Interesting test of Royal Purple oil and filters

[Bror Jace]

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.”

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
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.”


Yamaha has a banner on that site and they make and sell marine oil just FYI.

In response to your quote from that site...

Reader Comment:
J.Paskvan 7/22/2009 3:10:50 PM
Too many variables for a real conslusion. If the RPMs are the same the speed will be the same unless trim, weight or wind are different. What viscosity oil was the baseline? What viscosity was the Royal Purple? Did Royal Purple supply the boat and driver? You lost a lot of credability on this one.

Staff Response:
C.Hughes 7/22/2009 3:26:43 PM
In Answer to J,Paskvan – We picked the boat, went to a Pep Boys and purchased the oil, and it was BoatTEST driving. No RP staff or representatives were on site or involved. All oil was 10W 30

My response to the rest of your post...

A) - No, I actually did not know you( or others )could not provide any proof of your claims. I would think when people make such claims so adamantly and with such conviction they must have seen proof of that claim. I sure would want to be able to back up claims that the results were bought and paid for with some proof when saying such and such a test was paid for and rigged by a mfg. Otherwise it is just opinion and conjecture and should be called/put forth as nothing more ESPECIALLY when it is coming from someone with a known anti bias against the mfg they are slamming as has happened in this thread.

B) - There is a big difference, no a HUGE difference, between taking advertising dollars to put a banner on a site( or an ad in a magazine )and being paid to rig the results of tests done on their product. THAT is what so many are implying = rigged results. THAT is what I am talking about. I am not saying don't have any healthy skeptiscism about the testing, nor am I saying a publication or web site won't favor their advertisers either, but don't claim the mfg bought and paid for it if you can't back it up! There is a big difference between favoring and bought and paid for rigged results as have been claimed here.

C) - Just because RP has a banenr on that site does not mean they purposely rig results to favor them. That is unfounded. Also did you EVER consider the possibility they say good things about the products becaue they actually have good results with them and like them? Do you give ANY consideration to that possibility at all? I can personally attest to the amazing results using RP MaxFilm lubricant spray in a harsh marine environment. I use it all the time on my boat and trailer and I use my boat mainly from Oct-Feb and 100% in saltwater. A product has to be good to stand up to that use. If Boattest.com praises it are their results bought and paid for too? Are mine because I use the product and like their stuff? Seems to be the criteria being applied here.

D) - There are TONS of businesses that pay to adverise on web sites including many oil companies. Does that mean everything said about that company, on that site, is false and rigged just because they are an advertiser? That is the standard being applied to RP here. If Boattest.com praises say Yamaha outboards or oil will you condemn those reports as well because Yamaha has an adverising banner on the site? That seems to be the criteria you and others are using to bash the RP comments. Oh, RP is an advertiser and they say nothing but good about them so their results are bull.

Would I take Boattest.com's results as 100% accurate and that RP is now the best marine oil out there? NO( 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. ), not even close. Will I assume that because they advertise there that it is nothing but a rigged and bought and paid for sham? No there as well.

 

[Pablo]

One word:

Quote:
Royal Purple Improves MPG 10.7% in Test

Everything past that is a (said with a Canadian accent) JOKE

Maybe not rigged by Royal Purple directly....but biased/slanted/skewed/unscientific? Of course.

I suppose ethics are just based on a sliding scale of moral values.

 

[Bror Jace]

NHHEMI, while it is true, I'm not generally fond of RP or their products in general, I do go out of my to recommend RP Syncromax for manual transmissions and transfer cases calling for an ATF. My reasoning is that I think it is the best product for those applications, pure and simple. No hatred, no bias ... just pure logic and reasoning to the best of my abilities.

The problem with Boattest.com (BTC) is not that it appears to be a nice-articles-in-exchange-for-advertising-dollars situation, it is that it is such an egregious and obvious example of this sketchy practice. This is why Pablo depleted the Western Hemisphere's supply of laughing emoticons to express his amusement with it all.

Oh, and if you click on their so-called test articles, some are mere paragraph long, mini-advertisements citing manufacturer claims. This is a particularly good (or bad) example of that:

http://www.boattest.com/resources/view_News.aspx?NewsID=3662

What about the above qualifies it as an ‘article’ on a site that exists primarily to review products?

Oh, and while reading some of those ‘articles’, BTC admits that RP paid for the tests (in the Q&A section at the end). BTC goes on to say that RP staff did not conduct the 'tests' nor were they present at the time of the 'tests' ... as if that absolves them for rewarding an advertiser with thoroughly biased articles that offered no alternatives.

