uNHTSA Investigating Chrysler Recall Remedy After Reports That Sun Visors Continue To Catch Firer

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Consumerist Dot Com)

  When a consumer takes their recalled vehicle to a dealer for repairs, they probably assume they won’t have the same issue with the car in the future. But that apparently hasn’t been the case when it comes to several Jeep and Dodge SUVs recalled last summer, and now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is probing the effectiveness of the recall remedy. 

  According to a notice [PDF] posted by NHTSA, the agency opened an investigation into the efficacy of the remedy put in place after Fiat Chrysler recalled 895,000 model year 2011 to 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango SUVs for fire concerns.

  Last July, Fiat Chrysler agreed to recall the vehicles after an investigation [PDF] by NHTSA found that the wiring located inside the sun visor of the vehicles may be subject to short-circuit (which can result in a fire) if not appropriately reassembled by a dealer.

  At the time of the recall [PDF], NHTSA said it was aware of 62 reports of fire incidents, and Chrysler was aware of three related injuries.

  The manufacturer’s remedy for the issue consisted of a plastic guide way installed on each sun visor that routes wiring away from the attached screws preventing the wiring from being shorted.

  But that’s not exactly happening, according to NHTSA.

  The agency opened the recall query into the effectiveness of Fiat Chrysler’s safety fix after receiving eight incident reports from consumers that involved smoke, and in some cases flames, from the vehicle’s visor area after the SUVs had been repaired by a certified dealer.

  “On October 15, 2014 I took my Jeep Grand Cherokee to (dealership) to address recall,” one complainant writes to NHTSA. “On February 4, 2015, while parked, with the engine running, locked and unoccupied, the car erupted in flames. The source of ignition was a short in the wiring above the headliner at the passenger side sun visor.”

  “While driving at approximately 25 miles per hour, an abnormal odor emitted from the overhead of the vehicle on the driver side,” another complaint states. “The headliner above the driver’s left shoulder started to emit smoke and ignited into flames. The materials from the ceiling were dropping onto the driver seat and burned the seat.”

  Despite consumers’ complaints of smoke and fire, NHTSA reports that none of the incidents occurring after the recall fix resulted in crashes or injuries.

  The recall query will determine the effectiveness of Fiat Chrysler’s recall remedy and decide if further action is needed.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uWoman Held Hostage Uses Online Pizza Hut Order To Send Messages Asking For Helpr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (via WFLA.com)

  A woman who police say was being held hostage by her knife-wielding boyfriend, along with her three children, used the only method of communication she had available to ask for help: She added “911hostage help!” and “Please Help. Get 911 to me” to her online Pizza Hut order.

  Investigators in the sheriff’s office say the message came in on Monday afternoon with an online order for a small hand-tossed classic pizza with pepperoni, reports WFLA.com. And included in the comments/special instructions area where most people ask for a side of ranch dressing, workers at the restaurant that received the order found the apparent pleas for help.

  Pizza Hut workers realized the order was from a frequent customer, making the comments out of the ordinary, so they called the police. Police responded to the delivery location and found the woman holding one of her kids.

  She said her boyfriend was home and armed with a knife, along with all three of her children. She was escorted to safety with the one child in her arms, while the cops spoke to the boyfriend through a closed door, who was reportedly reluctant to leave.

  “His first words were, of course, ‘I’m not coming out because I know I’m going to jail,’” one of the officers on the scene said.

  Police managed to talk him into coming out after 20 minutes, and removed the other two children from the home unharmed.

  According to the police report, the boyfriend might have been high on methamphetamine, and the couple had been fighting during the day. When she’d left the home to pick the kids up from school, he’d reportedly taken her phone and gone with her. Once home, she convinced him to let her order a pizza on the smartphone, which is when she took the opportunity to send the secret messages.

  He was arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a weapon without intent to kill, battery, false imprisonment and obstructing justice by depriving communication to law enforcement. Police are now crediting the woman’s quick-thinking in sending a message for help, and the restaurant for reporting it.

  “We’ve never seen that before,” the restaurant’s manager said. “I’ve been here 28 years and never, never seen nothing like that come through.”

  Highlands woman held hostage asks for help in online pizza order [WFLA.com]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uRadioShack Bankruptcy Math: The Better-Known Your Company Is, The Less Its Name Is Worthr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Phillip Pessar)

  Bids are due tomorrow in the auction for RadioShack’s intellectual property. Consumerist has ultimately decided not to offer twenty bucks for TheShack.com, but we’re still following the auction with interest. Mostly, we’re wondering who is interested in the big prize: the right to call oneself “RadioShack.”

