The Survive and Thrive Boomer Guide

What were your best and worst consumer experiences this week?

Which consumer happenings cheered you this week and which ones made you want to scream or weep?

Here are my best and worst consumer experiences this week:

My best consumer experience: New gloves from REI

After I lost a pair of gloves (with fingers) and one of my mittens (no fingers), I went to Macy’s to see if I could find a pair of gloves at a good price. I was hoping to find some on sale. I didn’t get lucky.

Then I thought about ordering some gloves from REI. I’ve just become an affiliate of REI, a program where I receive a small payment for each item ordered through my blog. I looked through REI’s eco-sensitive clothing offerings to see what I could find.

I selected the REI Recycled Fleece Grip Gloves for $24.50. I ordered them on Monday, and they arrived on Thursday – just in time for the freezing weather.

The gloves are terrific, warm and comfortable. And another thing I like about them; they aren’t smelly. Some new clothes have a strong chemical smell – these don’t.

Advertisement

My worst consumer experience: New payment policy and slow service at Kits Cameras

Recently, Kits Cameras adopted a new policy: You must pay for your photos when you order then, not when you pick them up.

I think this is a bad policy. You don’t have the opportunity to review your photos before you pay for them.

Several times, I explained that I wanted to wait until I saw the photos before I paid; the sales associates agreed.

However, this week, they insisted that I pay in advance. I was upset. Then, to make matters worse, a trainee fumbled around for 15 minutes trying to figure out the amount of my bill.

I plan to write the CEO about this policy. It doesn’t make sense.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Watch your wallet on Black Friday and Cyber Monday

"Black Friday is soooo close. It’s my favorite holiday!!!"

"Debating whether or not to enjoy Black Friday shopping. Nothing really needed, just enjoy the thrill of the hunt."

"Old Navy started their Black Friday sales this morning [Tuesday]!"

That’s what three consumers writing on Twitter said about Black Friday, the big shopping day after Thanksgiving that got its name because it was the day that retailers started making money after being in the "red."

Black Friday, Saturday, and Sunday will attract up to 134 million shoppers this year, up from 128 million last year. According to the National Retail Federation, 57 million people say they will definitely hit the stores while another 77 million are waiting to see what retailers are planning before heading out the door.

Cyber Monday is a term coined by Shop.org in 2005, when retailers noticed a large increase of people shopping online on the Monday after Thanksgiving.

But don’t be stampeded into spending a lot of money this weekend or on Cyber Monday just because of all the news in the media about Black Friday and "how important it is to give the economy a much-needed boost."

The article "Dirty Secrets of Black Friday" describes these problems shoppers may run into on the big shopping day:

• Limited quantities.

• Derivatives offered, models that have a few less features than a standard model in that product line.

• No information on what Black Friday sales are offered online.

• Online deals that don’t get shipped.

• Rain checks that don’t result in the cheap Black Friday deal.

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, urges consumers to not get wound up in the hype about Black Friday:

So let me get this straight. One year after the financial sector took our economy to the brink of collapse, we’re rooting for Wall Street’s success, which depends on the willingness of consumers to spend as much as they can – most likely more than they can afford, since that’s how the financial sector makes its money– during the worst economy in 26 years and while 10.2 percent are unemployed? Sounds like some seriously misplaced priorities.

So make a plan for your holiday gift giving and spend only what you can afford. It will reduce your holiday stress and make for a happier new year.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

What were your best and worst consumer experiences this week?

Which consumer happenings cheered you this week and which ones made you want to scream or weep?



Here are my best and worst consumer experiences this week:



My best consumer experience: Balancing my checkbook

My paycheck came in this week and so did my mortgage payment. I balanced my checkbook.

I sat down and paid my bills. Then I balanced my checkbook again.

There wasn’t much money left. A good thing to know to keep from getting overdraft charges.

I belong to a credit union and have an overdraft protection plan. The fee for checks is only $2, but I still want to avoid a series of those charges.

Many banks are hiking overdraft fees along with other fees and interest rates.

Some banks charge as much as $39 when customers overdraw their bank account by even a few dollars.

