Deceit on the Internet: Product Blogs.

Continuing with our discussion of Deceit on the Internet, as suggested and explained at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/2013/07/stop-deceit-on-internet.htmlwe shall look at how product blogs are used for deceit.


Product Blogs:

This is something that each interested person can do for themselves. We did a Google search by the product names for the four products that we had considered in the earlier post of "Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews." We can only give you a summary and our “feelings” based on our search. We only searched for the four products, A, B, C, and D which were evaluated in our earlier comments about Shopping Reviews.

For both Product A and Product B there were a large number of listings on product blogs. It is difficult to distinguish much difference between the techniques or results for Product A versus Product B. They both seemed to be reading out of the same book, and had rather similar results. So the next few paragraphs summarizes our thoughts for both Product A and Product B.

Both manufacturers were very aggressive in trying to “place” their products with any and all parties that would offer a "good" opinion about these products on their blogs, or help in spreading “the word” in a "good" sense about these products on the internet. Almost without exception, these blogging parties were individuals or small groups of individuals. Some stated that they were writing this blog entry because they had been given this product to review and then keep. We are aware that there are some blogs whose “owners” will write whatever they are told to write and enter that into their blogs for a monetary fee or other compensation. These blogs were also represented.

Both manufacturers also compensated these blogs by offering “discount coupons” through these blogs, which the blog owner would hopefully benefit from by attracting more traffic and consequently more paid advertising of some sort or the other. Many of these blogs were obviously providing statements (or reviews) from the manufacturers, or were copying significant elements of the manufacturers’ advertising in their “reviews.” Even blogs set up with names associated with bedwetting or bedwetting alarms were essentially servicing the manufacturers, and had doubtful or no validity or credibility in our opinion. Furthermore, some blog writers were blindly taking for granted the validity of other reviews on the internet (which we have already demonstrated can be quite fictional) and using them to validate their preferences, if these reviews so suited them. This may sound absurd and is undoubtedly unethical, but there is a lot of selective adoption of possibly unreliable information, if it suits the reviewer’s objectives.

As an illustration of how a manufacturer may actually advertise to entice other bloggers and persons to promote their product, we have copied an actual example from the internet, leaving out the blog and manufacturer’s name:


Bedwetting Alarm Giveaway & Blogger Opp!

This is a FREE blogger opportunity (with paid options)

Open to US Residents Only

Sign up:  April 14, 2013 to April 28, 2013

Giveaway Dates:   May 1, 2013 to May 15, 2013

Participation Rules:

·        Participation is FREE (with paid options).

·        You agree to promote the giveaway once it goes live at least 3x per week

Pricing:

·        One free link of your choice - Facebook or Twitter or Pinterest only with announcement post

·        $5.00 fee to waive announcement post

·        The following additionallinks are $1.00 each:

o   Facebook

o   Twitter

o   Pinterest

I will be posting a reminder for this once it goes live! 

We did not find such issues for Products C and D to any significant extent.

Bearing in mind that Products A and B are relatively new compared to Products C and D, we must assume that the manufacturers of A and B were trying to make their presence known on the internet. It is unfortunate that both manufacturers had no qualms about paying (in cash or kind) to having their products touted on these blogs. These reviews and blogs are bogus and fake. Any reader of these blogs must remember that they have poor credibility and are often mouthpieces for whoever may be compensating them in any way. And more individuals are trying to make an extra buck by starting such “for hire” blogs. This is not a good trend as two sets of greedy people, the people setting up and running blogs, and the manufacturers and sellers, are only increasing deceit on the internet by fake postings on these blogs.

We should also point out that many blogs run by organizations that have developed a reputation in the heath advisory area can also be quite deceitful. The organization running the blog in its name may be unbiased and innocent, but members posting reviews, and moderators responsible for editing these reviews can be quite biased. Moderators have been know to delete entries that may question their biases and opinions, and even  make it impossible for opposing views to be registered by "closing" that thread while maintaining on the blog only the opinions that the moderator supports, and get away with it because of inadequate controls on the part of the owner organization.

In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that many blogs run by private individuals, small groups of persons, and even normally reliable organizations without adequate controls, can have substantial fake reviews on them. If Consumer Reports reviews bedwetting alarms, you can expect unbiased reviews. But “Moms-bedwetting-alarms-reviews” (the name is fictional and not intended to criticize anyone) probably should be ignored, unless you find its reading entertaining. Caution and prudence are highly recommended before the reader accepts reviews at their face value from these blogs.

