Amazon.com Widgets
Membership: Join Now : Login

Moronic Breeze

The other day, I bought a Sharper Image Ionic Breeze air purifier.

I imagine you, one of the four readers of this site, thinking, "Why would you spend your money on a fool thing like that?" Quite simply, because I'm tired of breathing poorly. I'm tired of taking antihistamines three to four times per week so that I don't wake up with sleep apnea or with a head full of snot. I'm tired of waking up after four or five hours of sleep to blow my nose, or of waking up after getting enough sleep but in an antihistamine haze. I'm tired of having low-level congestion for eight months of the year. My allergies aren't nearly as bad as they were when I was younger, but they're keeping me from resting and working like I should.

I'd never been much for the air purifier thing, because based on experiences with them when I was younger, they're loud and they don't work. But lots of people seem to swear by these Ionic Breeze things, and they are definitely quiet. Of course, the "fresh" smell is ozone - any ionizing thing is going to produce ozone. Laser printers produce ozone. That "fresh" smell you get walking into Kinko's isn't from a room of organic air-cleansing plants. As long as it's not too much, I'm fine with a little ozone.

I already knew I wouldn't use a loud device, so the Sharper Image thing looked a bit interesting. I looked at them in the stores a couple of times, and they certainly seemed to be collecting dust. But, like most things at the Sharper Image, they're expensive. So I ask around in the store, and they tell me I can return it within 60 days, no questions asked (well, other than the normal ones, like "Why didn't you like it?" and "Did you have to paint it green?"). So with two months to try it, I decided to give it a try.

Now, I'll say up front, it's only been here for two days. I kept it in my bedroom the first night, but it came with a "free" smaller one that I put in the attached bathroom, and I took the big unit to my office. I'm not sure what I think of it. I smell the small bit of ozone, and I still have a bit of the mucus, but the air feels a bit fresher in my limited-circulation office. Sharper Image says to leave the thing running all the time because air quality in any room returns to pre-cleaning quality within 90 minutes of turning off an air purifier, but other people who've used air cleaners say it took them 2-3 weeks to start noticing a real, daily difference. So I'm going to let it stick around for at least a month before deciding.

This normally wouldn't be of much interest to anyone, even me, except that today I learned that Consumer Reports has called the Ionic Breeze product line "unhealthy."

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Consumer Reports magazine is taking renewed aim at a popular air purifier made by The Sharper Image two months after it fended off a libel lawsuit filed by the machine's retailer.

The magazine reports in its latest issue hitting newsstands Tuesday that Sharper Image's Ionic Breeze Quadra Silent Air Purifier and four other similar machines fail to significantly clean the air -- but also release potentially unhealthy levels of ozone.

The article is being published two months after San Francisco-based Sharper Image agreed to pay the magazine's publisher, Consumers Union, $525,000 in legal costs after a judge dismissed its libel suit. The failed lawsuit alleged that earlier magazine articles highly critical of the Ionic Breeze's ability to reduce airborne particles were false and malicious.

Company lawyer E. Robert Wallach said Sharper Image was evaluating how to respond to the article, which advised against buying the machines. More than 2 million of the $350 units have been sold.

"It is astonishing that Consumers Union would continue its misguided efforts to attack the judgment and experience of millions of Americans who are satisfied with the performance of the Ionic Breeze products," Wallach said in a statement.

In a statement of its own, Consumer Reports said the magazine's latest article is accurate and that the nonprofit organization had called on federal regulators to look at the advertising claims being made by sellers of the five air purifiers it examined.

"All of these 'not recommended' products did a poor job in our tests of removing dust, smoke and pollen from the air," the statement said. "In addition, all five of these products failed in Consumer Reports' labs the standard industry test for ozone generation."

This raised all kinds of red flags for me.

When I've read Consumer Reports reviews of products I know very well - like computers - they've been embarassingly bad. In almost every PC evaulation its printed during MDJ or MWJ's lifespan, CR has let Wintel PC makers define "good features" and then dinged the Macintosh for not having them. In 2000, we looked at a review that criticized the iMac's all-in-one design because it didn't have room for things like a "network card." CR didn't manage to notice that every iMac already had built-in 10/100Base-T Ethernet, largely because the magazine didn't review the iMac.

