TrimLife Responds to HealthRatings.org
TrimLife, a North Dakota-based distributor of dietary supplements, wrote the following letter to WebWatch regarding our review of its TrimLife.com site in our August 06 ratings of the 20 most-trafficked diet sites on HealthRatings.org. Follow the link to read the whole letter, published here unedited, as we publish all our letters.
Consumer Reports WebWatch:
Prior to being notified of the results of this project, of which TrimLife had no knowledge, we had already begun overhauling the www.TrimLife.com page to incorporate the new services and broader product categories we developed. The new site focuses largely on streamlined customer service and is a huge improvement over the dated page that was reviewed for this project. However, the essential difference between TrimLife's marketing priorities and the Consumer Reports WebWatch evaluation methodology remains. We are in business to serve our customers, help them reach their health and wellness goals and to educate them about our unique products and services; we are not an informational website that offers medical/health resources developed by PhD's.
TrimLife was listed as the 20th most trafficked site on the list, but we received an overall "poor rating" from the group based on several criteria. To understand why TrimLife received the poor rating, one must understand the differing goals of TrimLife and Consumer Reports WebWatch. TrimLife exists to market products to consumers and make a profit. Consumer Reports WebWatch exists to identify neutral, consumer-friendly resources on the Internet. While TrimLife certainly considers ourselves consumer friendly, and in fact place a high priority on superior customer service, we simply cannot be a neutral source of health information first and foremost. This is what the "top 20" list was all about. The CRW guidelines consisted of editorial policies, professional authorship, neutrality, etc. TrimLife.com exists to inform consumers about TrimLife products and how they can play an important role in weight-loss and overall health enhancement.
Still, TrimLife has taken into account the evaluation given to us for our old page and incorporated some changes into the updated version to help satisfy some of the CRW suggestions. Again, the bottom line for TrimLife's initial "poor" rating was the fact that we did not clearly state that we are a for-profit company. TrimLife customers are highly intelligent, goal-oriented individuals who seek out our website for the purpose of learning about our products and services. We do not contend to be a health website or to provide medical advice or care; nor do we feel that would be in the best interest of our customers. In fact, we clearly recommend on each product page that customers should seek consultation with their doctor or professional medical provider prior to using any of our products or services. We feel we have reached a proper balance of marketing, product education and consumer protection.
Overall, the Consumer Reports WebWatch/HealthRatings.org survey and evaluation looked for unbiased, independent and neutral presentation of information and resources. While we do not present ourselves as medical experts (but provide scientific and clinical studies where applicable) and follow every FDA, FTC and BBB guideline with great scrutiny to protect our customers to the fullest, the fact remains that a company like TrimLife simply cannot follow every CRW guideline and expect to survive. Again, we are in business to provide goods and services to our customers, and therefore we promote our products and services with a high degree of excitement, bias and enthusiasm!
On behalf of TrimLife, I extend a sincere thank you to Consumer Reports WebWatch for allowing us the chance to respond to their survey. This openness and transparency is the reason consumers continue to turn to Consumer Reports for objective education and analysis. We look forward to subsequent surveys and feedback.
Benjamin M. Hanson
Copywriter
TrimLife, Inc.