Marketing Ploys

[Jeff H]

I don't have a ton of experience with fluorocarbon line but I have never been sold on it beyond the one spool I've bought.  I normally use Trilene XT clear and I got in the lake one day with a dive mask to look at both hanging in the water.  I could see no difference, nor could I feel any respectable difference in sensitivity while using it. It is more expensive, less abrasion resistant (100% vs XT for me)  and in my opinion stretches more than most people admit.  I'll stick to my XT clear and suffer greatly with a few more bucks in my wallet.

 

In the Archives section at Tackle Tour there is a 2 part Fluorocarbon Showdown that's worth a read.

[bflp3]

The refractory indexes are for fluorocarbon as a material.  It wouldn't be wise to assume that flurocarbon as a fishing line and mono-filament fishing lines tested in a real world scenario are going to display the same 1.4 and 1.5-1.6 refractory indexes. The difference between the two is so small that it would certainly be very difficult for optical equipment to tell them apart, let alone fish.  Being invisible to fish because of refractory index is exactly what the flurocarbon invisibility myth is centered around.

 

Refraction and reflection are much the same here.  It difficult to speak about refraction of light in layperson terms.  Reflection, while technically incorrect, makes things easier to understand.

 

A line that was at the refractory index of water would, when submerged in water, refract light the same as water.  This means that the sunlight would be bent through the line much the same way it is in water.  This does not make the line suddenly vanish.  A line that was at the refractory index of water would be, in strong sunlight and clear water, less glowy or shiny for a lack of a better word.

 

Fluorocarbon fishing line is not at the refractory index of water.  Another way to express refractory indexes is as the speed of light through that material.  Light travels though mono filaments at around 63% of the speed of light were fluorocarbon does it at around 70%.

 

Tiny differences.

I agree with your overall point, but thought your reasoning was off. Well, went and did some research, and you are correct. Been a while since I've taken any physics course, forgot the relationship between reflection and refraction. Thanks for making look into that further!

I agree that fluoro doesn't vanish underwater, but the similar refraction doesn't hurt. I like fluoro more for the sensitivity than anything else. People say it is much more abrasion resistant than mono, but I haven't really tested that myself.

[primetime]

Phermones to mimic "distressed baitfish"....Problem here is Phermones are used in nature for Mating, so I want my bait to stimulate a feeding response from a school of fish, not the wrong signal...Besides, you would need more than 5 gallons of a phermone of any kind to stimulate any response from a fish dumped within a 8' radius if I remember the study.

 

I would say the Banjo Minnow, but They started the swimbait market and I would not have Magic Shads from Lake Fork if not for Banjo Minnow. LED flashing Blaze lures are a joke but man are they easy to sell.

 

The Fact that Companies Share Plastic Worms and other soft baits..IE...Take a look at the Bass Pro Humpin Toad, and then look at the CHarlies Toads at DIcks or online..Same, and 2 other companies has same frogs, and Stanley Shares with a few....Yum Dingers are in 3-4 labels, GYB worms are also shared to several smaller companies who are not much cheaper.....

 

Also Scent for Saltwater vs. Freshwater like Exude Fresh water product line vs. Fresh, or Gulp and trigger x flukes being different? Same......Just to sell more baits.

 

Rapala doesn't list Salt or Fresh, but uses good quality VMC hooks and compoents but I catch plenty of Snook, Reds, and STripers up North on Rattle Traps, Frogs, square Bills, Shakey Rigs, but my Favorite is how guys look at me funny when throwing a trick worm on a shakey rig to go with current...ALot of very good Saltwater Guys have no idea about Senkos, Trick woms, SWimbaits unless it is a sassy shad....

[primetime]

I don't have a ton of experience with fluorocarbon line but I have never been sold on it beyond the one spool I've bought.  I normally use Trilene XT clear and I got in the lake one day with a dive mask to look at both hanging in the water.  I could see no difference, nor could I feel any respectable difference in sensitivity while using it. It is more expensive, less abrasion resistant (100% vs XT for me)  and in my opinion stretches more than most people admit.  I'll stick to my XT clear and suffer greatly with a few more bucks in my wallet.

 

In the Archives section at Tackle Tour there is a 2 part Fluorocarbon Showdown that's worth a read.

