Code of Conduct
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 61 to 120 of 167
  1. #61

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by DMA View Post
    Ok would you care to explain to me then why a few years ago when dior homme sport was released and i went to a mall to purchase it and i looked around in various places, at that time it didnt make any difference whether i went to house of fraser, or boots, or john lewis, or debenhams, every single store was selling it at the same price?

    Why was that then?...
    Because the brick-and-mortar stores try to make as much profit as possible as long as the fragrance is new.

  2. #62

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    Illegal and unenforceable contracts are drawn up all the time,so that is no argument. And if the retailer did not have a contract, that especially is no argument, because they are not bound by one. And market efficiency will win out, the dated model with price controls cannot hold up when the market expands are more sellers compete for the same dollars. Profits will be reduced because it is competitive. I'm sure everyone would love to make inordinate profits for the long term, but that just isn't how the real world works. Competition drives prices down and the only way to stay afloat is to drive costs down. It sounds like the costs are already low for direct materials and labor, and more efficient players are pushing down costs to move more volume of product. Too bad for those manufacturers who can't use their assets efficiently enough to stay profitable, they don't deserve to remain on the market if so. As I understand it, most of the constituents and most of the constructs of these mass market scents come from the same fragrance giants making and selling the chemicals with perfumers shopping the formulations to the designer brands willing to pay for them anyway. Doesn't sound like any particular brand has so much necessary overhead that they have room to cry anyway.Can't support global business on one hand and then hate the efficiencies and lower prices it gives consumers on the other. Well, you can if you are a business owner with a poor idea of how to survive in the markets. this is fragrance anyway, it's the CHEAP gateway into luxury brands, and has been for decades. Making it cheaper does not matter, this stuff is largely synthetic and reproduceable on the industrial scale to begin with.
    Fully agree with your thoughts.

  3. #63

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Awakening950 View Post
    Corporate monster companies work against the free market because in most cases they can't compete in a free market. It's a losing battle in the long run but that never stops them from trying. One of the indicators that you live in a retarded system is when you see governments or companies destroying perfectly usable products or commodities. There never seems to be a shortage of brainwashed corporate toadies that defend their insanity though.

    I could be wrong though, maybe destroying products is perfectly rational and sane in a system with limited resources.
    Thanks for an intelligent reply. It is indeed frightening to see the number of "brainwashed corperate toadies" comments on this thread.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  4. #64

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    I'm not going to explain what Awekening950 was arguing. If he would like to do that, more power to him! If not, I suggest reading some books about the economic history of the USA. If you do, make sure you pay close attention to the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914.
    Never mind all that. Just put your money where your mouth is, and do what Andy Tauer, Chris Bartlett, Jim Gehr, and others have done, and make good on your claims that you can make your own scents. Then try to sell them and get back to us. I don't see any of those guys complaining about "faux capitalism." Capitalism exists, whether you like it or not. Companies get big, get powerful, and throw their weight around to stay that way. Smaller companies do fine, they sink or swim on their own merits. Nothing "faux" about that.

  5. #65

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    ...
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 13th August 2014 at 01:47 PM.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  6. #66
    Basenotes Plus
    PalmBeach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    South Florida
    Posts
    2,945

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Thanks for an intelligent reply. It is indeed frightening to see the number of "brainwashed corperate toadies" comments on this thread.
    What I continue to find amazing with you, if someone agrees with your position, they offer an intelligent reply, but forbid anyone who gives a reasonable reason to disagree with your point of view, they become brainwashed toadies.


    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    Ahh, true colors. Tolerant of others' views, much? Would that be with or without the ad hominen attacks on those that don't see the world as you do?

    Your lazy worldview approach is offensive on an intellectual level. Tear it down, man... eat the rich!
    Unfortunately, I have seen this play before with David. I personally wish he would stick with discussing some of the marvelous perfumes he finds in his travels.

  7. #67
    Basenotes Junkie Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    802

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    I'm not going to explain what Awekening950 was arguing. If he would like to do that, more power to him! If not, I suggest reading some books about the economic history of the USA. If you do, make sure you pay close attention to the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914.
    But of course all of that got updated in 2008.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resale_price_maintenance

    If that's too much to read (not being sarcastic), then there's this sub part of the text:

    Several decades after Dr Miles, scholars began to question the assertion that minimum resale price maintenance, a vertical restraint, was the economic equivalent of a naked horizontal cartel. In 1960, Lester G. Telser, an economist at the University of Chicago, argued that manufacturers could employ minimum resale price maintenance as a tool to ensure that dealers engaged in the desired promotion of a manufacturer's product through local advertising, product demonstrations, and the like. Without such contractual restraints, Telser said, no frills distributors might "free ride" on the promotional efforts of full service distributors, thereby undermining the incentives of full service dealers to expend resources on promotion.

