Quote from: MI 2 AZ on November 30, 2015, 11:23:12 AM

I subscribe to BTM although I would prefer a print edition.  I do use their ball reviews as a guide.  I am disappointed some companies only want their high-end balls reviewed as I usually do not buy those as much.

I guess these companies do not realize that although the subscriber base may be low on both BTM and BJI, those subscribers are the more serious bowlers whose opinions may be valued by other league or casual bowlers for ball recommendations.  If we don't see a ball reviewed by independent reviewers (sorry, but many staff reviewers just spout the company line and seem to read the same) it makes it difficult to recommend a ball for others.  I have made many ball recommendations for others on balls that I have not owned but based on those reviews.  I would hope those companies would want to sell all of their product lines, not just the top tier.

Not trying to be lazy but MI 2 AZ said what I'm feeling better than how I would have written it. And to add, right now I'm looking for a good middle of the arsenal ball.  I am thinking that maybe the Primo or Rave would fit what I'm looking for but all I can see is how they fit in with other Radical balls with the Radical ball chart. With BTM I can get a feel for how they fit in with the other manufacturers.  I'll probably wind up getting a Venom Shock but that Primo could be what I'm looking for.

Yes, this was the point where I moved away from Radical.  I didn't like that I had to guess context; or rely on non-independent context. So I ventured out and picked something from a different company. 

I'm a BTM subscriber. I will say that BTM information goes out to everyone who has ever signed up for the newsletter in addition to the subscribers. The newsletter doesn't provide a full review but does name the ball show a picture and provide a little info. I don't know what their subscriber or newsletter rates are but it seems like to me that a few balls is a small price to pay to reach an audience of your most ardent users. I don't think much of the Joe six pack buy a new ball every ten years make up much of the subscriber base. I would think a very large percentage of the subscriber base are people who are very interested in bowling and buy multiple new balls per year. Most advertisers would salivate over the opportunity to reach a concentrated collection of their top consumers. It may not advertise to 100k people but if you can reach a reasonable percentage of your top consumers who wouldn't do that?

I use the reviews as a way of comparing balls from different manufactures. I very rarely see DV8 or Hammer equipment here anymore as the pro shops have switched to pushing Storm/Roto, 900 Global, and Brunswick equipment. So if I want an idea of how those brands will fit in the arsenal I need an outside comparison. No review no comparison. Does it keep me from buying a particular ball? No but it does make it less likely in some instances if I'm divided. A lack of info is often worse than information you may not like.

Not sending anything but HP line balls is crazy. I don't buy a lot of HP line balls maybe one every other year. With my lower speed higher revs style a midline ball is often all I need.

Not slamming anyone here but I know some of the management people or at least their peoples people read some of this stuff so I wanted to voice my opinion and reasoning on the matter.   

So I spend a lot of time on this site as many of you know. I'm just a bit confused, several years ago when the site first started it was billed as a place where you could get independent opinions on product hence the name "Ball Reviews" now it seems that most of the members (most may be the wrong word) are relying on other sources in order to get opinions. I was most happy when I read a review from a ball reviews member posting who did not have a vested interest.

Touching on the magazines or on line periodicals, when have any of you read a bad review, they have vested interests in keeping their advertisers happy. I like the reviews but most of the time they are tempered so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.
Tough to tell someone their baby is ugly.

If you rely on the mags, or on line to select a balls you are selling yourself short, there are many other opportunities available like joining a Facebook group. or relying on others here at ball reviews, I bet if you posted a topic with a question about a ball and weeded out the staffers or the shills (you all know who they are) you could really put together a very unbiased realistic opinion of a ball.

Lets make ball reviews what its name was intended, to be a place to post your reviews, opinions and observations.

Phil

So I spend a lot of time on this site as many of you know. I'm just a bit confused, several years ago when the site first started it was billed as a place where you could get independent opinions on product hence the name "Ball Reviews" now it seems that most of the members (most may be the wrong word) are relying on other sources in order to get opinions. I was most happy when I read a review from a ball reviews member posting who did not have a vested interest.

Touching on the magazines or on line periodicals, when have any of you read a bad review, they have vested interests in keeping their advertisers happy. I like the reviews but most of the time they are tempered so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.
Tough to tell someone their baby is ugly.

If you rely on the mags, or on line to select a balls you are selling yourself short, there are many other opportunities available like joining a Facebook group. or relying on others here at ball reviews, I bet if you posted a topic with a question about a ball and weeded out the staffers or the shills (you all know who they are) you could really put together a very unbiased realistic opinion of a ball.

Lets make ball reviews what its name was intended, to be a place to post your reviews, opinions and observations.

Phil

Hi Phil,

Glad to see you posting here.

I do read some of the reviews here but lately, many of them are by staffers and while that is not all bad, some of them seem to be just regurgitating the company ads.  I did not really mention the reviews here because the subject is about BTM. 

I believe a smart consumer should take reviews from as many sources as possible.  Not all reviewers are going to be similar to your style of game/release/lane conditions/ect.  Not everyone on this site who posts reviews has the opportunity to drill up balls from every company and then has the experience to compare them against other balls.  In fact, a lot of times, reviewers here are going to be locked in to one or two companies either due to personal preference or because of where their paycheck is coming from.

That is where, supposedly, ideally, the magazine reviews would come in, offering some unbiased viewpoints on different conditions and with different release bowlers, comparing balls to each other.  Of course, there is going to be some editing done so as to not upset the companies supplying the free balls, but if the companies themselves would inform the reviewers that there would be no retaliation for an unbiased review, perhaps we would get to see that happen more.

As mentioned in other posts previously, not everyone is going to use Facebook, especially if they already use this site and others like it plus the magazines.

I agree with you that it would be nice to see this site live up to it's name, I would like this site to be a place for bowlers of all skill levels to share information and help each other.

 

Touching on the magazines or on line periodicals, when have any of you read a bad review, they have vested interests in keeping their advertisers happy. I like the reviews but most of the time they are tempered so as not to hurt anyone's feelings.
Tough to tell someone their baby is ugly.

 
BJI reviews each ball across three different conditions. They don't shy from indicating directly if a ball doesn't match up in specific situation. For instance, I'm right now reading a review of the Storm Joy Ride. Regarding the USBC Open Team pattern, they say the "length and volume on this pattern made the angle a little late into the pocket".
 
I'm not ragging on Storm -- just providing a real world example of a BJI review. The point is they're clearly not trying to spare any feelings. This is the kind of information any bowler should want to know.
 
There is certainly good information shared on BR. But like the tests you conduct, it's nice to read reviews that are performed in a controlled setting. Bowlers should take it all in and make decisions based on a complete picture. 

I to subscribe to BTM.  I use the information they provide as one source to help me make hopefully somewhat of a informed decision in my ball selection/purchase.
I will take the BTM reviews over staff reviews which for the most part are only a restatement of what the manufacturer puts out in their sales material.

Snakster, thanks for making the post and thank you to everyone else for providing feedback on BTM reviews. After careful consideration, we have decided to once again send ALL performance balls to BTM. The people here that support BTM are fiercely loyal and maybe, just maybe, Brunswick can sway a few of those people to our products once again.

Thanks again.

Snakster, thanks for making the post and thank you to everyone else for providing feedback on BTM reviews. After careful consideration, we have decided to once again send ALL performance balls to BTM. The people here that support BTM are fiercely loyal and maybe, just maybe, Brunswick can sway a few of those people to our products once again.

Thanks again.

Thank you, Nick and Brunswick.