RoyalPurple get caught out.

[XR6_661]

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_artic...mW6PM,b1M25KBS

Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP Lubricants USA took it totask over advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding areceptive audience in the advertising industry's self-regulatory forum.

The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better BusinessBureaus recommended Porter, Texas-based Royal Purple modify ordiscontinue numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor oil,following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP Lubricants. The NADexamined comparative performance and superiority claims in print,broadcast and Internet advertising. In some of the advertising, RoyalPurple compared its performance to Castrol, Shell, Amsoil and othermotor oil brands.

NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its use of consumertestimonials reporting specific performance attributes in the absenceof reliable independent evidence showing performance capability.

"Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences of individualconsumers is insufficient to support product efficacy claims, includingclaims related to horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat," theorganization stated. "While the advertiser may quote from publishedarticles if it provides clear and conspicuous attribution to thepublisher, it may not rely on such articles to support efficacy claimsfor which it has no reliable independent validation."

NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such as "Increaseshorsepower and torque by as much as 3 percent," "Reduces Engine Wear by80 percent," "Superior Oxidation Stability" and "Provides Film StrengthUp to 400 Percent."

"If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully documented controlswere abandoned, there would be no basis whatsoever for making anymeaningful claims about the relative efficacy of motor oils," BP saidin its challenge.

NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims that stated,"Improves fuel economy by as much as 5 percent" and "Fuel economyimprovement up to 5 percent or more" because its EnvironmentalProtection Agency testing was inconclusive and the "Oklahoma StateStudy" and single cylinder Labeco CLR diesel engine testing cited inRoyal Purple's advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997 OSUStudy was "outdated and nothing in the record demonstrated that theformulations of the competitors' oils were similar to those availablefor sale on the market today."

BP Lubricants said it hired the independent laboratory SouthwestResearch Institute, in San Antonio, to analyze power output of gasolineengines with Royal Purple Oil and with BP's Castrol oil forcomparisons. "The results were provided to the challenger's expertstatistician who was not informed of the identity of the candidateoils," NAD stated. "The challenger's [BP's] expert determined a 0.9percent difference in power between the oils, which did not rise to thelevel of statistical significance, and is well below the 3 percentclaim made by the advertiser."

SwRI did additional tests to independently determine the differences infuel economy, emissions data and engine temperature between RoyalPurple and Castrol motor oils. According to SwRI, "there was nostatistically significant difference between the fuel economy,emissions data or engine temperature between the two candidate oils,"NAD said.

Following its review of the non-anecdotal evidence in the record, NADrecommended that Royal Purple discontinue the claims, "Reducesemissions up to 20 percent or more" and "Reductions in emissions of 20percent or more" because the studies on which the claims were basedwere outdated and not consumer-relevant.

NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its unsupported claimthat Royal purple motor oil is "API/ILSAC Certified." Noting that APIand ILSAC licenses and certifications have many categories withdifferent meanings, the NAD recommended that the company discontinueits claim that its synthetic oils are "generally 'API/ILSAC Certified.'"

In fact, no Royal Purple products are certified to current ILSAC specifications.

The American Petroleum Institute licenses its trademarked ServiceSymbol, or 'donut,' for display on qualified engine oils, and alsolicenses the ILSAC 'starburst' logo for oils that meet the autoindustry's latest energy-conserving standards. In API's onlinedirectory of licensees for its Engine Oil Licensing and CertificationProgram, Royal Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel engineoil products listed, all licensed to use the API donut. Five of thesemay additionally display the words 'energy conserving' within the donutlogo, but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable to thecurrent ILSAC GF-4 specification and they cannot display the starburstlogo.

Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue the claims, "mostadvanced," "unsurpassed performance" and "unparalleled performance,"steps the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid confusion in themarketplace.

"While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and testimonials itsupplied as evidence accurately portray the benefits of using itssynthetic oil in a wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD'sposition that those tests and testimonials alone are insufficient tosupport specific performance attribute claims in consumer advertising,"the company said in its response to NAD. "... [Royal Purple] hasalready made changes to its advertising in accordance with the NADrecommendations and will continue to implement NAD's recommendationsand analysis in developing Royal Purple's future advertising."

BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube Report requesting comment on NAD's decision.