Advertisement

My worst consumer experience: Trying to figure out Verizon’s cell phone offers

When I learned that my cell phone is on the high end of the scale in terms of the radiation it emits, I decided it’s time for a new cell phone. See the article “Are You Using a Cell Phone That Emits High Levels of Radiation?” for information about cell phone ratings by the Environmental Working Group.

I checked out the iPhones, and disappointedly, they’re also on the high end of the scale. Beside, if I bought an iPhone, I’d have to deal with AT&T.

Verizon has given me good service, so I’d like to stay with them.

When I saw I could get a Blackberry for free if I signed up a two-year Verizon contract, I was excited. And, more importantly, the BlackBerry in the ad was on the low end of the radiation emissions scale.

When I called Verizon, my hopes were dashed. You have to pay a $30 monthly charge for a data package if you get a BlackBerry. That would make my cell phone costs about $75 a month, which is too costly.

Verizon should certainly put this information in its ads. It felt like “bait and switch” advertising.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Journalist

Beware of ads with teeth-whitening claims

The Better Business Bureau is warning consumers to be extremely wary of pervasive online ads offering the promise of a whiter, brighter smile. 

The BBB has received a recent onslaught of complaints from consumers who thought they were signing up for a free trial of teeth whitening products but were repeatedly billed for products and services they didn’t want.

Advertisement

The ads for teeth whiteners can be found on popular sites such as FoxNews.com, CNN.com, and ABCNews.com. The ads typically link consumers to phony blogs and fake news sites that are designed to look like impartial third party endorsements of the products. The phony endorsements then direct the consumer to a main Web site that claims the product sold is “As seen on” ABC, Forbes.com, CBS News, CNN, and USA Today – and includes the logos of these news outlets.

“From the complaints we’ve received, it’s obvious that many consumers are unfortunately letting their trust in respected news outlets influence their level of trust in the products being advertised on their Web sites,” said Steve Cox, president and CEO of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

“While it may be true that advertisements for the teeth whiteners were placed on major news Web sites, reporters for USA Today or CNN did not write stories about the efficacy of the specific products being sold.”

The Web sites for various teeth whitening products claim to offer a no-risk, money back guarantee, free trial of the product. To sign up, customers must provide a credit or debit card number to cover shipping. 

Complainants to BBB state that they’re billed before their trial ends and continue to be billed after they have told the company they want to cancel. Complainants also may find mystery charges for other companies and services that they didn’t realize they were signing up for with their “free” trial.

BBB has identified several companies that are behind the teeth whitening ads and Web sites online including:

Dazzle White, White Smile, Teeth Smile, and Dazzle Smile – The BBB serving Edmonton has received 450 complaints in the last 12 months from consumers in 47 states, five Canadian provinces, and the United Kingdom, about Dazzle White, White Smile, Teeth Smile, and Dazzle Smile. Complainants report being billed as much as $79 for the free trial and are charged for several other services – such as a weight loss program.

Ivory White – The BBB serving Denver has received 611 complaints from consumers in 46 states. Complainants say they were charged as much as $78 a month for their free trial. Other related companies include Ortho White and Bella Brite, which are mounting complaints as well. All three companies have been asked to add more disclosure to their Web sites regarding the free trial offer. The BBB has not yet received a response to these requests.

Advanced Wellness Research – The BBB serving West Palm Beach has received thousands of complaints from consumers regarding Advanced Wellness Research’s acai berry supplements and has begun to receive complaints from consumers about their teeth whiteners sold under the names of Max White, My Whitening, Gleaming White Smile, and many others.

BBB offers the following advice to consumers on purchasing teeth whitening products online:

• Beware of supposed third-party endorsements. Be extremely cautious of any ad that links to a blog or Web site news articles. The blogs and supposed news articles were likely created by the company and aren’t the unbiased endorsement of real consumers or reporters.

• Always read the fine print. Many Web sites offering a free trial of a teeth-whitening product don’t disclose the billing terms and conditions or don’t have such details prominently displayed on their Web site. Before giving the company any credit or debit card information, review the Web site fully and be aware that free trials typically result in repeated billing.

• Check the company out with your BBB first.  Before signing up for any free trial, review the business’ Reliability Report™ online at www.bbb.org to see if the BBB has identified issues with the company.

