Guru Glass Cleaner # 1 Not A Good Performer...

[jaim]

geekysteve,



Can you provide a REVISED ranking of the Glass Cleaning Products... so the actual performance of the product can be

easily decifered by the reader.



Believe it or not, I am now half-way recomputing the point / grade of the products without the product availability factor.



The current #3 on your report should have been the real #2. I have both products and compared its performance side-by-side and the current #3 is better than the current #2... The over-all point grade of the current #3 excluding the product availability factor is higher than the current #2.

 

[BradE]

jaim,



Just because you believe product availability should not be a factor does not mean others don't find it useful. I highly doubt Steve and the guys are going to recalculate the entire report to reflect your request.



You have to remember, I'm sure it's more than just car buffs that purchase the report, so "normal" folks probably appreciate availability information.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

UGH and my wife wonders why I tear my hair out everytime a report comes out.



Audience

Our audience is the average Joe consumer - the guy who washes and waxes his car a few times per year, and is looking to learn a little about the process and hopefully know a little more about the products he's considering purchasing the next time he's out shopping.



Autopians and professional detailers are not our primary audience - never have been, never will. Why? Well, if you must know, less than 10 known Autopians purchased our Wax Test and less than 20 have purchased the Glass Cleaner Test...pro detailers account for about 100 total sales of both reports as well.



Availability

Availability grades are extremely critical and should probably get a higher percentage of the grade than what we give them. Why?



I get about 100 e-mails a month from people complaining that P21S is only available online, or that Souveran is only available online...how dare we give it a B for availability!



The majority of people DO NOT like shopping online - all of us here don't mind it, but we're used to it, and we're willing to go through some of the hassle to get products that we feel are better than "over the counter" type products.



More than 70% of our orders come via the phone line because people complain that they will not give their credit card out over the internet. Whatever their reason, that's their right, be it accurate or inaccurate.



Our criteria were as follows (again, remember, we have to take space constraints into consideration, especially when the report is a download only, which is why the detailed explanation isn't in the reports):



A = Available just about everywhere - places like Wal-Mart, Target, Auto Parts stores, grocery stores, etc.



B = Readily available - certain auto parts stores, most online stores, catalogs, etc.



C = A bit tough to find - available primarily online only, but still can be found without too much seraching/inconvenience.



D = Limited availability - only available from the manufacturer or an authorized vendor, primarily online or through the mail (places like: griot's, Zaino, etc)



F = Really hard to find or discontinued. Would require a lot of effort to buy it, and may no longer be available.



The grades are relative to our experiences - we have anywhere from 3 - 10 people shopping for products for us, and they're located in various parts of the country. We put out a list of "to buy" products, and people look for them. When they find them, they report back to us with location, price and availability. From there, we determine the availability grades.



Now, imagine if I had to fit that entire explanation in the report, along with similar explanations for all of the other grading criteria? Next, people will want to know what shoes I was wearing when I was testing products, because a soft soled shoe might increase the amount of effort by reducing the amount of leverage that I get from my legs...



Rankings

I'm sorry that you don't find the availability grades useful, but if you'd like, I'll let you answer the phones for us and answer the e-mails. After about a week, I'm guessing you'll wish that the availability grade was the only grade listed because people would then stop calling you to complain about product availability. Besides, what's the #1 complaint with Zaino been for so many years? "It's not available in the stores or online!" So, availability is important - you'd be surprised at how many people are interested in where to buy products and how upset they get when they can't find them locally.



Consider the guy who's doing some last minute detailing and tries to find BlackFire at his local grocery store - he's hoppin' mad! So, obviously, availability plays into his detailing plans and will affect his purchasing decisions.



The tests are what they are. I welcome anyone else to go through the headaches, the hassles, the expenses and the problems associated with testing products - it's not a cake walk by any sense of the means, and there's little to no profit in it. It's a labor of love, much like Autopia is for all of us.



Hope this info clears up the misconceptions and/or confusion - but rest assured, availability is extremely important to people other than yourself.

 

[jaim]

geekysteve,



Thank you for taking time to reply to my posting.



On the matter involving your AUDIENCE;



QUOTE:

"Our audience is the average Joe consumer - the guy who washes and waxes his car a few times per year, and is looking to learn a little about the process and hopefully know a little more about the products he's considering purchasing the next time he's out shopping."



REPLY:

IMO, 50% of products that you included on both your Wax and Glass Report are NOT typically for the average Joe Consumer. An average Joe Consumer goes to a supermarket (Target / Walmart) and not into a detailing shop online or offline. How many of the products you included can be readily bought in a supermarket?



QUOTE:

"if you must know, less than 10 known Autopians purchased our Wax Test and less than 20 have purchased the Glass Cleaner Test...pro detailers account for about 100 total sales of both reports as well."





REPLY:

I thought your audience is the average Joe consumer. You have just revealed your statistics that pro detailers account for about 100 total sales...Isn't that a CONTRADICTING STATEMENT.



Also, how where you able to safely conclude that less than 10 known Auotpians purchased your Wax Test and 20 have purchased the Glass Cleaner. When I purchased both of your products, I was not even asked if I am an autopian or not.





On the matter involving Availability;



QUOTE:

"I get about 100 e-mails a month from people complaining that P21S is only available online, or that Souveran is only available online...how dare we give it a B for availability!"



REPLY:

If you did not provided any availability rating in the first place, you will not have those 100 e-mails a month from people complaining about your availability rating of B for P21S. Those 100 e-mails a month is a very strong evidence that product availability is entirely dependent on the geographical location of the User. How many of those compalainants came from your own geographical location?





QUOTE:

"More than 70% of our orders come via the phone line because people complain that they will not give their credit card out over the internet. Whatever their reason, that's their right, be it accurate or inaccurate."



REPLY:

On both of your reports, you included products that can only be bought online (Zaino, Klasse, Blackfire, Bon Ami etc. etc.). There are a lot of other over-the-counter products that can be bought from Target / Walmart but were not included. If indeed, you are true to your statement that your average audience is the average Joe Consumer then why include those hard to get products at all?



QUOTE:

"Our criteria were as follows (again, remember, we have to take space constraints into consideration, especially when the report is a download only, which is why the detailed explanation isn't in the reports):"



REPLY:

IMO, a responsible author and publisher of a comparative report will not find any reason, whatsoever, NOT to including the definition / explanation of the various criteria that was / were used for judging / interpreting / grading no matter what. Moreso, if the TARGETED AUDIENCE is the average Joe Consumer and numerous competing products are being judge and compared.





On the matter involving the Rankings;





QUOTE:

I'm sorry that you don't find the availability grades useful, but if you'd like, I'll let you answer the phones for us and answer the e-mails. After about a week, I'm guessing you'll wish that the availability grade was the only grade listed because people would then stop calling you to complain about product availability.



REPLY:

See, people are complaining about what you have published regarding the availability of a particular product. Those complaints are strong evidences to proove that your point / grade ratings do more harm than good to your average Joe Consumer.



Does an average Joe Consumer take effort to call you and complain that the product is difficult to get. IMO, an average Joe Consumer will get whatever product is in front of him once he is in the supermarket.



QUOTE:

"So, availability is important - you'd be surprised at how many people are interested in where to buy products and how upset they get when they can't find them locally."



REPLY

They are upset because you included and reviewed a product that is difficult to get in the first place. I doubt if you did not experience the same difficulty when you were purchasing those hard to get products but still you have included it in your two reports. If knowledgable people like the publisher still had that difficulty getting a particular product... what more is the average Jose Consumer... IMO, you should have known it in the first place... and not let the average Joe Consumer go through the process of locating such product and get upset.





QUOTE:

"The tests are what they are. I welcome anyone else to go through the headaches, the hassles, the expenses and the problems associated with testing products - it's not a cake walk by any sense of the means, and there's little to no profit in it. It's a labor of love, much like Autopia is for all of us."



REPLY:

IMO, the above statement is short of you saying "do your own report and expereince how difficult it is". Such statement, IMO is unbecoming of a publisher. I never heard or read a publisher from a reputable newspaper and magazine saying "if you do not like what you read in our paper / magazine then go fetch your own news". IMO, once a person commits an undertaking, he / she should take responsibility for whatever difficulties he / she encountered during the process and not to use it as an excuse when certain short comings eventually surfaces.





NOTE:

geekysteve,



I hope you will not find my replies / comments personal as I do not ment it to be. Since you are part of the Guru Report Team, my replies / comments are for the Organization.

 

[KCPreki11]

I agree with Jaim, if your target is "Joe Consumer," then why even include autopian like products that are hard to get, such as Zaino? Hasn't it been agreed upon that "Joe Consumer" wouldn't be able to tell the difference between NuFinish and P21S?

 

[Steve @ Guru]

You're missing the point and taking the position of reading what you want to read and interpretting it in a manner that was completely different than the intention of my original reply.



My whole point was that the average consumer wants to know how available a product is or isn't - it's important to them, just like the "ease of use" grades are important to some and not important to others.



Furthermore, our reports introduce people to products they may have never heard of before, like Zaino, P21S, Lusso, Pinnacle, etc - we get a lot of "thank you" letters from people who had never heard of that "Zainco product," bought it, used it and were pleased with the results. To not include products because you don't agree with availability grades would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face.



I wouldn't get too worried about 10% of the overall grade - take the info that's important to you, and use it as you see fit. But to assume that the grades are useless because you don't agree with a portion of them is ridiculous.



I mean, by using similar logic, why do we even bother to test products like P21S in the first place? Or, why does Car & Driver even bother to test Porsche's, Ferrari's, Lamborghini's and Mercedes? Most of their audience could never dream of affording one, so why bother?



The 100-ish pros represent about 1% of our total sales, and for the autopian order count, I recognize people's handles, e-mail addresses, etc. For example, I found your order in our database by simply knowing your location and your username here...I'm a very hands on guy - I surf a lot of forums, and try to help out people who are having problems with the reports, so I pay attention to e-mail addresses, usernames, etc.



Again, availability is a grade that our readers are interested in- I wouldn't make extra work for myself and my staff if I could avoid it...people want to know about products, where to get them, how easy they are to use, and their performance. The fact that you don't like the availability grades just goes to show that you can't please all of the people all of the time.

 

[biff]

I've noticed the same thing:



I've tried the #1 rated product, and while it performs very well initially, it streeks worse than almost any other product I've tried. If its a little too warm out, the streeks are next too impossible to remove without using another product.



Now, since I'm in Canada, I've only been able to find the Red Can of the #1 brand's product rather than the yellow can shown in the test.



Could this be the problem, Steve.



PM me if the reply would reveal too much info about the test.



Thanks

 

[imported_BretFraz]

Hmmm..........should I jump into this fray? After all, I am a contributor to the Glass Cleaner Test.







Lemme say this: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion of the test and the results. The test parameters were developed to appeal to a fairly wide audience of car enthusiasts and that includes casual enthusaists to the neurotic OCD Type A personalities that comprises much of the Autopia community.



The casual enthusiast both wants and needs info on things like availability. I too spend a lot of time in various forums helping others with their detailing needs and its very common for folks to ask where they can buy a product or tool I've mentioned. It's to the point where if I discuss several products in a post I include info on where to purchase the items. To suggest that the availability quotient be removed for some reason is to do these casual enthusiasts a big disservice and is ignorant of the largest part of the Guru Reports audience.



For the neurotic/OCD types, the tests hold a different appeal. Most of these folks have several glass cleaners on hand and have developed their own opinions on their performance. The tests are not really going to sway their opinions one way or the other but serve to reaffirm their views of a particular product. Things like price and availability are not serious obstacles for them. So the test ultimately serves to satisfy their curiousity and give them something to chat about with likeminded friends. There is no point in conducting product tests specifically for these people because whether or not they're interested in the results, they don't buy too many reports.



I do gotta respond to a couple comments (sorry, I can't help myself. But I am wearing my "Anti-Intermezzo Narrow-Minded Protective Barrier with Kevlar reinforcements so I feel pretty safe):

REPLY:

IMO, the above statement is short of you saying "do your own report and expereince how difficult it is". Such statement, IMO is unbecoming of a publisher. I never heard or read a publisher from a reputable newspaper and magazine saying "if you do not like what you read in our paper / magazine then go fetch your own news". IMO, once a person commits an undertaking, he / she should take responsibility for whatever difficulties he / she encountered during the process and not to use it as an excuse when certain short comings eventually surfaces.

I don't know what you read but I've read comments like this many many times from people in print, radio, and TV media. Their comments may be stated differently but the message is always the same: You don't like our paper/magazine/TV show/radio show? Read/watch/listen to something else or start your own company!



The "shortcomings" you describe do not exist in the report. They only exist in your mind. These reports are time consuming and challenging to create and publish. All Steve is doing is expressing that fact, a fact that you blithely ignore in order to make yourself look good and feel important. I'm sorry if the test methodology does not meet your approval. Want your own methodologies to be used? Conduct your own test on your own dime and your own time.

NOTE:

geekysteve,



I hope you will not find my replies / comments personal as I do not ment it to be. Since you are part of the Guru Report Team, my replies / comments are for the Organization.

When it comes to Guru Reports, for all intents and purposes Steve IS THE ORGANIZATION. Its not like Guru Reports is some faceless bureaucracy hidden away in a non-descript office park in soulless suburbia. You want to communicate your feelings to someone in the "organization"? Well, you are.

 

[Steve @ Guru]

No problem, Biff - (and I love the avatar icon BTW - it's hilarious!)



I think you're using a different version of the product. Right after we published the tests, we learned from people that there are similar products from Bon Ami. The yellow one that we tested (Non-Streaking Glass & Surface Cleaner) only comes in a yellow/gold-ish can.



I also just looked at their website and don't see anything that's in a red can, except for their "Faultless Wrinkle Remover," so I'm wondering if they use different packaging for Canadian versions of the product?



This is the stuff that we tested. If you can find the stuff that you have on their website, would you please send me a link? I'd like to see what "version" it is - it's really got my curiosity peaked...

 

[JasonC8301]

ahh, so thats #1 Steve I tried Faultless heavy starch before, its ok if you spray and iron at the same time, but I prefer undiluted Sta-flo in the light blue bottle and soak my cloths in it, then iron with Faultless a new meaning to cardboard.



Glass Cleaners are like waxes, everyone has their preference. I have Stoner's IG, Ef Clear View, Valugard window cleaner, and the damp mf/dry mf at my disposal.



Anyway, Steve you got a PM.

 

[biff]

If you can find the stuff that you have on their website, would you please send me a link? I'd like to see what "version" it is - it's really got my curiosity peaked...

I've never been able to find it on their site so I'll take a beeuatiful digital pic of the can tonight. (I'm practicing my Macro-photgraphy).





From what I can remember, other than the color the big difference is the lack of the "No Streaking" label.



Perhaps its the "special streaking at no extra charge" formula I have. ;



- Biff



"Uh, now Biff, don't con me!

Sorry, I mean I'm just STARTING the 2nd coat, Mr. McFly!"

 

[2wheelsx2]

I also just looked at their website and don't see anything that's in a red can, except for their "Faultless Wrinkle Remover," so I'm wondering if they use different packaging for Canadian versions of the product?

Maybe Brian (4DSC) can jump in. He and I have both bought the test, and were discussing where to get some Bon Ami. He did a bunch of research and found out the Bon Ami Glass Cleaner sold in Canada is packaged and sold by SC Johnson, so it may be a totally different product.



I won't say anymore, as I am not that familiar with it, until Brian chimes in. Based on his findings, I have not gone out to get some to try. I am very happy to continue using my EO 20/20. It's cheap and easily available up here, and I like the results. I may try the Editor's choice some time though, even though it's quite a bit more money per unit volume.

 

[imported_Intermezzo]

I do gotta respond to a couple comments (sorry, I can't help myself. But I am wearing my "Anti-Intermezzo Narrow-Minded Protective Barrier with Kevlar reinforcements so I feel pretty safe):

Gee, that was a cheat shot. I never took you for one to hold a grudge for so long... (Spraying ClearKote Quickshine at BretFraz's Kevlar suit.......)



