четверг, 18 июня 2015 г.

uPrice Tags Might Be A Strange 150-Year Anomaly In The History Of Commercer


4 4 4 9
  • In the past, most recently in 2013, Coca-Cola has experimented with the idea of vending machines that adjust prices according to the temperature. The idea really bothers some people, but fixed prices that are always the same for everyone haven’t historically been the norm. We may be coming to the end of a weird century-and-a-half experiment with the practice.

    We never really thought about the origin of price tags, but that’s why NPR’s Planet Money team exists: they wondered why we have price tags, and whether we’ll have them for much longer.

    For most of human history, we’ve been haggling when we buy and sell things. There are problems with haggling: it’s labor-intensive, time-intensive, and requires the person negotiating for the store to have a deep knowledge of every product and what a fair price would be. This system continues in some countries and in flea markets, but most commerce today takes place with prices assigned to items.

    We have the Quakers to thank for the idea of merchandise having one fixed price for everyone: they first started that wacky idea in the mid-19th century. The first store to use fixed prices was Philadelphia-based Wanamaker’s, and the idea spread through much of the world, thanks to the influence of early department stores.

    One young Quaker man started a retail venture in New York City, bringing the fixed-price idea along with him so he could put relatively untrained employees out on the sales floor in a massive store, and so the company could advertise the prices of items in the newspaper. His name was Rowland Hussey Macy.

    Some transactions kept haggling: notably, new-car purchases, and nearly everyone hates it. More than a hundred years later, computers allowed companies to start chipping away at the idea of fixed prices for everything. Airline deregulation meant that airlines could set fares according to predicted demand, and the rest of the travel industry began to follow.

    Now, sophisticated online retailers make every price dynamic, adjusting according to demand and other factors that mere consumers don’t understand. So far, consumers have resisted the idea that prices can change dramatically at any minute in physical stores, but that could change as more people grow up with dynamic pricing when they shop online.

    Episode 633: The Birth And Death Of The Price Tag [Planet Money]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


среда, 17 июня 2015 г.

uHormel Goes To Its Culinary ‘Discovery Space,’ Returns With Bags Of Spam Jerkyr


4 4 4 9
  • Our world is one where people go crazy over novel presentations of beloved snacks, but also one where people are seeking snacks full of protein. That’s why it really shouldn’t surprise anyone that Hormel, best known as the maker of Spam, is expanding into new, snack-size iterations of their meat and peanut butter products.

    No, we don’t mean snack-size portions: that’s a thing that Spam already tried years ago, and Hormel’s Skippy peanut butter brand has done well selling single-serve peanut butter containers. That’s not what these new products are: the snacks themselves are bite-sized.

    In an interview with the trade publication Meat & Poultry, James Splinter, group vice president of the Grocery Products Unit at Hormel, explained that the company has been looking for “innovation out of the jar,” or perhaps out of the can in the case of Spam. Inspiration for individual bites from their most prominent brands came from the candy bar bites that have been a hit for many candy companies. “Why can’t we do this, only with meat?” they probably asked themselves, secretly fearing the answer.

    spam_snacksThat’s how Hormel gave the world Spam Snacks, which are bite-sized, flavored pieces of Spam

    Hormel bought peanut butter brand Skippy from Unilever a few years ago. The thing that we feared most hasn’t yet happened: peanut butter and Spam or pepperoni haven’t been combined into a single, protein-rich, delicious and/or horrifying snack.

    Spam Snacks won’t be available everywhere: apparently, the most Spam-loving regions will get the product first. Congratulations, Hawaii!

    Hormel unveils ‘breakthrough innovation’ in snacks [Meat & Poultry News]



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uOlay Shrink Rays Soap Bars, Users Remain Ageless And Beautifulr


4 4 4 9
  • age_defyingJacob doesn’t buy soap very often, since his preferred brand is available in a 6-bar bulk pack. He discovered the last time he stocked up that the bars have considerably less bulk in them than they used to, though: each bar is now one quarter of an ounce lighter, for a total of one and a half ounces less soap in the bulk pack.