• File a complaint with BBB if you feel you’ve been ripped off. Consumers who feel they are being deceived by a business selling teeth whitening products online can file a complaint with their BBB at www.bbb.org.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Tougher action needed to halt criminal activities used by pharmaceutical companies to sell drugs

Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy organization, is outraged that record criminal fines aren’t stopping drug companies in America from using selling practices that harm consumers.

"The recent $2.3 billion settlement between Pfizer and the U.S. Justice Department for unlawful prescription drug promotion may sound large, but it’s not enough to ensure drug companies will curb their bad behavior," said Sidney Wolfe, M.D., director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group, in a statement about the settlement.

Pfizer broke the record set by Eli Lilly & Co. in January for what was then described by the Justice Department as the "largest individual corporate criminal fine" in U.S. history. The fine was more than $500 million in criminal penalties for off-label promotion of Zyprexa, a drug used to treat the symptoms of psychotic conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Pfizer record-breaking criminal fine of $1.2 billion is the largest criminal fine ever imposed in the United States for any matter. The rest of the $2.3 billion represents civil penalties.

The settlement focused mainly on Pfizer's promotion of Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug pulled from the market in 2005 for safety reasons, reports the article "Pfizer Agrees to Record 2.3 Billion Fine" on The Washington Time’s Web site.

Authorities said Bextra had been approved in 2001 for only three ailments – uterus pain and two forms of arthritis. Pfizer had asked for Food and Drug Administration approval to have Bextra prescribed to treat all types of pain, but the FDA refused because of concerns about it causing blood clots in the heart.

But Pfizer marketed the drug as a general pain reliever anyway, though it remains unclear how many patients fell ill as a result, according to the article.

Public Citizen reports that American drug companies have a long history of criminal activities in selling drugs:

The U.S. pharmaceutical industry, long one of the most profitable in the country, with profits last year of close to $50 billion, has engaged in an unprecedented amount of criminal activity in the past decade, all aimed at increasing sales, often by illegally promoting drugs for diseases for which evidence that benefits outweigh harm is lacking – also known as illegal off-label promotion.

When doctors are induced, either by being bribed or misled by drug companies, to prescribe drugs for such purposes, there is a reasonable chance that the drugs will do more harm than good and patients may be seriously injured or killed by such promotion.

In addition to Pfizer and Eli Lilly (Pfizer also pleaded guilty to criminal charges for off-label promotion of Neurontin in 2004), other drug companies found to have engaged in criminal activity in the past 10 years include Abbott, Schering-Plough, Astra-Zeneca, Purdue, and Bayer, Public Citizen reports.

"Unfortunately, the ever-escalating fines are unlikely to stop drug companies from continuing to bribe doctors because they represent just a fraction of drug company profits and no one has gone to jail," Wolfe said.

"Until corporate titans are forced to fork over a much larger proportion of their illegally gotten profits and are put behind bars, nothing will change," he said.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Banks working hard to kill badly needed consumer financial protection agency

President Barack Obama is proposing that Congress establish a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency to regulate consumer financial products such as credit cards and mortgages, and to simplify disclosure on them.

After the financial mess that was spawned by Wall Street and the banking industry, the new agency is essential for the development and growth of our new economy in the United States.

However, the banking industry is set on killing the proposed new consumer protection agency.

The article "Banks Resist Push for Tighter Regulations" on the Miami Herald Web site reports:

Though virtually every cause of the nation's recent financial crisis was rooted in weak consumer protection, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is leading the fight against the proposed agency on grounds that it would make credit less available and more costly. The American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers of America, and the Financial Services Roundtable also oppose the measure.

Here’s what’s being spent to defeat the new consumer protection agency, according to the article:

The chamber said it's spending about $2 million on ads, educational efforts, and a grass-roots campaign to kill the agency.

The Center for Responsive Politics said that for the 2010 election cycle, commercial banks have donated almost $3.7 million to lawmakers – 54 percent of it to Republicans. Companies that provide credit have given about $1.4 million, 59 percent to Democrats. Mortgage bankers and brokers have given $581,423.

This massive lobbying effort by banks is unfortunate. Changes are needed to protect American consumers in their financial dealings.

David Arkush, director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division, said in a statement supporting the new federal consumer agency:

For too long, financial regulators have been too cozy with the financial services industry that they were supposed to be overseeing. Moreover, no single federal agency focuses primarily on consumer protection for credit products.

