. S. households subscribe task. to it and up to 15% consult it occasionally. Judged only by its circulation, CR is more The Growth of Consumers Organizations influential than the well-known newsmagazines, in the United States: Newsweek (3.3 million) and Time (4.4 million, CU Vs. Others from Gale Research, 1990). How many of you had a realistic perception of this comparison before Our focus here is on growth: the CU's vs . reading this? other consumer organizations. Given time limitations, the data presented pertain only to What of the other consumer organizations? The the U. S. However, the analysis that follows "star" is the American Association of Retired could be reproduced for the UK, West Germany, Persons (AARP). Starting from a much lower and the International Organization of Consumers base in 1960 , AARP's membership has grown one Unions. hundredfold between 1960 and 1990 so that its membership of 32.2 million includes an The method of Table 2 is to obtain for each incredible 35% of U. S. households and its consume r organization a single index of its bi-monthly publication, Modern Maturitv, has a influence and then to obtain estimates on this circulation of 22.4 million. Ironically, until indicator for four decade points: 1960, 1970 , recently many in the consumer movement did not 1980, and 1990. The indicators chosen were count AARP as one of their own. And perhaps for those selected by me or by the organizations good reason. Alone among American consumer themselves as most representative of the change organizations, AARP is a special interest in influence of t he organization over time. consumer organization, representing older Why different indicators? Because of the rather than all consumers. different nature of of the organizations. Some publish magazines (CU), some seek mainly to Turning to the other and younger not-for-profit influence consumer policy (CFA), some seek to consumer organizations, it is worth asking how respond to consumers within their organizations they fared in the 1970's vs. the 1980's. The (SOCAP). No single indicator would serve to answer is that they typically grew by 50% during represent the "influence" of all the the 1970 decade and, except for ACCI, by 200% to organizations. 300% during the 1980's. A fascinating difference since it was a widely held view that Thus, we must deal with an array of indicators. the 1970's was the consumerist decade and and Some, such as the circulation of Consumer the 1980's represented a recession from Reports, represent output measures. We would consumerism. These numbers, supplemented by expect these to be highly correlated with direct those for CU and AARP, show that t he Reagan measures of influence such as effects on buyer decade was a period of enormous growth for the behavior. After all, consumers mus t think well non-for-profit consumer organizations. enough of the publication to purchase it. Other indicators, s uch as the size of staff or Just as the First Era of Consumerism in the number of supporters , represent inputs, their early 1900's induced a business response with relation to influence depending upon the the inauguration of the Be tter Business Bureaus efficiency wit h which they are used. Finally, in 1912, so the Third Era has given rise to a for one organization, we have a measure of modern response, the emergence of consumer affiliation, members. As in the case of affairs professionals in business and their magazine circulation, we would expect membership organization, the Society of Consumer Affairs in to be highly correlated with influence. Again, Business, started in 1971. (Cf. Herrmann, 1970 consumers must think well of an organization if for a discerning analysis of t he " three eras of they decide to affiliate with it. Consumerism .. ) As Table 2 shows , SOCAP shared the same trend as the not-for-profit consumer Multiple indicators of change in influence have organizations, doubling its membership of a nasty consequence for analysis: we cannot Directors/Vice Presidents for Consumer Affairs make valid comparisons of different organiza in the 1980's, the Reagan Administration tions at a point in time. We can only compare notwithstanding. changes in the rate of growth of the influence of each. Only in the government sector are our preconceptions for the 1970's and the 1980's Qualifications aside, these numbers merit your fulfilled. During t he 1970' s , one new consumer attention. As far as I know, Table 2 represents organization was created in the Federal the first compilation eve r of data on the growth Government--the Consumer Product Safety of consumer organizations. Commission. The others burgeoned in both staff size and influence. And, corresponding to the What do we l earn? First, since our focus is on conventional wisdom, in the 1980' s three--FTC, the CU's we note that even in 1960, the OCA, and CPCS--shrank in numbers and influence circulation of Consumer Reports (herafter CR) while the FDA barely held its own. was close to one million.