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.

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 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.

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.

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??

The late Sawbones didn't like videos that struck 100% of the time and mentioned how unaccurate these bowlers were..

Quote from: kidlost2000 on September 29, 2015, 05:33:46 PM

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.   

Quote from: Steven on September 29, 2015, 09:51:02 PM

Quote from: kidlost2000 on September 29, 2015, 05:33:46 PM

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).