The Transparency Score.
A Transparency score reflects willingness to produce voluntary and solicited disclosures regarding sourcing, manufacturing, competitive actions and more information in public or private contexts.
Transparency scores are collected to act as a metric for companies’ willingness and clarity in disclosing methods of manufacturing, as well as monitoring and quantifying corporate strategies to keep the consumer fully-informed. Anti-competitive behaviors are also included in the Transparency score, particularly if they revolve around purposeful obfuscation or skewing of competitor statistics for marketing purposes.
A company with an above average Transparency score will likely have available for public consumption detailed information regarding manufacturing, sourcing and performance, with a public presence that is competitive but operates largely in good faith, with product quality at the forefront of their strategy for maintaining market share.
A company with a below average Transparency score will likely have unappealing information regarding manufacturing, sourcing and performance hidden or hard to access without authoritative request. Their public presence may rely more heavily on targeting competitors with negative advertising, anti-competitive practices or other actions to capture market share not based on improving product quality or availability.
Some voluntary disclosures we consider include comprehensive material sourcing disclosures, working standards adhered to within manufacturing centers, distribution and logistics information, general budget disclosures, environmental impact statements and more. Many of our solicited requests for more information will come as a result of not being able to find publicly available versions of these specific disclosures.
Entities that submit products to Tastemaker for testing, unsolicited or per a request, do receive positive commendation regardless of product quality as long as the product provided reflects the consumer retail experience for the extra time afforded for more comprehensive testing. Press packages must bear the product in retail form to avoid nullification of testing results.
Tastemaker scores Transparency using a proprietary method where true neutral can only be achieved by zero public information disclosure. Some commendable or demerit worthy actions are listed below in separate sections, though other criteria are considered and may not be publicly disclosed.
All score adjustments are subject to internal audit at any time if additional information or attenuating circumstances can be found.
Commendable Actions
Curated press areas with comprehensive information and clear lines of contact for further inquiries will be seen as worthy of commendation.
Regularly updated disclosures regarding sourcing, manufacturing and performance will be seen as worthy of commendation.
Willingness to produce information that may be seen as unfavorable when compared to peers despite impact to market share will be seen as worthy of commendation.
Marketing with metrics accurately attributable to the company or product with no further qualification will be seen as worthy of commendation.
Clear disclosures of product support timelines will be seen as commendable.
Custodial work for legacy product support or clear disclosure of a lack of support will be seen as commendable.
Clear encouragement of replacement or maintenance products at a similar or greater level than total replacement options in public forums, even if sourced from the same company, will be seen as commendable.
Demerit Worthy Actions
Disclosures with general information that can be determined to obfuscate an element of business processes by omission of key or specific details will be seen as demerit worthy.
Disclosures with false information, or disclosures with information later determined to be false and un-amended but still available in a manner that suggests current accuracy will be seen as extremely demerit worthy.
Deliberate denial of requests for information without reasonable grounds for privacy or proprietary protections as determined by Tastemaker will be seen as demerit worthy.
Deliberate repression of unfavorable information, directly or indirectly, will be seen as demerit worthy.
Repression of unfavorable information from third-party sources that can be determined as opinion-driven but not inaccurate through means legal or otherwise will be seen as demerit worthy.
Failure to achieve promised metrics of performance on a regular basis will be seen as demerit worthy, and may result in further disclosure attached to Tastemaker procured data
Entities that provide evasive or ineffectual responses will be seen as subject to demerits.
Use of falsified or padded consumer satisfaction data to market the company or product, directly or environmentally, will be seen as extremely demerit worthy. Failure to moderate third-party contributions to consumer satisfaction data that significantly improves visible metrics will also be seen as demerit worthy*
Use of unfounded vague superlative titles with purposeful omission of details to unfairly pad the image of a company or product will be seen as demerit worthy.
Use of accreditation by partner groups or biased agencies to determine a product's worthiness will be seen as demerit worthy.
Use of accreditation by partner groups or biased agencies to determine a metric then used in advertising will be seen as demerit worthy.
Use of awards generated by partner groups or biased agencies to rate a company or product best in class for any attribute will be seen as demerit worthy.
Use of broad category superlative titles only true based on cherry-picked information from the aforementioned category to distinguish a company or product as better than peers will be seen as demerit worthy.
Use of embellished language in warranty or support marketing not accurately reflective of warranty of support offerings post-purchase will be seen as demerit worthy.
*Unless clearly demonstrated as an example of sabotage from an outside party with the intent of skewing data to discourage trust in the company or product.
Appeals to scoring can be conducted by reaching out to an established Point-of-Contact with Tastemaker, or by request including any attenuating information from a company domain to compliance@tastemaker.online. Appeals may be subject to costs associated with verification if attenuating information is not deemed satisfactory. The appeal process will be conducted on a timeline and cost basis determined to be appropriate by Tastemaker and agreed upon by the entity appealing.