In recent years Consumer NZ has introduced new innovations that I still find to be a problem: "Consumer Trusted" and the "Donate" nag.  I raised this with Consumer and got the standard corporate response that did not address the detail of my objections.

Consumer Trusted is outlined here: https://www.consumer.org.nz/topics/about-consumer-trusted.  This is a new revenue stream for Consumer NZ (outlined in the FAQs).  In the world of constant independent product testing that Consumer inhabits, there can be no such thing as a trustworthy company, any more than the follow-on model of any product that performed well in Consumer tests can be trusted to be perform equally well or better.  Once Consumer allows a company to display the "Consumer Trusted" logo, if the company subsequently betrays that trust all Consumer can do is require the company to remove the "Consumer Trusted" logo.  For consumers, the absence of the once-displayed "Consumer Trusted" logo will probably go unnoticed and the consumer will continue to regard that company as 'Consumer Trusted'.  Consumer cannot, for example, require a company that has been stripped of its Consumer Trusted status to advertise that this has happened.  "Consumer Trusted" is simply a step too far for Consumer to be considered fully independent.

In recent times, Consumer web pages, even for logged-on subscribers, nags for a donation.  Subscribers have already paid - nagging them when using their subscription is similar to a wait-person expecting (rather than hoping for) a tip in NZ.

Am I the only one with these issues?