    This is a clear case of the Grocery Shrink Ray, but it really annoyed Jacob “I called their 800 number and the person said when they make changes like this, ‘it’s usually due to customer or company demand.'” Yes, that’s how it works. Now, it’s possible that customers wanted a bar that was slightly smaller in their hands, but we’ve never heard of anyone calling up a company and clamoring to be given less soap. No, that’s as detailed information as anyone is going to get.

    beautybars

    One reason often given for shrinking down products is to harmonize product sizes in all markets: selling a 500 milliliter bottle instead of a 16-ounce one, for example. In this case, Procter & Gamble performs the opposite trick: they take a product that weighs nice, even 120 grams and takes it down to 113.



ribbi
  • by Laura Northrup
  • via Consumerist


uSony Says My PS4 Is Too Infested With Bugs And Dust To Fix Under Warranty, Won’t Offer Proofr


4 4 4 9
  • Levi finally gave up hope and took apart his PS4 searching for bugs and dust.

    Levi finally gave up hope and took apart his PS4 searching for bugs and dust.

    There’s a certain sense of relief provided by a warranty — when your product stops working, you can just send it in for repairs or sometimes receive a new one to replace it. But Consumerist reader Levi says he found himself out of luck after his PlayStation 4 gave him the “blue light of death,” despite the fact that it was under warranty.

    Levi tells Consumerist that when his “very lightly used 10-month-old” PS4 went kaput, he got a request number to have it serviced, and Sony send him a box to ship it in. He notes that it was a used box. At the time, he noticed Sony’s rules warning users not to send in equipment filled with bugs and dust, as that would void the warranty.

    He thought to himself, “Ha, that’s gross, I can’t believe they have to warn people about that nasty stuff.”

    He waits, anticipating the day his PS4 is returned and he can get back to gaming. Finally, the day arrives. He sets up the console, plugs it in to test it out… and the blue light of death is still there, mocking him. This, despite the fact that there was no note or other information letting him know the system hadn’t been repaired.

    When he chatted with customer service online he says the representative told him he had a bug-infested system. He tells that rep it’s impossible, and escalates the issue to a phone conversation. He asks the definition of a bug — a gnat? Cricket?

    Levi says the CSR give him “the simplest, most vague answer there could be: Bugs and dust.”

    He’s shocked, so he asks for a record of how that was determined, a paper trail, photo documentation or any kind of proof of bugs or dust. Perhaps, he pointed out, there could be bugs in the used box Sony had sent him.

    Levi says the rep apologized and said that is a different department, and besides, the information is for internal use only and his system cannot be serviced. End of the line.

    After giving up home that Sony would relent, Levi says he decided to disassemble the system, using skills gleaned from his history in electronics repair, to search for evidence.

    “Sadly, there was not a single insect to be found,” he writes, noting that there was a little dust on the fan, but not more than what’s to be expected. He posted photos to show what he found on imgur, including the shot of the slightly dusty fan.

    sonydust3

    He thinks the burden of proof should be on Sony, and beyond that, the company could at least explain what’s going on before sending back an unserviced product.

    “Why was there no communication to me about their findings?” Levi asks. “I had to find out the status by plugging it in only to see the blue light of death again. At least send a note back with my system, telling me I’m jolly-well f****d and to have a nice day.”

    We’ve reached out repeatedly to Sony asking if the company could explain why the PS4 was sent back without explanation, and if there was any information about the inspection and documentation process that Sony could share to shed light on the situation. At this point, Sony has not responded to our request for comment or information.

    Levi might never know the truth about his PS4, though he wonders if maybe the service tech wanted to take a longer lunch or have a nap instead. Without any proof provided to the customer, Levi adds, “there is nothing stopping them from checking the ‘bugs’ box and sending your console back to you broken.”

    We’ve heard reports of this before, but we don’t have a good sense of how often this happens, or for that matter, how dusty is dusty. If you’ve been denied service for your PlayStation due to bug and/or dust, email us your story at tips@consumerist.com with the subject line BUGS AND DUST.