  8. #68

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Thanks for an intelligent reply. It is indeed frightening to see the number of "brainwashed corperate toadies" comments on this thread.
    That was unnecessary, David. You have got to accept that other members do not share your ideological views without resorting to name calling.
    "The cure for boredom is curiosity.
    There is no cure for curiosity."
    - Dorothy Parker

  9. #69
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    While my sentiments, in terms of the topic, are more in line with David's, the main immoral or unethical behavior I see here is his behavior toward other posters. Moderators, please review his behavior here; its really not ok.

  10. #70
    Basenotes Junkie Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    802

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Thanks for an intelligent reply. It is indeed frightening to see the number of "brainwashed corperate toadies" comments on this thread.
    David, despite your reference to Hank and me as brainwashed corporate toadies, it doesn't change the feeling that I have enjoyed reading your genuine, friendly, low-key posts here for some time and I think that that's who you really are.

    You're applying populist thinking to a luxury goods market. I think that if you'd given yourself a couple of extra minutes of reflection you might have decided that's not really the right way to look at it. It's not like L'Oreal, LVMH, and your adored Hermes are gouging people for water, flour, or heat. Perfume is a discretionary item. It's what you do with your fun bucks. I don't think that you need government protection when it comes to your perfume hobby. If the price is too high - unfairly high, in your view - then you can always find other hobbies. Someone else here, I think mocha, pointed out the weird antipathy towards perfume manufacturers one often sees here and I have to say that it puzzles me too.

    I think that you just got overexcited by something you saw on television. I look forward to more of your posts.
    Last edited by Wheatstraw2; 8th August 2014 at 08:03 PM.

  11. #71

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    I think this is L'Oreal acting on-behalf of their named distribution partners. Of course, I'm going to assume that everyone here knows that the retail partners purchase from manufacturers at a price, which could be negotiated at a case by case basis. Meaning Retailer A receives the product at a lower cost than Retailer B. So L'Oreal has already made their investment back, now it is up to the physical stores to turn the profit.

    I think, personally, that with the common public perception of fragrance as a luxury purchase and granting room for variance in manufacturer-to-retailer cost, it is much more likely that L'Oreal sets a maximum retail price. Think about it, someone (I am NOT reading through that morass to find it) said there has to be a minimum price since all of the bottles of I think Dior Homme Sport cost the same across the board. Neiman Marcus/Saks/Barneys have totally different customer bases than Carson's/JCP/Macys. Yet, the few scents they carry in common are priced the same. Wouldn't the former 3 not be as concerned about competitive pricing and try and garner more profit from their more affluent clientele?

  12. #72
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    6,700

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    david- The irony is that you are offering goods/services in your signature that are not fragrances, so they must be removed. A bit too much capitalism on your part...

  13. #73
    Basenotes Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    (I've no idea what NPM is but I assume it's similar to EBIT or such, no
    NPM = Net Profit Margin (I assume).


    We don't live in a world with a true free market economy, just like we in any "democratic" nation don't live under a true democracy (we live in republics or representative democracies, in which representatives handle most governmental matters rather than everyone voting on every single piece of legislation ever passed). If we did, there would be no intellectual property, we would have information about everything any company ever did - how much supplies cost, how much every employee is paid, what formulas are used, who supplies come from, etc. And that is a good thing. Just like living in a true democracy would probably be too cumbersome to be practical.

    We do allow for intellectual property, and companies have a right to their intellectual property. Companies also have the right to set prices for their products, to set contracts with distributors, and choose who those distributors are. They have the right to control their distribution chains through legal contractual obligations on those distributors. I don't personally think they should have the right to control the end price of the product, because as long as they are receiving the price they want to charge for every single product of theirs sold then the impact to the firm is minimal, however I do see and understand the arguments of those who do believe companies should have that right.

    In the end though, we have the power to decide whether we ever buy another product from any particular company...that's where the consumer's power lies. If you disagree with what or how a company is doing something, by all means boycott that company's products and if enough people join you then the company will change or die.
    Last edited by baaghji; 8th August 2014 at 08:23 PM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    Someone else here, I think mocha, pointed out the weird antipathy towards perfume manufacturers one often sees here and I have to say that it puzzles me too.
    Agree. Perfume is great. Perfume is wonderful. Perfume companies are dirty, evil, greedy, faux-capitalist entities that need schooling. It makes little sense. I remember a while ago reading about another company that began attacking niche brands for using the word "peace" in naming perfumes. The uproar with that was legit. That was a clear case of a brand being overly aggressive micro-managers of other people's business, sticking its nose where it didn't belong. This seems to simply be a case of a company tightening up on distribution and price controls for THEIR products. Big difference.

  15. #75

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by stuigi View Post
    david- The irony is that you are offering goods/services in your signature that are not fragrances, so they must be removed. A bit too much capitalism on your part...
    "The Marching Morons"

    Last edited by silentrich; 9th August 2014 at 12:36 AM.