Lenders have run amok, writing their own rules and creating a maze of unfair and predatory products that have harmed consumers and destabilized the economy. The lack of oversight and regulation, along with Wall Street’s unchecked greed, drove this country into its current financial crisis. Americans deserve an agency that will put their financial well-being ahead of the short-term profits of a few Wall Street banks.

The president’s proposal to create a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency will add much needed oversight of an industry that has run wild at great expense to consumers and homeowners.

Establishing an agency to protect consumers in their financial transactions is essential. Let your senators and representatives in Congress know today that you support this important consumer protection measure.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Are you still taking Celebrex?

If you're still taking Celebrex – a drug often prescribed for arthritis, menstrual cramps, and acute pain – Consumer Reports thinks there are good reasons to take another look at whether taking the drug is the right choice for you.

Nearly a decade after reports linking celecoxib (Celebrex) to an increased risk of heart attack, and two years after the American Heart Association warned against the drug for people at risk of heart problems, about 11 million prescriptions for it are still filled each year, Consumer Reports said in its article "Should You Still Take Celebrex?"

Why are so many consumers still using Celebrex? It’s being widely promoted by the pharmaceutical company that manufactures it. Consumer Reports states in its article:

Pfizer, maker of celecoxib, has resumed heavily advertising it directly to consumers, spending $54.8 million on ads in 2007 and $58.5 million in 2008. A new ad – a full two minutes long, and also available online at www.celebrex.com/ depicts a man walking a dog and riding a bike. It suggests that the drug is no riskier than other related nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as ibuprofen (Advil and generic) and naproxen (Aleve and generic).

Celecoxib may be appropriate for a small number of patients, according to Consumer Reports, but the consumer magazine has strong reservations about consumers using the drug because:

• It's probably harder on the heart.

• It may not be much easier on the gut.

• It's no more effective.

• It's more expensive.

See the article for details.

If you think you’ve experienced an adverse event with this drug or any drug, especially if it’s of a serious nature, it’s important to (1) tell your doctor immediately and (2) report the event to the Food and Drug Administration via the FDA's MedWatch Web site at http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/medwatch-online.htm or by calling 1-800-FDA-1088.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Opportunity to win collectible gold coin appears in mailbox – again

In March, I wrote about an advertisement I received in the article “Honda Dealer Offers Questionable Promotion.”

A large post card said you could win a $5,000 credit card, a plasma screen TV, or a gold collectible coin.

I didn’t win a big prize, but the salesman did give me a gold-colored Andrew Jackson $1 coin.

Recently, I received another postcard with the same offer.

So I stopped by the Honda Dealer again to get another $1 coin.

The salesman was unapologetic when I said I’d done consumer research, and the coins are made from pure copper with a manganese brass outer clad.

I also told him the gold-colored coins are collectible only because presidents are featured on the coins in a series. Some people will collect them, such as the quarter series, but it’s unlikely they’ll ever be worth more than $1 because millions of the coins will be issued.

This time, President James Madison was on the coin I received.

The salesman did tell me that the marketing company had made a mistake. They sent the postcards to the same people who received the first one!

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Consumer Reports rates top supermarkets

Shoppers found Wegmans' and Trader Joe’s supermarkets are among the most satisfying chains to shop at, according to Consumer Reports latest survey of the best national and regional grocery chains.

In the survey, 32,599 respondents were asked about their experiences at supermarkets, supercenters, or warehouse clubs in the past year. 

Some of the other top-rated chains shoppers found to be very satisfying were Publix, Raley’s, Harris Teeter, Fareway, Costco, Whole Foods Market, Market Basket, WinCo Foods, and Stater Bros.

For details, see the article “Wegmans, Trader Joe’s, Publix Top Consumer Reports Supermarket Survey” on Consumer Affairs.com or the May issue of Consumer Reports, available on newsstands and at your local library.

An accompanying article on saving money when buying groceries article is included in the May Consumer Reports, “13 Ways to Save.”

Supermarkets are giant selling machines with careful consideration given to traffic patterns, product placement, displays, and signs to get you to spend money.

The article offers these tips to help you save:

• Look high and low because middle- or eye-level shelves often contain more expensive products.

