Shopsmith Forums

USA Today had the following ad in June 14 (Sports 3C) from Mobile 1: There’s a reason over half of all NASCAR teams choose Mobil 1. It’s called winning.

This is followed by notification that the Official Motor oil of Nascar is Mobil 1.
While the ad was accurate it was not true and was deceptive. This Mobil advertising director should work in the federal government.

Partial truth is a lie, as any woman will tell her husband who tries to deceive her.

The whole truth is that since it is the Official Motor oil of Nascar, Mobil is paying big bucks for that and that they also pay drivers to sponsor them on their cars and driver’s suits. Additionally, and more importantly, Mobil 1 had ZERO impact on engine performance in NASCAR since after every race the oil is replaced. High mileage oil is not a factor.

Because I deplore liars – half-liars and deceitful advertisers, I would never, ever buy a Mobil product – even gas.

Yes, but will Mobile 1 work in my car that I drive 10,000 between oil changes and put 30,000 miles a year on it? I hope so because that's what my dealer puts in it.

The truth: it takes big money to win in that sport. So I judge the ad true. Mobile gives them money, which they need in order to win.

Deceptive: absolutely.

My favorite required class in college was a logic class taught by a philosophy professor. The lessons on informal logical fallacies were priceless. Perhaps the worst abusers of logical fallacies are, big surprise, politicians. But dare I say it, I find them to be in in a dead heat with fundamentalist preachers of all religions, including the church in which I was raised. The Madison Avenue marketing types, IMHO, come in at a distant, and comparatively harmless, third place.

Remember when Bayer aspirin used to advertise that "No aspirin is better than Bayer.". Simple truth was that no aspirin was worse, either. They were all the same, Bayer was just trying to deceive so they could justify a higher price than store brands.

Biggest deceiver. imho, the courts. "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?"

You are ONLY allowed to tell as much of the truth as any particular lawyer wants you to. They can even ask the judge to instruct you to only answer so that the whole truth is completely obfuscated (dang I like that word!).

Politicians lie by omission first. Many at a national level are lawyers (hmmm is there a pattern emerging?

If there was truth in adverting, then few people would buy ANY products.

Imagine how quiet the air waves would be if there was truth in political campaigns!!

Lance lied about doping, Pete lied about betting. Soccer players fake injuries on the field.

So now when someone asks me what I think I preface it with "The truth as I know it....."

Maybe we could consider a bit of wisdom I read the other day...

We are not our mistakes.

Just my 2 cents.

Ben

Bayer said it was fastest relief!




Reason it was faster was they were not coated(coating made them more durable and less moisture absorbent AND eliminated the bad taste).

So faster since a coating did not need to be dissolved first by stomach acid.


'Truth' be told many cheapest 'brands' were not coated either($$$$).


So Bayer was fastest amongst those (few) it was compared to.

benush26 wrote:Remember when Bayer aspirin used to advertise that "No aspirin is better than Bayer.". Simple truth was that no aspirin was worse, either. They were all the same, Bayer was just trying to deceive so they could justify a higher price than store brands.

Ben

This reminds me of the old Energizer battery ads that said "No battery lasts longer" and "No battery is stronger longer"...there's a reason they're not directly saying their battery lasts longest but rather that no battery will out last it...there's a finite capacity to an alkaline battery and there's nothing one brand can do to makes theirs last significantly longer on a consistent basis.

I remember taking a class in High School or College where they talking about deceptive and meaningless advertising - one of my favorites was an ad the teacher had saved from a newspaper for some sort of sale a store was having that reach "Up to 50% off or more!"...if you decipher that, it really means the sale price could be anywhere from 0-100% off and hence is meaningless.

db5 wrote:USA Today had the following ad in June 14 (Sports 3C) from Mobile 1: There’s a reason over half of all NASCAR teams choose Mobil 1. It’s called winning.

This is followed by notification that the Official Motor oil of Nascar is Mobil 1.
While the ad was accurate it was not true and was deceptive. This Mobil advertising director should work in the federal government.

Partial truth is a lie, as any woman will tell her husband who tries to deceive her.

The whole truth is that since it is the Official Motor oil of Nascar, Mobil is paying big bucks for that and that they also pay drivers to sponsor them on their cars and driver’s suits. Additionally, and more importantly, Mobil 1 had ZERO impact on engine performance in NASCAR since after every race the oil is replaced. High mileage oil is not a factor.

Because I deplore liars – half-liars and deceitful advertisers, I would never, ever buy a Mobil product – even gas.

So are you saying it doesn't matter what types of lubrication a race team chooses to use in a NASCAR race? Why? Because NASCAR events are relatively short races or because there is no difference between brand M and brand V? And over the last two seasons can you provide the winning lubricant percentages by brand? And if any one team chooses to use brand M would they do it just for the sponsorship dollars and ignore winning tactics? And, while I may be mistaken, but I understood that Cup engines are routinly rebuildt after each event, they're not just doing an oil change.

Just remember everything you read on the internet is true. Even here at the forum.

Ed

reible wrote:Just remember everything you read on the internet is true. Even here at the forum.

Ed

Well, that's a generalization and all generalizations are false - including this one.

db5 wrote:Well, that's a generalization and all generalizations are false - including this one.

Could that also be a generalization?

Ed