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uCongress Takes Another Stab At Undercutting Gainful Employment Rules Two Weeks Before Implementationr


4 4 4 9
  • The Department of Education’s long-awaited gainful employment rules – aimed at reining in the for-profit college industry – go into effect on July 1. But just because there are only 14 days before implementation, doesn’t mean those opposed to the regulations are giving up their fight.

    The House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday released a spending bill that would prohibit the Dept. of Education from enforcing protections designed to ensure career colleges do a better job of preparing students for gainful employment, or risk losing access to taxpayer-funded federal student aid, the Washington Post reports.

    According to the bill [PDF], the Dept. of Education would not be allowed to use its funding to “implement, administer, or enforce the final regulations” related to gainful employment.

    That includes preventing the Department from moving forward with establishing a college ratings system, placing new requirements on teacher preparation, defining “credit hour,” and dictating how states must license institutions of higher education.

    While gainful employment rules will still go into effect as planed on July 1, if the proposed provisions gain approval and are signed into law, the new protections would be repealed in October. The Post reports that it is unlikely the President would actually allow the provisions to take effect.

    In addition to revoking protections for many students, the Committee’s spending bill would likely make it more difficult for students to even attend college, as the measure includes a provision to cut nearly $370 million in student financial assistance.

    “This legislation continues our efforts to reduce wasteful spending, to stop harmful and unnecessary regulations that kill jobs and impede economic growth, and to make wise investments in proven programs on behalf of the American taxpayer,” House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers of Kentucky tells the Post in a statement.

    Secretary of Education Arne Duncan tells the Post that it is “truly mind-boggling” that Congress continues to fight the needed potations despite the plethora of issues plaguing the for-profit college industry.

    “Make no mistake: a vote for this proposal is a vote to leave students in the dark and taxpayers holding the bag,” he says. “Both deserve better.”

    Consumer advocates also shared their disappointment that legislators continue to opposed the gainful employment rules.

    “It is hard to fathom how today’s FY2016 House appropriations bill could cut student aid by hundreds of millions of dollars and block common-sense regulations designed to protect students and taxpayers from getting ripped off by programs at predatory schools, like those at now-shuttered Corinthian Colleges,” Lauren Asher, president of The Institute for College Access & Success, says in a statement [PDF].

    The Dept. of Education has faced many hurdles on its way to crafting gainful employment rules.

    The protections taking effect next month are the Department’s second attempt to rein in for-profit colleges that benefit from financial aid to students without providing them the education needed to find gainful employment after graduation.

    A federal judge blocked major provisions of the first rules in 2012, forcing the department to start over.

    The finalized rules, which were introduced in March 2014, set forth requirements that institutions must certify that all career-education programs meet applicable accreditation requirements, along with state and/or federal licensure standards.

    Programs would be deemed failing if loan payments of typical graduates exceed 30% of discretionary income or 12% of total annual income. Programs would be given a warning if a student’s loan payments amount to 20 to 30% of discretionary income, or 8 to 12% of total annual income. Discretionary income is defined as above 150% of the poverty line and applies to what can be put towards non-necessities.

    For sake of an example, say the typical recent graduate of a career education program earns $28,000. Those graduates would need to average below $2,240 in annual student loan payments for the school to be out of the warning zone. If those same graduates are paying an average of more than $3,360 a year in loan payments, that school would be at risk for losing federal aid funds.

    Additionally, institutions must publicly disclose information about the program costs, debt, and performance of their career education programs so that students can make informed decisions.

    Of course, the Dept. has seen several attempts by the for-profit industry to weaken the rules, including two lawsuits files in November 2014.

    Last month, a district court judge threw out one of the lawsuits, which aimed diminish provisions that would penalize for-profits if too many of their graduates failed to succeed. The second lawsuit, which contends that the rule is “unlawful, arbitrary and irrational,” is still pending.