Just for fun, here's a couple more BTC fans expressing their displeasure with these heavily-biased articles:

r. smith” 11/18/2009 7:18:11 PM – ”Does Royal Purple own BoatTest? They are the only oil products I have ever seen here, have you done comparisons with Amsoil or Red Line Oils, or just the non-synthetic oils? Ron from SW Florida”

R. Large 1/21/2010 9:55:09 AM – ”It frustrates me to know that boattest.com has no interest in actually finding what product works best. They get paid from Royal Purple to test RP products and if they perform better than say standard XYZ oil then it's magically the best. RP is a paying site sponsor and it really shows that boattest.com has no interest in consumer but lining their own pockets. AMSOIL has always been the best synthetic and challenges anyone to prove them wrong. That won't happen because our competitors know it’s true.”

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
One word:

Quote:
Royal Purple Improves MPG 10.7% in Test

Everything past that is a (said with a Canadian accent) JOKE

Maybe not rigged by Royal Purple directly....but biased/slanted/skewed/unscientific? Of course.

I suppose ethics are just based on a sliding scale of moral values.


Or the company you work for.

 

[NHHEMI]

Bror - let's agree to disagree.

My last comment.

I did not see anywhere that BTC said RP "paid" for the test? I saw where they said they "asked" them to do it. 2 different things and BTC provided the boat, paid for the oil, and no RP personel were involved in the testing. I did not see anywhere that it says RP paid them to run the test; just asked ?

If they were paid can you please show me that info( not being a smart arse - I can't find it on the site ).

 

[Pablo]

You can't seriously defend this junk on one hand and attack Amsoil on the other. That makes no sense at all.

 

[Bror Jace]

NHHEMI, I found two passages about RP paying for the testing last night after most of the discussion in these two threads took place. Here is the one of the quotes:

Q: Was the test paid for and unbiased?

A: Yes, the test was paid for and it was also unbiased. Tests of this nature usually become the property of the company paying for the test and releasing the findings is typically up to that party. In this case, after the test we informed Royal Purple of the results and told them we would publish them.

Here is a link showing the article and the Q&A that followed it:

http://www.boattest.com/resources/view_News.aspx?NewsID=3631

In addition to the one above, I had found another ... not sure which article it was in. There are only several articles total, so you can click and hunt down the second without much trouble.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
You can't seriously defend this junk on one hand and attack Amsoil on the other. That makes no sense at all.


In any thread responding to you, and thus with some reference to Amsoil, I am commenting on YOU sir not Amsoil specifically. For someone who is affiliated with a company that does things YOU are slamming RP for is highly amusing so I am responding to your hypocrisy. That is all.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Nothing personal just very funny from my perspective.

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
NHHEMI, I found two passages about RP paying for the testing last night after most of the discussion in these two threads took place. Here is the one of the quotes:

Q: Was the test paid for and unbiased?

A: Yes, the test was paid for and it was also unbiased. Tests of this nature usually become the property of the company paying for the test and releasing the findings is typically up to that party. In this case, after the test we informed Royal Purple of the results and told them we would publish them.

Here is a link showing the article and the Q&A that followed it:

http://www.boattest.com/resources/view_News.aspx?NewsID=3631

In addition to the one above, I had found another ... not sure which article it was in. There are only several articles total, so you can click and hunt down the second without much trouble.


Thanks, I just missed that before I guess. Didn't go down to the bottom.

Ok so they paid BTC to test their product. I was wrong when I said they didn't do that in this case( I only saw where they said they were asked - and some implied it happens on EVERY positive comment from a company/web site/magazine ). However, that still does not mean they paid them to fix the outcome. I think it is pretty clear from how the test was run it was unbiased as far as input/involvement from RP.

Now my question is, is that wrong to do? Is that any different than a company hiring an outside labratory to test a product? Is this somehow different? I am just asking not starting anything with anyone.

Yes they paid BTC to do the test so I was wrong and admit it. However, that still doesn't mean the results are fixed and rigged just because the results were positive. Also, it does show this was not a test to find the best oil either as some seems to think it was but rather RP was paying/asking BTC to test THEIR oil and see how it did. Again I say there is a huge difference between testing your product to see how it does and testing it against the competition. This was not a competition comparison and should not be held to that standard.

I get people not liking it being paid for. I still think to say it is rigged or complain other oils were not also tested are unfounded.

Thanks for the link and being civil in your responses.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


In any thread responding to you, and thus with some reference to Amsoil, I am commenting on YOU sir not Amsoil specifically. For someone who is affiliated with a company that does things YOU are slamming RP for is highly amusing so I am responding to your hypocrisy. That is all.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Nothing personal just very funny from my perspective.


Of course this is not personal, but please show me where I slammed RP?

You have hinted more than once Amsoil is unethical, I let that slide - but really your constant contention is that anything from Amsoil is rigged (but you never actually have evidence). In almost everyone's eyes, except yours, these Boatest ads are just creative fancy. These Ads are being heavily defended by you in a VERY defensive, unreasonable manner. It just doesn't make sense, you aren't consistent, that's all I'm saying.

