Back to Homepage Income Measures Income: Saving and Investment Methods of Buying That Save Money The Choice of Goods Methods of Buying That Reduce Mistakes In Selection Methods of Securing Information Concerning Goods Plans and Motives of Consumers Consuming the Product Who Is the Consumer? The Consumer in the Market Priorities and Preferences in Consuming Decisions The Consumer as User of Wealth The Consumer as a Buyer Consumers as Self-Conscious Agents Criteria of a Good Market Information Versus Persuasion of the Buyer The Rate of Interest Interest Rates and Economic Activity Saving, Investment, and Income Saving Motives Saving Plans and their Realization Total Spending Is the Key to Prosperity The More We Spend, The More We Have Spending by Private Enterprise

Methods of Securing Information Concerning Goods A line-up of the methods by which buyers obtain information about the goods offered for sale on the market shows the following possibilities: (1) inspection, (2) trial, (3) testing, (4) use of market agencies. These methods of course are not mutually exclusive. Inspection as a method of selecting the article that is best for the purpose and cheapest of its quality includes not only looking at the article but touching, tasting, smelling, or otherwise examining it. It includes trying-on in the case of shoes and other garments. Very often the term "marketing" or "shopping" is used to mean the "inspection" of the goods offered on the market. For certain goods under certain circumstances "inspection" is an adequate means of securing information, for others it is not. All packaged goods clearly require a different method. Furthermore "inspection" alone tells the buyer only what the five senses unaided can tell her and no more. It is most adequate in selecting such articles as lettuce or cauliflower and becomes less adequate as one goes on to compounds, mixtures, manufactured foods, and to textiles, cleaning supplies, equipment and a host of other goods. "Inspection" will tell one color, flavor, design, texture and workmanship. But it will not tell whether the color is sun-fast; it will not reveal the workmanship concealed in an upholstered chair; it is only a rough guide to color, flavor, texture and fit. "Inspection," one may conclude, may be an adequate method of securing information concerning all the important qualities of some goods and concerning some of the important ones of others. For many goods and many qualities it is inadequate but we use it in lieu of a better. Few buyers, probably, realize how inadequate it is. At best it is a time-consuming method, since it involves a trip to and from the market and often no small amount of time while there. Any device that makes "inspection" unnecessary may be considered so much to the good. The second method of securing information, actual trial of the good or service, gives a basis for judgment that will always have weight. One's own experience and the reputed experience of relatives and friends are always taken into account in deciding which article to buy. For some articles the sellers offer a "free trial." For others they publish a "testimonial"--the report of the alleged experience of others with the article. Thirty years ago this practice was restricted largely to patent medicines but in recent years it has extended to mattresses, cosmetics, soaps, typewriters, cigarettes, books--all sorts of goods. Modern "testimonials," or reports of satisfactory use, are likely to come from people in the lime-light--social leaders, movie actresses, the current heroes. But aside from the highly questionable character of many of these widely heralded testimonials, solicited or unsolicited, extravagantly paid for or freely given, what is the value of experience as a guide in future buying? One's own experience can be of value only in "repeat" purchases. Knowledge gained through experience can not rectify errors made in the purchase of goods intended to last a lifetime or for several years. The whole range of market-selection may have changed when one comes to buy again. Nor is experience always a satisfactory method of learning about such products as food, medicine, or cosmetics although they are bought repeatedly; experience may leave one a wiser but a sadder man. Trial of one pair of shoes, one bottle of a reducing compound, may cause serious results. Experience has value as a guide to selection; it has however certain clear-cut limitations. It is a testing through use. That is, it is a test under uncontrolled conditions, usually of an entirely inadequate sample of the various types of goods available. There is seldom any attempt to record the results, and the interpretation of the supposed results is made by one who may be quite inexperienced in drawing conclusions and ignorant of the pitfalls. In other words, it is far from being a scientific test under controlled conditions. "This coffee," the consumer says, "is better than that I used last week." But was the mode of preparation the same at both times? Were all other conditions the same? Could she identify the "better" coffee if both were prepared and given to her to taste? We say, "These hose wear better than those I had last month"; "These sheets are more durable than those I had last year"; "This remedy cured the child's cough when all others failed." Judgments of this sort are the best we can make in the majority of cases; they are often sound conclusions from adequate data, but again they are only rough guesses, and not infrequently, they are the grossest blunders. While, as was said, buying judgments will always be influenced by one's own experience and the experience of others, experience does not take the place of exact information in regard to the qualities or performance of goods derived from other sources. The third method suggested by which consumers might secure information was testing. By this is meant the testing of samples of goods by physical or chemical means under controlled conditions-tests by laboratory methods in other words. Unfortunately one must rather summarily dispose of testing as a tool of any wide applicability for the consumer-buyer. Her purchases are too small and too varied to permit the use of any but the simplest tests involving a minimum expenditure of money for equipment. Her tests furthermore are necessarily restricted to those articles of which she can obtain a sample free or at little cost. Consumers can not be expected to have the techniques or facilities for the making of any test that is at all elaborate in character. Testing by laboratory methods is more and more used by the purchasing departments of large-scale businesses--manufacturers, department stores, mail-order houses and other institutions. They may equip their own laboratories, use the services of commercial testing laboratories, or through their trade associations finance a testing bureau. The federal government uses the laboratories of the Bureau of Standards as a testing agency in order to secure economy in the purchase of its supplies. They go further than testing the materials already available on the market. They work out specifications for the type of article desired and manufacturers turn out the specified quality. It has been estimated that $100,000,000 is saved annually on federal purchases by these methods. There is wide-spread recognition of the fact that manufacturers, public utilities, retailers, educational institutions, governmental buyers need the exact information derived from laboratory tests and experiments for economical buying. But it is no less true in the case of the buyer for personal and household use. In fact it is more true since as was said she can not be as well-informed or as skilled as the large-scale, specialized buyer. Various suggestions have been made as to ways by which the specific results of laboratory testing might be made available to her. These are discussed later along with other suggestions for the improvement of household buying. The final method through which the consumer-buyer may be expected to secure information concerning goods is from market agencies--from the sales force, from advertisements, labels and the like. It has been shown that neither inspection, experience, nor testing is adequate to supply the buyer with the information essential. The adequacy of the information supplied by market agencies will be considered in the following discussion of the character of the modern market as an agency to facilitate good buying.   Home