    The toughest for-profit college rules in years are here. And lawmakers are still fighting over them. [The Washington Post]
    House FY16 Education Funding Bill Blocks Gainful Employment Rule, Cuts Student Aid [TICAS]



ribbi
  • by Ashlee Kieler
  • via Consumerist


uFoster Farms Investigating “Inappropriate” Behavior At Poultry Facilities Captured In Undercover Videor


4 4 4 9
  • Blurriness of screenshot from vide is intentional to spare unsuspecting viewers.

    Blurriness of screenshot from video is intentional to spare unsuspecting viewers.

    Poultry producer Foster Farms says it’s investigating after an animal advocacy group filmed undercover video at one of its slaughterhouses in Fresno and nearby farms owned by the company. Police are also investigating allegations of mistreatment, after receiving a complaint from the group Mercy for Animals.

    In the footage the group says was shot between April and June, chickens are seen being slammed upside down into metal shackles, getting punched and having their feathers pulled out while they’re still alive, reports the Associated Press.

    (Warning: The video is pretty graphic, but here’s a link to the footage.)

    Other footage shows workers throwing bins of live chicks on the ground, apparently rendering some immobile in the process. Mercy for Animals says another set of footage shows bodies of chickens that were boiled alive after an automatic knife failed to slit their necks at the Fresno slaughterhouse.

    A Foster Farms spokesman said in a statement that the company has launched its own investigation and will fully cooperate with authorities. He says employees get annual training on how to humanely handle the birds, and those that violate the company’s standards are subject to discipline, including firing.

    “The behavior of the individuals in this video is inappropriate and counter to our stringent animal welfare standards, procedures and policies,” he said. “We believe raising chickens humanely is simply the right thing to do, and we take our commitment to humane values very seriously.”

    “What’s on this video does not reflect the company’s culture and policies,” the spokesman says.

    In the video’s description, Mercy for Animals calls out the “American Humane Certified” label on chicken packaging, asking what it really means. “The answer: surprising little.”

    A spokesman for the Washington, D.C.-based American Humane Association, which is recognized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, said the group has stringent standards and is “dedicated to the humane treatment of all animals.”

    Foster Farms Investigates ‘Inappropriate’ Behavior After Undercover Video [Associated Press]



ribbi
  • by Mary Beth Quirk
  • via Consumerist


uThe FCC Is Considering A Big Change To Lifeline — But What Is It, And How Does It Work?r


4 4 4 9
  • The FCC is going to be voting this week on a proposal to make a big change to one of their programs, Lifeline. The program — a subsidy that helps low-income consumers pay for phone service — may expand to help them pay for broadband, too. The topic is politically charged and coverage can be a bit confusing, so here’s a guide on what the FCC currently does with it and what they’re planning to do next.

    What is Lifeline?
    Lifeline is a program managed through the FCC that provides a subsidy for phone service to eligible low-income Americans. It launched in 1985 as a discount on landline service, and in 2008 expanded to allow for using the credit on pre-paid mobile service instead.

    The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is the entity responsible for administering the details of the plan.

    Who is eligible?
    Lifeline is eligible to anyone at 135% or less of the federal poverty level, or who is already enrolled in one of several existing state or federal assistance programs like Medicaid or SNAP (food stamps).

    Poverty levels are calculated annually and vary by family size. As of this year, the federal government officially considers “poverty” to be an income of less than $11,770 annually for an individual or $24,250 for a family of four. The maximum income cap for Lifeline eligibility, therefore, is $15,889 for an individual or $32,737 for a family of four.

    Currently, there are approximately 12 million Lifeline subscribers.

    How big is the subsidy?
    $9.25 per month.

    That’s total, not per service — you have to choose whether to apply it to landline or mobile service. And it’s by household, not by individual, so a family of five all living together, for example, still only gets one.

    How much does the program cost? How is it funded?
    The program costs about $1.7 billion, and the money for it comes from the Universal Service Fund.

    The USF is a fund into which telecommunications service providers pay. The amount they contribute is based on a percentage of their telecom revenues, but basically Verizon, AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and anyone else who provides copper-wire or VOIP service is contributing, as are all of the mobile companies.

