BallReviews
General Category => Miscellaneous => Topic started by: Snakster on November 30, 2015, 07:29:01 AM
-
As a spin-off from another thread, please sound off if you are a Bowling This Month online subscriber.
If you wish, please also add whether you rely on their ball reviews (if not entirely, at least in part) when making a new ball purchase. If so, do you disregard a manufacturer as an option if they do not provide balls for review?
I will start by indicating that I am a subscriber. I DO rely on the reviews to inform my purchasing decisions and I DO disregard options that are not provided.
And not just to pick on Brunswick family...I have been opening myself up to other companies lately. The Seismic Equalizer caught my eye this weekend as I was looking for a more heavy oil ball after a horrible showing in a tournament last Wednesday night. I went to BTM and....no review for that one, though some other fairly recent Seismic balls have reviews. This was disappointing and I am more likely to focus on other options.
EDIT: Actually I guess it has been 2 years since Seismic has provided a new ball for review. Curious that they would make a Facebook plea for "small business Saturday", but not try to get the word out on their products through consumer publications. Really makes me wonder what the reach of BTM actually is.
-
I do and will continue to do so.
please also add whether you rely on their ball reviews (if not entirely, at least in part) when making a new ball purchase.
It's about 70-80% of the decision I make as to whether the ball will be appropriate for me and my game and my conditions.
If so, do you disregard a manufacturer as an option if they do not provide balls for review?
I have begun disregarding Brunswick, Radical and DV8 balls since they started their policy of trying to save a dime.
-
I'm a subscriber, love the site. I use their ball comparison tool a great deal. I used to disregard any other brand for a while because I loved the Utah stuff so much, but after doing some tinkering around in the ball comparison tool it has opened my eyes.
-
I do and will continue to do so.
I no longer subscribe. I dropped my subscription when BTM went just online. In comparing the reviews of the balls I buy between BTM and BJI (about 10 per year), I found BJI to be more consistent with my own evaluations. I like having hard copy anyway.
I have begun disregarding Brunswick, Radical and DV8 balls since they started their policy of trying to save a dime.
I understand your thinking. I found it odd that Brunswick doesn't submit all their balls to BTM because of low subscriber-ship. That doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy either.
-
Has it been shown that BTM has a low number of subscribers? This kind of seems like an assumption until the facts are given.
-
Just for reference, Bowler's Journal shows subscriptions at 17,000 as verified by the postmaster. When BTM was in print it was much lower than BJ. It would be hard to believe there are more subscribers now than when it was in print.
BJ claims 800,000 for the digital edition, which my guess would be is the USBC email list. I would be curious as to what the click through rate is.
-
I subscribe to BTM and BJI both. I would prefer BTM to still be available in a hard copy, but this is the world we live in.
-
Currently with BTM.....I do use the reviews as my guide line for balls. Found a used a Motiv Vengeance and based on the that they supplied, I had to go for it and so far so good.
-
Yes a subscriber....
I count on the reviews to help me decide when I have more than one ball in mind or when im looking for something specific and not sure what to buy. Its a great tool and I have not purchased a ball I have recently looked at because there is no review in BTM....all i can find is staffer reviews....
-
I used to subscribe but cancelled after their first Radical review of the Finger Scoop core. The fact that they didn't drill it differently to gauge how different the reactions can be based on drilling alone showed that they are really not worth the subscription.
Additionally, the conditions they apparently bowled on didn't match anything I saw regularly as a lot of their ratings were way different than what I had.
-
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.
-
Long time BTM guy here, well there were those darks years.... anyway I still have my "bowling comics" my kid calls it, but the last year(?) I have the online version.
I read many of the articles from different coaches to ball reviews. I don't buy balls Like I used to (own only 5 or 6 and use only 2 strike balls), but I use it to keep me up-to-date.
The articles that deal heavily on technical stuff outside the ball with formulas and pies and graphs, I tend to ignore. I'm sure elevation, humidity, 3/32 difference in release, and all that "nerdy" stuff make sense to engineers and physics majors, but prefer simple real world stuff instead of formulas and graphs.
I'm just glad BTM came back......
-
Been a BTM subscriber for years. Back when they were printing issues, we used to keep the magazines in the shop for customers to read while they were waiting.
Its a sad that they are now online only. I check the site monthly for the ball reviews, but don't spend time going over the articles like I used to. I would gladly pay a premium to be mailed a printed copy again
-
I dropped mine when they went online. I'm flooded with online stuff daily, and logging in is much more painful than reaching over for the stack of many years worth of BTM I kept in my bookcase, plus using it as reference is harder as well. Here's another vote for the printed copy premium subscription...
-
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.
-
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 get both the BJI and BTM, like both and compare reviews from both.
Also use my eyes at the center watching better bowlers and what they throw, looking for that continuation of a ball at the pins.
-
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.
-
Not a subscriber. Was a print subscriber to each at one time but got tired of the recycled articles etc
-
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
http://www.ballreviews.com/radical/radical-raises-the-bar-again-t308769.0.html;msg2533897#msg2533897 (http://www.ballreviews.com/radical/radical-raises-the-bar-again-t308769.0.html;msg2533897#msg2533897) Which is it Phil? Do we believe these articles or not?
