"test results..."?

Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
lars11, they should have put "paid commercial advertisement" above and below that 'article.' Royal Purple all but paid for that write-up. They must advertise heavily in that magazine/forum and this 'letter' was answered in a way that mentioned that one brand name multiple times and excluded all others. Either that was an adverisement or RP is in a league of its own offering a product far superior to that of Schaeffer, Lubrication Engineers, Torco, Motul, Amsoil, Red Line Oil and all others.
 

lars11

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
970
Location
Sweden
yeah, it kind of ruined the credibility of Boattest.com. What about the rest of the "tests" one may wonder?
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
When I leave BITOG and go on other automotive or otherwise mechanical sites to preach the gospel of common sense lubrication, I follow basically ONE RULE regarding giving advice about additives and lubricants: Rule #1: When giving advice, always cite at least two different brands of the same recommended product. This shows that you are not out to promote any single company and enhances your own credibility. Coming off like a paid infomercial does no one any good.
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
Bump .... the link Lars11 posted above is one of those thinly disguised infomercials. This just rubs me the wrong way. frown
 
Last edited:

lars11

Thread starter
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
970
Location
Sweden
Educated statements all over: "Ultimately, it was determined that oil and filter change intervals could safely be extended from the existing 300 hours to an oil change every six months, regardless of the number of hours of operation" Now, that's a possible increase in oci from 300 to maximum of 4300 hrs. They are talking about tugs, so they may very well have 50 liter sumps and centrifug filters and constant operation so on so 6 month intervals may be very well. But then, the old 300 hr interval would be close to grounds for termination for the operations chief... Naah, Boattest.com is selling out.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
lars11, they should have put "paid commercial advertisement" above and below that 'article.' smirk Royal Purple all but paid for that write-up. They must advertise heavily in that magazine/forum and this 'letter' was answered in a way that mentioned that one brand name multiple times and excluded all others. Either that was an adverisement or RP is in a league of its own offering a product far superior to that of Schaeffer, Lubrication Engineers, Torco, Motul, Amsoil, Red Line Oil and all others. smirk
Please direct me to where you obtained your information that this was a paid test commissioned by Royal Purple please. I would like to see your source. Thank you. NOTE - for the record. I have not been compensated in anyw ay for these comments nor am I affiliated with Royal Purple. While I am a BIG RP fan, and have even run it in outboards, I do not think it( ie; RP oils, gear oil, etc... )is the best option for a marine environment. I am actually running Amsoil 4-stroke oil right now in my boat.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
NHHEMI, of course neither I nor anyone else here can produce the proof/documentation you are requesting. You knew that before you wrote your challenge. But that doesn’t prevent us from connecting the dots that are clearly there. The problem is with publications … and it’s nothing new. It’s been known for half a century (at least) that a magazine is more likely to promote or speak well of products in its articles if that company advertise with it. Without advertising, most magazines would go out of business so that pressure to be good to the advertisers is always there regardless of the nature of the product. So, when you read a magazine, common sense dictates one take the articles that talk about or otherwise endorse a product or service with at least a grain of salt. To do otherwise is hopelessly naïve. This used to pertain to exclusively print magazines but radio and TV shows soon adopted the practice and now on-line blogs and e-magazines have joined in as well. This is not an opinion, this is common knowledge in marketing circles (which is what I have my degree in). Even if a magazine takes a number of products and conducts a ‘shoot-out’ between them, they often will not choose a clear winner or loser as they are fearful of offending existing or potential manufacturers. This type of test is fairly common in car magazines … and once in a while someone has the guts to do a real comparison and determine winners and losers but usually positive things are said about all competitors for the reason cited above. Advertising dollars are the life blood of a publication. Those BoatTest.com pieces on Royal Purple products appear to be one of the most egregious examples of a magazine that takes advertising dollars from a company (the banner) and then writes glowing reviews of the product(s). Consider the following: 1) The banner is a clear indicator that Royal Purple is paying BoatTest.com for advertising exposure. All by itself this is not an indicator of favoritism … but the prudent person takes it into account each time the brand is mentioned by that publication. 2) There are links to several lubrication product articles in that one page … 100% are Royal Purple products, not a single competitor is ever introduced as a comparison. From a practical standpoint, that is a very poor methodology if you are attempting to find an ideal product for a given application ... unless you believe that RP products are so vastly superior to all others, that none are even worth mentioning (which is silly). 3) The “Related Articles” links seem to be showcasing all Royal Purple products that could possibly be of relevance to boaters … almost as if they were being paid to do so. Hmmm .... 4) No other oil company has a banner on their site – I say that, given the above, this is not a coincidence. Put them all together and they seem highly suspicious. And, BITOGians are not the only skeptical ones … the Boattest.com readers expressed similar concerns in the comments sections. G. Greenham: ” Are you guys being paid to advertise Royal Purple products? It seems that every issue has some article about how great Royal Purple is.”
 