  16. #76

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    LVMH is using other tricks and in France has actually blocked computer users with a french IP address from purchasing any online LVMH products not offered directy by their authorised online websites. They have even gone one step further and blocked online purchasing of ALL perfumes with the name Vetiver, (regardless of the fact that it may be a vetever fragrance from a company outside of the LVMH umbrella).
    Thanks for the heads-up David. I'd love to see this documentary. Adding to others comments in this thread - whilst there's no doubt that they wouldn't be very happy with online retailers & would do everything they could to overpower them, I find it very doubtful that they would have the power to censor an entire countries Internet access.

    Paying Internet Service Providers to create networks blocks so it's impossible for people to purchase from their competition. Talk about illegal. Imagine if private companies could do this, it would be a huge issue. What a conspiracy theory! What a story!
    It's been a long hot Summer in Sydney, looking forward to Winter & wearing vanilla fragrances.

  17. #77

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    As for the 12.88% NPM... Who's to decide? You? Me? Some politician?
    yes, yes, no. The consumer decides the net profit margin, in part. This is a competitive industry, like most others. The suppliers do not set prices. They are price takers. The consumer sets prices. The net profit is determined by how efficiently assets are used to deliver a product for the price a consumer is willing to pay. I do not think a politician should set the price. That is what the proponents of L'Oreal's actions are saying. They are saying businesses deserve something. They are saying businesses have the right to set the price. They quite simply do not. The benefit of competitive markets is that it forces efficient use of assets. This reduces costs. Lower costs allow for lower prices. Lower prices are better for consumers. Lower prices moves more product. Moving more product means better asset turnover. Better turnovers means more return on the investment. Better returns are better for investors and creditors. People don't seem to realize that this is in opposition to progress. That this is in opposition to the very platform that allows you to oppose it. The fact that thousands of people from around the globe are able to discuss, and yes, purchase, fragrance is a boon. This is an action for an antiquated model. For one that restricts the exchange of information to reduce competition. Competition is good. Getting the most for your dollar is good. More efficient business is good. The opposition to these good things that only benefits the ones opposing it is quite strange. I do not know what the industry average NPM is for fragrance or makeup. I also do not care. As a consumer, it is not my job to care how well the company does in a transaction, it is my job to care how well I do in the transaction. I get o benefit if I do not look out for myself. It is readily admitted that the business is looking out for their bottom line, they certainly do not need your help. I do know that the world's largest retailer, the one that had half a trillion dollars in revenue from eleven thousand stores, that beast Wal-Mart, somehow barely manages to scrape by and make only the slightest dent in retail, shipping, and logistics, with a NPM less than one-fourth that of L'Oreal. I wonder if that poor old horse is going to make it another year with such paltry margins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    I don't think that you need government protection when it comes to your perfume hobby.
    Nor do the suppliers when it comes to prices. This is asking the government to interfere in retail, to reduce the competitve advantage of one form of sales to propr up a failing one. MErvyn's went under due to the actions of the owners. No, not the poor decisions, this came after the poor decisions. Mervyn's paid pitifully low rents on the properties where the stores were located, and managed to continue operations. New ownership decided to charge rents appropriate for the locations, and the stores folded rather quickly as their weakness was exposed. The owners then made better decisions with the land and better business came from this. Without tax credits carried over, the "too big to fail" General Motors still posts billions of dollars in losses on their financials. Nothing is too big to fail, and some failures are too big to perpetuate. There is no reason to sacrifice online availability to support brick & mortar. Brick & mortar needs to find a competitive niche. And fragrance sellers need to find ways to hold their margins in the face of more players and more informed consumers. There's no good to come from forcing everyone else to regress just so a few can perpetuate their practices. The point in the long run is to force improvement, not stagnation.

  18. #78
    Basenotes Junkie Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    802

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    yes, yes, no. The consumer decides the net profit margin, in part. This is a competitive industry, like most others. The suppliers do not set prices. They are price takers. The consumer sets prices. The net profit is determined by how efficiently assets are used to deliver a product for the price a consumer is willing to pay. I do not think a politician should set the price. That is what the proponents of L'Oreal's actions are saying. They are saying businesses deserve something. TFhey are saying businesses have the right to set the price. They quite simply do not. The benefit of competitive markets is that it forces efficient use of assets. This reduces costs. Lower costs allow for lower prices. Lower prices are better for consumers. Lower prices moves more product. Moving more product means better asset turnover. Better turnovers means more return on the investment. Better returns are better for investors and creditors. People don't seem to realize that this is in opposition to progress. That this is in opposition to the very platform that allows you to oppose it. The fact that thousands of people from around the globe are able to discuss, and yes, purchase, fragrance is a boon. This is an action for an antiquated model. For one that restricts the exchange of information to reduce competition. Competition is good. Getting the most for your dollar is good. More efficient business is good. The opposition to these good things that only benefits the ones opposing it is quite strange. I do not know what the industry average NPM is for fragrance or makeup. I also do not care. As a consumer, it is not my job to care how well the company does in a transaction, it is my job to care how well I do in the transaction. I get o benefit if I do not look out for myself. It is readily admitted that the business is looking out for their bottom line, they certainly do not need your help. I do know that the world's largest retailer, the one that had half a trillion dollars in revenue from eleven thousand stores, that beast Wal-Mart, somehow barely manages to scrape by and make only the slightest dent in retail, shipping, and logistics, with a NPM less than one-fourth that of L'Oreal. I wonder if that poor old horse is going to make it another year with such paltry margins.