I believe Radical and Brunswick make good products. I just do not agree with how they market them.
As for the BTM, I am a member. But I do not take their ratings into consideration when selling to a consumer. It does give bowlers a perception of how the balls performs compared to others.
-
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.
-
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
Nice post Phil. Just like the Internet is killing local pro shops, this site is also contributing. Someone looking to buy a new ball should seek local pro shop advice first. They see you bowl, they see your style, they know how the lanes play locally. Someone 1000 miles away has only a recommendation. Just as stated above, most reviews on here are staffers and what staffer is going to give negative feedback.
I am a BTM member and have been for 20 years. Very rarely do I take a review as written in stone. I use look at the numbers and rating they give and have built my own xcel speadsheet with the information they provide and find it very helpful not only to me, but helps my employees so we think simulate tremendously. If a customer walks in to my shop wanting recommendations, I pull out my sheet and show them my recommendations and explain what the numbers on my sheet mean. If for some reason (which rarely happens) they are not studied off my recommendation, I replace with another option. They bring me a ball recommended from someone they have no idea who it is and they don't like it, they are stuck with it.
Think Phil hit it right. We need non-staffers that won't copy and paste from manufacturers info giving honest feedback as to positives and negatives on products. I have customers that can make the crappiest ball look good because they have the talent and I have customers that make a great product look bad because they lack talent.
-
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 am a BTM subscriber. I use their reviews to help inform my ball purchase decisions. The pro-shop I currently use is one that has a low sales volume. The operator drills at most 4 balls a year for his own use; so he doesn't get to see a lot new balls get thrown. and the vast majority of the truly good bowlers locally stick with one manufacturer and I am not going to buy 5 balls and hope at least 1 is going to the job I want.
I was hunting for a replacement for a Virtual gravity due to the number of games it has, and that this season I am transitioning from 16 lbs to 15 lbs.
I was considering the Lock, Paradox, Menance, Nirvana and Dream Big. after all the different research I did I had myself down to thinking about Lock and Nirvana. Not getting a BTM review to read on the Nirvana was a major factor for my choice of the lock.
I bought 3 balls this year a medium oil ball, spare and now a lock. that is my absolute limit for new ball expenditures this season. I don't have the luxury getting all the ones I might want.
To point made by Newguy/Phil. I do read the reviews here at Ball Reviews. but like others have said, I don't take a lot of them too seriously because so many of the reviews are staffers. I don't trust most of those reviews aside from comparisons to other offerings from the same company. at least BTM gives me some confidence that their reviews are impartial.
-
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.
-
Another point to remember is that there are many more lurkers on this site who never or rarely ever post, but do read either the ball reviews or the forums. I know that I lurked on this site for about a year before I joined. Some people just want to read the info they want and leave it at that. That probably holds true for BTM - they just read the free articles or find the issues online for free. So there are probably many more readers than subscribers.
-
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.
-
If only I had a need for performance balls...
-
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.
-
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.
WOOHOO!!! I'm back on board baby!!!
(this news makes me happy).
-
Yes, Thank You Nick,
I said previously, you are a class act.
I have bought Brunswick balls here and there over the years, but I recently became interested in Radical. I purchased The Reax V2 Pearl, Reax Gusto and the Score. Part of that decision was based on the reviews on BTM and the fact I was able to buy them on a closeout price. All three are meeting my expectations.
Thanks again for your involvement and efforts.
-
Thank you Nick and Phil!
-
Thanks Nick and Phil. It's not the only thing I use in my decisions but it does help. This is how this site should work. Not just us getting our way but a way for you guys to get a feel for what's going on in our heads and how the faithful are thinking. Really appreciate the way you guys take the time to include us.
I just bought my first Brunswick product in about 20 years a few months ago (Mastermind Einstein) which I really like and bought my wife the Nirvana which I think is slowly pulling her away from Seismic. I've been impressed so far and my next purchase may very well be Radical.
-
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.
Smart move. I do applaud this decision. Keep up the good work, Nick.
-
BTM subscriber here. Have a bunch of old issues, then dropped when I quit bowling for a couple years. Just got back on recently.
I use BTM and BJI as a starting point to get information as I feel they are using similar controls to test each ball. I usually learn purpose of ball easier from these two. Then I talk to pro-shop operator (time is money for these guys), look at manufacturers website, and here.
Even after reading about a ball and discussing with PSO, I still feel like about 2 of 3 balls will become worthy of taking with me while 1 will just not work out well. Has been that way with me for years. I doubt I'm not alone in that some balls just leave a bowler with too much doubt to trust when needed.
BrunsNick, thanks for making a change. Marketing is almost as important as making a good product these days.
-
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.
Thanks, Nick, for not having a closed mind on this issue.
-
We are never closed minded when it comes to customer experience.
Experience is everything.
-
I had been a subscriber 6 or 7 yrs ago...up until the transition from print to electronic. I always found the magazine informative and loved the articles. Reviews were always OK for me. If they could include short video clips in addition to the written text, I think it would be an improvement.
I'll probably look to subscribe again in the coming year... I do miss the new issues coming in...
Scott