  The company’s leases, stores, and fixtures have all been liquidated and sold to the Sprint/Standard General partnership or to competitor GameStop, which will use the spaces to open mobile phone stores, not GameStops. Standard General has the right to use the RadioShack name for six months, and doesn’t seem all that worried about holding on to the brand. Bloomberg Businessweek speculates that other possible buyers could be electronics brands based in Asia that aren’t yet known in the United States, but could use the built-in name recognition to at least have people look at their products.

  Dead brands don’t have a very long shelf life, especially if they didn’t have a lot of public goodwill to begin with. Circuit City sold its name to Systemax/TigerDirect in 2009, and that company gave up on trying to market anything under the Circuit City name under four years later. “There’s kind of a funny smell for any brand that goes through bankruptcy, unless it’s relatively unknown,” a restructuring expert explained to Bloomberg Businessweek. Yes, this is precisely backwards: the value of a bankrupt company goes up if fewer people have heard of you.

  RadioShack is a very well known brand in this country, but it’s not known for being a place where hip and intelligent people go to buy their consumer electronics. The company’s long decline led to its demise, and makes its assets less valuable in the afterlife.

  Here is a poetic URL that whoever buys the brand name will end up with, purchased during the company’s ill-fated comeback last year.

  

  The Shack didn’t come back.

  RadioShack Schedule of Assets [Hilco Streambank]
  http://ift.tt/1RajCMj [Bloomberg]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uGroup Sponsored By Comcast Gives An Award To Comcastr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (YayAdrian)

  Sometimes you have to pat yourself on the back after a job well done. But if you’re a company for whom accolades may be in short supply, it helps to sponsor (and have one of your executives be in charge of) a professional organization that is willing to give you an attaboy when you need one.

  Presumably still sore from having its Romeo and Juliet romance with Time Warner Cable torn asunder by those pesky federal regulators at the FCC and Justice Dept., Comcast got a nice little ego boost today with the announcement that it had won the Signature Accolade Award for public service from the Women In Cable Telecommunications (WICT).

  The cable and Internet giant won the award for its Internet Essentials program that is intended to give low-income Americans affordable online access.

  Hmmm. This is the same program that’s been roundly criticized as mere window-dressing, offering slow Internet speeds (less than 1/5 the current FCC definition of broadband), and employing enrollment restrictions that prevent many low-income consumers from becoming or remaining part of the program.

  Like the fact that the only way to enroll is to have one school-age child who is eligible for the national school lunch discount program. That means that families with very small children, children who have left school, or who simply don’t have children can’t take part.

  California regulators recently dared to suggest to Comcast that it make improvements to Essentials — increasing the download speeds, and revising eligibility to include all low-income consumers in the Comcast footprint. The company balked.

  Additionally, while Comcast like to throw around numbers like claiming that it’s connected 1.8 million Americans through Essentials, graphs like the following may be misleading:
  

  A quick glance at this chart might lead you to think that each of those bars represents the number of people who signed up during the corresponding time period. Instead, each bar represents the sum total of all customers who have ever signed up for the Essentials program. Since its cumulative, that graph will always be trending upward so long as they continue to add anyone to the program.

  Using the same data to figure out how many new Essentials customers were being added proves to be much more informative:
  

  Here you can see that Comcast is adding anywhere from 7,500 to 12,500 households a month. That is a number one could use as part of a process to determine whether the program is having an impact.

  But there’s a bigger problem with these numbers. They only represent those who have joined. Comcast refuses to publicize the number of Essentials customers who have left the program or who have been kicked out because they are no longer eligible.

  Comcast is transparent in its quarterly earnings reports about the number of cable and Internet customers it gains and loses because that information is incredibly important to investors. But this same company only tells half the story when it comes to its Essentials program.

  So what is WICT seeing in Essentials that others aren’t? In the group’s press release announcing its latest slate of award winners, the group makes no special mention of anything the program does, other than to point out that three-fourths of Essentials applicants are women.

  Interestingly, WICT announced the award for Essentials — a program that Comcast brought up a lot during its failed attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable — shortly before that merger fell apart.

  Of even more interest is this list of Strategic Sponsors right there on the WICT home page:
  

  While we’re at it, let’s check out that link for the WICT Board of Directors. How about that — the Chair of the WICT board just coincidentally happens to be a Senior VP at Comcast. And three of the group’s Directors-At-Large either work directly for Comcast or for Comcast-owned properties like USA Network and TV One.

