Business History Books » Business Consulting » Valentine vs. BEL: The Real Story
Valentine vs. BEL: The Real Story
Question:
> Is this turning into a Mike Valentine popularity contest? > Once when I called Valentine 1 to alert them to a heated debate over the > V1’s merits on AOL, he picked up the phone — the rest of the staff was > out to lunch or something — and we had a good chat about > detectors/stealth technologies, etc. > This was last year. He told me then he reads this newsgroup (though he > wouldn’t tell me his email/screenname), so I wonder if we’ll have some > input from the horse’s mouth.
Maybe I should repost my earlier glowing report! If I kiss up enough I might get a discount on a second V-1! <g> —Steve Steve Cutchen If we always do what we’ve always done,
Response:
[snip] >radar detector industry offered these thoughts. This very credible >source provided the background information below and also the answers to >some very specific questions we asked.
[snip] I have been watching this thread for a little while now, and posted a question which I will now ask in a slightly different form. It seems as if there are two issues: (1) people disagree with Peterson’s report, and (2) Peterson was bribed by BEL. I am no longer particularly interested in (1) because much has been said on this topic. When I asked about (2) before, I was confronted with someone claiming an anonymous source. Not very enlightening. The question I have then is, is there anything to substantiate the charge that Peterson worked for or was payed off by BEL? Furthermore, did Valentine ever say anything about this and have some sort of basis for saying something – he seems like a respectable man – concerning this? Or are people simply upset because there is a discrepency between what they think and what Peterson thinks?
Response:
> The question I have then is, is there anything to substantiate the > charge that Peterson worked for or was payed off by BEL? Furthermore, > did Valentine ever say anything about this and have some sort of basis > for saying something – he seems like a respectable man – concerning > this? Or are people simply upset because there is a discrepency > between what they think and what Peterson thinks?
Automobile magazine is checking in to these issues and, as you can read in the reposted email from Jean Lindamood, Deputy Editor, promises a reply in writing. —repost remail— Steve, thanks for the time you took to send your thoughful letter. As you might expect, the Craig Peterson piece has whipped up a storm of protest, mostly from Valentine. We stand behind Craig, but we are investigating all complaints, charges, and countercharges in depth, and will deal with the whole matter in print. I truly appreciate your input. –Jean —Steve Steve Cutchen If we always do what we’ve always done,
Response:
: I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Peterson’s consulting arrangements, : but at Car and Driver, as in most journalistic circles, we believe : strongly that those who review products should not have direct financial : relationships with the companies whose products they review. We apply this : policy to radar detectors, cars, and every other product that we evaluate. Really? Don’t the car manufacturers pay for the evaluators’ trip expenses such as plane fare, hotel accomodation, and entertainment when you are sent away to evaluate their products? Ryan
Response:
Is this turning into a Mike Valentine popularity contest? Once when I called Valentine 1 to alert them to a heated debate over the V1’s merits on AOL, he picked up the phone — the rest of the staff was out to lunch or something — and we had a good chat about detectors/stealth technologies, etc. This was last year. He told me then he reads this newsgroup (though he wouldn’t tell me his email/screenname), so I wonder if we’ll have some input from the horse’s mouth. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Response:
Thanks for the nice post, Bob. I have a colleague (Bill Wray, did… roughly two years ago. When he called in to order it, Mike Valentine was working the phones and took his order. They talked for about 20 minutes… about the detector, about what happened to break up the partnership at Cincinnati Microwave, all kinds of stuff. I know Bill seconds your experiences. By all accounts, Mike Valentine is a truly nice guy, interested in making quality equipment. My story is not will Mike himself, but with one of the regular sales staff. Unfortunately, I don’t know his name. I talked to him when I ordered my Remote Display Unit, about 22 months ago. We talked about detector technology, and he gave me a lot of background into the different logic modes and how complex the filtering job is that the V1 does. For example, it has to be smart enough to recognize that a signal from the front and a reflection of that signal off of a car behind you are in fact the same signal… only counting them once. This is also why a signal that you’ve muted can go away, come back in a few seconds and still be muted. The V-1 still recognizes it as the same signal. The sales guy had done real-life field testing of the Laser detector circuit. I ordered my V-1 before laser detection was an option, but it was avaliable by the time I ordered the RDU. This guy’s experiences were the same as I had heard… that a laser detector can’t really provide much protection. He said that, based on his experience, he would not recommend that I send in my V-1 to get the upgrade. Pretty amazing. Probably NOT on commission <g>. Finally, a discalimer. I have no financial interest in Valentine Research, nor do I know anyone who does. I’m just a truly satisfied customer. —Steve Steve Cutchen If we always do what we’ve always done,
Response:
> >Valentine is known in the detector industry as an arrogant hothead with >an enormous ego. > I have never heard this from anyone else in the business. Mike Valentine > certainly possesses some strong opinions, but so do most other successful, > highly intelligent people.
