(Return to Part 1)BOB ANDELMAN: You’ll be happy to know that we’re beyond that topic now. Let me ask you about a different kind of testing, something that’s really come into the public conscience the last couple of months, and that is tainted food from overseas, in particular, China. Is that something that
Consumer Reports can and will deal with, or is that beyond the scope of what you guys do?
KIM KLEMAN: No. It’s absolutely something that we’re dealing with. Let me say that, several years ago, we put out a report called “Hazard in Aisle Five” that took a look at imports, especially imports from China, and we didn’t look at food specifically, although as you noted, that’s clearly part of the mix now. But we were looking at the Consumer Product Safety Commission and what they spot-check and what they’re missing and why that’s happening. We sent shoppers out throughout the country pulling products off dollar store shelves and discount store shelves that looked iffy and brought them back to our labs and tested or otherwise examined them. My favorite item that we found in that investigation was “Baby’s First Box Cutters.” The label said, “Not for children under three years old,” but these were actual box cutters! One that was pink and one that was blue. The question is why is that stuff being sold?
ANDELMAN: Whose idea was that? Whose idea was children’s box cutters?
KLEMAN: I don’t know, but all of which is to say we’ve really been looking at the quality of products on the shelves for a long time, and we’re definitely going to be continuing. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, it’s been Consumers Union’s judgment that they’re not asking for enough money to do the job that they need to do. In an era where so many products are regulated by a kind of voluntary standard and not mandatory standards, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s attitude is, “Oh, it’s a voluntary standard, you can’t expect us to oversee everything.” That’s not good enough for consumers, and we’re really seeing the fallout of that now.
ANDELMAN: My sense of it is, and I’m curious for your opinion on this, is that the government has rules in place, but the government has chosen to turn a blind eye, and not enforce. We’re in an era, and I’m not gonna mention political parties, but it seems like we’re in an era where enforcing those rules is not all that important.
KLEMAN: I can kind of understand the mentality that it’s a lot easier to get people to abide by rules when they’re part of making the rules. So when you get a bunch of manufacturers together and say, “What are the minimum standards that these products need to adhere to?” that can be a friendlier way than saying, “You
will make them this way.” But that said, we had a story recently about ladders that were not safe, six or seven ladders that just failed federal standards. We think that, in many cases, more is needed, and that’s not happening. We think that the Consumer Product Safety Commission needs to be more of a watchdog.
ANDELMAN: Do you think that’s gonna happen anytime soon?
KLEMAN: I’m not optimistic.
ANDELMAN: Kim, you’re a woman with excellent investigative reporting credentials, editing credentials. What makes
Consumer Reports the right place for you?
KLEMAN: I love
Consumer Reports for a number of different reasons. The first is that our only constituent is the consumer. We have a very different model than most other magazines out there in that I don’t have to worry about our advertisers.
Consumer Reports makes its own news, which is very exciting. The kinds of things that we’re reporting about and that we find, nobody else can tell people, such as we just did a story in our August issue, a big package about kitchens. And you think, well, what can be exciting about testing dishwashers and ranges and that kind of thing, but once again, we found that those pricey brands that cost you thousands and thousands of dollars for the
chi-chi name are actually worse performers than something that can save you hundreds of dollars. That’s kind of a classic
Consumer Reports story. And it’s something that we can tell people not only what to buy but what not to buy and why you don’t want to buy this kind or this brand. And I think that’s hugely empowering to people.
What I want to do as editor is elevate service journalism even higher. That’s what we are all about here. I think it’s a very noble calling. I think journalists kind of look at service journalism as, “Maybe that’s where you start out to cut your teeth,” but I want to move on to something bigger and better. There are great stories in service journalism, especially as we conceive it here, which is what is happening right, what is happening wrong, why this stuff should be off the shelf, and that kind of thing. So all of that is why I’m really excited to be here.
I can segue into some of the things that I want to do as the new editor here, one of which includes telling people a little bit more about how we test because it is very different than other publications. It’s not kind of quickly eyeballing a digital camera or a kitchen appliance and “Yeah, yeah, this one looks good.” It’s dozens and hundreds of tests per model. It’s staining countertops and flooring material with tar and ballpoint pen. It’s just great testing to let you know what really holds up and what doesn’t. We’ve always had a survey research component to whatever we do. People talk about community as it applies to the web, and that’s kind of the new terminology out there when it comes to the web, but we’ve been doing that in the magazine for decades and decades. We send out an annual questionnaire that is second most in size only to the U.S. Census where we get information year after year. “What do you own, Mr. Andelman? Has it needed a major repair lately? When did you buy it?” We have this incredible stockpile of reliability information on product after product. That kind of information allows us to say, “This brand is gonna be good for you and this brand has been really iffy, especially in the last several years.” And “What’s going on with this brand? Stay away from these guys.” So it’s my job as editor to bring to the fore our testing, our survey research work, great service journalism, and in all of that, investigative reporting. We have a history of that. I think we need to continue that in a big way.
ANDELMAN: Is there new ground or new journalistic techniques, for example, to be covered or exploited by the magazine in doing this?