Deceit on the Internet: Shopping Reviews

Deceit on the Internet                                                                         (July 19, 2013)


We were intrigued by an entry (comment) by Anon on our entry for Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion on July 15, 2013. Anon referenced a blog http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/titled Stop Deceit on the Internet. The author(s), using the name “Stop Deceit,” gave a decent description of deceit on the internet. Stop Deceit gave three basic sources of deceit on the internet:
1.       Manufacturer’s Web Sites,
2.       Product Blogs, and
3.       Shopping Reviews.
We would strongly recommend that readers look at http://stopdeceit.blogspot.com/ .

We have been systematically addressing deceit on manufacturers’ blog sites for bedwetting alarm manufacturers on this blog. We felt intrigued about how much deceit there may be with respect to bed wetting alarms on shopping blogs and shopping reviews. As we are following the bedwetting alarm industry, we thought we should look at bedwetting alarm related deceit in Product Blogs and Shopping Reviews


Shopping Reviews:

We chose Amazon.com for our basic analysis, as Amazon is undoubtedly the biggest shopping site (even for bedwetting alarms) and we can expect the most buyer reviews. Furthermore, Amazon does provide more information about the reviewer and the reviewer’s history at Amazon, so that we could better analyze the reviewer. To get a sufficiently large sample, we arbitrarily decided to look at “wired” alarms currently being sold on Amazon so that their reviews would be available to us. We also decided to only consider alarms where there were more than fifty reviews, so that we could have a reasonable sample size. Even there, to somewhat limit the time we might have to spend on this task, we selected four alarms which we felt might adequately cover the different styles and prices available.

Our intent was to try and get a plausible idea of the extent to which the reviews were unduly biased, and whether they were biased in favor of or against that particular alarm. In other words, we were attempting to identify the extent to which reviews might have been provided by shills or touts of the manufacturer (which would unduly favor that item) or by competitors (which would unduly bad-mouth the item). We then came up with a set of criteria to apply to each and every revue for that product on Amazon. We do want to point out that the criteria are subjective and are not necessarily perfect in their ability to identify touts or shills. But we feel that the identified reviews are much more likely to be unduly biased, and not be honest reviews by honest and actual buyers.

The following table shows the  results for the number of possibly biased reviews out of the total, and further breaks them up into positive bias (perhaps shills for the manufacturer/seller) and negative bias (perhaps shills for competitors). They are expressed as a percentage of the total identified biased reviews (rounded to the nearest whole percent):

Product A:           34%        Positive Bias       32%        Negative Bias     2%

Product B:           31%        Positive Bias       25%        Negative Bias     6%

Product C:           11%        Positive Bias         9%        Negative Bias     2%

Product D:             2%        Positive Bias         2%        Negative Bias     0%

 

We must confess that the high percentage of bias that we judged to be present for Product A came as no surprise to us. We also see that a huge proportion of those are positively biased, perhaps unduly raising the "ratings" for Product A. We must “assume” that the manufacturer is quite desperate or non-caring about using deceitful reviews so as to raise the ratings of their product. So the “ratings” that you see on Amazon for this product are possibly very biased (skewed) on the high side and wrong.

 

Product B was the newest of the four products examined, and we were somewhat surprised that the percentage of possibly fake reviews was so high. The primary difference between Product B and Product A is that B has not flooded Amazon with possibly biased positive ratings as much as Product A might have. So the proportion of positive to negative biased reviews is less for Product B than for Product A. Never-the-less, Product B also appears to be overindulging in introducing biased reviews into Amazon.

 

Product C is an established product. Although the percentage of possibly fake reviews was lower, we still considered it to be high. The ratio of positive to negative biased reviews is about the same as for Product B.

 

Product D is also an established product. Here, our surprise was that the bias was so low, as compared to the other products. Without mentioning names, we must commend the manufacturer of Product D for our not noticing much presence of shills and touts in the reviews of this product.

 

In conclusion, we must agree with Stop Deceit, that even the “best” of shopping sites, using their own criteria for weeding out fake reviews, was unable to prevent a substantial number of possibly fake reviews from being presented on Amazon.com . For Product A and Product B, we estimate that about one-third of the reviews could be fake. This is a huge fraction of the total reviews. Consequently, do not take these reviews as “the honest truth.” Take them with a grain of salt, or even a shovelful of salt.

Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie            http://www.chummie.com/best-bed-wetting-alarm/    (July 15, 2013)

The entire culture of Chummie appears to be imbued (saturated) with the value that being deceitful is good for Chummie and deceit can be used by them without concern. It is this apparently warped value system, at least by American standards, that lies at the heart of these exposure blog entries. You will note that this one business, Chummie, has about as many exposures on this site as all other companies in the bedwetting alarm industry put together. This is shameful, but we doubt that Chummie will make any significant changes as long as they are trying to sell a poor product at premium prices. The only way to sell such a product is by using a lot of deceit. As stated before, we suggest that the reader go to a comprehensive comparison site for bedwetting alarms like

http://urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html and make suitable comparisons.

