BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Snakster on August 19, 2015, 08:33:24 AM
-
As a BTM subscriber, I couldn't help but notice that recently, the brands under the Brunswick umbrella have only been providing the HP balls for review to BTM. I received confirmation of this when I sent a message asking if/when there will be reviews posted for the mid and lower tier balls.
Specifically these are:
Brunswick Brute Strength, Soul and Soul Mate
DV8 Vandal and Holligan Taunt
Radical Primo, Rave, and both Rack Attacks
Now I know there are review balls being provided to other entities and publications (e.g., Bowlers Journal and Lane Side Reviews).
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I put a lot of stock into the rating system I find in BTM;. I find it invaluable in quickly identifying equipment that may fill a hole. I can make a short list based on ratings and whittle it down from there. These Brunswick family balls will not be making those lists.
I'm sure they have their reason for short shrifting BTM; maybe they have internal numbers indicating not a lot of return from BTM subscribers? I have no affiliation with BTM other than being a paid subscriber.
I have been a big Radical fan (I've bought at least 9 of their balls and I only started bowling less than three years ago). I can't say they have all been winners for me, but I generally like their stuff. But I can't say that I will give serious consideration if I can't screen their ratings with BTM.
-
Probably cost money and free balls to get their balls in the magazine. And with the LP and MP offerings there probably isn't profit margin room to have those as giveaways plus fees. Where as with the high end stuff (sometimes at a discount with rebates) there is a but more meat on the bone. Idk
-
Probably cost money and free balls to get their balls in the magazine. And with the LP and MP offerings there probably isn't profit margin room to have those as giveaways plus fees. Where as with the high end stuff (sometimes at a discount with rebates) there is a but more meat on the bone. Idk
Possible. I don't know either. But they are still providing those balls to other reviewers. Maybe they did some subscriber research. Is it possible that BJI has a much bigger circulation than BTM has subscribers? Maybe they just don't think they'd be reaching enough people to make it worth their while?
-
I noticed the same thing with these releases missing from BTM. I subscribe to both BTM and BJI and I personally like BTM's reviews better.
-
Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.
-
Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.
LSR?
-
Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.
LSR?
Lane Side Reviews mentioned in OP.
Don't know it myself.
-
Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.
Yep. I think their reviews used to be okay. Now it's more and more typical staffer hyperbole. Which is their job of course.
-
I noticed the same thing with these releases missing from BTM. I subscribe to both BTM and BJI and I personally like BTM's reviews better.
I agree. BJI is good, BTM is better. They just give you more context.
-
There is no cost besides the balls that are sent to be reviewed. Last time I researched it, the subscriber numbers for BTM were less than half of BJ. That was before it shut down and restarted. And it isn't like BJ has great numbers.
-
There is no cost besides the balls that are sent to be reviewed. Last time I researched it, the subscriber numbers for BTM were less than half of BJ. That was before it shut down and restarted. And it isn't like BJ has great numbers.
Also, BJI is read and subscribed to more by management than by bowlers. It is more of an industry magazine, than a bowlers' magazine, although it has many good bowling articles. Unless you can separate the subscribers into those two classes, you can really understand the marketing differential for bowlers for the 2 magazines: BJI and BTM.
I too think the BTM ball reviews are much more significant and relevant to evaluating the potential of a ball than those of BJI.
-
I check out Laneside Reviews and from time to time the monthly publications. But when it's all said and done, I've trusted my instincts about the equipment I've purchased, all of which has been Brunswick and Radical.
So far, I'm still using about 75 percent of it. The remaining 25 percent have been sold on eBay.
-
Well it appears that the Brunswick umbrella has now completely abandoned BTM. No Nirvana review and I have it on good authority that they weren't sent one for review.
Companies make value judgements I'm sure. I don't have highly honed bowling ball instincts and I personally rely on BTM ratings for context. So I won't be buying any of those brands going forward. I'm not suggesting others do the same. It's just me making my own value judgement. I have also subsequently divested most of my Radical Arsenal. Except my Times Up. Still love that ball.
-
All because you cant read about it, you are gonna dump your trusted arsenal that you said you love and have bowled good with. That's crazy.
-
I too think the BTM ball reviews are much more significant and relevant to evaluating the potential of a ball than those of BJI.
Interesting observation. I subscribe to BJI, but not BTM, so my thoughts pertain to just BJI in isolation.
Where in your opinion are BJI reviews lacking?? They test across US Ooen Team, Stone Street, and a lighter volume house pattern to get a feel for the full strengths and weaknesses of a test ball. Their analysis is comprehensive, and they have a scoring system that gives a good perspective of ball capabilities that provide an excellent comparison against other tested balls. I buy 7-10 new balls per year, and in real world use I've found their comparative analysis very accurate.
Given the comprehensive testing BJI performs, just curious why BTM is considered "more significant and relevant"?
