Accounts & Income & Expenditure

This section will grow but obviously Which? has been going great guns on income generation however there are areas where it is being left distinctly murky as to where the charity is generating money. I am a great believer in transparency for charities as I do not like nasty surprises such as the complete failure of the Indian venture where Which? has so-far written off £10.5m.

 Income 

So what ways does Which? make money aside from subscriptions?

I am aware of a site that is you buy goods through its portal link to established retailers will donate to a charity of your choice: http://blog.giveasyoulive.com/2014/09/dualit-toasters-you-should-buy-buyguide/ I only mention it as an example of what can be done, and we all know of cashback sites and cashback cards. I reckon that Which? either already is, or should be using this as an income source. More to the point I think it should be telling us. Our founding organisation ConsumerReports of the US prominently tells its members this is the case when subscribers transfer from their site to a vendor site..

Money also comes from simple clicking from one site to specific pages in another. You Tube pays for content that brings visitors to its site. Which? has provided over 300 videos

Which? charge up to £15,000 per six month for individual products with a Best Buy logo to be advertised widely. As one reader said to me if it is a Best Buy then taking £2000 or £4000 should be adequate. Higher amounts suggest Which? may be taking a commercial interest. The phrase we accept no advertising may begin to look hollow if the ultimate effect is we are giving out lots of gold stars.

Then there is the question of our the Which? tests robust enough that we can have confidence in them being properly awarded. As you are aware this http://www.which.co.uk/home-and-garden/home-appliances/reviews/steamers/logik-l90sss11/customer-views/ has been a Best Buy for nearly two years but has managed to draw nineteen complaints that it has a very limited life span due to bad design.

I would mention that the Australian CHOICE is actually very up-front and has no difficulty in announcing in its Accounts that it earned $260,000 from it's Best Buy award in a year. Should Which? be equally transparent in what its relationships are and how much is earned??

Are there any ethical considerations in taking money?

Say from Amazon for sending buyers there and not mentioning that Amazon avoids tax very aggressively? Recommending Apple without pointing out Apple holds a $147billion of cash - outside of the US on which they pay no tax until it enters the US. And that like other US multi-nationals they await the US Governemnt to cave in and reduce the tax rate on repatriated profits. I actually am not mad on any course of action but it seems to me that as a Consumer Association we need sometimes to look beyond the cheapest product to consider the wider picture of what is long term good for Consumers as against very good for multinationals..

Consumers can choose to buy from whichever Company they like but giving our consumers the relevant information before they leave the Which? site would seem very ethical. After all if Amazon are not paying tax at the rate a UK company would then the shortfall is made up by taxing harder other UK taxpayers. The Guardian reckoned that around £33m a year of tax has been lost - around 1000 trained nurses - who of course being paid will be taxed again and the money circulate in the UK. Repatriating the profit to Luxembourg does absolutley nothing for the the UK economy.

Expenditure.

Reducing expenditure makes profits bigger.

Both online and paper magazine subscribers pay nearly £100 per year but the costs of the service for on-line subscribers for Which? must be a negligible and therefore the surge in members accessing the content means costs for providing content fall on a per subscriber base.

I am sure that surveys are a cheap way of gleaning information to guide magazine topics and fill the pages and last year apparently 140 were commissioned and if you look at areas like electrical tools or boilers you will see that the recommendations are simply a reflection of the responses of around 3000 members.

What testing is carried out is now purchased from testing facilities which in a lot of cases the cost is shared with other consumer bodies must be cheaper.

However it cannot be hidden that for major amd minor appliances Which? is not testing for durability. That applies to from washing machines to toasters to steamers!. There are 59m small appliances bought in the UK annually - which suggests probably a equally huge amount going to land fill. Toasters are pretty peculiarly British so it is one area that you would think we should be writing the testing script. However for decades Which? has completely ignored mentioning that some toasters come with replaceable parts so they do not have to be thrown aside when the elements eventually go.

I am trying to highlight that testing needs to be thought about and the results to cover the salient points. I have been told that spending on testing is increasing and also the number of products being tested. If the level of thinking behind the testing is not improved it will be a shocking waste of money.

I can give suggestions like running washing machines for 6 months non-stop to weed out the ones that will not last nearly a decade ! Works for the Germans - and I do believe that may be the reason  that they make superior machines. If you fail the Stiftung Warentest durability test you are probably not going to sell many washing machines.

Also given the membership power perhaps getting durability testing on small items is not impossibly expensive. However Which? may have to accept that what it claims is a Best Buy may need a reassessment.