(PS If Amsoil had a 10% MPG improvement ad, they would have you, BITOG and a pack of lawyers on them like white on rice, and I would have to agree with the legal beagles)

EDIT: I Just read your last response after I typed this. I will say that is a much more reasonable tone.

 

[Bror Jace]

NHHEMI: "OK, so they paid BTC to test their product ... Now my question is, is that wrong to do? Is that any different than a company hiring an outside labratory to test a product? Is this somehow different?"

If the site's mission is to test products (especially comparison testing) and report back in an unbiased manner, yes, that's a problem and they should have conducted their 'testing' quite differently.

When testing products, a procedure is often used that is called "double blind" so no one involved knows which products are which so no one's biases can (theoretically) influence the results. The products are re-packaged into Product A, Product B, etc ... so the people administering the test and the participants (if it is a taste test) have no idea which product is which.

Results are tabulated and then afterwards the person who did the repackaging reveals which product brands were A, B, C, etc ...

In case I made a real hash of this explanation, here it is on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

One firm that does this type of scientific or psuedo-scientific experimentation is Consumer Reports ... and one of the first things they will tell you is they do not take advertising money from companies whose products appear in their magazine. This way, they are not tempted to favor one product over another. The magazine is less fancy, because they have less money to work with ... but if you want bottom line results, you can probably do with a few less bells and whistles. (I have my issues with Consumer reports ... but I'll leave that for another day)

The biggest problem with BTC is that they selected one company's products, a brand that is currently advertising with them, and excluded every other despite their being dozens in a category such as engine oil. They did no just showcase one product (such as a corrosion inhibitor that just hit the market) but a full range of products penetrant, corrosion inhibitor, motor oil, gear oil, etc ... with no competing products mentioned.

By scientific standards the situation could not be more biased.

 

[dmk]

I agree with some of this as well.

And as Pablo says it is "creative advertising". Other gearhead shows on Speed and such have similar scenarios with Mothers, Meguiars, Castrol, ect. And without slamming Pablo, but Amsoil, they are not making bogus claims and yes acting unethical. They don't say to go a gazillion miles and their oils meet ABC standards and tests when they DON'T.

I do think boattest should have clarified syn vs. conventional a little better and state that these gains probably wouldn't be as large when comparing to a competitive synthetic.

Bogus claims and MLM's just kill me!

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Bror Jace
NHHEMI: "OK, so they paid BTC to test their product ... Now my question is, is that wrong to do? Is that any different than a company hiring an outside labratory to test a product? Is this somehow different?"

If the site's mission is to test products (especially comparison testing) and report back in an unbiased manner, yes, that's a problem and they should have conducted their 'testing' quite differently.

When testing products, a procedure is often used that is called "double blind" so no one involved knows which products are which so no one's biases can (theoretically) influence the results. The products are re-packaged into Product A, Product B, etc ... so the people administering the test and the participants (if it is a taste test) have no idea which product is which.

Results are tabulated and then afterwards the person who did the repackaging reveals which product brands were A, B, C, etc ...

In case I made a real hash of this explanation, here it is on Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment

One firm that does this type of scientific or psuedo-scientific experimentation is Consumer Reports ... and one of the first things they will tell you is they do not take advertising money from companies whose products appear in their magazine. This way, they are not tempted to favor one product over another. The magazine is less fancy, because they have less money to work with ... but if you want bottom line results, you can probably do with a few less bells and whistles. (I have my issues with Consumer reports ... but I'll leave that for another day)

The biggest problem with BTC is that they selected one company's products, a brand that is currently advertising with them, and excluded every other despite their being dozens in a category such as engine oil. They did no just showcase one product (such as a corrosion inhibitor that just hit the market) but a full range of products penetrant, corrosion inhibitor, motor oil, gear oil, etc ... with no competing products mentioned.

By scientific standards the situation could not be more biased.


I am sorry but you are applying standards to the testing that are unfair. RP asked/paid BTC to test their product and give them results. It was not a comparison test vs the competition and thus there was no need to add any other oil/product to the testing.

If I make widgets and want someone to test them for me to see how they do in a real world application why must I have them also test widgets from another company at the same time if I JUST want to know how my widgets did? If I want to compare my widgets vs their widgets then I have others tested.

Let me try this another way... What about a car magazine that does test summaries on a new vehicle? They have 2 types of tests. One where they drive a specific vehicle and report back on the problems it had, the things they liked and/or disliked, MPG, cost of maintenance, etc... Then they have the other one where they do a comparison test vs other similar vehicles like a Challenger/Mustang/Camaro shootout. BTC did the 1st kind of test and you want to apply standards from the shootout. They are NOT the same thing.

