Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Almost everything RP is being taken to task for here and by the NAD is done by other oil companies ALL THE TIME including a very popular oil company on this site!
Examples, please? Be specific.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So let me get this right, RP can no longer use consumer feedback/testimonials, nor independant results done by outside sources, in advertising for their product like every other mfg of every product made does? They must only use results and reports/feedback that conform to the NAD's view on what is legit, truthful, or worthy of being used. What kind of crack pot ruling is that? Who is the NAD to say testimony I send to RP, should I choose to send it and they choose to use it, can not be used by RP in their advertising? That is a pretty arrogant ruling.
Royal Purple's claims were found to be false. That means they were lying. That means they can't say what they were saying any more. What's the problem?
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
So let me get this right. BP hires a company to do testing and THEIR EXPERTS results are accepted as gospel and RP's data and testing is a lie?
...Pretty much. If by "their experts" you mean SwRI, that is. You know SwRI is totally independent of BP, right?
Here's how it works. Royal Purple was the one making the performance claims, so the burden of proof was on them. Well, SwRI got results that disagree with Royal Purple's claims. That means the ball is back in RP's court to prove themselves. If they can't, they have to stop making the claims. Simple as that.
By the way, if you want to talk biases, consider this: Royal Purple wants their oils to look good, so they are biased toward their own products. SwRI wants to maintain its rep as an accurate and credible testing agency, so they are biased toward getting it right. I'd throw my hat in with SwRI on that.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Ok, so RP has agreed to stop using a couple questionable advertising terms and has agreed to reword a few other things. I know most will take this as a sign they were wrong but I don't see it that way... People, as usual, are blowing this way out of proportion and adding things not covered in the case.
Who's blowing what out of proportion? The NAD gutted their advertising and told them to take back almost everything they were saying, including several claims that formed the backbone of their entire marketing strategy. And to cap it, Royal Purple didn't even try to disagree. Sounds like a big deal to me.
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI
Where is the NAD in regards to Mobil and their questionable API certification issue brought up by Valvoline?
The NAD is a division of an agency that has nothing to do with making or enforcing policy. They only address claims that are voluntarily brought to them. Obviously neither Mobil nor Valvoline feels like bringing their case to them. If there is a legal issue, it will be handled one way or the other.
Speaking of wasting time: If you're really interested in keeping things factual and rational, why do you spend so much time repeating yourself, talking about your feelings, and making ad hominem attacks?
The RP bashers and haters on this site are the one's blowing this up into more than it is. I stand by my comment that if this was one of the popular brands on here( and it absolutely could happen to any of them )it would be a different story being sung. Because it is happening to RP however it is great and about time and so on( BAD RP =
)
Yes, it is serious just because so many will do what those on here have( ie; overreact )and that could really hurt RP long term. That is a real shame because despite this ridiculous fiasco and ruling their oils are still one of the best on the market. RP's advertsing has NOT been gutted though. Not sure where you come up with that.
Yes, They have agreed to reword a few things( not a big deal contrary to what you and so many are trying to make it out to be )and to some changes in their overall marketing to avoid a long drawn out battle. I will even concede that some of the changes to wording they are making are legit. Again, as I said previously, I don't just defend them blindly the way so many attack them that way. If they are wrong they are wrong.
For the most part though their marketing is unchanged( at this time anwyay ). Agreeing to those changes is probably a smart thing to do on their part in these tough economic times. Rather than fighting it, or hiring their own labs to refute the claims by BP and their hired lab which would be very costly, it is much quicker, easier, and cheaper just to change a few things and move on with life. Make the changes and let this die out. That is far from gutting and far from some huge admission of guilt.
It is smart on their part.
Their claims were not all found to be false either. That is an assumption on your part and lending way more to the ruling than there is. There were a few claims being challenged and the results the ONE lab got were not the exact same as RP's claims/results. That does not mean RP's claims of increased HP and MPG, or reduced wear, were lies or inaccurate. Just maybe not to the level or % they claimed. Is it not COMMON practice with automotive marketing to claim HP or MPG gains UP TO XXX%? The answer is undeniably YES! Why RP is being taken to task for this, and told to stop, is beyond me? Unless every mfg that does it, oil or otherwise, also stops RP should not have to.
I say to this could it not rationally be explained by saying when RP tested( or the place providing the results they reported on )they got the results they reported? Why is it just assumed they lied 100%? Is it not "possible" a different lab doing the testing will get different results? Is it not "possible" that one batch of oil tested at Lab A will test different than another batch of oil tested at Lab B at a later date? Do we now believe that we can walk into any store and grab a bottle of oil from the shelf( or any mass produced product that has testing )and it will test exactly the same, at a different lab, as the oil batch used for initial testing and marketing? If so I see that as an impossible standard to achieve even if I agree I wish it were so. Just not possible to do it on a mass production scale.
