Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

consumerreports.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 51 posts

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#41

Post by WirelessGigabit »

everdrive wrote: post #20
millzlane wrote: post #16

Honestly you can't trust a lot you see in ads. You can't even trust your manufacturer or the dealership selling the cars. Some brand new cars are sold with TSBs that haven't been fixed or addressed. I use https://www.carcomplaints.com/ when I'm shopping for a car to know which used cars to avoid.

Often, the salespeople don’t actually know anything about the vehicles they’re selling either. I’ve had salespeople who don’t know the engine or transmission configurations of the cars on their lots. I spent a long many emails recently trying to explain to a Toyota sales rep how payload capacity works. Even after meeting him in person and explaining it to him again, I was totally unable to get the real payload number…

Because they don't have to. There is no legal requirement of them telling you the truth, in fact, when you sign a purchase contract, you literally sign a piece of paper that states you cannot derive any rights to what the salesperson told you.

Their job is not to inform you. Their job is to sell cars.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#42

Post by dylan604 »

Gr4phTh3ory wrote: post #40
dylan604 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when people go out of their way to try to make someone feel dumb. Why would you waste your time like that? You asked a question, and they responded in a way that doesn't answer the question. Do you think going through some sort of lecture is going to suddenly improve the answer? That's like asking the average person to provide the answer to some differential calculus question but they don't know. You then g…

I don't see how anybody is going out of their way to make anybody feel dumb in that situation. They explained their automotive needs to a salesperson at a Toyota dealership and gave them ample opportunity to do some basic research to make a sale of them. Payload capacity is hardly a topic as exotic differential calculus at a car dealership.

>I don't see how anybody is going out of their way to make anybody feel dumb in that situation.

you're essentially giving a pass to mansplaining

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#43

Post by zug_zug »

millzlane wrote: post #16

Honestly you can't trust a lot you see in ads. You can't even trust your manufacturer or the dealership selling the cars. Some brand new cars are sold with TSBs that haven't been fixed or addressed. I use https://www.carcomplaints.com/ when I'm shopping for a car to know which used cars to avoid.

I don't know if I trust this website. Like it rates the 2019 rav4 as one of the least reliable vehicles with

Hesitates And Lurches At Slower Speeds 2019 RAV4

Average Cost to Fix: $20,000 Average Mileage: 3,000 mi

I'm not sure I believe the "average mileage" of any problem is 3,000, and if it were, it'd be well under warranty. This data also doesn't align with NHTSA complaints.

Garbarge in, garbage out. If this site contains bad data it's worse than having no site, because it could move you in the wrong direction.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#44

Post by everdrive »

dylan604 wrote: post #32
everdrive wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often, the salespeople don’t actually know anything about the vehicles they’re selling either. I’ve had salespeople who don’t know the engine or transmission configurations of the cars on their lots. I spent a long many emails recently trying to explain to a Toyota sales rep how payload capacity works. Even after meeting him in person and explaining it to him again, I was totally unable to get the real payload number…

I love it when people go out of their way to try to make someone feel dumb. Why would you waste your time like that? You asked a question, and they responded in a way that doesn't answer the question. Do you think going through some sort of lecture is going to suddenly improve the answer? That's like asking the average person to provide the answer to some differential calculus question but they don't know. You then g…

I might not have conveyed myself very well, but I really wasn’t trying to make the salesman feel dumb. Really, he was being a salesman, and by that I mean bullshitting me. I’d ask what the payload of the Tacoma was, and he’d come up with an answer I knew to be wrong. Whether or not I wanted to purchase the truck depended on that payload number. So, when I kept sending the question back to him, I was just trying to find a way to get a true payload rating for the truck. I needed that information to inform my purchase, and wasn’t able to get that information. (The truck was on a boat in Mexico, and I’d have to reserve the purchase. I couldn’t just visit the dealership and look at the payload sticker on the door.)

In any case, I definitely didn’t want him to feel bad. When I met him, I had a really pleasant interaction — he was a nice person. But, he just wanted to sell me the truck, and really didn’t care if he could provide me correct information or not. Ultimately I gave up on the purchase because I couldn’t get the information I needed.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#45

Post by Gr4phTh3ory »

dylan604 wrote: post #42
Gr4phTh3ory wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see how anybody is going out of their way to make anybody feel dumb in that situation. They explained their automotive needs to a salesperson at a Toyota dealership and gave them ample opportunity to do some basic research to make a sale of them. Payload capacity is hardly a topic as exotic differential calculus at a car dealership.

>I don't see how anybody is going out of their way to make anybody feel dumb in that situation. you're essentially giving a pass to mansplaining

I’d define mansplaining as unwanted and unwarranted explanation — it might be unwanted in the above situation, but unwarranted?

