A Look Inside CR’s Inaugural Issue

Ninety years ago this month, in May 1936, the first issue of Consumer Reports premiered—with a strong mission to make savvy shoppers of us all.

The name may have changed (slightly), but the mission remains the same.

When I started working at Consumer Reports, I was given a copy of CR’s very first issue, from May 1936.

Volume 1, No. 1 of “Consumers Union Reports,” as it was called then, examined milk (Grade A versus Grade B), the “high cost of octanes,” and toothbrushes, among other things. But before all that, on page 1, it clarified the newly formed organization’s identity and mission:

“…The main efforts of its staff, the main use of its funds, will be to conduct research and tests on consumer goods and to provide consumers with information which will permit them to buy their food, their clothing, their household supplies and other products most intelligently. With many families’ incomes far too low to permit the purchase even of many necessities, the need for such information is immeasurably great.”

Issue #1 was published as the country weathered the Great Depression. When I look at the mission statement now, I admire its tunnel vision on helping people make the most of every purchase.

This first issue shows that early CR was by turns technical and irreverent. The skepticism jumps off the page, as writers take aim at advertising claims. Plus, it’s clear that CR won’t allow readers to be bystanders to this process. Instead, it enlists consumers in a joint project.

I had noticed three circles on the left side of the front cover but had assumed this copy was perhaps hole-punched long ago to archive. How wrong I was! Yes, the early magazine actually arrived hole-punched, so members could dutifully maintain a portfolio of product reviews and research.

Here are some questions raised in that first issue. Ninety years later, they’re still shockingly relevant.

Shouldn’t There Be More Cereal In Here?

A cutaway on the front of a Corn Flakes box reveals lots of empty space.

To warn readers about what is now known as slack-fill* (the difference between the capacity of a container and the actual volume of product inside it), the article features a striking image—a sort of analog x-ray view that shows the bag inside is just three-quarters full.

This arresting photograph takes up about a third of the page, nestled within an economic analysis of how much it might cost a family of five to eat breakfast cereal for a month (the range is vast, depending upon the specific product: between 45 cents and $3.85 monthly, according to the report).

*As it happens, a 2009 issue of the magazine took on slack-fill again. And if you’re someone who’s into the technical details (welcome to the family), you can read the federal regulations of slack-fill.

Is Alka-Seltzer Any Better Than Aspirin?

CR did not accept advertising (and still doesn’t). This strip was part of an article that called out the “gymnastics of modern advertising.”

In an article framed as a “medical view” on the value of Alka-Seltzer, the reader first sees the charming advert above. Then we get a little Roman history on the perceived health benefits of bubbling natural spring water (including how “an adventurous soldier who accompanied Caesar in his invasion of Gaul drank some of the bubbling waters of the natural springs”). There’s real storytelling going on here, about the “ailing well-to-do” and the waters at world-famous resorts.

“The chief appeal of Alka-Seltzer to the unwary public is the noisy fizz that it produces and the pain-relieving effects of aspirin. When its claims are soberly analyzed, they vanish like the gas bubbles in the air.”

Case closed!

Are All Soaps the Same?

Irreverence was not off limits. Please note the snarky headline.

In this review of bath soaps (then called “toilet” soaps), CR challenges manufacturer claims—and asks us to bring a critical eye to the breadth of options.

“There are oatmeal soaps, buttermilk soaps, and cucumber soaps, glycerine soaps and tar soaps, and now even vitamin D soaps…. If you read the advertising for soaps in the magazines, you discover that they are endowed with almost magical properties which will work miracles with your complexion, increase your popularity, and help you get a wife, a husband, or a job.”

Then, the knockout punch.

“Practically all of the added ingredients in soaps are useless, and the claims of special complexion benefits are entirely without substance.”

Hm. I’m thinking this over by today’s standards. On the one hand, a lot still holds true—so many soap options, so many claims of what they can do. On the other, not all bar soaps are the same, and neither are skin types.

The article goes on to recommend some good buys, and provides a healthy three pages of technical analysis on how soaps are made (love that part, and I wonder what 1936 Consumer Reports would have to say about body wash).

As I pore over this first issue, I recognize guiding principles: Dig into the details. Impart practical and precise knowledge, backed by research. Question everything.

They show up in the review of hosiery, which instructs readers to “get out a few pairs of silk stockings and a ruler or a tape measure” (remember, no bystanders) so they can measure the ankle width and knee width against the standards CR has developed for assessing quality. They’re in the section on toothbrushes, and the “tomfoolery” deployed by manufacturers.

Early CR had good things to say about inexpensive toothbrushes with a straight handle. Current CR finds that certain low-cost (electric) toothbrushes beat out pricy options.

Issue #1 was CR putting a stake in the ground as watchdog, and bringing consumers along in the effort.

Ninety years later, we still review thousands of products, sometimes identifying problems in our labs that get those products pulled for safety. We investigate questionable pricing tactics for groceries and dangerous chemicals in beauty products. Some categories we’ve been testing for 90 years, like cars, and others are new, like laptops and solar panels.

But over the decades, we’ve remained who we are: technical, detail-oriented, and mission-driven. We’re a little obsessed with how products hold up over time. We still enlist our readers’ help.

And we very much want to help people save money and spend it on worthwhile products. We might throw in some side-eye every now and again, too. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Another great find from CR Deals Editor Samantha Gordon.

With excellent scores in our lab tests of ice-crushing (we try it 45 times over a two-day period) and pureeing, this Cuisinart blender is at your service for frozen drinks, morning smoothies, and chilled summer soups. Currently down from $450 to a stunning $150 on the Cuisinart site, it’s a steal. Keep it in mind if you’ve got June weddings on the calendar; it makes an impressive gift.

• We shopped Amazon Pet Days—happening through Friday, May 15—and pulled together the best deals.

• Imagine how easy outdoor entertaining will be with a standing cooler. We’ve got a couple of great ones.

• In our labs, we tested resistance bands (who knew there were so many?) and found a range of excellent options.

• Our shopping editors offer a raft of sales on summer products to help you prep for Memorial Day and beyond.

---