Introduction:
The marketplace for aftermarket automotive parts is replete with examples of exaggerated claims and scant evidence in support of “performance” parts advertising.
Generally flying under the radar of Federal and State consumer protection agencies, questionable advertising claims are not uncommon.
EQT caught my attention when it claimed to have one of the best-performing products on the market. The EQT Claims Analysis post detailed my skepticism that they verified the performance through independent testing.
Inquiry:
As a professional test engineer, I want to learn how others test. As a consumer in the target market for these products, I would like to know how credible the advertised claims are.
As I had done with other businesses, I began fact-checking EQT’s advertising of “independent testing” by emailing them questions about their testing, which is detailed in this post.
In a concerning sign, the company failed to respond.
Given the strength of the performance claims and basis in independent testing, the advertising was likely to influence consumer decisions about whether or not to purchase the intake. In fact, within weeks of the start of the advertising, consumers could be found stating that the product was the best of its kind.
Red flags:
I published a detailed review of the advertising claims to remind consumers to take a “buyer beware” approach when presented with vendor advertising. This resulted in EQT employees and the owner beginning a character assassination campaign against me.
Character Assassination – The slandering of a person usually with the intention of destroying public confidence in that person.
The notion that the business had merely been overly generous in advertising turned to a suspicion that the company was far less professional than I had imagined.
Investigating:
Working as a test engineer has much in common with being a detective.
Both require attention to detail and the formation and testing of hypotheses. They utilize investigative tools and follow an iterative problem-solving process, including documentation and communication with interested parties.
Both require persistence and a methodical approach to uncovering the truth or identifying the root cause of an issue.
Ed Susman’s defamatory statements attracted my attention, and I wanted answers about how they conduct business.
Business model:
A previous post discussed one hypothesis: EQT’s popularity is based on technical competence. Little evidence supports this hypothesis.
A second hypothesis was that EQT’s popularity is based on effective marketing, partly comprised of deceptive advertising and unfair business practices.
This model is supported by evidence.
A series of posts in the Understanding EQT category will examine the evidence for the tools and tactics EQT uses to deceive consumers and unfairly compete in the marketplace.
The examples and context will help consumers better understand how to invoke the “buyer beware” mindset when considering information related to Equilibrium Tuning.
Next up:
Exploiting Misinformation