That's right - they complained about the design of a product they didn't even test. They only tested a Power Macintosh G4, and basically said it was a good deal for those really weird people who don't run Windows, if they couldn't be treated with medication or something. (If you have back issues, you can find it in MWJ 2000.09.16.) This was not an isolated incident, either - CR has been giving Macintosh computers bad rankings for many years because they aren't Windows computers. In the 2000 article, the magazine complained that the Power Mac didn't have a "keyboard control panel," and gave extra points to Dell and Compaq systems for supporting HomePNA (networking over in-house phone lines), the "most convenient" way to network. They didn't mention AirPort for the Mac, but praised Dell's wireless networking that cost twice as much and was harder to install and configure.

In other words, they put their big-league name and reputation behind a review that might as well have been written in Microsoft Labs. They were talking out of their asses. If the review they run on the stuff I know cold is that bad, how can I trust the reviews they run on products I don't know at all?

Big publications run stories about Apple, often not caring whether they're true or not ("Think Secret reported that…"), because stories about Apple sell more copies. A New York Times editor famously told Apple's then-CEO, Gil Amelio, that the paper sold 3% more copies on days when it ran an Apple story than on days when it did not. Similarly, I've noticed over the years that Consumer Reports uses its big-league name to push its stories relentlessly, especially when they have one that says something popular and expensive is crap. They publish slick press packages, and they make their own video news releases that they feed to local news stations around the country, who eagerly use them on their newscasts. Why not? It's Consumer Reports, for pete's sake!

In 1988, CR tested SUVs on its private track in an "avoidance maneuver" test, and found that the Samurai performed well. Then an editor asked to take it for more drives, and in doing so, was able to make the two front wheels rise a foot off the ground. The magazine then put the vehicle through extended tests and found a way to make it roll over, so they graded it "not acceptable." They mentioned this report again in 1996, and this time, Suzuki sued them for libel, saying that the magazine had been looking for a "shocker" story to boost circulation and help pay for its new headquarters.

Consumer Reports' reaction was, basically, "How dare you sue us! Don't you know that we're Consumer Reports?"

To prove libel from the press, a plaintiff like Suzuki has to show that the defendant published false information maliciously - that CU knew or should have known it was false and they published it anyway to damage Suzuki or build up their own reputation. And, in fact, CU republished the 1988 article many times in fund-raising letters during times of deep debt. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration said the Consumer Reports test procedures did "not have a scientific basis," too, and declined Consumers Union's attempts to force them to recall the vehicles. Had the recall happened, it certainly would have been a profitable trophy for CU to hang on the magazine's wall.

The trial court threw out the suit on First Amendment grounds, saying that Suzuki had not shown that CU acted maliciously. Then that hippie, commie, nasty, liberal, America-hating 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated it. They said, in a 14-11 en banc decision, that there was enough evidence on the record to let a jury decide if the tests were false or malicious - essentially, that the judge had short-circuited Suzuki's right to try to prove its full case.

The US Supreme Court declined CU's appeal of the decision in 2003. A few months later, CU and Suzuki settled the lawsuit. In what seems to be typical Consumers Union fashion, the organization called the settlement a "dismissal," and crowed that "Suzuki has not demanded or received monetary compensation." Consumers Union president Jim Guest told the AP, "From our point of view, the case has been dismissed, we've issued no retractions or corrections, paid no money, and fully stand by … the article we published."

And, in typical CU fashion, that's not quite all there was to it, but only the American International Automobile Dealers were unafraid enough of CU to print the part that the AP left out:

The settlement involves no money, but it includes a "clarification" by Consumers Union that writing that Samurai "easily" rolls over in turns may have been "misconstrued or misunderstood."

Consumers Union also says in the agreement that it "never intended to imply that the Samurai easily rolls over in routine driving conditions." And it notes that it "never questioned the safety of any other Suzuki model" and, in fact, "praised the Suzuki Sidekick and recommended the Suzuki Vitara/XL-7."

Consumers Union must refer to the agreement whenever it mentions ratings or testing of the Samurai. For example, when subscribers search for articles about the Samurai on the Consumer Reports Web site, the agreement will appear at the top of the articles.

"There is no apology," says David Pittle, vice president for technical policy at Consumers Union. "We stand fully behind our testing and rating of the Samurai."

Suzuki says the settlement is a win for its side.

"The clarification is huge for us because the Samurai doesn't easily roll over," says Cam Smith Arnold, vice president of customer relations and communications for American Suzuki Motor.

Do you think that the magazine's readers would accept that settlement as a "dismissal" with "no retractions or clarifications?" For the record, Isuzu took CU to a full jury trial on a similar claim in 2000 and lost - the jury found in favor of Consumers Union.