KLEMAN: Well, every one of our best stories, I think, involves a significant investigative reporting component, a significant testing component, and a survey component. And when we can combine the three, it’s just a home run. I don’t know if I’m answering your question, but what we like to do is employ all of our kind of powerhouses of information for our reports. That said, that’s hard for a lot of publications to copy because there’s a certain way you have to test stuff in order for it to be credible and valid. So it’s a model that works very well for us because we’re fortunate enough to have the resources. I’m not sure everybody could replicate that.
ANDELMAN: Newspapers are cutting back like crazy. They’re cutting back their arts coverage. It’s starting to bleed over into investigative reporting. As such, what’s the environment like for investigative reporting at
Consumer Reports? Are you picking up staff? Are you finding that skilled investigative reporters who might not have been interested in service in the past are coming around saying maybe I ought to give this a try?
KLEMAN: Let me say that we seem to be zigging when everybody else is zagging. Our subscriptions have been increasing. We have doubled our newsstand sales in the past three years. We are hiring people. We have a magazine that’s fifth or sixth largest in the nation with 4.3 million subscribers. We have the world’s largest paid subscription website, which will hit 3 million paid subscribers this fall. And our books are flourishing. We launched a new magazine called
Shop Smart for people on the go who maybe don’t have time to pour through all the ratings, the best three or whatever. So that tells me that we’re doing something right and that the unique information we have, people want. So I guess my first charge as editor is not to blow it.
ANDELMAN: What are the hot new products drawing the magazine’s attention? Is it too soon to ask if you guys have taken a hard look at the iPhone yet?
KLEMAN: We have, in one of our latest issues, our first look at the iPhone, and you’ll see that online as well. But we’re doing ongoing testing of the iPhone to address the battery issues that have come to light, and our first evaluation of the iPhone included the fact that, as a phone, we’re not hugely impressed. So we’re hearing what readers are saying and incorporating some of that information into our testing. It’s helping us to inform.
ANDELMAN: Are there other products or categories of the moment that are drawing your attention?
KLEMAN: The way that we have organized our staff, our editorial staff, is into five franchises that are our biggest coverage areas. We have a staff that is always testing cars; obviously, one of our hugest bread and butter franchises. We have the home franchise that covers more than a hundred different appliances and other products including yard products, mowers, tractors, string trimmers. We have our finance franchise that oversees shopping and money and other personal finance issues including a lot of surveys on best places to buy electronics or the fact that just forego the extended warranty based on our extensive survey of what breaks and when. That’s the finance franchise. We have a health franchise that covers everything from exercise equipment to multivitamins and big issues of healthcare and what’s going on in the nation. And lastly, we have our electronics franchise: TVs, digital cameras, cell phones, and all the rest. So you ask what’s hot. There are products within those franchises that we test on a continual basis. And the magazine takes a snapshot of those tests during peak buying season, and the web has those ongoing tests as well such that whenever your refrigerator happens to break and you need something now, you go to our website, and there’s up-to-date information.
ANDELMAN: It’s interesting because you mention that both the website and the print version are growing, which is kind of an anomaly these days. Most publications, it seems, their web site is growing, and their print edition is either static or dropping. Where do you think the balance will be between the two in five years?
KLEMAN: It’s interesting that you would think that there would be maybe more people who are dual subscribers. We’re finding that of the 4.3 million print subscribers and the 2.8 million web subscribers, we have about a 500,000 overlap. Five hundred thousand people take both the print and the web subscription. These products, especially, are kind of growing into their own. The web is for pure researchers. “The refrigerator broke last night, help me get a new one today.” Just the facts, that kind of thing. The magazine has to offer the complete buying experience for somebody who is in the market for a product, but it also has to be a good read, in my opinion. And it has to offer a good complement, a good mix. We have to offer enough information about big- ticket products, if somebody’s in the market for a car or a lawnmower or some major appliance. We also have to offer supermarket products, things that everybody wants. We have to offer information for people who might already have the big appliance but need to know how to keep it clean or how to keep it running properly, that kind of thing. We have to offer really good investigative reports, things that you go to a magazine to read and not necessarily the web. We think that the products now are different. There is unique content that goes to the web first or the web only. Likewise with the magazine. Increasingly, we will distinguish those products so that they’re increasingly a different experience.
ANDELMAN: Kim, finally, let’s look ahead for you. You’ve done newspapers. You’ve been at the magazine, obviously just the beginning of your stint as editor-in-chief there. But five years from now, where will you be? What other kind of things do you want to do?
KLEMAN: Well, I want to be employed. I want to do this job right. Right now, I’ve been in this position about three months. I’m looking to make this magazine the best read that it can be, just the absolute premier testing and research publication and consumer journalism publication it can be. So I am very happy now. I think I could probably end my career 25 years from now in this position and be wildly happy. And I just hope that our subscribers are happy and my boss is happy. I hope to see myself here because I’ve never had a job that I’ve loved so much.
© 2007 by Bob Andelman. All rights reserved.
Labels: child car seats, Chinese products, Consumer Reports, iPhone, Kim Kleman
Seed Newsvine
