Experts Don't
Always Know
What They Are Talking About
by Ed Newman
AMSOIL Marketing & Advertising Manager
This
article appeared in National Oil & Lube News,
March 1999
Experts perform a
valuable function in our modern world. Whenever
we get into an argument, whether heated or as
a diversion, it isn't long before we reach for
a forceful quote or two from an expert.
Experts strengthen
our confidence in views we've chosen to defend.
Experts supposedly know what they're talking about
because they've got the inside track on specialized
knowledge. Experts are called upon to give us
the final word in matters both obscure and self-evident.
And sometimes experts
are wrong.
Minnesota's recent
governor's race is a prime example of the experts
being wrong. Polls consistently showed Jesse Ventura
to be running third and the pundits gave him no
chance of winning. Jesse was almost always discussed
in terms of whether his candidacy would hurt Coleman
more than Humphrey.
History shows us
that misguided predictions are nothing new. In
1876 an internal memo at Western Union declared,
"This 'telephone' has too many shortcomings
to be seriously considered as a means of communication.
The device is inherently of no value to us."
According to Dr.
Lee De Forest, inventor of the vacuum tube and
father of television, man would never reach the
moon regardless of all future scientific advances.
In 1949, Popular
Mechanics boldly asserted that "computers
in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
Actually, there have
been a lot of embarrassed experts when it comes
to assertions about computers. The editor in charge
of business books for Prentice Hall in 1957 said,
"I have travelled the length and breadth
of this country and talked with the best people,
and I can assure you that data processing is a
fad that won't last out the year."
Commenting on the
microchip, an engineer at the Advanced Computing
Systems Division of IBM said, "But what .
. . is it good for?" This was in 1968. By
1977, the chairman and founder of Ken Olson expertly
demonstrated his prescience by exclaiming, "There
is no reason anyone would want a computer in their
home." I still remember hearing opinions
of people who shared this sentiment.
The entertainment
industry has produced a few guffaws as well. "Who
wants to hear actors talk?" said H.M. Warner
of Warner Brothers in 1927. Gary Cooper, in turning
down the leading role in "Gone With the Wind"
said, "I'm just glad it'll be Clark Gable
who's falling on his face and not Gary Cooper."
And when the Decca
Recording Company rejected the Beatles in 1962,
their in-house experts assured management that,
"guitar music is on the way out." Yeah,
right. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
In fact, misguided
experts embarrass themselves in nearly every field
of endeavor.
"Airplanes are
interesting toys but of no military value,"
said Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy
of the Ecole Superieure de Guerre.
In 1899 Charles H.
Duell, Commissioner of the U.S. Office of Patents,
declared "Everything that can be invented
has been invented." I suppose the inventiveness
of 19th century inventors left him pretty much
blown away and incapable of conceiving anything
new. Hmmm.
If you listen around,
you'll hear experts cited in our industry, too.
Have you never heard any of these?
"Synthetics
are too expensive. They'll never sell."
"Synthetics
are a fad."
"Oil should
be changed every three thousand miles, even if
it's synthetic."
I suppose it does
me little good to quote experts who think otherwise.
Recent tests at Mobil have demonstrated synthetic
motor oils with a three year, 25,000 mile life
span. AMSOIL has had 25,000 mile drain intervals
for 25 years, only recently introducing a motor
oil inside a somewhat "normal" range,
that is, 7500 miles.... which some insist is still
too long.
Some "experts"
are saying, for example, that quick lubes will
lose money if drain intervals are extended. I
beg to differ. Extending drain intervals may provide
an opportunity to make more money. Quick lube
operators can begin to charge a premium for a
high end synthetic motor oil and a lower price
for conventional petroleum products.
I am well aware of
the fact that you can easily use this argument
to discredit my views as a so-called "expert."
In point of fact, I am not asking anyone to take
my word on anything. What I would really like
is for the industry, and you as individuals, to
take an open mind approach to all these things.
Listen to everything. Question everything. Get
informed. Find out for yourself.
I like what Joe Haggard
said in his October "As I See It" column
when he said that we "need to filter all
the data that comes through our senses. There
are a lot of gems in the flow, but a lot of garbage,
too." He went on to spell out some of the
criteria he uses to filter information. "Make
a vow to bypass all those inputs based on greed,
lust or self-enhancement at the expense of others.
In short, have a strong conscience. Don't lie,
cheat or steal if ever influenced to do so by
others."
We live in a very
complicated age. You, as quick lube owners and
operators, are perceived as experts by those who
entrust their vehicles to you. You have a responsibility
to your customers to become truly informed so
that your advice is reliable and trustworthy.
You certainly don't want to be numbered with those
who must later eat their own words.
Consider the words
of those drillers whom Edwin L. Drake tried to
enlist in his project to drill for oil in 1859:
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground
to try and find oil? You're crazy."