TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

Page 1 of 6  
This is the email response that I received from Craig Stone, Director of Marketing, Franklin International (Titebond) concerning the Wood Magazine glue test. I also responded to his email that "some of us" were concerned about the actual differences or advantages of TB3 over TB2. I requested an explanation of how or why TB3 is labeled Water Proof when the Common Knowledge Definition of Water Proof is so vastly different. I will share those answers when they come.
Mr. Bridges,
Thank you for your note on Friday regarding the Wood Magazine article on wood glues. We first viewed the information Friday afternoon, and we as an organization are shocked, disappointed and concerned about the results contained in this article. Although I cannot get into the specifics right now, we have communicated our feelings to the appropriate personnel and plan to pursue a very aggressive action plan to refute the results and ensure that all woodworkers know the capabilities of not only Titebond III, but all of our woodworking glues.
Titebond is the preferred brand of professionals more than 3 to 1 over our leading competitor, and this is due to performance, reliability and consistency over a 70-year period. We perform 3rd party, independent testing on all of our products, and our wood glues have continually outperformed all other competitors...Titebond III passed Type I water-resistance and many of the polyurethanes did NOT pass the same test. In addition, ASTM standard testing continually indicates our products to have much higher strength numbers. How did the article reach their final results? We are not sure...but we are going to find out.
In contrast to this article, Titebond III has received excellent reviews from other woodworking publications, and initial sales (as well as repeat use) is as strong as we have seen with any Titebond product. Again, thanks for your interest...if you have any additional questions, please forward them to my attention.
Craig Stone Director of Marketing Franklin International (Titebond) 800-877-4583
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon wrote:

Thanks for working this problem for us. The response seems to indicate the presence of lawyers and the absence of any technical reasons as to the ineffectiveness of the glue or the misapplication of the tests. Oh well, perhaps there will be film at 11pm.     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mr. Bridges,
You ask good questions, and I can easily provide answers to each of your issues. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The vast majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling, when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types of applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is fine. However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to these conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of the bond.
Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind our claim of waterproof as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13 years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months lends much more credibility than a magazine article. Are you a current user of Titebond Wood Glues? If so, what has your experience been? It is incredibly rare when someone is unhappy with the performance of our products.
Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised our performance.
How is Titebond III superior to Titebond II?
1. Increased water-resistance according to standardized and recognized, third-part testing. 2. Approximately 400 psi stronger than Titebond II, according to standardized and recognized testing procedures. 3. Longer open time, upwards of twice as long. For years, even the most loyal Titebond II users have asked us for a longer setting glue. Titebond III takes care of this. 4. Titebond III is effective in temperatures down to 45 degrees, compared to 55 degrees for Titebond II. Less chalking potential.
Finally, I'm quite concerned about your use of "hype" in reference to our marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing efforts; I simply wish you could understand our position and ethical standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about our position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our claims, regardless of the product.
I appreciate your interest in this situation. Hopefully, this has been helpful. Take care and have a great day.
P.S. Since we have taken the time to correspond with one another, could you elaborate on your involvement in woodworking; the types of glues you use and your experiences with these glues. I'm curious to know from what perspective you are approaching this situation. Thanks so much.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon,
Thanks for posting these responses and giving us "both sides" so to speak.
I still haven't received the issue of Wood in question and I am very interested in reading the article, but the response by this guy from Franklin is pretty professional and he makes a lot of valid points, IMO. Namely, (and I'm inferring and paraphrasing here) it seems unlikely that the manufacturer of the glue wouldn't have done thorough and scientific tests to verify that the TBIII was indeed superior to TBII before marketing as such. Specs such as open time and working temperature are far to easy to evaluate for them to simply claim them out of hand. The waterproof issue, of course, is more difficult to address, but in my experience working for several chemical and pharmaceutical companies it seems more likely than not that they verified this functionality of the TBIII just as thoroughly. I do grant you that using the term "ultimate wood glue" on the label does approach the limits of "hype", but seeing as they're running a business and trying to catch the consumer's eye, it doesn't really seem like a misleading statement (think Budweiser "king of beers", etc. etc. - everyone thinks they are the best).
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah Mike Mr. Stone has been very helpful and I believe that this is a good product. Its just that labeling seems to be trying to reach out there and grab you, as well it should, but maybe cutting it a bit too close.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I sent a letter this morning. They dod not address any of my concerns and did not address my queries on what the ANSI/HPVA standards are. My bottle of TB2 is going in the garbage. But is this response canned or what?
Good morning, thank you for your response. We defined Waterproof as outlined in the ANSI/HPVA standardized testing, which has been the benchmark for numerous years. It is a very tough procedure that measure the performance of each glue tested. The vast majority (if not all) manufacturers of polyurethane glues, construction adhesives, caulks, sealant, etc. indicate"waterpoof", on their labeling, when they in fact are not designed for continuous submersion or use below the waterline. (In our case, our claims are supported by a reputable testing procedure). Simply put, the liability is too significant for these types of applications and oftentimes, the substrates can't be controlled sufficiently. In my office right now, I have a dried film of Titebond II Premium Wood Glue that has been underwater for over 11 years...the film is fine. This would support the claim waterproof as you defined it..."Impervious to or unaffected by water". However, it is how the substrates around the glue line react to these conditions that could impact the overall strength and water-resistance of the bond.
Having said this, and living the ethical standards established by our privately-held organization for over 70 years, we absolutely stand behind our claim of waterproof for Titebond III as defined by the aforementioned criteria. In addition, the thousands of success stories of Titebond II over the past 13 years, as well as the performance of Titebond III over the past 4 months lends much more credibility than a magazine article.
Please note that we are strong partners of Wood Magazine, and together we have supported woodworking for a number of years. However, we completely disagree with the results published in this article and will be able to demonstrate scientifically many of the inaccuracies that we feel compromised our performance.
Finally, I'm quite concerned about your feelings regarding our product marketing efforts. As stated above, the ethical standards we support here at Franklin are extremely high, which is apparent throughout the woodworking industry as our product performance, technical support and commitment to woodworking is clearly demonstrated throughout all the top woodworking publications and associations. I am sorry that you question our marketing efforts; hopefully you have a better understanding of our position and ethical standards in comparison to industry-wide practices. We feel good about our position, our marketing efforts and again, completely stand behind our claims, regardless of the product.
Thanks again for your inquiry. Take care and have a great day.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A typical marketting oriented response devoid of detail or specfics. I wonder how long until they withdraw their advertising dollars from Wood Magazine.
Brian.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Isn't Titebond the company whose employee was here a month or two ago posing as a college student doing research, while not mentioning they were also an employee of Titebond?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

name of the product -- but yeah, it's the same outfit.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I sense a disturbing trend.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Only now? Franklin went from spending money on r&d trying to create the best glue, to spending it's money on "A Sucker is Born Every Minute" marketing.
TiteBond III is just the tip of the iceberg.
Franklin has become a company everyone should be very wary of, especially if you do fine work that is expected to stand the test of time.
There are quite a few older craftsmen that will tell you that Titebond products just don't measure up in this regard.
Why do you think I had 3/4 of a gallon of the stuff 18 months old. I've never had a problem with it but I distrust the company and have heard enough negative comments that I stopped using it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I missed this evidence of the failure of the product......
Seems like you should offer more than this below to back your comments.
Mike Brisbane

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@address.invalid says...

Meaningless. "There are quite a few older [fill in the blank] that will tell you that [fill in the blank] products just don't measure up..." works with almost anything you care to put in the blanks.

So the product always worked fine for you -- but you stopped using it because other people said they didn't like it.
How much sense does *that* make?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I consider one of the people who told me this to be the finest craftsman I've ever met. I trust his opinion more than anyone else in the world. I trust him to tell me the truth with no bullshit or personal bias. I trust him with my life. He's my dad.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Another e-mail with Mr. Stone has indicated that they don't seem to want to change their relationship with Wood Magazine but rather they will certainly get to the bottom of the test conclusions to see why the results were not more favorable and he indicated that he will be issuing a response to the test later this week.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It'll be more than one issue out, if they do. 2 months is the absolute _minimum_ lead-time for something to make it into a magazine of this type, and space is generally assigned 4-6 months in advance.
Assuming a serious flaw/problem/issue in the testing procedure, one might see a 'minimal' announcement of 'test results problems' 2-3 months after publication, and a re-do of the story another 2-3 months after that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:03:57 +0000, snipped-for-privacy@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

seems most publications have space reserved for "corrections" near where letters to the editor are. could be a notice there.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wood did state in the article that the water testing was beyond the limits of the glues tested. I suspect the they may simply renounce that statement and stick to their guns.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leon writes:

Why would they renounce the statement? The tests were beyond the design limits of the glues tested. It's hard to renounce the truth, outside of politics.
One thing bothered me: all the test sizes shown were of small blocks of wood. If the submersion testing was of similar sized pieces, the porosity of the wood had to play an important part in the results, with the possibility of water seepage through the test blocks during the 24 hour period.
Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.