• Check carefully the price of items displayed on the ends of the aisles to see if they’re on sale.

• Compare unit prices because bigger isn’t always cheaper per unit.

• Consider organics for peaches, strawberries, bell peppers, and meat.

• Weigh the cost of convenience items.

• Avoid temptations at the checkout counter.

• Buy bagged produce if the price per pound is cheaper.

• Go to the back of the shelf to get the freshest milk, cereal, cold cuts, and other packaged goods.

• Check the receipt because 6 percent of those surveyed said they were overcharged at the register.

• Read weekly sale fliers carefully to make sure items are actually reduced in price.

• Watch for sneaky signs that tempt you to buy more than one bag or box.

• Be aware that the same food sold at different locations in the store may vary in price.

• Buy at the bakery to get savings from store-made baked goods.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist

Super Bowl's best, worst ads

If baby boomers were one of the target audiences for the Super Bowl ads this year, it must have been the baby boomer male companies and ad makers were pitching to. Ads for beer and cars seemed to predominate.

Of course, upcoming movies and NBC shows were also heavily advertised.
 
Steve Johnson rated the ads as follows for his blog on the Chicago Tribune:

• The Best – Monster.com, with an Honorable Mention to Career Builder.

• The Worse – Teleflora, with an Honorable Mention to Doritos.

• Best Proof That 3D Is Not Advertising’s Future – “Monsters vs. Aliens” movie ad.

• Best Animal Ad -- Budweiser’s Clydesdales.

• Should Have Been in 3D – Coke.

• Best Deadpan in Super Bowl Ad (Ever) – Hulu.com.

• Most Cringe Inducing – Cash$Gold.com.

• Nice Try, But… – H&R Block.

USA Today rated these ads for how they matched recessionary times:

• Bud Light: Corporate bean counter proposes no Bud Light at meetings to cut budget – 7.49

• Career Builder.com: When you know it’s time to get a new job – 7.37.

• E-Trade: Babies discuss "brutal" economy and E-Trade -- 7.27.

• Monster.com: Old job gets the wrong end of the moose – 6.95.

• Denny’s: Tweaks rival’s fancy pancakes, offers everyone free Grand Slam breakfast – 6.62.

• Cash4Gold: Ed McMahon and M.C. Hammer trade gold mementos for added cash – 5.58.

• Hyundai: Assurance program lets buyers return car without credit penalty if they lose job – 4.68.

I thought the Super Bowl ads were often too violent. Bill Swain, writing for Associated Content, agrees:

Super Bowl commercials have become as much a part of the celebrated game as the actual game itself. Super Bowl XLIII was no exception to the rule; although the year 2009 might go down as the year of violent commercials and lame remakes. Almost every commercial, from Cheeto's with the attack of the birds, to Doritos with their crystal ball and the Diet Pepsi commercial with the lightning had violent overtones mixed in with bad comedy.

A recent study by Common Sense Media – a group that provides ratings and reviews of TV shows, movies, and video games to parents – reported half of the commercial breaks during NFL telecasts show at least one advertisement featuring sex, drugs, or alcohol.

Almost 500 of the ads showed an increased form of violence, including murders, explosions, and gunfights. The CSM staff watched 50 NFL games this season and logged more than 5,000 commercials.

Among the study’s findings:

• 40 percent of games showed ads for erectile dysfunction drugs.

• 46.5 percent of the sexual or violent advertisements were promotions by the broadcast networks for their own programs.

CSM wants ads of this type to be shown when children aren’t watching.

Meredith Lopez, blogging on the Huntington Post.com in the article “Super Bowl? Yes Please! Sexist Ads, No Thank You!” wants football ads cleaned up so kids who watch football will receive a better image of women.

What bothers me is the prevalence of sexism in football ads. In the 21st century, how can anyone be O.K. with this? How do these ad companies – and the companies they represent – even do it? Sexism in ads, to me, is not only offensive, it's beyond outdated to the point of being pathetic. Do we really still need half-naked women in bikinis to increase beer sales? Or dancing supermodels in mini-dresses to sell some vitamin drink?

I agree. 

I’d like to see better quality ads on TV that are less violent and sexist.

Copyright 2009, Rita R. Robison, Consumer Specialist