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
-
I think there was a time when Mo refused to supply them with test balls as well, even though he was contributing author. (MoRich)
I would think the expense is negligible. My first thought was the effect of bad reviews. You give a ball an 8 or 9 in the category it is supposed to excel in, and now people aren't as interested. The companies that supply the balls are putting money into new products, and some slightly negative reviews could damage their sales.
In addition, the BTM reviews are purely based on the out of box condition. They explain in their reviews if the testers needed to add or remove surface/polish, but that isn't reflected in the grade. So if adding polish made the ball awesome on the short pattern, but leaving it out of box had a bad reaction, you only see the bad grade. As a supplier (i.e. Brunswick), I could see how some people would be put off by that bad grade without understanding the criteria upon which the grade was based.
I have no inside information, but this was my first thought. I should go back and look, but I think that a lot of the Brunswick stuff tends to get a tougher grade than some others ... deserved or not.
-
I buy all my new stuff based only on the staffer reviews here. :o
-
I base mine on colors and logos/names. If I don't like it I wait for the next to follow shortly. The differences are minimal. For my hard earned dollar and can afford to be picky.
-
I don't like multi-colored balls, because I can't lie about having 350 RPMs.
I prefer solid black, blue, pink, etc...... colors.
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
If watching a bowler strike all day in a video tweets your whistle, have at it. ::)
Besides, there is almost no comparative analysis across companies in a video. If you want to remain isolated with one company, maybe that's OK. For me, that doesn't cut it.
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
If watching a bowler strike all day in a video tweets your whistle, have at it. ::)
+1 .... Gotta agree with Steven ...
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
99.99% of the videos posted on web sites purported to support honest ball reviews are 100% worthless solely because they do not do comparisons to balls within the same brand but also to balls within other brands. They also show nothing but strikes without showing balls pulled inside of target or balls sent wide of target. Hell's Bells, the damned oil pattern is not even defined 99.9999% of the time.
How could such a video be worth anything but horse manure??
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
99.99% of the videos posted on web sites purported to support honest ball reviews are 100% worthless solely because they do not do comparisons to balls within the same brand but also to balls within other brands. They also show nothing but strikes without showing balls pulled inside of target or balls sent wide of target. Hell's Bells, the damned oil pattern is not even defined 99.9999% of the time.
How could such a video be worth anything but horse manure??
+1 .... in addition to my agreeing with Steven above, I gotta agree with Charlest here also ....
Meanwhile, all of you bowlers that like to see nothing but strikes in these videos ... "have at it" ...
-
The late Sawbones didn't like videos that struck 100% of the time and mentioned how unaccurate these bowlers were..
-
All because you cant read about it, you are gonna dump your trusted arsenal that you said you love and have bowled good with. That's crazy.
No, They are gone due to attrition. What I have not done (as I have in the past) is replace them with new ones. The The Unleashed was hot and cold and the Reax V2 was not good for me so it's gone. Instead of drilling up a Guru Mighty, I got a Black Widow Legend instead. I just sold my Grease Monkey this past week. It was long in the tooth. Haven't really replaced it yet, but I will be looking elsewhere. The ones I 'trusted' the most have been the lower end lines.
Big B does not, for some reason feel that an information provider like BTM is worth the effort. I, as an information consumer, feel differently. So I have made a decision to support brands that support the publications that some of us have come to trust. That may not be a perspective shared by others, and that's fine. I'm just sharing my perspective.
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
If watching a bowler strike all day in a video tweets your whistle, have at it. ::)
Besides, there is almost no comparative analysis across companies in a video. If you want to remain isolated with one company, maybe that's OK. For me, that doesn't cut it.
The problem with what you are suggesting is once someone does this, the companies that do not perform as well will pull their equipment from the comparisons. Just like Brunswick is doing now.
We realize pretty much all bowling balls are quality and the reason one may like a particular ball is they just match up well to that ball, drilling and surface. When comparing two or more companies same level balls, you will probably prepare them all the same. Unfortunately, each one may need a slightly different drilling or slightly different surface to match up well with that particular tester. So for this first review, the ball that matched up the best with that bowler on that day is viewed as the best and sales may reflect that. Not because it is the better ball though.
This means one out of many will get the spoils of victory. Even with an even distribution of "wins" between the manufacturers, each company would have a low percentage of success. Before long, you tire of the process and quit supporting the comparison tests.
The companies that are successful have a following. For whatever reason, bowlers flock to them. The companies want to retain them so instead of comparing the new release with the market, they compare the new release to themselves. Show where it fits in the line-up and convince the bowlers they want the ball based on this need.
-
I know as a book author I've gotten away from sending out copies of my books for reviews because I realize that reviews are purely subjective and some of those who do the reviews are utterly clueless.
Reviews may help steer some readers (in this case bowling ball buyers) in a particular brand's direction, but it doesn't steer all. It's my belief the majority of buyers will buy a particular brand based on what they've seen for themselves and to and to an equal extent, word of mouth.
-
To each their own. Videos are worth more then words. The more variety I see the better I feel on my decision.
If watching a bowler strike all day in a video tweets your whistle, have at it. ::)
Besides, there is almost no comparative analysis across companies in a video. If you want to remain isolated with one company, maybe that's OK. For me, that doesn't cut it.
The problem with what you are suggesting is once someone does this, the companies that do not perform as well will pull their equipment from the comparisons. Just like Brunswick is doing now.
We realize pretty much all bowling balls are quality and the reason one may like a particular ball is they just match up well to that ball, drilling and surface. When comparing two or more companies same level balls, you will probably prepare them all the same. Unfortunately, each one may need a slightly different drilling or slightly different surface to match up well with that particular tester. So for this first review, the ball that matched up the best with that bowler on that day is viewed as the best and sales may reflect that. Not because it is the better ball though.
This means one out of many will get the spoils of victory. Even with an even distribution of "wins" between the manufacturers, each company would have a low percentage of success. Before long, you tire of the process and quit supporting the comparison tests.
The companies that are successful have a following. For whatever reason, bowlers flock to them. The companies want to retain them so instead of comparing the new release with the market, they compare the new release to themselves. Show where it fits in the line-up and convince the bowlers they want the ball based on this need.
Very good comment. With as competitive as the market is right now, I'm sure decisions are being made based on a strategy to maximize sales (as they should be). To some, like me, those entities may come across as thin-skinned when they essentially say "I'm taking my ball and going home". To brand loyalists, their only concern is where the new piece fits in to what came before. And that's perfectly legitimate. Not everyone makes purchasing decisions the same (nor should they). If the B brands want to be selective in providing review balls to only the publication that validates their marketing claims, that makes perfect sense and for every one of me that may be put off by not having the context of a BTM review, there may be two people who become attracted to a ball based on the BJI review. My son for example; he got a Guru Master based simply off the total hook number from BJI (otherwise he is strictly Motiv).
-
The problem with what you are suggesting is once someone does this, the companies that do not perform as well will pull their equipment from the comparisons. Just like Brunswick is doing now.
BJI doesn't directly pit ball "A" from Storm against ball "B" from Brunswick. They do however have a scoring system that allows balls to be compared against each other in different categories (hook, length, breakpoint shape).
I don't know what you mean by the term "perform well". They're not afraid to say that a given ball is almost too strong in their lighter oil test, or having to get deeper than ideal for the Open pattern. Stuff bowlers should know. They've been doing this for years, and to my knowledge no company has pulled equipment from testing.
As always, you have to take bowler style, drilling and surface prep options into consideration. There is no such thing as a one size fits all. But BJI's testing is an excellent starting point for ball consideration. In all my purchases, I've found their evaluations for the most part to be pretty accurate.
-
BJI doesn't directly pit ball "A" from Storm against ball "B" from Brunswick. They do however have a scoring system that allows balls to be compared against each other in different categories (hook, length, breakpoint shape).
I understand what you are saying. However, as Snakster stated above, his son chose a ball strictly based on a hook potential number in a magazine. Perhaps the Guru Master is the hookingest ball on the market. But does that make it the best? Now, every ball company who produces a hook monster ball has to compare its overall hook number from a magazine to the Guru Master whether fair or not. If the numbers don't compare, then it is viewed as inferior.
"Don't have the highest hook rating, then I don't want it!!!"
And that is how the buying process goes for a lot of bowlers. They want a ball that hooks. They may know BJI has unbiased reviews (or sees the magazine in the pro shop) and looks to see which ball hooks the most. BAM!!! Radical gets a sale. But is that ball the best for them. The pro shop should tell them whether it is or isn't. But the Guru Master is high end so it is a big sale for the shop.
Eventually it turns into a numbers competition. Can you get BJI to produce big hook numbers? Can you get BTM to produce big back end reaction? If you can't beat them with the numbers, then you won't get the sale. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, but I have seen this happen.
-
I understand what you are saying. However, as Snakster stated above, his son chose a ball strictly based on a hook potential number in a magazine. Perhaps the Guru Master is the hookingest ball on the market. But does that make it the best? Now, every ball company who produces a hook monster ball has to compare its overall hook number from a magazine to the Guru Master whether fair or not. If the numbers don't compare, then it is viewed as inferior.
"Don't have the highest hook rating, then I don't want it!!!"
What you're describing is a fundamental failing of the bowler. All the magazines can do is provide a realistic assessment of a given ball's capability, and the conditions under which the ball performs best. Unfortunately, the "I want the ball with the highest hook rating" is a phase that most bowlers have to go through. I certainly did, and I wish I had learned the fallacy of chasing hook earlier. Most of those who successfully progress up the bowling food chain grow out of it.
-
In another thread on this forum, one of the radical designers Phil posted that "Hook Sells". Bowlers see bowlers on TV or at their local houses throw something that hooks a lot and they want to duplicate that look. So they know they don't the physical game or talent to do that, so they attempt to buy it in the ball.
-
The Brunswick Nirvana has been reviewed on BTM.
-
The Brunswick Nirvana has been reviewed on BTM.
Indeed it has and balance has been restored to the universe. This consumer really appreciates the reversal by Brunswick brands.