Fusion beats Camry and Accord?

For a few months now Ford has been touting the “Fusion Challenge.” In a pair of Ford-sponsored events, 1,000 subscribers to Car and Driver and Road & Track rated the Ford Fusion higher than the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord. I can’t decide what concerns me more, that the magazines had Ford pay them to conduct the events or that many people are accepting the outcome as proof that people prefer the Fusion to the Camry and Accord.

I’ve been thinking of writing this entry for weeks. A journalist using the test as proof of the Fusion’s success finally pushed me over the edge. A recent column in the San Antonio Express-News stated, “Ford’s new Fusion, which arrived last year, seems to get picked over the Camry and Accord fairly frequently in side-by-side consumer comparisons.”

Ford ChallengeNothing against the Fusion, it’s a good car. But there are just so many things wrong with this comparison test. First, Ford paid for it. Second, the participants knew that Ford was the sponsor, and research participants are inclined to say whatever they think those conducting the research want them to say. Third, the participants likely realized that their on-camera testimonials would only be used if they praised the Fusion. Want your 15 seconds of fame? Then say something nice. Fourth, the magazines have stated that while they will not outright lie for sponsors, they’re very willing to edit out all results not favorable to the sponsor. So anything the participants said favorable about Camry and Accord got edited out. Note that the tests are very specific about the areas where the Fusion won, including styling and handling. There might have been areas where the other cars won, but we’re not going to get that information. Finally, the Fusion tested had the optional all-wheel-drive, not available on the Camry and Accord. Meanwhile, the Camry and Accord included in the tests were not the enthusiast-oriented performance versions of these cars.

Car and Driver and Road & Track (which are owned by the same company) no doubt rationalize these tests by telling themselves that Ford’s sponsorship is clearly stated, that no one made the participants say the things they said, and that no lies were told. But at the same time they must be aware how the typical person takes in information. Most people skim. They don’t read or listen closely, or pay close attention to details. They hear the names of the magazines, that car enthusiasts were involved, and that the Fusion beat the Camry and Accord. They then conclude that car buyers, after participating in tests sanctioned by two estemed magazines, are saying that the Fusion is better than the Camry and Accord. That the Fusion has not beaten these cars in non-sponsored comparison tests conducted by these magazines does not come up.

In other words, the whole thing is set up so many people will reach conclusions that someone paying close attention would not reach. Sure, no one is lying, but the outcome is the same. Ford can be forgiven, this is the sort of thing companies do when they advertise. But for these magazines to conduct the tests and then let their names be used to legitimize the outcomes, all to earn a little extra cash? That I have trouble with.