Nonetheless, everyone but CU seems to agree that the testing of the Suzuki vehicle didn't meet NHTSA standards, that the trouble came after the normal tests had already found it to perform well, and that both the liberal 9th Circuit and conservative US Supreme Court found that the magazine didn't have enough grounds to dismiss the case before trial. Yet it clung to that Suzuki article like Tom DeLay to a feeding tube, using it to prove how "unbiased" they are because they "accept no advertising or corporate sponsorships."

I have news for you. My mother's cat doesn't accept advertising or corporate sponsorships either, and he's as stupid as a fuck rock. He walks into walls. He fights with his own reflection - not in a mirror, but in plain glass. I think that one time I saw him trying to eat cat food with his butt.

Consumer Reports may have virtue and integrity by not "selling out to the man," but that doesn't automatically mean they're any good at what they do. Sure, they had to be good enough to build the name, but that was decades ago. The public is remarkably slow to change impressions of a publication. They still think the New York Times is liberal, that the Washington Post is centrist, and that Consumer Reports is the voice of God. None of these are true.

(And before people call shenanigans on me - MDJ and MWJ accept no advertising or sponsorships for the same reason CU didn't when it started - we were a small publication, and we didn't think anyone would trust what we said if they wondered who was paying for it. We also didn't think people would pay us to E-mail them advertisements. This is all in the FAQ, by the way. We're small enough that if MDJ were ad-supported, and a major advertiser abandoned us over content, we could be in trouble. CU is no longer that small, but chooses to eschew advertising anyway. That's fine, but it's not the same thing as being good at the job.)

Which brings us back to the Ionic Breeze.

In 2003, Consumer Reports rated air purifiers, and rated Sharper Image's product "unimpressive." Using the Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR) standard set by manufacturers of traditional filter-based air purifiers, CR tested the Ionic Breeze and "found almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." The Sharper Image complained that the Ionic Breeze was a different kind of device and needed a longer test to fare well. This makes sense - anyone who's seen the thing or its commercials knows that it doesn't use a fan and doesn't move a huge amount of air, so it's not going to output massive quantities of clean air in a short time. That's why it's quiet.

So CU conducted a "longer" test - one of six hours, and one of almost 24 hours - without changing its results. (You may recall above that I've seen Ionic Breeze owners say that they didn't notice daily differences until the thing had run for 2-3 weeks. I don't know why, but that's what I've heard.)

When CU wouldn't try the longer tests and insisted on calling its products bad performers, The Sharper Image sued Consumers Union for libel in 2003. That didn't go so well for the store. They sued in California, and CU quickly responded with an anti-SLAPP motion, saying it was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. The lawsuit was dismissed under the SLAPP statute, and Sharper Image dropped its appeals because (according to the company) the article hadn't dented sales. When you let an anti-SLAPP judgment against you stand, though, you become liable for the prevailing party's court costs, so Sharper Image had to pay Consumers Union $525,000.

In its SLAPP motion, CU said that Sharper Image was just trying to silence the valid criticisms of Consumer Reports. The basis for this argument is completely true, and completely legal, and at the same time, completely useless.

CU's motion also stated that "Because Sharper Image cannot come forward with any evidence from which a finding of malice could be made, this action must be dismissed." The motion contends that there could be no finding of malice because CU's findings are opinions, based upon fully disclosed truthful facts. The challenged article fully discloses Sharper Image's criticisms of CU's testing procedure. Further support for CU's motion on malice comes from CU's use of two nationally known independent experts who reviewed and validated CU's test protocols, rejected Sharper Image's claims, and confirmed CU's opinions about Sharper Image's criticism, said Joseph W. Cotchett, CU's lead counsel on the defense.

In other words, CU says it doesn't matter if Sharper Image says their product needs to be used and tested differently than filter-based air purifiers - CU is entitled to its opinion, and as long as the facts behind it are disclosed, there's no malice and no claim for libel. It remains to be seen if CU used the Ionic Breeze takedown in subscription solicitations, or if it boosted circulation - without discovery, CU won't say, and no one will know for sure.

If that seems reasonable, read it again. Just like with its Macintosh testing, CU says that it can hold any product to any standards it wants, and give it whatever rating it wants, no matter how idiotic or ridiculous those standards may be. There's a pattern here. Consumer Reports rags on the Macintosh for not having room for a "network card" or a "diskette" drive when it either has those functions built in or accepts external equivalents, among other things. They set the standard as being a "good Windows computer" but pretended it was "being a good computer," and questioned the Macintosh for not meeting their real standard instead of their pretend one.

