I'm in my 50's and consult consumer reports whenever I need to buy a white-box appliance. I've moved a few times so I find myself having to do this more than most people.
The qualm I have with CR goes back to the 1980's when I was a bike mechanic for many years. I had a broad knowledge of all the current brands, and knew which bikes were cheap junk. CR had incorrectly ranked the quality of the bicycles largely due to how they "felt" while riding them. One bike, which was actually good quality, got dinged because it wasn't adjusted properly ("Shifter did not engage lowest gears." or something like that). That one article tainted my opinion of them for anything that requires "tuning" by an expert.
YMMV. Mine has for 40 years. :)
I do enjoy their studies on things like: the percentage of plastic particles in General Mills products.
What's your estimate for the percentage of owners that are going to get it adjusted properly?
Most of the things I buy are not going to get tuned, and while a tuned score would be good to see an untuned score is important, likely more important.
Maybe CR gives something a good review and demand goes up and quality suffers a as a result; but they seem useless and as good as a shot in the dark.
If I’m shopping for a hand mixer, I want to get a list of the best ones and then make my own call on price / performance. I don’t want to be told a $19 product is the best and have to carefully dissect the article to learn that it’s not actually the best, CR has just decided on my behalf that the actual best product isn’t worth $10 more.
PLV isn't just the sticker price - it's the total cost of ownership when considered against the utility and convenience it provides.
I no longer set a goal to find the very best #1 thing in every category by reading reviews when I'm buying something. Reviews can be hit or miss, anyway. Instead, I focus my energy on getting good value and buying the best when it comes to things that make me happy or I use a lot.
A computer monitor is a great example of something where PLV for a developer is totally different than a casual user, but the equation serves them both well in pre-purchase considerations.
What tangible thing do you do differently from the advice this friend gave you? Or rather how did you shop before is your didn't look to see what utility it gave you in comparison to the cost?"
Let's say I'm in a situation where I need a bicycle for two months. I'm not going to buy the must expensive bike or there, I'm going to look around and buy a cheap bike that will be fair enough for two months. Are you saying before this advice you would research and buy the best bike out there?
Life is too short to spent 5 hours agonizing over reports about what object to buy for 2 months. Agonize about the things you'll care about in 10 years, like a house, your career path, your health... that's where the value and utility/convenience comes in.
If photography was my passion, I'd spend that time willingly finding the best camera for me that would bring me joy and the function I wanted. I went to NYC years ago and wanted a camera with a selfie screen for the trip... went to target, bought one that worked in store. It was great on the trip and I had no issue just giving it away when I got back. Not worth researching --- but some otherwise very thoughtful people will spend 2 hours researching which printer paper to buy when they really don't care and it really doesn't matter.
Buy the car you want, not the one CR says to get. Buy an appliance from a brand you can get serviced in your area, and try to make purchases locally when you can. All of this matters much more than finding what 10 reviewers agree is the best bike or whatever is so temporary in life.
What do you mean by that? Do think they review new cars they shouldn't?
Also, I suspect they may have found that they attract many new subscribers from people researching car purchases, so it makes sense to have fresh content on the subject to ensure those new eyeballs find value in the publication and decide it might be for them in the long term.