Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Sponsored Content: The Interpod Keystone for measuring supination resistance. Read about it here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

'Good Feet Stores' under investigation

Discussion in 'USA' started by admin, Aug 12, 2005.

  1. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Members do not see these Ads. Sign Up.
    From NBC15:

    Good Feet Store Responds to Allegations

  2. admin

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Here are a couple of letters in PM News on this topic:

    Barry Block noted that an upcoming issue of Podiatry Management:
  3. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    Such efficatious claims were very much part of the early advertising in newspapers in Victorian times. Indeed the concept of children's shoes was an advertising rouse by Clarkes to attract the developing middle classes to buy their quality product. As we know there is really very little substancial information to support the need for shoe fitting for children , despite the obvious common sense of it all. Better consumer protection has meant 'silly claims' or misleading advertising is much less obvious than it was fivty or sixty years ago. The sport shoe companies have been aware of this in more recently years and moved completey away from any claims of what the shoe could do for you (ie efficient performance) and and instead emphasised what you can achive in their shoe. (be all you can be). I siuppose what this articles demonstrates is the potential to over extend expectation by niavety.

    Many years ago the Consumer's Guide in the UK did a survey of consumers using bunion shields and compared their effects to retailer's claims. Not surprisingly they found there was no independent evidence to support their use. Indeed all the data collected suggested the progression of the HAV remained unabated. Rather than complain the consumers quiety put their apparatus in a drawer and forgot about them having paid the money. The report concluded if more consumers complained more about profucts not working then companies would not be able to sell their wares.

    George Rendall did a project a few years back on the patient satisfaction post bunion surgery and reoccurance rates and found in his pilot, despite 80+% reoccurance, 90 % of patients were delight post op with their surgery and effects.

    It's a funny old world.

    What say you?


Share This Page