  None of this is to say that WICT didn’t genuinely, in its heart of hearts, truly, honestly believe that the frequently criticized Essentials program was deserving of this honor. But when a company’s history shows that some of its biggest fans also benefited from its beneficence, sometimes to the tune of more than $184,000, it raises a few eyebrows.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uWhy Do Women Pay More Money For The Same Stuff?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (James LeVeque)

  It starts with toys and baby clothes, and continues for the rest of our lives: items that seem identical have different prices according to which gender they’re marketed to. We take this for granted, mostly because these items are on separate shelves in the store, making it harder to compare prices directly. How far does the problem reach, and why does it happen in the first place?

  TOYS

  Which toys and books are marketed to boys and girls and why is a separate issue, but what about when two items are pretty much identical, yet one costs more because of the color? What seems like the same set of blocks in pastel colors has slightly fewer pieces than the boys’ version for some unexplained reason. The “girls'” version could be less expensive because of simple dynamic pricing, but why do toys have “default” and “girl” versions?

  CLOTHES

  Some items seem like they should be price-neutral by gender, but the law doesn’t see them that way. No, really: even for items that are pretty much the same like sneakers or jeans men’s and women’s items are taxed at different rates. Why? It’s lost in the history of tariff negotiations, but means that it can cost slightly more to import some items.

  Last year, Old Navy couldn’t get anyone to believe their explanation for why the larger sizes of clothing that they sell for women cost more than identical items of the same size. “They require more fabric” would have been an okay explanation, but the chain didn’t hike prices on men’s jeans in larger sizes by as much as $15. Ultimately, Old Navy changed their return policy to be more fair to people who are short, tall, or large and can only order their clothes on the company’s website, accepting more in-store returns for items ordered online. They also promised to consult with actual women who wear plus sizes when designing future clothing lines.

  GROOMING PRODUCTS

  Surely there can’t be price differences for the same grooming products starting in infancy.

  @Target , pretty blatant #pinktax. Why is the baby girl's product 50 cents more? Exactly the same product. http://pic.twitter.com/7vFXGi9ocq

  — Daniel Englebretson (@DEnglebretson) February 22, 2015

  Target probably didn’t mean to price the same item differently for boys and girls: they have enough trouble getting the right prices on all of their items in the first place. Still, this is a trend that continues as humans get older.

  Five years ago, our egalitarian colleagues down the hall at Consumer Reports picked a few items from the shelf where seemingly identical products had higher prices for the ladies’ version. Then they contacted the manufacturers to find out why those prices were higher.

  The maker of Barbasol shaving cream explained that women’s shaving cream costs 30 to 40% more to manufacture, mostly because of differences in the can. It must be taller and thinner (for women’s smaller hands, presumably) and needs to have a non-rusting bottom since women are more likely to shave in the shower. Oh, and it’s more fragranced. The maker of Nivea body washed claimed that their product for women cost $2 more because women prefer more lather, and this “skin-sensation technology” costs more.

  NETBOOKS ARE GREAT FOR COUNTING CALORIES

  Sometimes the question isn’t about price: it’s about whether some items need a ladyversion at all. Back in 2009, before realizing that nobody ever really liked netbooks at all, Dell marketed them to women with an unfathomably condescending website called “Della” that recommended netbooks as more convenient than full-size computers for looking up recipes and logging calories and carbs in diet apps, and focused more on color for computers and their accessories than on features.

  “Women drive spending globally, but companies don’t always do a good job of messaging to them,” PR and marketing strategist pointed out. Market research may indicate that women prefer extra-bubbly body wash and tiny pink computers, but sometimes marketing a product to women backfires. Bic makes both razors and pens, and women buy lots of pastel razors, so why not make more slender pens in pastel colors? The backlash against Bic’s pen for women was hilarious and forceful, but the similar marketing of razors continues because we’re used to it, and because they’re on different shelves so the side-by-side comparison isn’t as striking.

  If you’re marketing a product, how do you get around this? Offer a variety of colors and sizes if possible, rather than producing items “for men” and “for women”––or, worse, a default product and then a female version. “Rather than labeling items as ‘for her,’ smart marketers will provide items with the proper physical fit, colors, and other attributes which are attractive to women, then let potential users and gift purchasers, both male and female, know about the availability, consumer psychologist Bruce D. Sanders told Consumerist in an e-mail. If you have to charge different prices for the different colors and fits, be honest with your customers about why.

  The Secret Tax Screwing Women Out of Thousands of Dollars Over a Lifetime [Mic]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uNearly 26 Million American Adults Have No Credit Historyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (http://ift.tt/1PmSjL6)

  While a recent survey found that nearly 35% of consumers have never pulled their credit report, a new report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau points out that some of those consumer might not have anything on their reports anyway.

