Brokerblogger

2007 Lexus LS 460's Retro 1990 Trunk Lid Mechanism - Brokerblogger

I love the Lexus LS brand and want to help it, by constructively presenting my complaint about what I, and others, consider to be a Lexus "trunk strut" engineering problem in the 2001 LS 430.  In 2001, the completely redesigned Lexus LS 430 had this said about it in "'The Family Car' Web Magazine Road Test" for that model:  "The trunk is 33% larger than the previous model (LS 400) due to the fact that the gas tank was moved from the back of the trunk to below the rear seat."  Lexus also increased trunk space, as noted in "Lexus LS Generations", with:  "4-link hinges (2 gas struts) are used on the trunk door (lid) to provide more cargo room." 

For 2007, the completely redesigned LS 460 actually has reduced trunk cargo space from the LS 430 models (2001 to 2006).  The 2001 LS 430 brochure says:  "Trunk Capacity = 20.2 cubic feet (w/o rear A/C) - 17.5 cubic feet (with rear A/C)".  Then, the 2007 LS 460 brochure says:  "18.0 cubic feet (509L) - 12.0 cubic feet (339L) (with Rear-Seat Upgrade Package or Executive-Class Seating Package)".  Here are TRUNK PHOTOS (courtesy of "The Family Car" Web Magazine) of the LS 400 (trunk space and mechanism for 1990-1994), the LS 430 (for 2004, but same for 2001-2006), and the LS 460 (for 2007).

Why would Lexus go back to the 1990 "retro,swing-arm" style hinge trunk lid mechanism which decreases trunk space capacity (after hitting "Continue Gallery" see "Struts in place of trunk hinges"), on top of an overall 2007 redesign that makes the trunk smaller to begin with?  Here is my sincere opinion on this.

Anniversary of TIme Inc. Auto Renewal Settlement - Brokerblogger

We are coming up on the one year anniversary (3/06) of "The TIme Inc. Auto Renewal Settlement".   An 11/1/06 article (no longer available online) said:  "Time Inc. agreed to pay $4.5 million to cover investigative costs, divided by the 23 states, in addition to $4.3 million in estimated customer claims."  It goes on to say:  "The possibility of serious government attention and action regarding automatic renewal, or “continuous service” as it’s often more euphemistically expressed, was not unexpected by the industry."

While that settlement was mostly (or all) about print subscriptions, I see no important differences in what the basic reasons are for the complaints that are now surfacing over Internet related auto-renewal abuses.  With the recent announcements by anti-virus software companies saying they are going to "auto-renewal" subscriptions, it is almost like sellers want to "test the waters" all over again in order to get their renewal rates higher.

I hope I made my point clear that I'm against all automatic renewals because they put the final responsibility on the buyer to notify the seller that he/she wants to cancel.  Plus, it is the buyer who determines the value of what he is buying at the time of the renewal, and not the seller.  I tried to bring that (and more) out in "Is an "Automatic Renewal" a Deceptive Marketing Tool ?", "'Automatic Renewal' - Renewal Rates & Fool's Rate Go Up", "'Auto-Renewal' Complaints May Lead To FTC Rules ", and "A Solution For "Auto-Renewal" and New FTC's Negative Option Marketing Emphasis ".

Now let's look at that article more.

A Solution For "Auto-Renewal" and New FTC's Negative Option Marketing Emphasis - Brokerblogger

After posting "'Auto-Renewal' Complaints May Lead To FTC Rules", I read a 1/29/07 Direct Marketing News article entitled "FTC makes negative option marketing a priority".  This is great news as it says:  "Ms. Parnes (Lydia Parnes, FTC’s director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection) said there is risk with negative option marketing, such as when a marketer fails to do the following: disclose or adequately disclose the material terms of the offer; secure express informed consent to the offer; and/or provide adequate cancellation procedures."  My solution centers on "secure express informed consent to the offer".  This is key for "auto-renewal" of all online subscriptions, in my opinion.  However, legal proof of "consent" should  be obtained at each renewal date, rather than only once at the beginning of the offer. 

Therefore, I strongly suggest that multiple renewal notices be sent with an option to "cancel", and a "Return Receipt" e-mail function be used in all online renewal notices!  Since there are usually three options open to responding to these type of e-mails, the FTC should make it mandatory that the seller receive back a written confirmation of the buyer's response through a "now" or "later" return receipt option from the buyer.  If the buyer chooses "never", then the seller can't assume "informed consent".

The FTC is now giving proper attention to "Negative Option Marketing", as the article goes on to say here.