That is what it seems like the NAD says should happen. Any tests done must have 100% identical results, with no variations, or the mfg lied. The mfg can no longer say gains UP TO such and such or they are lying and making false claims. Big difference between differing test results, from different labs, showing different gain levels and an outright lie. I read that gains were seen with RP just not to the levels claimed or to a statistically identifiable #. Gains are gains however. So ok they didn't see the gains RP has claimed you MAY see UP TO but gains are gains are they not. They certainly didn't find that there were losses using RP in those areas which would have been a lie. So if they saw small gains or approx the same performance how did RP lie? The answer is RP did not a lie the way you all are infering. Something most here( and the NAD apparantly )either can't, or won't/refuses to, see.
It is absolutelly ridiculous for the NAD, or any of the RP bashers on this site, to claim consumer testimonials and documented tests from established magazines/TV shows are false advertising/claims and say that RP was found to be lying as well. RP never put those forth( that I saw )as scientific data just as what they are and used them to market their product. That is not lying!
To say they can not( actually I guess to be accurate I should say "recommend they stop" )use that info in their marketing is complete bull. All companies use consumer testimonials and feedback from independant sources that favor their products to promote them. To tell RP they cannot use them, and call them anecdotal and basically irrelevant, is a ridiculous ruling. I better see the same standards applied to every oil from Mobil1-Citgo then. RP does provide scientific documentation on their product as well. No outright lies by RP that I ever saw. Marketing using all available info yes, outright lies NO.
I gave you one example already of how other oil companies have done the same things or even orse than what RP was accused of( ie; the fake API Starburst look alike symbol from another company ). I am not going to turn this into a witch hunt for other brands and do a big list and name names. Anyone who is honest will admit it is common practice for all oil companies to push the envelope with their wording.
It is COMMON PRACTICE to list oil standards and certifications that the product meets/exceeds( they may say something like meets all the requirements of XXX )even if it is not actually certified to do so. That is one of the issues RP was "nailed" over. When will the other oil mfg's be held to the same standard by official agencies and the people on this site? One of the most popular oils on this site does the same thing in regards to the API certifications( and even had a false logo at one time as said )so will you all call them out as liar's and bash them endlessly as well? If not then you have no grounds to do it to RP.
SWRI is ONE lab testing RP this ONE time at the request of BP. The NAD wants hard, supportable, data to back up these claims made by RP, for them to continue marketing their products as they have, yet they are willing to go by the say so of one lab when it's results differ from those of the mfg being challeneged. What makes SWRI the pinnacle of accuracy and honesty? I am not slamming SWRI nor even BP here. I just don't understand how one lab's results from one round of testing can be considered the whole truth and the mfg's own data irrelevant and wrong? Does not seem fair nor very scientific. Multiple tests from multiple labs proving the same conclusion need to be applied to the decision. Not just one lab's word vs another.
I have no idea what you mean when you talk about feelings? I have talked about what goes on here with the ridiculous RP bashing. No attacks made? Just more of you trying to turn nothing into something.
Nothing that was in that article will change my mind about using RP. It is still one of the best oils out there and it has worked great for me. I never bought it for HP or MPG gains( even though you can make a rational and accurate argument that synthetic oil can do that vs conventional ). I was smart enough to know that is just marketing. IMO the NAD ruling is ridiculous. You are free to disagree obviously. MY main point here is people need to be level headed and fair in their reaction to this. Imagine this was YOUR favorite brand going through this. Any person here who is honest will admit it would go no better for their brand if the NAD applied these same standards to ther marketing claims if they were challenged.
They all do it. If you need me to point out where and when then I have to question if you have paid any attention to how oil's( and most products )have been marketed for YEARS in this country? I seriously do not mean that as an attack nor offensive. Just a statement. To act like RP is the only company to do this is unbelievable to me. There is a lot of selective vision going on around here.
Best of luck and enjoy your RP bashing. I have said my peace and defended the company so I am out. All my continued presence will do is turn the thread hostile and there is only so much that can be said about this. No need to endlessly repeat the same thing over and over that people just don't want to see or even consider in a fair light. No one here save a few in this thread, and who have PM'd me, even want to try and be fair about this. Too much fun bashing the oil you all love to hate. Enjoy.
Ok, I am out. Flame suit on(
)...