So let us proceed with the long saga of Chummie and its deceit.

"Innovation Beyond Boundaries" Chummie claims. Chummie’s writers may not realize that they may be referring to a scientific impossibility in a true and practical sense. Sounds good, but practically everything in our known scientific space has boundaries, and anything that Chummie might work with certainly does.

Let us go on. "Innovation Beyond Boundries. Theos Medical System’s world-class global lab is equipped with state of the art technology. Our engineers and scientists are from the world’s leading universities and a variety of different industries. We deliver exceptional quality of life to those who embrace our products. Our labs are home to the world’s most cutting-edge and extensive research on bed wetting alarms and incontinence solutions. We believe that the ingenuity and creativity that embody our products has the power to change the lives of our customers."

Looking at this last paragraph, we have no reason to believe that Theos has any scientific lab of any sort. The minimal work that has been done so far has been done, we believe, by engineers on the payroll of Theos's Chinese contract manufacturer. There is nothing wrong with that, but it is inappropriate for Theos to refer to this as Theos's lab. This lab also does work for other clients.

With the exception of one person that we know of, it is our belief that Theos's entire team is made up of non-engineering persons. The exception seems to be a person in Florida with an electrical engineering background, who is probably used by Chummie as a "hired gun" to place his name on Chummie's patent applications together with the owner of Chummie and a possible relative of his in India, to help give the application some credibility. This also brings some questions into our mind about Chummie's U.S. patent applications. We are not Patent Attorneys, but we recall that U.S. patent applicants have to state, under oath, that the device submitted for a patent was conceived (originally thought of) and invented by the applicants. We know that both Chummie's alarm and sensor came from Chummie's Chinese manufacturer and their engineers, and were offered for sale by the Chinese manufacturer before Chummie ever adopted it. We leave the possible conclusions to the reader.

More from Chummie: "The Chummie Bedwetting Alarm is our constant endeavor to being the global leader in bed wetting alarm market ensures that all our bed wetting alarms and processes not only meet but also exceed industry standards."

And "We constantly refine and better our bed wetting alarms and processes for superior performance using the experience of our team, lab tests, and real-world data."

The only refinement that we have noticed is the plastic "smile" on the front of the Chummie. Chummie may also have had their Chinese manufacturer add a vibration and a two-step volume control. The vibration and volume control (even multi-step or continuous volume controls) are common among better bedwetting alarms in all price ranges. So the above statement is essentially hyperbole, meant to impress the naive reader.

In spite of having numerous persons point out the deficiencies in their sensor and how it connects to the alarm box, Chummie has not yet even improved that in their exalted "world-class global lab."

We again recommend that the reader go to a comprehensive comparison site for bedwetting alarms like

http://urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html.

See what Chummie gives you and at what cost relative to its competitors. Then ask yourself whether you should still purchase Chummie.

Note:

Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.

Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .

Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie: Strong Deceit by Concealment.

Chummie                            http://www.chummie.com/                       (July 13, 2013)


We have noticed in Chummie’s pictures of children wearing the alarm, that the alarm is located at the neck opening of the night shirt. We are assuming that there is a device used to attach the Chummie alarm box to the user’s clothing. What is this device? Why is there no trace of it in any pictures or description that we can see on the site?

Chummie, on their web site, says that their Chummie Pro kits include a “snap-on clip.” We do not know if this is also provided with the Chummie alarm. We did not notice anything on Chummie’s site about how the Chummie alarm is attached to the user’s clothing. Nor have we seen or read anything about this snap-on clip on Chummie’s site.

We do recall Chummie proudly exclaiming that they had obtained a U.S. patent for this clip. Indeed they had. As explained elsewhere, Chummie was the first (and perhaps only) party to apply for a patent on the simple device that they show in their patent.

We wonder why the ever-vociferous Chummie has gone completely silent on their clip. Is it more of a liability than an asset? We do recall seeing several reviews on Amazon where the user’s clip broke easily. Some of these users were attaching their Chummie alarm boxes to their nightshirts with duct tape or some other very sticky tape to try and keep the box in place.

We do notice that Chummie is unusually and completely silent about how its alarm box is attached to the user’s shirt. We wonder why.

Are we repeating ourselves often? Are we sounding like Chummie? Please pardon our hypocrisy. It is very easy to fall into the trap of grandiose delusions when reading Chummie's wondrous revelations.