The following is a true story from my encounter with Mike Valentine: I live in the Cincinnati area and dropped by Valentine Research to purchase a Valentine One radar locator. The sales person asked me if I wanted a demonstration but I declined since I had already made up my mind that I wanted one. While I was waiting a fellow came out into the lobby walked up to the glass (outside) doors and proceeded to mount/dismount (several times) a Valentine One on the glass door. I thought it a little peculiar a person would be doing this but I recognized this person as Mike Valentine (because his picture is on the ads for his products). We started a conversation and talked a little bit about his tenure at Cincinnati Microwave and radar detectors in general. I asked him what he was doing at the glass door and he said he was testing some new suction cups for the detector. My first impression was a person that was enthusiastic about what he was doing and I believe most people that by chance meet him would like him. I did. He never degraded any other manufactures product. When we ended our conversation he told me he was going out to give his new suction cups a field test. I saw him get into his BMW mount his detector up on the windshield and drive away. This is a man that wants to produce the best product possible. And how do I like my Valentine One? I like it. Bob
Response:
>Whoever posted the note about "The Real Story" concerning Valentine versus >BEL knows nothing about the execution of radar detector tests at Car and >Driver magazine. He, or she doesn’t seem to know much about radar >detectors or Mike Valentine either.
[major snip] >That said, we welcome substantive feedback about the way we conduct our >tests and write our magazine. But unfounded allegations serve the interest >of no one, especially when they come from a source that is as ignorant and >as he is anonymous. >Csaba Csere >Editor-in-Chief >Car and Driver magazine
Talk about from the horse’s mouth!!! As I’m sure many other’s have, I used Car and Driver’s tests as the prime source during my research for the purchase of my detector. Based on their seemingly unbiased results (the V1 didn’t win every aspect of the test, just the ones that interested me most), among others, I chose the V1 as the replacement for my Passport. After 2 years with it, I can report that the test was 100% accurate in reguards to the V1…even to it’s drawbacks (I *REALLY* wish it would keep state on power-up!). I couldn’t imagine using a detector without the locator or multiple bogey features. It is expensive, but its features and its construction (no _plastic_ case here!) make it the best value out there in my mind. Mr. Csere, thank you for adding first-hand _information_ to this often emotionally charged forum. It is rare that someone of your position would risk the flood of mail that is sure to follow. (…and yes, based on the writing style, I am assuming this was a legitimate post) — 1993 Mazda RX-7 R1 / Competition Yellow Mica / Pettit Turn Key Terror 1991 Honda CBR1000 / Red, White, & Blue
Response:
Whoever posted the note about "The Real Story" concerning Valentine versus BEL knows nothing about the execution of radar detector tests at Car and Driver magazine. He, or she doesn’t seem to know much about radar detectors or Mike Valentine either. It is absolutely true that some of us at Car and Driver have a good relationship with Mike Valentine. He’s been in the radar detector business for nearly twenty years and we’ve been conducted detector tests even longer. He’s also been involved in the founding of two of the most highly respected companies manufacturing radar detectors. Furthermore, he’s a genuine car enthusiast, which is one reason that his detectors have so much appeal for those of us who enjoy spirited driving. Is it any wonder that we know him well? That said, we also know people at most of the other companies involved in manufacturing radar/lidar detectors and jammers. Staying in contact with the people in the industry is the best way to keep up with new developments in the field. >Valentine is known in the detector industry as an arrogant hothead with >an enormous ego.
I have never heard this from anyone else in the business. Mike Valentine certainly possesses some strong opinions, but so do most other successful, highly intelligent people. >Q. Valentine and Car & Drive Magazine. Ever wonder why Valentine has
.won every Car & Driver detector test since 1978? >A. No other manufacturer’s product has ever been declared Number One at >C/D. This is unprecedented: no manufacturer, including Valentine, has >ever reigned supreme for almost two decades in any other periodical. Yet >no one is questioning C/D’s impartiality in conducting these tests. The >reason might have something to do with Mike Valentine’s very special >relationship with C/D and its staff.
