uNearly 70% Of Consumers Rely On Online Reviews Before Making A Purchaser

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Sybren Stüvel)

  Everyone has an opinion, and nowadays most people are willing to share it; for better or worse. So it shouldn’t be surprising then – what with the sheer number of outlets available in which consumers can express their feeling about products and services – that nearly seven-in-ten consumers actually base their purchases on the digital recommendations of strangers.

  That is according to a survey of 2,000 U.S. adults for the American Lifestyles 2015 report from global marketing firm Mintel, which found that perusing online reviews is now an integral part of how consumers make purchases.

  “In a never-ending quest to buy the ‘best,’ consumers are looking to others, peers and strangers alike, to glean from their opinions and experiences in order to validate the choices they’ve made and to avoid feelings of buyer’s remorse,” Fiona O’Donnell, Lifestyles Category Manager at Mintel, said in a statement.

  O’Donnell says that seeking reviews online can make the simple act of buying a household item less overwhelming for any consumer, it’s especially useful to younger consumers who have yet to build brand loyalty.

  In fact, according to the report, the younger the consumer the more likely they are to rely on online reviews when determining what to buy. Nearly 81% of the survey respondents who seek out the opinion of others online before making a purchase are categorized millennials.

  When it comes to where consumers turn to for advice on products and services, Mintel found that age also makes a difference.

  For instance, millennials say they are more likely to visit user-generated review sites like Yelp or Angie’s List, while consumers 35 years of age or older are more likely to rely on independent review sites like Consumer Reports or Edmunds.com.

  Still, both age groups say they would also consider the recommendations they receive from their own social networks – although with less conviction. About 72% of millennials say they take their “friends” opinions into account, while 46% of older consumers trust the opinions offered by those in their social networks.

  Despite consumers willingness to seek out virtual reviews for products, most say they take the feedback with a grain of salt, especially if the opinion of a personal acquaintance differed from those found online.

  Mintel reports that a majority of the opinion seekers say they don’t trust a product that has only positive reviews.

  Additionally, 54% of respondents say they would try a product recommended by someone they know even if it had negative online reviews.

  So while online reviews have no doubt become an important part of consumers’ purchasing experience, they still don’t beat the personalized opinions of family and friends.

  Seven in 10 Americans Seek Out Opinions Before Making Purchases [Mintel]
  [H/T Chicago Tribune]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uCord-Cutters Rejoince: Standalone Showtime To Launch In July For $11/Monthr

4 4 4 9

• CBS is finally making good on its promise to launch a standalone, Internet-only version of Showtime so that fans of shows like Homeland and Penny Dreadful (and people who want to re-experience the hilarious death spiral of Dexter’s final season) won’t need a basic cable subscription.

  The service will apparently just be called “Showtime,” and is slated to launch in early July for a monthly rate of $10.99. The service will also offer live access to both East and West Coast feeds of the Showtime channel.

  What’s the not-great news? Just like the recent debut of HBO Now, the Showtime service will initially be an Apple exclusive with subscriptions being sold through iTunes. And similar to that digital offering, the plan is to expand to other platforms and providers in the near future.

  “Going over-the-top means Showtime will be much more accessible to tens of millions of potential new subscribers,” said CBS CEO Les Moonves. “Across CBS, we are constantly finding new ways to monetize our programming by capitalizing on opportunities presented by technology. This works best when you have outstanding premium content – like we do at Showtime – and when you have a terrific partner like Apple – which continues to innovate and build upon its loyal customer base.”

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uNo Babies On Beer Bottles In New Hampshire After Governor Vetoes Labeling Billr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (JeepersMedia)

  There are babies on beer bottles in plenty of states, but there will be nary a cherubic child gracing the labels of beer bottles sold in New Hampshire, after the state’s governor shut down a measure that would’ve allowed some depictions of kids on alcoholic beverages.

  Governor Maggie Hassan vetoed a bill that would’ve allowed certain images of minors on beer bottles, as long as they weren’t aimed at encouraging underage people to drink, reports WMUR.com. Under the proposed measure, approving or denying labels would’ve been under the discretion of the state’s Liquor Commission.