While we are addressing Chummie clips, let us examine the manner in which the Chummie sensor wire is connected to the alarm box. Chummie uses a push-in RCA jack. Although this is an easy-to-plug-in and plug-out connector often used for audio connections, it is not appropriate as a bedwetting alarm connector as it can come out easily as the user sleeps and applies some pressure on the sensor cable. Most manufacturers use a plastic telephone type jack (616E, RJ11, RJ12) which is very unlikely to come out by itself. Again, if you read through Amazon, you can come across various instances where frustrated caregivers or users have had to tape the Chummie sensor jack to the alarm to prevent it from slipping out during use. Is this another example of Chummies vaulted and much proclaimed research program? Or is it simply another instance of them living with something off-the-shelf that was convenient to adopt? It is undoubtedly the latter.

Again, we recommend that the reader look at a detailed and comprehensive bedwetting alarms comparison site like
http://www.urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html
where you can make a detailed evaluation of what Chummie offers for its price compared to the abilities and values offered by other bedwetting alarms.

Strong Deceit by Concealment.

Chummie: Very Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie            http://www.chummie.com/?s=clip                         (July 11, 2013)


We shall look at individual items on Chummie’s web site, where Chummie makes extraordinary and false claims about their product (or competitors’ products). We usually do not criticize a manufacturer’s technology or business model. However Chummie’s excessively abundant false claims about both their product and those made by competitors must be refuted to help reduce deceit.

Chummie says:
“The basic, antiquated sensors attach to the briefs using metallic mechanical clips. These sensors are the clip type sensors which corrode in weeks (sometimes days) and are generally uncomfortable. Modern sensors such as the one found in the Chummie Bedwetting Alarm use soft silicone sensors what lay flat on the briefs and are held in place hygienically using sticky tape (flexitape).”

This is very strong deceit by perversion. The clip type sensors used by any reputable manufacturer in the marketplace today are made of stainless steel. They will not rust or “corrode in weeks.” In fact, Chummie’s sensor has a record of corroding or decaying and becoming useless, as reported by numerous Amazon customers.

Furthermore, when using the sensors, there is substantial anecdotal evidence that the metallic clip which attaches to a small external part of the briefs is much less intrusive and noticeable than the one-eighth inch thick card-like sensor of Chummie’s with its sticky tape, and is also more comfortable for the user. With Chummie’s sensor, the user is wearing a large and somewhat rigid item stuck to the surface of the briefs. Chummie’s claim of its sensor being “soft” is only in comparison to something being rigid (like a very thick credit card). Have no doubts that Chumie’s sensor is very noticeable and can be felt when stuck to the briefs.

Please note that Chummie neither invented nor makes its sensor or its alarm. The sensor is an off-the-shelf device originally designed and made by its contract manufacturer in China for its own marketing, as is the alarm box. Chummie later identified and adopted this alarm and sensor to be sold by Chummie under its own name. Chummie has a U.S. patent for the sensor simply because they were the first (perhaps only) party to write up an appropriate description, apply for a patent, and it was granted as it was the first such application. Chummie is using this sensor because they are stuck with it, and are finding the replacement sales of the sensor and sticky tape to be a lucrative business. This does not make it a good or attractive or economic item for the user. Chummie's apparent generosity in providing a free replacement sensor when a customer gripes about it makes a lot of sense since they are selling the sensor for about ten times its cost. They can therefore afford to give away many sensors. Perhaps customers should ask Chummie about its very high pricing policies, to which Chummie could possibly respond that that any price (no matter how unrealistic) can be justified if a buyer is willing to pay that much. Chummie's actions here are not illegal, but their proclamations are very deceitful.

Following is a picture of the bedwetting alarm that the contract manufacturer sells under its own name:

Does it look familiar? This device has been sold by its manufacturer since before Chummie adopted it and started selling it.

We hope that this helps the public to better understand Chummie’s continuing deceit and very poor credibility. We hope that this will motivate Chummie to stop their deceitful practices.


Note:

Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.

Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .

Very Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie            http://www.chummie.com/bedwetting-alarm-wetting-in-children/       (July 5, 2013) 

 

This post will be mercifully short. We have a limited ability to stomach Chummie's long and continuing efforts to deceive its customers and readers. So we limit ourselves to one page of Chummie's web site for each effort.

This is for Chummie's web site page:
Stop Bed Wetting In Children – Returns & Exchanges
where the first line reads:
"Chummie can STOP Bed Wetting in Children. We want you to be satisfied with your purchase and ensure that child has stopped wetting the bed." 
This is followed by:
"Chummy 30 day satisfaction guarantee"
and continues:
"If you are not completely satisfied with your purchase, you may return your Chummie in “new and unused” condition within 30 days ..." And they clarify that "New and unused means unopened, in salable condition and not used." 

