My Tintdude Defense
I will preface my posting by mentioning that I have been a fan of Tintdude since it began.
There is a current thread that has received my attention because it focuses on issues that I spend a great deal of time with on this blog.
The balance between perception versus the reality of Window Film performance.
Today one member asked my nomme deguerre (V4V) a question and I answered it:
Here goes mine:
I'll try to address your question/statement as best as I can.
If a company has a documented superiority based upon a patented formula, etc. that advantage should be heralded and leveraged by that manufacturer and their dealers. No one would reasonably deny that perspective.
On the other hand; should a company create a false impression about their product solution or make unsupported (by fact, testing or independent corroboration) claims concerning their film's value to a consumer than we should all ethically voice concerns or objections.
The question isn't simply moral equivalence "they said this and we say that." The issue becomes relevant particularly when my former company is discussed. 3M stands for something- -or rather should!
Let's call it a higher corporate standard based upon their legacy of accomplishment and innovation.
Therefore when 3M makes unsupported claims concerning the efficacy of their film, specifically IR rejection, angles of variation uniquely improving their film TSER so much so, they invented their own test??? How about having a mythical superior scratch coating that can withstand Windex
When I say the 3M hard coat is no better than Llumar's or Solar Gard or Madico, I am not guessing. I am not assuming, rather I know.
If 3M or a 3M dealer pretends that a specific film is superior to another film when in fact it's the same film re-boxed; I am not guessing about that film- -I know.
If/when 3M either intentionally or unintentionally misleads their dealers or consumers and are corrected by the greater industry via white papers issued by Bekaert and CP Films or clarifications by the IWFA you might assume 3M would naturally amend their brochures and send a clarification throughout their dealer base.
When that does not occur, you could scratch your head and sigh "that's just the way it is" or conversely educate those who compete against these falsehoods.
Particular attention should be paid to consumers who might be mislead into thinking they were buying a film that blocked 97% of the heat, or the Sun's energy that somehow works better at 3 PM!
How? Why? --Because that 3M dealer told me so!
Having been accused of self promotion
I'll admit that my bias and primary marketing strategy is to position my window film solutionsVista-Huper Optik- Lumenesse-Sunscape- SunTek) against 3M, my former company.
Now to those who remember the old me versus the new me or the contradiction of once being the 3M defender and now the contrary here's my defense:
I believed the 3M lab when they hyped the 97% IR and the angle of variation advantage in 2005.
I wrote some darn nice presentations for prestige, frankly in my opinion the best that were ever written on that subject.
I was fooled and I can appreciate more than most how a consumer might also be mislead.
But that was 4 years ago people and to coin a phrase "Fool Me Once. ."
There is a current thread that has received my attention because it focuses on issues that I spend a great deal of time with on this blog.
The balance between perception versus the reality of Window Film performance.
Today one member asked my nomme deguerre (V4V) a question and I answered it:
Here goes mine:
I'll try to address your question/statement as best as I can.
If a company has a documented superiority based upon a patented formula, etc. that advantage should be heralded and leveraged by that manufacturer and their dealers. No one would reasonably deny that perspective.
On the other hand; should a company create a false impression about their product solution or make unsupported (by fact, testing or independent corroboration) claims concerning their film's value to a consumer than we should all ethically voice concerns or objections.
The question isn't simply moral equivalence "they said this and we say that." The issue becomes relevant particularly when my former company is discussed. 3M stands for something- -or rather should!
Let's call it a higher corporate standard based upon their legacy of accomplishment and innovation.
Therefore when 3M makes unsupported claims concerning the efficacy of their film, specifically IR rejection, angles of variation uniquely improving their film TSER so much so, they invented their own test??? How about having a mythical superior scratch coating that can withstand Windex
When I say the 3M hard coat is no better than Llumar's or Solar Gard or Madico, I am not guessing. I am not assuming, rather I know.
If 3M or a 3M dealer pretends that a specific film is superior to another film when in fact it's the same film re-boxed; I am not guessing about that film- -I know.
If/when 3M either intentionally or unintentionally misleads their dealers or consumers and are corrected by the greater industry via white papers issued by Bekaert and CP Films or clarifications by the IWFA you might assume 3M would naturally amend their brochures and send a clarification throughout their dealer base.
When that does not occur, you could scratch your head and sigh "that's just the way it is" or conversely educate those who compete against these falsehoods.
Particular attention should be paid to consumers who might be mislead into thinking they were buying a film that blocked 97% of the heat, or the Sun's energy that somehow works better at 3 PM!
How? Why? --Because that 3M dealer told me so!
Having been accused of self promotion
I'll admit that my bias and primary marketing strategy is to position my window film solutionsVista-Huper Optik- Lumenesse-Sunscape- SunTek) against 3M, my former company.
Now to those who remember the old me versus the new me or the contradiction of once being the 3M defender and now the contrary here's my defense:
I believed the 3M lab when they hyped the 97% IR and the angle of variation advantage in 2005.
I wrote some darn nice presentations for prestige, frankly in my opinion the best that were ever written on that subject.
I was fooled and I can appreciate more than most how a consumer might also be mislead.
But that was 4 years ago people and to coin a phrase "Fool Me Once. ."
Comments