  State Rep. Keith Murphy sponsored the bill, as he wanted to buy Breakfast Stout by Founders Brewery Co., made in Grand Rapids, MI for the tavern he owns. On the label is a chubby baby eating oatmeal, not a bunch of college kids partying, Murphy notes.

  “No reasonable person would believe that this label is intended to appeal to minors in any way,” he said, adding that neighboring Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont all sell the beer.

  But Hassan disagreed, saying allowing such images could undermine efforts to fight underage drinking in the state.

  “Substance misuse, including alcohol misuse, continues to be one of the major public health and safety challenges facing us as a state,” she said in her veto message. “Moreover, statistics suggest that New Hampshire has among the highest rates of underage drinking in the country.”

  In any case, the director of enforcement and licensing for the New Hampshire Liquor Commission said when the bill was introduced back in February, the commission already had a “bright line standard” for labeling and was opposed to Murphy’s measure.

  Hassan blocks bill that would allow baby pictures on beer bottles [WMUR.com]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uApple Recalls Beats Pill XL Speakers Due To Fire Hazardr

4 4 4 9

• When you spend a few hundred dollars on a portable speaker, you probably assume that you’re buying a quality piece of electronics that will sound nice and not overheat and catch fire when it’s not supposed to. That is not the case for the Beats Pill XL, a signature product for the headphone company, which is now part of Apple.

  The Beats Pill XL went on sale in early January 2014, and Apple’s purchase of the company happened in August of that year. Today, Apple announced that they’re recalling all of the speakers after eight reports of overheated units. One burned a customer’s finger, and another damaged a customer’s desk.

  The speaker is a recognizable product, which could be in any of five different colors: black, white, pink, metallic sky, or titanium. (Those last two are sightly different shades of gray.) The recalled version has the product name on its carrying handle.

  If you own one, returning the item to Apple for a refund or for store credit is your only option. Confusingly, the Pill XL appears to still be available for sale from Apple, but that may be an updated version.

  If you have questions about the recall, call Apple at (800) 275-2273, or visit the recall site to read more about it or to request a postage-paid box to mail yours back.

  Beats Pill XL Speaker Recall Program [Apple]
  Apple Recalls Beats Pill XL Portable Wireless Speakers Due to Fire Hazard [CPSC]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uCalifornia Assembly Passes Measure To Ensure Consumers Don’t Face Costly Surprise Medical Billsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (MeneeDijk)

  When you’re recovering from surgery, the last thing you want is to be blindsided by an unexpected bill for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars because the hospital hired an out-of-network anesthesiologist or other specialist without telling you. Unfortunately, this type of surprise medical bill has become an unwelcome reality for nearly 30% of privately insured Americans. California lawmakers have just cleared a major hurdle in their goal of enacting a law that would protect consumers from unforeseen and often unavoidable medical charges. 

  The California Assembly voted 61-1 yesterday to pass a measure aimed at safeguarding patients from unfair surprise medical bills when they go to an in-network hospital or facility and get charged extra from out-of-network doctors.

  The legislation is part of a package of bills intended to prevent unfair out-of-pocket costs for consumers. The bill moves on to the California Senate.

  Under the pending bill [PDF], if a patient obtains care at an in-network facility but from an out-of-network provider, they would only be required to pay the non-participating provider what would have been charged by a participating provider.

  Essentially, that means if you go to your regular doctor’s office – which is covered by your insurance – and you see a doctor who isn’t covered by your insurance, you would only be on the hook for the amount you would typically pay if the doctor you saw was considered in-network.

  Additionally, any cost that the patient pays for services by the non-participating provider will count toward their limit for annual out-of-pocket costs.

  The measure applies to health care service plan contracts and insurance policies issues, amended or renewed on or after January 1, 2016.

  “The Assembly took a bold step to stop surprise bills from imperiling the family finances of California patients,” Anthony Wright, executive director for consumer advocacy group Health Access California, said in a statement [PDF]. “Californians who do the right thing under their health plan and go to an in-network hospital should not face hundreds or thousands of dollars in bills from out-of-network doctors.”

  “Once patients go to an in-network hospital, they shouldn’t be penalized for the radiologist, anesthesiologist, or other doctor that serve them that they never chose and in some cases never even met,” he continued. “[This legislation] will protect patients from unexpected and unfair medical bills.”