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
4,370
Location
Central Wisconsin
All too typical is that the tested motor/outboard has a factory mechanic standing by for the test. The magazine won't mention this. Back in the day, when Evinrude first came out with it's E-Tec motors, they spent a lot of time in the shop trying to get them to run right. A leading boating magazine took their test unit in three times before the test was complete. No mention of that fact in the article. The test driver was good friends with one of our factory mechanics. (Mercury)
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
19,687
Location
Sunny Florida
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... you get the idea. Magazines have to respect their big hitter advertisers. Anything else would be financial suicide. Not cynical, just skeptical.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... you get the idea. Magazines have to respect their big hitter advertisers. Anything else would be financial suicide. Not cynical, just skeptical.
What if the "idea" is that RP is a good product line for marine use and the testing bears it out? Is the Duck wrong for walking around and quacking about it? LOL
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
"What if the "idea" is that RP is a good product line for marine use and the testing bears it out?" Shouldn't the testing compare a number of different brand of similar products in an attempt to determine which one is best?
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
"What if the "idea" is that RP is a good product line for marine use and the testing bears it out?" Shouldn't the testing compare a number of different brand of similar products in an attempt to determine which one is best?
Yes it should IF the purpose of the test was to find the best possible oil for that application out of the various oils out there. Was that what the test was though? OR, did they just test the RP to see how good it was and reported excellent results? If you run RP in an engine as a test and say it blows the stock/oe oil away performance wise, and that it would be a better option than the regular stuff, you haven't said it is the best option period. It is a different thing. So many people are having a fit over so many things on BTC in regards to RP it is hard to keep up. If BTC is actually saying that RP is the ebst oil period, and they haven't tested others to comapre, that is wrong. In what I have checked out there however that is not what I am seeing. I am seeing them say RP is a good choice and they are showing where it does well. I haven't read everything so I amy have missed it? My big beef and reason for jumping in is where people are saying RP pays for false and fixed testing. Sorry but that is just [censored]!
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2007
Messages
1,237
Location
Phoenix AZ
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
Shouldn't the testing compare a number of different brand of similar products in an attempt to determine which one is best?
How many is "a number of different brand of similar products? " Even if you tested 20 different products there will be a John Doe that ask why did you not test 30 products or all available products on a wide range of engines in all different conditions. I see this RP test no different than test done by Amsoil, Valvoline, Motul, Mobil, etc... Just another sale pitch.
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
True <span style="font-weight: bold">AZ</span>, but they could have used at least 2-3 brands of the most similar or widely available products ... or ones closest in price. Using only one seems like they didn't even try ... and using only one brand in a whole series of 'tests' gives the appearance that they are merely promoting that one brand ... which conflicts directly with their slogan: "Tests you can trust"
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
True AZ, but they could have used at least 2-3 brands of the most similar or widely available products ... or ones closest in price. Using only one seems like they didn't even try ... and using only one brand in a whole series of 'tests' gives the appearance that they are merely promoting that one brand ... which conflicts directly with their slogan: "Tests you can trust"
This is where you are missing the point. It was a test of a Royal Purple product and how it did in a specific set of circumstances. It was NOT a comparison test vs other oils. They are different things. Now that we know RP paid for the testing( thanks for the link )it explains even more why no other oils were tested. RP wanted them to test THEIR product to see how IT did. No need in that case to bring any other oils/products into it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: azsynthetic
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
Shouldn't the testing compare a number of different brand of similar products in an attempt to determine which one is best?
How many is "a number of different brand of similar products? " Even if you tested 20 different products there will be a John Doe that ask why did you not test 30 products or all available products on a wide range of engines in all different conditions. I see this RP test no different than test done by Amsoil, Valvoline, Motul, Mobil, etc... Just another sale pitch.
THANK YOU! A voice of reason in the wilderness. LOL
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
"This is where you are missing the point. It was a test of a Royal Purple product and how it did in a specific set of circumstances. It was NOT a comparison test vs other oils. They are different things." If they decided to showcase one new product from one manufacturer that may be of interest to the boating community (say, a rust inhibitor, etc ...) that would be fine. Instead, they chose one company ... that is advertising with them ... and showcase a number of their products in a short span of time with no mention of any competitors. This gives the (strong) appearance is that these 'articles' were written as a service provided in exchange for advertising dollars ... not an uncommon practice in the world of publishing. Given my marketing background, I think this is a reasonable conclusion (especially given the egregious nature of the situation) but I'll go into this in more detail in one of the other threads.
 