In fact, Uniden won our most recent test, a roundup of budget units in September 1995. Uniden won the October 1989 test. BEL won the remote detector test in March 1985. Detectors manufactured by Cincinnati Microwave and Valentine have done very well over the years, but it has not been a clean sweep. >Q. Why is Valentine’s relationship with C/D special? >A. When Valentine co-owned Cincinnati Microwave and their Escort ruled >the world, aside from a personal fleet of Ferraris and other toys, >Valentine bought a Lear jet and spent a fortune ferrying around his >buddies at Car & Driver and partying with them.
I have been a staffer with Car and Driver magazine since October 1980 and have been conducting and writing radar detector tests since 1982. I have know Mike Valentine for about the same length of time. Never have I seen, let alone ridden, on a Lear jet owned by Mike Valentine, Cincinnati Microwave, or Valentine Research. Nor, to my knowledge have any other staffers at Car and Driver. Furthermore, I don’t believe that Valentine owns any Ferraris. He’s much more of a Porsche/BMW type of guy. Indeed, his no-nonsense style coupled with his straight Midwestern demeanor and his blue-blazer, tan-slacks, white-shirt style makes the notion that he entertained us on some sort of airborne bacchanal patently ludicrous. We have shared several meals together over the years. Sometimes he picked up the tab, sometimes we did. We have done the same with representatives of other detector manufacturers. > He also fielded an Indycar team that year. Guess who drove his car? None other > than Patrick Bedard, senior C/D editor.
I’m not sure what year is referred to here, but it is true that Pat Bedard drove at Indy in the mid-Eighties in a car sponsored by Cincinnati Microwave. That’s why he wasn’t involved in any way with Car and Driver’s radar detector tests at the time. In fact, the last detector test in which Bedard participated was published in August 1980. >Q. Doesn’t that mean BEL is likely to be declared winner of any >tests done by Peterson? >A. It might if BEL were the ONLY company he consults to. But >Peterson has consulted to ALL THE DETECTOR COMPANIES over the years. >Valentine is the sole exception due to their tiny size.
I have no personal knowledge of Mr. Peterson’s consulting arrangements, but at Car and Driver, as in most journalistic circles, we believe strongly that those who review products should not have direct financial relationships with the companies whose products they review. We apply this policy to radar detectors, cars, and every other product that we evaluate. We are also not in the business of devoting our pages to criticizing the work of others. Naturally enough, we think we are the best in the business when it comes to evaluating cars and their accessories, but only the foolish regard themselves as infallible. Therefore, we try to be as open as possible about our methods. Unlike some of our competitors, we fully describe our test procedures and clearly explain how we allocate points for the various measurements and evaluations. With five engineers on staff, we also have the technical depth and experience to subject a detector test to a rigorous peer review. That said, we welcome substantive feedback about the way we conduct our tests and write our magazine. But unfounded allegations serve the interest of no one, especially when they come from a source that is as ignorant and as he is anonymous. Csaba Csere Editor-in-Chief Car and Driver magazine
Response:
>Recent e-mail from customers/supporters of Valentine have contested >findings in a recent radar detector test in Automobile magazine. A >reliable source, who did not with to be named, closely related to the >radar detector industry offered these thoughts. This very credible >source provided the background information below and also the answers to >some very specific questions we asked.
Hmmmm, customers have contested the finding? How does that relate to the comments about Mr. Valentine? Answer, it doesn’t. It doesn’t explain why certain facts were wrong. It does not explain the bias that seems to be there, regardless of what Mr. Valentine has done or not done. In other words this is simply an attack on Mr. Valentine and a diversion from the article and the obvious errors in that article. >The Internet is abuzz with activity regarding the radar detector test in >the December issue of Automobile magazine. Mike Valentine, owner of >Valentine Research, is accusing the story’s writer, Craig Peterson, of >unfairly criticizing the Valentine One detector and deliberately >bad-mouthing it in print. Reasons according to Valentine: Peterson is a >hired gun who consults to BEL-tronics, is on their payroll, and >automatically declares their unit the winner.