  Advocates for Consumers Union, whose recent survey [PDF] found that one-in-four privately insured Californians face surprise medical bills, were quick to applaud the passage of the bill.

  “Health insurance coverage should provide consumers protection against overwhelming medical bills and debt,” Julia Silas, senior attorney for CU, said in a statement. “AB 533 ensures that consumers who seek care at an in-network facility never end up paying more than the in-network co-pays, co-insurance, or deductible – even if the contracting doctors providing that care are out-of-network.”

  Wright says that the still-pending legislation will be a positive step in helping provide economic security to Californians.

  “The point of paying premiums for coverage is to protect against these surprise shocks to a family’s finances,” he says.

  On Strong Bipartisan Vote, California Assembly Passes AB533 To Stop “Surprise Medical Bills” [Consumers Union – PDF]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uIRS Agrees To Share Copies Of Fake Tax Returns With Victims Of Identity Theftr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (arsheffield)

  After lawmakers called on the Internal Revenue Service for more transparency for victims of identity theft, the agency says it will give those people copies of fake tax returns filed using their name and information.

  The IRS announced the change in a letter to Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, who had pushed for victims of identity theft to be able to access the fake returns. The IRS recently said identity thieves had stolen information on more than 100,000 taxpayers from the IRS site itself and used that info to file about 13,000 fake tax returns, netting around $39 million in refunds.

  Ayotte sent a letter to IRS Commissioner John Koskinen on May 7, asking that the agency hand over copies of fraudulent returns filed in their names so those people could determine exactly what information was stolen.

  “As a result of your letter, we have decided to change our policy regarding disclosure of fraudulent identity theft returns to victims whose name and SSN the fraudulent return was filed under,” Koskinen wrote in a response last week that’s just making the news rounds now.

  “We will put together a procedure that will enable victims to receive, upon request, redacted copies of fraudulent returns filed in their name and Social Security number,” he wrote.

  Ayotte’s concerns stem from increased fraudulent tax returns this year. Some victims reported being unable to find out how much of their personal data had been included on returns filed in their name. This includes the mother of a seven-year-old girl who had passed away after an auto accident, an article on Ayotte’s site says.

  Upon discovering thieves had used her deceased daughter’s Social Security Number to file bogus tax returns, she says the IRS refused to share any information with her about it, so she contacted Ayotte’s office.

  She says she’s hoping this isn’t all just words, and that something will actually come of it.

  “I hope they are serious and really take to heart the effect this has on families, and that moving forward they make meaningful changes in their policies,” she told Ayotte’s office.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uMan Arrested For Allgedly “Corrupting” Wells Fargo Employees In Scheme To Access Customer Accountsr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mike Mozart)

  As a bank customer, you generally have an expectation that employees of said bank won’t share your personal or account information with someone that isn’t, in fact, you. But what happens when a person calls the bank claiming to be an account holder in the midst of an emergency and in need of quick cash? Federal prosecutors say that was the basis for a recent bank fraud scheme targeting Wells Fargo customers and employees.

  WSOC-TV reports (warning: video autoplays) that a 37-year-old North Carolina man was arrested for his part in a ruse that pilfered funds from unsuspecting customers’ accounts by appealing to employees’ compassionate side.

  Investigators say the scheme began when the man and others obtained the personal information of Wells Fargo customers, most likely though employees of the bank.

  Once the personal information was in hand, the ne’er-do-wells allegedly called Wells Fargo tellers and employees claiming to be the customer in need of cash for an emergency situation, WSOC reports.

  According to prosecutors, the scheme perpetrators would then send friends and relatives to the bank to complete the transaction on their behalf.

  A Wells Fargo representative tells WSOC that any customers who were affected by the scheme are covered by the bank. However, the company declined to comment on how many customers were affected and the severity of the fraud.

  Prosecutors say this isn’t the first time the man has been involved in a scheme to defraud bank employees.

  Back in 2011, a federal judge sentenced the man to three years in prison for defrauding Bank of America and Wachovia Bank. In that case, prosecutors say the he offered tellers private plane trips and chances to socialize with famous athletes in exchange for cash, WSOC reports.

  Man charged with ‘corrupting’ Wells Fargo employees in fraud scheme [WSOC-TV]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist