I don't know if it's too late for Consumer Reports to leverage its brand to become THE interactive site for consumers wanting to share information. But I do know that the health site it launched this week suffers from the same shortcoming as its main site: little opportunity for readers to participate.
Why put so much effort into a web project and then leave the user looking elsewhere for interactivity? It's like spending all afternoon perfecting a huge pot of chili, inviting guests and then telling them they only can smell it.
Most MSM sites repeat this error regularly, ignoring opportunities for citizen journalism or other reader engagement.
The new ConsumerReportsMedicalGuide.org is useful in the excellent tradition of Consumer Reports, providing detailed information about different medical conditions, treatment options and drugs. For instance, if you look up Alzheimer's disease, you'll see a list of treatment options that include a description of what each one involves, how it works and what the research says about it. If just the research part is kept up to date, that's a valuable database of information.
Basic access to the site is free, but if you want to complete information, it costs $4.95/mo. or $19/year.
The content on ConsumerReportsMedicalGuide.org (that's a mouthful) is clearly presented. The site is easy to navigate. I'm confident that I'm getting unbiased, well-researched help.
It's a familiar feeling. When I was a kid in the '70s, Consumer Reports was a staple of the dining room table's stack of papers (we ate in the kitchen) for years. As an independent judge of products and services, CR could be trusted. I've been a print and online subscriber all my adult life.
But in 2005, my expectations as a consumer -- whether I'm shopping for a weed whacker or medical advice -- are much greater than what I get from CR's sites.
If I want consumer advice, I expect to be able to interact with other consumers. So far, Consumers Union, the organization that publishes Consumer Reports is just dabbling in interactivity. ConsumerReports.org has a Consumer Opinions section that in its beta form allows users to post comments only about cars. Readers can't respond to each other, and I want to be able to have a dialogue with someone about a particular make and model. I want to do the same with health matters. Other health and auto sites enable readers to interact this way, and the sharing of information can be empowering.
Consumers Union is seeking to engage readers more on another site, HearUsNow.org, which focuses on media, technology and communications. The site encourages readers to submit consumer successes and buyer beware stories. But the process, which doesn't allow readers to comment on each stories, produces rather static content. If a HearUsNow reader wants to to respond to another reader's story, he's gotta have his own blog to do it.
The opportunity for CR to be the hub of consumer reviews and ratings probably has passed. The window still is open on the local news front. Like CR, local papers have a brand they could leverage if they were to embrace citizen journalism and other forms of real interactivity. Also like CR, they have a brand they may be afraid of diluting by doing just that. That fear is what gives the upstart citizen journalism sites a chance to succeed.
Comments