Mike Valentine is not the only one and as others have mentioned no one has seen an article from Mike Valentine, yet there have been many negative comments in regards to te article, care to explain that? >Valentine is known in the detector industry as an arrogant hothead with >an enormous ego. And it’s also known he’s had a vendetta against >Peterson since 1993. Why? Because in his first test of the V1 detector >in Car Audio & Electronics magainze’s March ‘93 issue, he rated the V1 >second to a BEL unit. And Mike Valentine has never forgiven Peterson for >ranking his detector Number 2.
Perhaps there were the same problems with the article in 1993. Mike Valentine makes a good product, the only one with a method of determining where the single is coming from, the number of signals and with a remote display option. I like it, I own one. I don’t like the fact that you have to reset the mode each time, but I do like the separate volume controls and the remote display. Your response is just a poor attempt at diverting the issue and a personal attack on people. The article was BAD, answer those questions as to why. Why not address the real issue, the article. — Kemasa. Just because the Net makes it easy to be obnoxious without feeling the consequences doesn’t mean we should give in to the temptation to be rude!! – April H. Olberding
Response:
: Recent e-mail from customers/supporters of Valentine have contested : findings in a recent radar detector test in Automobile magazine. A : reliable source, who did not with to be named, closely related to the : radar detector industry offered these thoughts. This very credible : source provided the background information below and also the answers to : some very specific questions we asked. My, my. Someone with an axe to grind against Valentine and Bedard bills himself as "a very credible source" and proceeds to smear them anonymously. Judging from the detailed knowledge of Peterson’s activities displayed, this sure looks like Peterson getting his licks in. – Ken Bourque
Response:
writes: >. A reliable source, who did not want to be named, closely related to the >radar detector industry offered these thoughts. This very credible >source…
Without a name your "very credible source" isn’t credible. >When readers in ‘94 asked why V1 wasn’t included in the Automobile
test, >Valentine employees responded that Peterson demands a bribe — they called it a >"consulting fee" — to be included in his tests and an even bigger bribe to be >declared the test winner. Since they refused to be victims of Peterson’s >extortion, they said, the Valentine One unit wasn’t included. >Q. If this is true, why is Valentine the only detector company ever to >complain?
The other manufacturers have deeper pockets? They got what they paid for? Fear of future bad reviews if they rock the boat. The $ value of market share in this industry is staggering. I would wager a guess that bragging rights for a year would make a #1 rating worth well into six figures! >Q. Valentine and Car & Drive Magazine. Ever wonder why Valentine has >won every Car & Driver detector test since 1978?
Because he produces a superior product? >Q. So what’s the Internet flap all about then? >A. It’s an ego-driven vendetta by Mike Valentine, targeting the one >reviewer with the courage and objectivity to make note of deficiencies in >the Valentine One radar detector.
Funny. I haven’t seen anything written by Mike Valentine. I thought it was V1 owners that were up in arms. >Q. But doesn’t Peterson consult to BEL? >A. Yes, he does. Once a year he addresses company management and >gives his vision of industry trends in speed-measuring technology. The >company takes this information into account when planning future products.
Is it safe to assume that Craig charges consulting fees for this yearly visit? If so isn’t that confirming Mike Valentine’s charges that Craig is on the Beltronics payroll?