    Those companies have a tendency to pass through the charge as an extra fee — a few cents, a dollar and change — on their subscribers’ monthly bills. (Though the FCC stresses that there is no requirement they do so, and each company gets to make its own business decision about the suitability of passing through the charge.)

    In short, everyone contributes to the USF.

    What does the FCC want to change?
    Short version: FCC chair Tom Wheeler wants to tweak Lifeline so that eligible consumers can use the credit for land lines, mobile phones, or broadband service as they deem fit.

    Long version: The FCC began a pilot program testing Lifeline’s adaptability to broadband service way back in 2012. Throughout 2013 and 2014, 14 different kinds of pilot programs experimented with different methods of connection, subsidies, and so on. The final report (PDF) was published in May of this year.

    After the report came in, Wheeler circulated a proposal to “reboot” Lifeline to other members of the Commission, and in their June, 2015 open meeting the FCC will vote on whether or not to consider that proposal.

    What are the benefits of Lifeline? Why is it necessary? Why add broadband?
    Have you ever tried to apply for a job without a phone number they could use to call you back? Deal with doctors’ appointments or pharmacies? Apply for an apartment or reach your landlord? Find out if your kid has gotten sick or injured at school?

    To be a contributing and functioning member of society in the 1980s, you needed a phone at home. By 2005, it was clear that “a phone” didn’t mean “at home” but instead something you could keep with you. And now, thirty years after the program started, it’s clear that an internet connection is just as essential.

    Everything is online: job applications. Applications for and help with government and social services. Access to doctors. Education. Schools. You name it: any kind of service you need or connection you need to make is going to be online. That’s true for everyone now, at every level. And access is most definitely tied to economic class: as the FCC points out, over 95% of households with incomes over $150,000 have home broadband access, but less than half of those making less than $25,000 do.

    As Hannah Sassaman, from the Philadelphia-area Media Mobilizing Project put it to Consumerist, “You can’t apply for a job at Walmart, let alone to college, without a high speed broadband connection at home. A subsidy aimed at families who can’t afford the internet could be transformational for elders looking for healthcare, workers looking for family-sustaining jobs, and youth trying to access a dignified education.”

    Our colleagues at Consumers Union (the advocacy arm of Consumerist’s parent company, Consumer Reports) agree. “Our organization supports the FCC in its efforts to transition the program to support broadband to help bring all citizens online,” CU policy counsel Delara Derakhshani said in a statement when the expansion plan was announced.

    “Our nation continues to face a serious gap in broadband availability that leaves millions of Americans unable to realize the economic, educational, entrepreneurial, and social benefits that flow from these services,” she added. “We applaud the Commission’s work to get affordable broadband to as many people as possible.”

    So what are the sticking points?
    Lifeline is a highly politically charged topic in the current environment, and debates will be polarizing. However, there are two main areas of concern likely to show up.

    1.) Fraud. There has been fraud in Lifeline in the past. Eligibility can be difficult to re-determine, and as people move around — as households dissipate and re-form in new combinations — you can end up with households getting more than one benefit.

    However, the FCC put in place processes to reduce fraud and minimize waste back in 2012, including the creation of a national database that administrators could use to check for duplicate subscriptions. In the 2013-2014 year, after those changes took place, spending on the program dropped by about 24% and the number of participants dropped from 18 million to about 12 million.

    Additionally, the new modernization proposal, according to the FCC fact sheet, would not only add broadband to the list of eligible services but also would change, centralize, and more easily track the way consumers prove eligibility.

    2.) Sufficiency. $9.25 a month for phone or internet service doesn’t get you very far. Comcast’s Internet Essentials, for example, is a program that low-income families with school-age children at home can enroll in for about $10 a month. But the $9.25 subsidy doesn’t quite cover that $10, and would leave a family using it without a subsidy available for mobile phone use.

    What happens next?
    Once the FCC votes on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking — probably 3-2 — the matter moves into the public comment phase and goes through the back-and-forth pleading process for a couple of months before being edited and potentially adopted. The Commission could hold their final vote on whether or not to make a change as early as this fall.



ribbi
  • by Kate Cox
  • via Consumerist