Ever Read Saltwater Sportsman or tell someone who fishes only saltwater thay you use Fluorocarbon as a Main Line? It is never pushed in that Market, why would it not be a benefit in Florida where the Fishing is more Like Bass Fishing than Salmon fishing is. Saltwater gimmick is the UV Pro Cure Gel as I think it is the scent that helps if any, but not the uv, but color is something where if you believe it then it is true since you will fish it with confidence..

 

Also, The Banjo Minnow Revolutionized the soft bait industry like Powerbait, Lunker City, Senkos.....Sassy Shads were the only swimbaits when they were on the market. The Segmented soft baits and hardbaits are from the Banjo Minnow, and they did work really good, just had a corny commercial, and silly rigging set up....I still throw them today as they have awesome action.

[buzzfrog]

The sure set rapala. , that one treble that jutted out

[donk]

Gear ratios, how many do we really need?

[jtesch]

I started the thread and just thought of a couple more. The A-Rig and the Chatterbait. Oh wait they really work, and so well they were banned in tourneys. Funny thing is they are 2 baits that when you first saw them you might think GIMMICK

[iabass8]

I started the thread and just thought of a couple more. The A-Rig and the Chatterbait. Oh wait they really work, and so well they were banned in tourneys. Funny thing is they are 2 baits that when you first saw them you might think GIMMICK

In what tournament is a chatterbait banned.....?

[Rangerphil]

The sure set rapala. , that one treble that jutted out

I have caught alot of fish on that hook! I am a believer!

[SudburyBasser]

The rocket fishing rod! Not so much a ploy but more of a kids toy. Even so, it's just so corny. They advertise it as being able to "cast 30 feet!" If i wanted my kid to get into fishing, I would never even consider buying that, I'd get him a "reel" set up. (Pun intended)

 

And wouldn't you know it, another Roland Martin endorsed product!

 

 

To me, this is a complete gimmick. I doubt any fish can see so well it could pick up those patterns of "multiple" bait fish on a single bait as the lure goes by fairly quickly. But besides this, it's too expensive for just one bait as well.

 

I have heard that bass have eyesight good enough to see both sides of a spinning spinnerbait blade at the same time -- superb eye sight in other words. Whether that translates into the LT Bait Ball actually being effective is another matter entirely, of course.

[jtesch]

In what tournament is a chatterbait banned.....?

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure B.A.S.S. elite Banned them for a time when they first hit the market

[AK-Jax86]

Have to admit the got me with the fish sticks gimmick, don't care what anyone says it didn't help me catch more fish or make the fish lock on longer... d**n U KVD lol

[bflp3]

And wouldn't you know it, another Roland Martin endorsed product!

 

 

 

I have heard that bass have eyesight good enough to see both sides of a spinning spinnerbait blade at the same time -- superb eye sight in other words. Whether that translates into the LT Bait Ball actually being effective is another matter entirely, of course.

Yeah, bass can see at 52 frames per second, compared to our 19. I'm sure bass can see the baitball, but doesn't still doesn't mean its not a gimick. Especially the top water ones, I've never seen a school of fish thrash and rest at the surface as a group lol

[wisconsin heat]

How about lures with pros names on them in general. Someone already mentioned KVD and the KVD frog, I think you can add every single KVD lure onto that list. Having a pros name on it does not mean it will catch better, it doesn't mean the pros use that bait, and it definitely does not always mean they designed the bait. KVD used a megabass 110 over his jerkbait in one of the tournaments, I forget which one. Xcalibur lures discontinued their XS4 jerkbait and re-introduced the exact same bait as Edwin Evers' EEratic shad, as soon as Edwin started to succeed on the tournament trail. And now Evers has signed with Megabass and that EEratic shad is goin off the market, hello XS4? (hopefully, I really like the jerkbait). And don't even get me started on Havoc's pro designed baits. Dear Pure Fishing and Skeet Reese, we ALL KNOW that is a Trash Fish.

[Joe Schmuckatelli]

The walking worm from the late 90's me and my buddy ordered some from the tv commercial with his moms credit card what a couple of fools

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohJ3-9hmnFU

[Hooligan]

In layman's terms, as you put it, refraction of light is the change in direction of light.  In this purpose, it's different than reflection.  Reflection is the change of light solely on the surface of the material in question.  Refraction, when in the consideration of fluorocarbon line is how light changes direction on not only the surface of the line, but as lightwaves travel through the material.  In this case, light is bent at different lengths, better to camoflauge the surface of the line, in this case it's nearly cylindrical.  Think of it like this, reflection is going to act like a mirror, refraction is going to act as a lens.  In the case of fluorocarbon, that lens surface is very similar to that of the water surrounding it, therefore it has a lower profile.  Nylon reflects almost the entire visible spectrum.  Fluoro bends light as it enters one side, and goes out at a different angle.  Mono bends light as it reflect of the surface; primary difference.  There's a large difference between the two.

In terms of the refractive index, most finished nylon mono is considerably higher than what you'd listed.  In most cases, it's well above the 1.6 marker.  The finished material in fluorocarbon, and yes, there's a difference in resins... is generally about 1.41 or 1.42.  The secondary aspect to fluorocarbon's refractive index is that it's nearly impermeable to UV degradation, the same cannot be said of Mono.

If it doesn't make a difference, and it's entirely a gimmick, then I must be the luckiest guy ever.  There are far to many demonstable instances in which I've been on clear water lakes and fished 15lb fluoro and the guy fishing 6lb mono was getting back-boated 9:1.  Sure, there could have been other differences, like the fall rate and those sorts of things, however fishing a 3/16 ounce shakey head with the exact same worm, all fish were coming dead-sticked on bottom.  It wasn't a matte rof fall rate, it wasn't a difference in baits, or technique.  The sole difference was the line in question.

 

[roadwarrior]

In layman's terms, as you put it, refraction of light is the change in direction of light.  In this purpose, it's different than reflection.  Reflection is the change of light solely on the surface of the material in question.  Refraction, when in the consideration of fluorocarbon line is how light changes direction on not only the surface of the line, but as lightwaves travel through the material.  In this case, light is bent at different lengths, better to camoflauge the surface of the line, in this case it's nearly cylindrical.  Think of it like this, reflection is going to act like a mirror, refraction is going to act as a lens.  In the case of fluorocarbon, that lens surface is very similar to that of the water surrounding it, therefore it has a lower profile.  Nylon reflects almost the entire visible spectrum.  Fluoro bends light as it enters one side, and goes out at a different angle.  Mono bends light as it reflect of the surface; primary difference.  There's a large difference between the two.

In terms of the refractive index, most finished nylon mono is considerably higher than what you'd listed.  In most cases, it's well above the 1.6 marker.  The finished material in fluorocarbon, and yes, there's a difference in resins... is generally about 1.41 or 1.42.  The secondary aspect to fluorocarbon's refractive index is that it's nearly impermeable to UV degradation, the same cannot be said of Mono.

If it doesn't make a difference, and it's entirely a gimmick, then I must be the luckiest guy ever.  There are far to many demonstable instances in which I've been on clear water lakes and fished 15lb fluoro and the guy fishing 6lb mono was getting back-boated 9:1.  Sure, there could have been other differences, like the fall rate and those sorts of things, however fishing a 3/16 ounce shakey head with the exact same worm, all fish were coming dead-sticked on bottom.  It wasn't a matte rof fall rate, it wasn't a difference in baits, or technique.  The sole difference was the line in question.

 

Wow!

 

GREAT post.

[Scott F]

 

If it doesn't make a difference, and it's entirely a gimmick, then I must be the luckiest guy ever.  There are far to many demonstable instances in which I've been on clear water lakes and fished 15lb fluoro and the guy fishing 6lb mono was getting back-boated 9:1.  Sure, there could have been other differences, like the fall rate and those sorts of things, however fishing a 3/16 ounce shakey head with the exact same worm, all fish were coming dead-sticked on bottom.  It wasn't a matte rof fall rate, it wasn't a difference in baits, or technique.  The sole difference was the line in question.

 

There was one other variable that you did not consider. The guy holding the rod!  I had a similar experience where I was outfishing a guy by a huge margin while we were fishing a large open water, shallow, weedy flat with spinnerbaits. I was using a single spin colorado blade and catching bass after bass,  while my partner couldn't buy a fish with his twin willow leaf blades. We switched rods. I fished his baits, he fished mine. I continued to catch em', and he still couldn't get bit.  Just something else to consider.

[TorqueConverter]

In layman's terms, as you put it, refraction of light is the change in direction of light.  In this purpose, it's different than reflection.  Reflection is the change of light solely on the surface of the material in question.  Refraction, when in the consideration of fluorocarbon line is how light changes direction on not only the surface of the line, but as lightwaves travel through the material.  In this case, light is bent at different lengths, better to camoflauge the surface of the line, in this case it's nearly cylindrical.  Think of it like this, reflection is going to act like a mirror, refraction is going to act as a lens.  In the case of fluorocarbon, that lens surface is very similar to that of the water surrounding it, therefore it has a lower profile.  Nylon reflects almost the entire visible spectrum.  Fluoro bends light as it enters one side, and goes out at a different angle.  Mono bends light as it reflect of the surface; primary difference.  There's a large difference between the two.

In terms of the refractive index, most finished nylon mono is considerably higher than what you'd listed.  In most cases, it's well above the 1.6 marker.  The finished material in fluorocarbon, and yes, there's a difference in resins... is generally about 1.41 or 1.42.  The secondary aspect to fluorocarbon's refractive index is that it's nearly impermeable to UV degradation, the same cannot be said of Mono.

If it doesn't make a difference, and it's entirely a gimmick, then I must be the luckiest guy ever.  There are far to many demonstable instances in which I've been on clear water lakes and fished 15lb fluoro and the guy fishing 6lb mono was getting back-boated 9:1.  Sure, there could have been other differences, like the fall rate and those sorts of things, however fishing a 3/16 ounce shakey head with the exact same worm, all fish were coming dead-sticked on bottom.  It wasn't a matte rof fall rate, it wasn't a difference in baits, or technique.  The sole difference was the line in question.

 

Excellent read.  Refraction is how light passes through a transparent medium.  I'm sure everyone has stuck their rod tip in the water and noticed a neat optical feat that appears to bend the rod.  The differences in refractory idexes of air and water is what causes a distortion in the image of the rod tip submerged under water.

 

Light waves travel slower through water than they do through air and this causes the distortion of the image of the rod tip underwater.  Lets say there is a fishing line that is right at the refractory index of water.  How would this line look underwater?  What effects would refractive indexes have on the line?

 

Refractivity is the distortion of light passing through a transparent medium and this means that anything within that medium that is not of the same refractive index will bend light differently.  Lets apply this to fishing lines.  A line that has the same refractive index of water will not distort any images seen through the line.  If you were to hold up this line and look through it, you would see the underwater world free of distortion.  It would be as distortion free as looking through glass on land. 

 

Here's where the problems start:

 

# 1 Fluorocarbon line is not at the refractive index of water.  It's close, but so is a lot of what is called "mono".

 

#2 Fluorocarbon ain't clear, or at least it's not crystal clear.  It's like speaking about the refractive index of window panes to see which one will give you the better view, only to discover they are a transparent whiteish color and not at all "clear".

 

#3 fish aren't going to hold the lines up to their eyes and gawk at their buddies image on the other side.

 

The refractive index claim to fluorocarbon becoming less visible than mono is highly suspect.  Percentage wise, there is just no room for those claims when comparing refractive indexes of monos to fluoros.  Unless my 1.5-1.6 average mono values are way off then there is just no room in the data for there to be any differences.  Combine that with the fact that a refraction is simply the speed of light through a material, in this case specifically being clear things underwater, is not something fish care about.

 

There been two things that I can't speak about because there is very little info out there and that is refractvity of cylinders and the actual chemical composition of "mono".  We can't just assume that all mono is largely nylon.  It's usually an unknown blend of polymers that the manufactures are tight lipped about.

 

Data and science need to what determines if there is really any truth to the fluorocarbon visibility argument.  I know you've had some great days on the water with the stuff but I've been beaten by my father, from the back of the boat, accidentally spraying OFF insect repellant onto jigs thinking it was Bang.  Same jig, same line, same rods.  We even switched places.  He still beat me that night coating a jig is what is basically fish repellant.  All my favorite crankbait colors have nothing to do with science, or even good data collection, and are just emotional or confidence colors.  I had a few real good days last year on two particular orangeish red cranks.  I'm noticing a growing number of orange and red baits in the crankbait boxes this year.  Funny how that works.        

[mjseverson24]

I believe they did a study with bass in a tank with just lines of floro, lines of mono and lines of braid tied to the bottom and on top with a float with a sensor of some sort. the study showed that the bass ran into the floro lines much more often than they ran into the mono or braid. does this mean anything? maybe not, but it sure doesnt prove that mono or braid is less visible to fish than floro... maybe someone else will chime in on where the study is from... i just dont remember... 

 

Mitch

[SudburyBasser]

I wouldn't disagree though I suspect the manufacturer would tell you that its meant to replicate a number of fish busting the surface in reaction to a nearby bass

 

Yeah, bass can see at 52 frames per second, compared to our 19. I'm sure bass can see the baitball, but doesn't still doesn't mean its not a gimick. Especially the top water ones, I've never seen a school of fish thrash and rest at the surface as a group lol

[AQUA VELVA]

Make no mistake, my friends, the fishing tackle industry can read us like a book and they are only getting better at it every year. By the time we wise up , they have already got their money.

[The Rooster]

 

 

 

I have heard that bass have eyesight good enough to see both sides of a spinning spinnerbait blade at the same time -- superb eye sight in other words. Whether that translates into the LT Bait Ball actually being effective is another matter entirely, of course.

  

Yeah, bass can see at 52 frames per second, compared to our 19. I'm sure bass can see the baitball, but doesn't still doesn't mean its not a gimick. Especially the top water ones, I've never seen a school of fish thrash and rest at the surface as a group lol

When it comes to scientific testing making claims like how many frames per second they can see, I question it. How can they substantiate it at all? Even the advertising behind the bait ball doesn't claim this. They state that bass are actually seeing a single crankbait as more of a tightly packed cluster of baitfish, even though there is nothing about a standard crankbait that gives any suggestion it's more than one. It's just painted to resemble one single bait fish to start with. So with that claim, it flies in the face of other claims that they can see so much more sophisticatedly. Who's right? Since fish are so simpleminded creatures, I'm more inclined to believe the former. Otherwise what good does having such sharp eyesight do for it, it's still dumb enough to eat baits that look nothing like real food, and have hooks hanging off of them too.

[bflp3]

When it comes to scientific testing making claims like how many frames per second they can see, I question it. How can they substantiate it at all? Even the advertising behind the bait ball doesn't claim this. They state that bass are actually seeing a single crankbait as more of a tightly packed cluster of baitfish, even though there is nothing about a standard crankbait that gives any suggestion it's more than one. It's just painted to resemble one single bait fish to start with. So with that claim, it flies in the face of other claims that they can see so much more sophisticatedly. Who's right? Since fish are so simpleminded creatures, I'm more inclined to believe the former. Otherwise what good does having such sharp eyesight do for it, it's still dumb enough to eat baits that look nothing like real food, and have hooks hanging off of them too.

I don't know the exact experiment that was done to determine their visual acuity, but if you don't have any evidence to counter the results its hard to discount them. Are we going to believe scientific research or a lure companies marketing?

Don't confuse overall intelligence with specialized physical attributes. The ability to see really well has other benefits besides intelligent decision making, considering a bass is a predator whose primary hunting tool is its eyes and must track and capture fast moving targets. On a fast moving target like that, the bass is using its eyes to track and capture, not inspect and decide.

[WhiteMike1018]

O.K boys, lets hear your thoughts on some of the biggest marketing tricks the manufacturers have tried to run past us

2 spring to my mind

 

1---   long cast spools {spinning reels}

2---   high frame spinning rod guides

 

3---- wrong forum but "Bleeding baits/blood red hooks

 

Things like A-Rigs and Chatterbaits I think of as innovations not ploys

 

The bleeding bait concept is not a marketing ploy, KVD said himself that he is a HUGE believer in this idea and uses flashes of red as well as red trailer hooks on his spinnerbaits. Many other predators in the wild are attracted to the color RED as well, and there is a reason why stop signs are RED..high visibility. Fish feed by sight....