A explanation of payload capacity at a car dealership when it’s a key selling point for the customer explaining the topic and their related need? I just don’t see it being an issue.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#46

Post by bell-cot »

Clubber wrote: post #37
bell-cot wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One-layer deeper question: How much power/influence do people closely tied to Ford Motor have at the Ford Foundation? Looking here - https://www.fordfoundation.org/about/board-of-trustees/ - only Henry Ford III is an obvious "Ford Motor / Ford family" member of their Board of Trustees. Behind the scenes and deeper? Hard to know. Bigger picture: Since CR has been doing at-scale quantitative ratings of cars for decades…

>Opinion: If I was running both Ford Motors and the Ford Foundation, I'd be telling CR that I wanted 100%-unvarnished-truth reviews and ratings of Ford Motors products from them. Because done-right data from CR would be a ~99%-independent check on what my underlings at Ford Motor were telling me. (And, yes, cheating in Ford's favor would be damn likely to turn into a disastrous scandal.) Right, but you probably would…

"wouldn't want the bad stuff published" meaning that I'd feel unhappy when there was bad news about Ford Motor? True.

But there are half a bazillion places in the modern world where bad news about Ford Motor could originate. I'd have to be either a pathetic man-child or a control-freak mental case to think that somehow preventing CR from publishing a bit of that would give a probable net positive outcome, longer-term, for Ford Motor Co.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#47

Post by dylan604 »

everdrive wrote: post #44
dylan604 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love it when people go out of their way to try to make someone feel dumb. Why would you waste your time like that? You asked a question, and they responded in a way that doesn't answer the question. Do you think going through some sort of lecture is going to suddenly improve the answer? That's like asking the average person to provide the answer to some differential calculus question but they don't know. You then g…

I might not have conveyed myself very well, but I really wasn’t trying to make the salesman feel dumb. Really, he was being a salesman, and by that I mean bullshitting me. I’d ask what the payload of the Tacoma was, and he’d come up with an answer I knew to be wrong. Whether or not I wanted to purchase the truck depended on that payload number. So, when I kept sending the question back to him, I was just trying to fi…

you are free to talk to any sales person, so after recognizing this particular sales person wasn't being helpful, you can talk to someone else including managers. if a sales manager realizes that answering one question is what's standing between you making a purchase or not, they will find you the answer. these people are all about "crushing it, bro" on their sales numbers. you can even go to a different dealership. there's also the internet.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#48

Post by Clubber »

bell-cot wrote: post #46
Clubber wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Opinion: If I was running both Ford Motors and the Ford Foundation, I'd be telling CR that I wanted 100%-unvarnished-truth reviews and ratings of Ford Motors products from them. Because done-right data from CR would be a ~99%-independent check on what my underlings at Ford Motor were telling me. (And, yes, cheating in Ford's favor would be damn likely to turn into a disastrous scandal.) Right, but you probably would…

"wouldn't want the bad stuff published" meaning that I'd feel unhappy when there was bad news about Ford Motor? True. But there are half a bazillion places in the modern world where bad news about Ford Motor could originate. I'd have to be either a pathetic man-child or a control-freak mental case to think that somehow preventing CR from publishing a bit of that would give a probable net positive outcome, longer-term…

>meaning that I'd feel unhappy when there was bad news about Ford Motor? True.

No meaning you have good data to improve your company, that's the benefit to you. Publishing said data, particularly if you haven't improved on the data wouldn't benefit you.

>I'd have to be either a pathetic man-child or a control-freak mental case to think that somehow preventing CR from publishing a bit of that would give a probable net positive outcome, longer-term, for Ford Motor Co.

Or have shareholders.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#49

Post by dynm »

Can anyone explain in a bit more detail how these payment schemes work? It mentions that manufacturers need to pay huge sums to mention awards in their ads. But by default, information is free. I can't "patent" a fact and charge people to mention it. So what's happening here? Do the manufacturers need to enter some kind of contract in order to even be eligible for the award? The article is a bit vague on this point.

Re: Can You Trust Those Awards You See in Auto Ads? (2010)

#50

Post by passwordoops »

registeredcorn wrote: post #29
bradfa wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are generally referred to as "pay to play" awards. They're very common. People who are in the industry generally know which awards are real and which are just "pay to play" type. But for customers who aren't as clued in, more awards always looks better!

Out of interest, can you think of any that are legit? I'd like to know what to keep an eye out for.

It's very much industry-niche specific. For example, the company I referenced above's best honors came from the American Geophysical Union, but that's (mostly) academics voting for something that truly did change the field. But in parallel I know the American Chemical Society's equivalent can be bought.

For sure I no longer pay any attention to broad general tech awards. It's like those "X under X" lists. About half are rich kids with connections and good photo ops and/or committing fraud.

Post reply on HN