By George Gill
Royal Purple Ltd. was black and blue after BP
Lubricants USA took it to task over advertising
claims for its synthetic motor oil, finding a
receptive audience in the advertising industry’s
self-regulatory forum.
The National Advertising Division of the Council of
Better Business Bureaus recommended Porter,
Texas-based Royal Purple modify or discontinue
numerous advertising claims for its synthetic motor
oil, following a challenge by Wayne, N.J.-based BP
Lubricants. The NAD examined comparative performance
and superiority claims in print, broadcast and
Internet advertising. In some of the advertising,
Royal Purple compared its performance to Castrol,
Shell, Amsoil and other motor oil brands.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue its
use of consumer testimonials reporting specific
performance attributes in the absence of reliable
independent evidence showing performance capability.
“Anecdotal evidence based solely on the experiences
of individual consumers is insufficient to support
product efficacy claims, including claims related to
horsepower, torque, fuel economy or engine heat,”
the organization stated. “While the advertiser may
quote from published articles if it provides clear
and conspicuous attribution to the publisher, it may
not rely on such articles to support efficacy claims
for which it has no reliable independent
validation.”
NAD recommended Royal Purple discontinue claims such
as “Increases horsepower and torque by as much as 3
percent,” “Reduces Engine Wear by 80 percent,”
“Superior Oxidation Stability” and “Provides Film
Strength Up to 400 Percent.”
“If industry-standard tests or tests with carefully
documented controls were abandoned, there would be
no basis whatsoever for making any meaningful claims
about the relative efficacy of motor oils,” BP said
in its challenge.
NAD recommended that Royal Purple discontinue claims
that stated, “Improves fuel economy by as much as 5
percent” and “Fuel economy improvement up to 5
percent or more” because its Environmental
Protection Agency testing was inconclusive and the
“Oklahoma State Study” and single cylinder Labeco
CLR diesel engine testing cited in Royal Purple’s
advertising was not relevant. The NAD noted the 1997
OSU Study was “outdated and nothing in the record
demonstrated that the formulations of the
competitors’ oils were similar to those available
for sale on the market today.”
BP Lubricants said it hired the independent
laboratory Southwest Research Institute, in San
Antonio, to analyze power output of gasoline engines
with Royal Purple Oil and with BP’s Castrol oil for
comparisons. “The results were provided to the
challenger’s expert statistician who was not
informed of the identity of the candidate oils,” NAD
stated. “The challenger’s [BP’s] expert determined a
0.9 percent difference in power between the oils,
which did not rise to the level of statistical
significance, and is well below the 3 percent claim
made by the advertiser.”
SwRI did additional tests to independently determine
the differences in fuel economy, emissions data and
engine temperature between Royal Purple and Castrol
motor oils. According to SwRI, “there was no
statistically 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, NAD recommended that Royal Purple
discontinue the claims, “Reduces emissions up to 20
percent or more” and “Reductions in emissions of 20
percent or more” because the studies on which the
claims were based were outdated and not
consumer-relevant.
NAD also recommended the advertiser discontinue its
unsupported claim that Royal purple motor oil is
“API/ILSAC Certified.” Noting that API and ILSAC
licenses and certifications have many categories
with different meanings, the NAD recommended that
the company discontinue its 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 Service Symbol, or ‘donut,’ for display
on qualified engine oils, and also licenses the
ILSAC ‘starburst’ logo for oils that meet the auto
industry’s latest energy-conserving standards. In
API’s online directory of licensees for its Engine
Oil Licensing and Certification Program, Royal
Purple has a total of 23 passenger car and diesel
engine oil products listed, all licensed to use the
API donut. Five of these may additionally display
the words ‘energy conserving’ within the donut logo,
but none of the Royal Purple products are licensable
to the current ILSAC GF-4 specification and they
cannot display the starburst logo.
Royal Purple also voluntarily agreed to discontinue
the claims, “most advanced,” “unsurpassed
performance” and “unparalleled performance,” steps
the NAD said were necessary and proper to avoid
confusion in the marketplace.
“While Royal Purple also believes that the tests and
testimonials it supplied as evidence accurately
portray the benefits of using its synthetic oil in a
wide variety of applications, it defers to the NAD’s
position that those tests and testimonials alone are
insufficient to support specific performance
attribute claims in consumer advertising,” the
company said in its response to NAD. “... [Royal
Purple] has already made changes to its advertising
in accordance with the NAD recommendations and will
continue to implement NAD’s recommendations and
analysis in developing Royal Purple’s future
advertising.”
BP Lubricants did not return phone calls from Lube
Report requesting comment on NAD’s decision.