Are all those one vehicle tests biased because the car mfg loaned them the vehicle for the test or even paid them to test and report back? What if they advertise in the magazine doing the testing? Does that mean any positive reports in the test are biased, rigged, bought and paid for, etc...? If Car and Driver does a test on a Toyota Camry must they also include a comparison test on a Honda Accord at the same time? That is the EXACT standard you are applying to these BTC RP reports and it is unjust. You can do a single product test and report the results without it being rigged and biased.

I am sorry but I don't get the problems you seem to have with this?

 

[NHHEMI]

Originally Posted By: Pablo
Originally Posted By: NHHEMI


In any thread responding to you, and thus with some reference to Amsoil, I am commenting on YOU sir not Amsoil specifically. For someone who is affiliated with a company that does things YOU are slamming RP for is highly amusing so I am responding to your hypocrisy. That is all.

He who lives in a glass house should not throw stones.

Nothing personal just very funny from my perspective.


Of course this is not personal, but please show me where I slammed RP?

You have hinted more than once Amsoil is unethical, I let that slide - but really your constant contention is that anything from Amsoil is rigged (but you never actually have evidence). In almost everyone's eyes, except yours, these Boatest ads are just creative fancy. These Ads are being heavily defended by you in a VERY defensive, unreasonable manner. It just doesn't make sense, you aren't consistent, that's all I'm saying.

(PS If Amsoil had a 10% MPG improvement ad, they would have you, BITOG and a pack of lawyers on them like white on rice, and I would have to agree with the legal beagles)

EDIT: I Just read your last response after I typed this. I will say that is a much more reasonable tone.


#1 - I am not defending the BTC data or BTC themselves. I am simply going after posters who are saying things like it was bought and paid for and that is RP's SOP( PT1 as a prime example of a basher posting bull puckey ). I think it is very fair to say that most products here at BITOG are held to one standard and then RP( and at times others )are held to a whole different set of standards. This is one of those times and people are piling on RP unfairly. The tests are what they are yet people keep trying to make them into something else. I would contend with no hesitation that if that test was done using the current flavor of the month product line there would be no such uproar as we have seen because it is RP.

#2 - I have done more than hint that I feel Amsoil is an unethical company. I have come right out and said it with no hesitation. I also make a point of saying despite that I think they make a great product for the most part. Just stating an honest opinion. And for the record I actually have shown in the past where my opinion comes from with links and data( I posted a LOT of info and data about the white papers being highly questionable that countered the results given and for more than just RP btw as one example ). It is not always possible for me to post proof to back up my experiences as they happened back when I worked in the auto field, based on personal contact with Amsoil tech( how do I post a phone call? ), things Amsoil has said/posted or advertised in the past but is now not there, etc...? Not always possible to provide proof. Doesn't mean I am wrong.

#3 - Actually no I would not be on Amsoil if there was a MPG claim using it. I believe, and have seen personally, that swapping your driveline over to premium synthetic fluids( which Amsoil is )can provide a MPG gain( auto's anyway - no real boat expperience as mine are all small OB's 30-40HP ). So I am sorry but no I would not. Not a 10% gain I wouldn't. 10 MPG gain yes but not for it being Amsoil but because that would be complete bull.

#4 - you have offered nothing constructive in this thread accept some snide comments thus my comments to you. While not a direct, typed out RP slam, let's be honest and call it what it is ok as they were in response to comments about RP ( see quotes below from your posts in this thread ). I am man enough to admit when I am wrong as I have done in this thread about the tests being paid for by RP and also admit I have no use for Amsoil the company so why can't you just be honest as well? You are an Amsoil pimp just as I am an RP pimp. The difference is I don't work for RP( just a loyal user )and I also try and give credit to other product lines( even Amsoil )where it is due. Honestly I see very little of that from you.

Originally Posted By: Pablo


Yeah but they are ethical.....


Originally Posted By: Pablo
Everything past that is a (said with a Canadian accent) JOKE

Maybe not rigged by Royal Purple directly....but biased/slanted/skewed/unscientific? Of course.

I suppose ethics are just based on a sliding scale of moral values.

 

[Bror Jace]

”I am sorry but you are applying standards to the testing that are unfair.”

No, I am applying standards which would be considered “best practices” in most industries. These are followed all the time with all kinds of products when the partners involved want to produce test results which are credible.

” Let me try this another way ... What about a car magazine that does test summaries on a new vehicle?”

If the car magazine, which did not bill itself as a GM-only magazine, tested only GM vehicles and excluded all other car companies, the readers would know something was up … especially if GM also just happened to be a significant advertiser in the magazine. No one would think the test results credible.

” I am sorry but I don't get the problems you seem to have with this?”

I think I have been clear in these threads, if you truly want to see it. But aside from me, about 1 in 3 BTC readers made comments that showed they arrived at similar conclusions … so it isn’t just me.