Response:
Recent e-mail from customers/supporters of Valentine have contested findings in a recent radar detector test in Automobile magazine. A reliable source, who did not with to be named, closely related to the radar detector industry offered these thoughts. This very credible source provided the background information below and also the answers to some very specific questions we asked. The Internet is abuzz with activity regarding the radar detector test in the December issue of Automobile magazine. Mike Valentine, owner of Valentine Research, is accusing the story’s writer, Craig Peterson, of unfairly criticizing the Valentine One detector and deliberately bad-mouthing it in print. Reasons according to Valentine: Peterson is a hired gun who consults to BEL-tronics, is on their payroll, and automatically declares their unit the winner. Valentine is known in the detector industry as an arrogant hothead with an enormous ego. And it’s also known he’s had a vendetta against Peterson since 1993. Why? Because in his first test of the V1 detector in Car Audio & Electronics magainze’s March ‘93 issue, he rated the V1 second to a BEL unit. And Mike Valentine has never forgiven Peterson for ranking his detector Number 2. Immediately after the Car Audio piece appeared, Valentine launched an intense campaign to discredit Peterson. That campaign has been ongoing since early ‘93. For example, Valentine had Pete Kaufman, his close aide, assemble a press kit of every story Peterson had ever written for mags like Automobile and Car Audio plus for the public-safety market magazines like Police and Law & Order. Kaufman sent packets to any editors who he felt might potentially do business with Peterson. Then he followed up with phone calls, telling the editors they’d be wise to steer clear of Peterson and his rigged tests. Ever since the ‘93 flap Valentine has refused to supply demo units for any tests conducted by Peterson. When readers in ‘94 asked by V1 wasn’t included in the Automobile test, Valentine employees responded that Peterson demands a bribe — they called it a "consulting fee" — to be included in his tests and an even bigger bribe to be declared the test winner. Since they refused to be victims of Peterson’s extortion, they said, the Valentine One unit wasn’t included. Q. If this is true, why is Valentine the only detector company ever to complain? A. Simple. It’s a lie! Plus, the other companies are always unhappy if they lose a test yet it’s understood that there’s only one winner per test. Q. Valentine and Car & Drive Magazine. Ever wonder why Valentine has won every Car & Driver detector test since 1978? A. No other manufacturer’s product has ever been declared Number One at C/D. This is unprecedented: no manufacturer, including Valentine, has ever reigned supreme for almost two decades in any other periodical. Yet no one is questioning C/D’s impartiality in conducting these tests. The reason might have something to do with Mike Valentine’s very special relationsip with C/D and its staff. Q. Why is Valentine’s relationship with C/D special? A. When Valentine co-owned Cincinnati Microwave and their Escort ruled the world, aside from a personal fleet of Ferraris and other toys, Valentine bought a Lear jet and spent a fortune ferrying around his buddies at Car & Driver and partying with them. He also fielded an Indycar team that year. Guess who drove his car? None other than Patrick Bedard, senior C/D editor. Q. Indications are that it does. For example, when Mike Valentine went ballistic over this month’s Automobile magazine test, within a few days Patrick Bedard was burning up the telephone lines doing an investigation of Peterson. Using the pretext of inquiring about Safety Alert, the safety warning system built into the new generation of smart detectors (Valentine is the sole industry exception), Bedard spoke to senior management at all five major detector companies. After a few perfunctory questions on Safety Alert, Bedard turned the questioning to the subject of Peterson. What, he asked the execs, was Peterson’s professional relationship with their company, what tasks does he perform, how long had the relationship existed, and so forth. Bedard asked each: In light of the fact that Peterson has consulted to every one of the detector companies, aren’t they reluctant to trust him not to divulge proprietary information? At the same time, a C/D research assistant called Peterson to ask for a photograph of himself, dismissing it as a routine request in support of a story mentioning Peterson. But none of the C/D writers had been in touch with Peterson and no details about such a story could be provided by the researcher. A request by Peterson to speak to the writer went unanswered. Q. Is it a conincidence that long-time Valentine buddy Patrick Bedard launched a fact-gathering investigation of Peterson within days of the publication of the Automobile test? A. Draw your own conclusions but it’s unethical and almost unheard of for a senior editor like Bedard to be doing investigative work for a personal friend outside the media industry. Q. So what’s the Internet flap all about then? A. It’s an ego-driven vendetta by Mike Valentine, targeting the one reviewer with the courage and objectivity to make note of deficiencies in the Valentine One radar detector. Q. But doesn’t Peterson consult to BEL? A. Yes, he does. Once a year he addresses company management and gives his vision of industry trends in speed-measuring technology. The company takes this information into account when panning future products. Q. Doesn’t that mean BEL is likely to be declared winner of any tests done by Peterson? A. It might if BEL were the ONLY company he consults to. But Peterson has consulted to ALL THE DETECTOR COMPANIES over the years. Valentine is the sole exception due to their tiny size. Q. How is Peterson regarded by detector companies other than Valentine Research? A. They think enough of him that when C/D editor Patrick Bedard’s snooping was discovered, the heads of the four biggest companies — BEL, Cobra, Uniden and Whistler– fired off letters in support of Peterson to David E. Davis, Jr., publisher of Automobile. Q. How is Automobile reacting to the controversy? A. After Valentine took David E. Davis, Jr. out to dinner a few days after the story was published, Davis forwarded to Peterson a list written by Valentine of several dozen specific charges of bias by Peterson, requiring the writer to address each charge in a written reply. Valentine threatened to cancel his advertising in the magazine unless Davis took action.