I am always suspect on the recommended brand idea. Always wonder if there isn't some sort of 'scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' going on. I prefer specifications like Cummins CES 20081, MB 229.5, VW 505.01, etc. That way, as long as the oil meets the engine manufacturers spec code, it really doesn't matter what brand. That way, an owner can choose which brand at the best cost/performance ratio. Even the Government recognizes this regarding legislation covering the OEM's and endusers.
I realize that when an owner is only using a case a year, that cost is not the primary focus, and that some have a paranoia gland that works overtime (maybe due to past illicit drug use) that causes them to not veer one bit from every last detail of OEM name brand recommendations. But, we all have had some experience with getting a product that actually was of better quality than what OEM part or recommendation was. I have been involved with a lot of OEM suppliers over the years and it usually comes down to who can provide the "minimum" standard at the lowest cost to the OEM. Not who makes the superior product. For instance, a OEM may factory fill with Mobil 1 and recommend it, but since Mobil pricing is downright criminal to the end user compared to other brands of equal quality, they can underbid the cost to the factory to get their product in the engine and get their name in the owner's manual. Whereas, with a spec code standard, anyone who produces lube products can make and provide the end user with a oil that meets the spec and therefore give the user a choice in brand and promote competition to reduce cost to the user.
I will alway follow the recommended spec code, but not necessarily the brand recommendation. That is where I then rely on UOA's to determine the best performance and value. I run a trucking business in an economic environment that is somewhat challenging. OEM recommendations are only starting points. I have to factor in cost/performance ratios. The OEM's aren't interested in whether my business survives, only if theirs does. To that end, they will make recommendations that they benefit from, not necessarily the end user. Doug Hillary does make some valid comments in his article, but the scope of his arguments are limited at best.