I just bought the test this morning, along with the original wax test and all I'm going to say is that this test is much better than I expected. It also contained a wealth of useful tips and techniques for better window cleaning. I can say that along with a comprehensive review of more window cleaners than I'll ever try in my lifetime, I definitely learned something new.



For those people that feel the need to write multiple lengthy posts on how or why the editors at GuruReports should change their reports.....Chill, will you? I think you're a bit out of line in persisting for changes that suit you personally. Just state your suggested change and leave it at that.... I for one, am appreciative of their efforts and recognize their contribution to this hobby.

 

[BradE]

For those people that feel the need to write multiple lengthy posts on how or why the editors at GuruReports should change their reports.....Chill, will you? I think you're a bit out of line in persisting for changes that suit you personally. Just state your suggested change and leave it at that.... I for one, am appreciative of their efforts and recognize their contribution to this hobby.

Agreed!! :bigups I just like reading about car products, so I like the reports. People think what Steve does is "easy", ugh, it isn't. I admit, I don't know much about publishing, editing, etc but I do know that Steve puts a *TON* of work into these things. For me, those efforts speak volumes to his dedication to this little hobby of ours. :up

 

[imported_jgv]

I am very happy to continue using my EO 20/20. It's cheap and easily available up here, and I like the results.

Same here! It's better than everything I've used before! Even that it was #99 (don't know it's rate in the test), I've never heard of something like Bon Ami (good friend (bom amigo)). 20/20 works great, I'm happy, don't see how others can do better :nixweiss

 

[bjwebster]

For those people that feel the need to write multiple lengthy posts on how or why the editors at GuruReports should change their reports.....Chill, will you? I think you're a bit out of line in persisting for changes that suit you personally. Just state your suggested change and leave it at that.... I for one, am appreciative of their efforts and recognize their contribution to this hobby.

Nicely Put!

 

[Jngrbrdman]

I look at reviews this way... I helped a friend build a 9 second car that is raced at the track. Not a daily driver, of course. Now, just because I know the car is capable of a 9 second run, does that mean that I am going to be able to jump in the car and run a 9 second time? The product is only part of the equation. There are so many other factors that go into it. The potential to score better than the other cleaners was obviously there. The rest is in the hands of the user and the eye of the beholder. Nearly everything we do is subjective because detailing is not an exact science. Its more like art than science usually.

 

[Vegas1]

I for one, am appreciative of their efforts and recognize their contribution to this hobby.

Very well stated Intermezzo!:up I couldn't agree more, and keep up the great work Steve! Another excellent Report, with tons of useful info! :xyxthumbs

 

[imported_3tk8]

I have used both Eimann Fabrik Clear Vision and Stoner's Invisible Glass one after the other (mf wipe down in between) and it seemed to work very well. By itself, Stoner's, which I used for a long time, definitely streaked...

 

[shaf]

Whew, did this thread ever go off on a tangent!



Here's what SC Johnson told me when I tried asking if our Bon Ami was the same as the US Faultless-made version:

Dear Brian,



Thank you for your e-mail regarding BON AMI®. We always appreciate hearing

from our consumers.



SC Johnson produces BON AMI® Glass Cleaner which is primarily available in

Quebec. Otherwise may be found in Wal-Mart stores across Canada.



Our BON AMI® Glass Cleaner is not available in the United States. SC

Johnson does not manufacture the product under the name of Faultless, so

we do not have infomation regarding the formulation.



If you have future comments or product information needs, we invite you to

visit or e-mail us again at www.scjbrands.com.

Notice they didn't really answer my question. I'm wondering still if maybe one company just licenses the formula to the other or something. On the surface, it doesn't look as if they are related at all though. The next step is to ask Faultless, but I keep forgetting to do that.



Both products say they are streak-fee and don't contain ammonia, but don't list the exact same type of surfaces they can be used on (no mention of vinyl, chrome, appliances I think).



I'll try asking Faultless and see what they say...





Thank you Intermezzo! :xyxthumbs