Joined
Jul 7, 2007
Messages
6,931
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
"This is where you are missing the point. It was a test of a Royal Purple product and how it did in a specific set of circumstances. It was NOT a comparison test vs other oils. They are different things." If they decided to showcase one new product from one manufacturer that may be of interest to the boating community (say, a rust inhibitor, etc ...) that would be fine. Instead, they chose one company ... that is advertising with them ... and showcase a number of their products in a short span of time with no mention of any competitors. This gives the (strong) appearance is that these 'articles' were written as a service provided in exchange for advertising dollars ... not an uncommon practice in the world of publishing. Given my marketing background, I think this is a reasonable conclusion (especially given the egregious nature of the situation) but I'll go into this in more detail in one of the other threads.
Even IF what you say is true and BTC did all these test because of the advertising dollars from RP - SO WHAT! IT is not illegal, nor even immoral, as long as the test results are accurate and NO ONE in this thread has shown them to be anything but. Last time I checked companies can test as they see fit? Be it one product or 2,000,000 from any other company they choose. If BTC wants to tie itself to RP at the exclusion of all others, so what? I will be curious to see your comments on any other testing they do on a sponsors product, and if you hold them to the same standards you try and do with RP, because RP is not their only sponsor.
 
Joined
May 27, 2002
Messages
5,069
Location
Saratoga, NY
"Even IF what you say is true and BTC did all these test because of the advertising dollars from RP - SO WHAT! IT is not illegal, nor even immoral." Certainly not 'illegal' ... and I probably wouldn't use the word 'immoral' either. But shady/slanted/biased/fixed/partisan/prejudiced are words that seem appropriate for the situation. "as long as the test results are accurate ..." Ah, but we don't know that they are. We can't be sure the BTC crew recorded the results properly ... or even performed the tests at all. Perhaps they kicked back with a few beers for a few hours one afternoon and merely claimed they had performed the tests? Who would know? This is why there is an entire industry devoted to 3rd-party testing. Companies hire these firms, the tests are usually well-controlled, well-documented and the credibility of the testing outfit is on the line so they have a vested interest in producing honest, unbiased results. If one of these companies was found to be 'fixing' results for a client, their reputation would be heavily tarnished and it could be the end of the company. These people are motivated to produce honest results because their jobs depend on it.
 
Top