The magazine put Suzuki's SUV through 71 additional tests that other vehicles didn't go through, found a way to make it roll over, and used it as subscription fodder for over a decade, stopping only when it was clear that the First Amendment wouldn't absolve them from responsibility for those actions - and then pretending that it wasn't even a settlement and that it imposed no requirements on them.

Now, here we are again - the magazine dings a high-profile, expensive product for not behaving like a filter-based air purifier, but pretends that it's really just reporting that the product doesn't act like any air purifier. The Sharper Image had the nerve to sue Consumers Union, but lost because it's not "libel" for Consumer Reports to hold one product to the standards of another class of product, such as rating a toaster poorly because it doesn't work well underwater like a snorkel does. It's fuck rock stupid, but it's not libel.

But CU has a long memory and a mean streak. Consumer Reports rated air cleaners again this month, again finding the Sharper Image products lacking. This time, though, CU upped the ante by calling them "unhealthy" because they emit too much ozone.

Care to guess how that worked?

CU evaluated the cleaners in a sealed room, where testers measured ozone amounts two inches from the machines, and in an "open, well-ventilated lab," where testers took measurements two inches and three feet from the machines, according to the report. The Whirlpool and Friedrich models earned a mix of "excellent" and "very good" ratings for ridding the air of particles containing dust, cigarette smoke and pollen; both got only fair ratings for noise. The Ionic Breeze earned an "excellent" noise rating.

Any air cleaner that produced ozone amounts exceeding the FDA's 50 ppb ozone limit failed CU's tests. Only the Whirlpool and the Friedrich models passed the sealed-room test.

In the two-inch test in the open lab, the Surround Air XJ-2000 ($80) produced the most ozone, 319 ppb, followed by the IonizAir P4620 ($70) at 168 ppb, the Ionic Breeze at 48 ppb, the Ionic Pro CL-369 ($150) at 33 ppb and the Brookstone Pure-Ion ($300) at 26 ppb. In the three-feet open lab test, the Brookstone emitted the least ozone of the ionizers at 2 ppb, and the IonizAir producing the most at 28 ppb.

I have the manual for the Ionic Breeze GP right here. It's like the one reviewed, but it also has a "germicidal" lamp that's supposed to kill various microorganisms in the air that goes through the unit. The manual clearly says to place the unit at least one foot from all walls, and that if you use the germicidal lamp, not to stay closer to it than one foot if exposure is more than 60 minutes per day (it is, after all, ultraviolet light). There is no way that anyone should be two inches away from the thing. These are the big free-standing models we're talking about here, not the tiny tabletop ones you might keep on a desk.

The manual also clearly talks about ozone, and says that if the odor is strong, you can turn the unit down to "medium" or "low" speed (or, although not stated, take it back and get a smaller unit). The manual and other material also says, in more than one place, "We recommend that individuals with a history of respiratory disease consult with their doctor [sic] about possible heightened sensitivity to very low ozone." And, as I mentioned, it has a 60-day return policy.

In short, the Ionic Breeze is not a filter-based air purifier designed to move a lot of air in an enclosed room in a short time. When CU tested the unit as it was designed to be used - in an open room - then even at the ridiculous distance of two inches, the Ionic Breeze met the FDA's requirements for ozone output of medical devices, no more than 50 parts per billion. At the three-foot range, it produced less than 28 ppb.

50 parts per billion, by the way, is half as much as the government allows from laser printers.

CU's long memory and mean streak came out with all this. In addition to just reporting it, the magazine also did press releases and video news releases on the story, specifically attacking Sharper Image and its research in favor of its products. Anticipating that the Sharper Image might have the temerity to defend its products once again, CU announced that it was asking the FTC to investigate to see whether or not the company's ads were misleading and dangerous.

Do I know that the Ionic Breeze is a good product? No, I don't. I've had one for two days, and I'm going to test it for at least a month before deciding whether or not to return it. And I'm not going to paint it green. I do know that in the modern era, Consumer Reports has a history of incompetent product ratings by pretending one category of product is really another and rating it on that basis. I know that the group has a First Amendment right to do that, but that doesn't make their analysis correct, or even pass the laugh test. I know that when they nail a popular product, they use that for years to milk money from decent people who, as likely as not, are scared that a product may hurt them or just scared of looking like a fool for having purchased one.

If Consumer Reports had been founded in 1986 instead of 1936, there's no way it would have a reputation for being a "straight shooter" or a "trusted name in product recommendations." They're wrong, they're loud, they're mean about it, and they preach First Amendment rights while using copyright and lawsuits to silence their critics.

The only thing worse than a cruel nag is a cruel, hypocritical, incompetent nag - with or without advertisements.

Discuss
[ Print This Page ]