  The CFPB released a report [PDF] today finding that 26 million Americans – or one in every 10 adults – are “credit invisible,” meaning they have no credit history with national credit reporting agencies. And another 19 million consumers have credit records that are treated as unscorable under the traditionally used credit scoring model.

  Many of the unscored consumers were put in the category because they either have insufficient credit histories or because the credit history available is too old – or “stale,” the CFPB reports.

  While one might assume that having no credit history is better than having bad credit history, both groups of consumers are at a significant disadvantage – having little chance of obtaining needed lines of credit.

  “A limited credit history can create real barriers for consumers looking to access the credit that is often so essential to meaningful opportunity—to get an education, start a business, or buy a house,” CFPB director Richard Cordray said in a statement Tuesday.

  

  This graph shows the percentage of consumers that are considered unscored or credit invisible by age.

  Credit reports – furnished by three national credit reporting agencies: Experian, TransUnion and Equifax – are used to reflect how a consumer has repaid their debt.

  These histories often contain information such as bank loans, car loans, credit card bills, student loans, and mortgages.

  The reports are then used by lenders to determine how or if they should extend credit to the consumer, and at where the interest rate should be set.

  The CFPB’s report found a strong relationship between consumers lacking a scored credit record and their income levels.

  

  The CFPB report identified a relationship between consumers’ income and their likelihood of being unscored or credit invisible.

  Most of the consumers who are placed in the credit invisible category by credit reporting agencies are from low-income neighborhoods.

  Of the consumers who live in low-income neighborhoods, almost 30% are credit invisible, with another 15% having records that can’t actually be scored.

  The percentage of consumers in low-income neighborhoods that are either credit invisible or unscored is significantly higher than the rate in higher-income neighborhoods.

  In fact, the report found that only 4% of consumers in upper-income neighborhoods are credit invisible, while 5% are unscored.

  When it comes to ethnicity, the CFPB report found that black and hispanic consumers were more likely to fall into the credit invisible or unscored categories.

  

  The CFPB also found a relationship between ethnicity and unscored or credit invisible consumers.

  About 15% of black and hispanic consumers are credit invisible compared to 9% of white consumers. Additionally, nearly 13% of black consumers and 12% of hispanic consumers have unscorable records, while just 7% of white consumers fall into the category.

  Cordray says in a statement that understanding prevalence of unscored and credit invisible consumers and their characteristics will prove to be an integral part of the CFPB’s work to foster a helpful marketplace for all consumers.

  The CFPB’s findings come a month after reports began to surface that FICO would overhaul its credit-scoring approach to consider consumers’ monthly bills, such as those for utilities and wireless plans, when determining credit worthiness.

  The change is purportedly intended to help consumers on the low-end of the credit spectrum, but some consumer advocates are concerned that lower-income Americans could be the ones most adversely affected.

  While providing more credit options for people is a good thing, basing a consumers’ creditworthiness on utility payments could have a negative affect on consumers struggling to make ends meet month-to-month.

  The National Consumer Law Center previously provided testimony during a House subcommittee hearing exploring the uses of consumer credit data, including the use of utility payments in credit reports.

  Chi Chi Wu, staff attorney for NCLC, expressed advocates’ fears that using the additional information would “add millions of news negative reports to the credit reporting system and will actually hame more consumers, especially financially strapped consumers, by creating credit black marks.”

  CFPB Report Finds 26 Million Consumers Are Credit Invisible [CFPB]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uWhat Did Your Mom Teach You About Money?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (yoshiffles)

  When I was in first grade, the lunch lady at my school informed me that my parents had overpaid for my meals for the month, and sent the extra money home with me, as I remember it. I took it to my mom, who said that everyone should have a bank account, and that we could use that $18 or so to start one for me. And to add to that — she said that moolah could grow to a larger amount all by itself through a magical thing called “interest.”

  That was the first real thing I can remember learning about money — along with how much to pay the ice cream truck guy, what to charge for my fledgling babysitting service and that student loans were not to be taken lightly, as well as many other lessons I gleaned from both of my parents.

  From saving for a rainy day, to getting a job to fund your education; saving spare change in piggybanks or investing in a 401k, we want to know: What personal finance lessons did your mother/grandmother/maternal figure teach you growing up that have stuck with you to this day?

  Send us your best tips from mom to tips@consumerist.com with the subject line MONEY MOM and we’ll celebrate her wisdom by sharing it with everyone else.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist