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

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?

Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.

Quote from: Impending Doom on August 19, 2015, 04:00:00 PM

Remember, Rob at LSR is on Bwick staff.

LSR?

Lane Side Reviews mentioned in OP.

Don't know it myself.

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.

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.

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.

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"?