Chummie wants you " to be satisfied with your purchase and ensure that child has stopped wetting the bed."

That’s great. The only way for any reasonable person to be "satisfied with your purchase" and "ensure that child has stopped wetting the bed." is by your using the Chummie product with your child. 

Then, in perfect contradiction to their earlier promise, they say that any Chummie that you wish to return for refund must be in "new and unused" condition. Chummie obviously does not have a high opinion of the sensibility of its customers, and/ or is getting away with substantial deceit.

Why can Chummie not simply say that they will accept products for return if it is a "new and unused and unopened" Chummie, instead of mouthing off about its intent to have satisfied customers. And only if you are satisfied or unsatisfied without having opened or used the Chummie! Why such desperation to "hook" customers? This looks more like a confidence game or scam that Chummie is running, and is not at all suitable for a manufacturer who hopes to be perceived as honest and honorable.

 Also please note the exception that "All accessories sales (including InteliFlex sensors and mats) are final and returns/exchanges will not be processed."

So much for their Returns policy!

Again, we would recommend that you look at a comprehensive bedwetting alarms comparison site such as
http://urinealarms.com/Wired_Alarm_Chart.html
to see what you get from Chummie as opposed to other manufacturers, and whether it is worth the money you are spending with Chummie and the frustration that you may suffer.

Applicable Proverb: A fool and his money are soon parted.

Note:

Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.

Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ . 

Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie: Strong Deceit by Perversion.

Chummie            http://www.chummie.com/dry-at-night-bedwetting-alarm-warranty/  (July 2, 2013)


We continue in our long saga of pointing out deceit by Chummie, who we believe is the most deceitful bed wetting alarm manufacturer and seller. This time we look at their warranty for the Chummie, as expressed in the above web site page.

Chummie "warrants the Chummie alarm unit for a period of one (1) year and the IntelliFlex sensor for a period of three (3) months product against defects in materials or workmanship under normal use from the original date of purchase." This statement is straight forward. Now for the deceit with respect to their warranty:
"This limited warranty does not cover used IntelliFlex sensors and accessories."

If you use their sensor, and it become defective within their three months warranty period, they will not honor their warranty on the sensor. You are just plain out of luck. Or maybe you are being punished by Chummie for not having had the sense to stay away from their product. So, remember that they will only stand behind their sensor warranty if you have NOT used it. This is absurdly deceitful. We have seen several complaints on Amazon where users have pointed out that their sensor decomposes and stops working fairly soon. This must be Chummie's way to get around having to replace their defective sensors. And they do charge $20 for a replacement sensor. This money adds up.

"To obtain warranty service, you must deliver the product, freight paid, with insurance, and in its original packaging, the original invoice or sales receipt indicating the date and point of purchase (photocopies are not accepted), ..." (The bold marking is ours).
So if you threw away the original packaging for the Chummie product that you may have purchased many months ago, Chummie will NOT honor their warranty. Ugh!

Also, you must return the ORIGINAL invoice or sales receipt (photocopies are not accepted), with the product you are returning for warranty repair or replacement. This means that you will no longer have the original receipt if the product fails again during its original warranty period, and can no longer have the warranty honored. In other words, if you have miraculously kept the original packaging, you can expect one (1) warranty repair with your original invoice. After this, pray, protest, grumble, whatever. We doubt that you will get your money refunded because you did not catch Chummie's deceitful warranty. This is even worse than absurdly deceitful.

Why must Chummie try to wheedle out of its warranty obligations by deceitful methods? Yes, they have presented their information on their warranty statement or page. But the reader must be careful to catch Chummie's double-talk and very conditional contradictory statements so that Chummie can avoid their reasonable obligations. It frequently seems that Chummie thinks that their customers lack adequate sensibilities, and that Chummie can treat them like simpletons.

Applicable Proverb: Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. 

We would urge the reader to go to a detailed comparative site such as http://urinealarms.com/Wireless_Alarm_Chart.html  and compare this alarm’s properties, price and possible credibility with those of other wired bedwetting alarms. 

 

Note:

Chummie(TM) has a very large number of entries about its deceit in this blog. There are so many more entries and much more serious bad activities attributable to Chummie, so that Chummie has significantly more entries than all other manufacturers combined. You can read all of the Chummie deceit entries on this blog.

Chummie has also been given a 0-stars blog of its own so that its many examples of deceit can stand out by themselves. This Chummie blog is at
http://chummiedeceitcatcher.blogspot.com/ .

Strong Deceit by Perversion.