    Nor do the suppliers when it comes to prices. This is asking the government to interfere in retail, to reduce the competitve advantage of one form of sales to propr up a failing one. MErvyn's went under due to the actions of the owners. No, not the poor decisions, this came after the poor decisions. Mervyn's paid pitifully low rents on the properties where the stores were located, and managed to continue operations. New ownership decided to charge rents appropriate for the locations, and the stores folded rather quickly as their weakness was exposed. The owners then made better decisions with the land and better business came from this. Without tax credits carried over, the "too big to fail" General Motors still posts billions of dollars in losses on their financials. Nothing is too big to fail, and some failures are too big to perpetuate. There is no reason to sacrifice online availability to support brick & mortar. Brick & mortar needs to find a competitive niche. And fragrance sellers need to find ways to hold their margins in the face of more players and more informed consumers. There's no good to come from forcing everyone else to regress just so a few can perpetuate their practices. The point in the long run is to force improvement, not stagnation.
    Oh boy. I'll try to do this quickly. The manufacturers, at the high end, are not price takers and do in fact set their own prices. How is this possible? You may have forgotten that luxury goods businesses don't compete primarily on price. Your analysis applies to copper pipe and grain and other commodities. In many cases, luxury products, or status symbols (read some Thorstein Veblen) are Veblen Goods. Seriously, do you honestly believe that Roja Dove, Clive Christian, Amouage and Kilian are price-takers? I don't. And I don't believe that the apparel businesses at Hermes and Louis are price-takers either. Ferrari's a big company now but even they aren't price takers.

    As far as for a few of us arguing in favor of what L'Oreal does being characterized as the work of luddites trying to force commerce back into the stone age, the high-end manufacturers have set up e-commerce capability themselves. So have Neiman Marcus and Saks. Boom. Problem solved. That was easy.

    And lastly, there's this idea in there somewhere that efficiency gains will make us all better off. Well I'm sure they will, but not in luxury goods, psychiatry, eye surgery, providing a quality liberal arts education, tutoring, fine art, or even street art. You're looking at the entire world through the lens of how commodity products are sold. (Including soap, toothpaste and laundry detergent, which never take the role of status symbols). A lot of what goes into an Aston Martin is made by hand. There's an incredibly wonderful video clip on the internet somewhere that shows how Berluti shoes are made. At Aston and Berluti, you don't see "efficiency gains" as being important. Have you ever seen pictures of the main workroom at Kiton? It looks like something out of the 50s. These products are not made better by efficiency gains, they're emblematic of all of the good stuff that got left behind by efficiency gains. Elie Saab is not going to create more incredible dresses through efficiency gains. The magic in an Elie Saab dress - and it is the most dazzling (apparel) magic I know of - is in the work that can only be done by the manual labor of one or two ancient, experienced, patient women doing the sewing and the beadwork.

    I think that you'll find that a lot of the demand for "niche" fragrance is really there, mostly, because it's expensive. (Almost all consumers of status symbol objects deny that that's what they're doing, but that's mostly what they're doing). It's a status symbol with a partially positively-sloped demand curve. Just the other day, the forum was visited by a perfumeur who said that heavy discounting of his product by a rogue distributor had threatened to hurt his brand. That's from the horse's mouth. Now you and some others here say that once the manufacturer sells to the distributor, the producer's involvement has ended and whatever happens after that is none of his concern. Why didn't you try to help him understand that when he was posting here?
    Last edited by Wheatstraw2; 9th August 2014 at 07:31 AM.

  19. #79

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by stuigi View Post
    david- The irony is that you are offering goods/services in your signature that are not fragrances, so they must be removed. A bit too much capitalism on your part...
    There was no capatalism involved. It ws purely an offer of exchange of goods/ services. No capital involved at all.Not even a cent.

  20. #80

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    I have found a link on the MDR website, so everyone can watch the programme and then make their own personal judgement.
    Please go to the MDR.de website homepage. at the top is a rubrik "Mediatek". Click on mediatek. In the search machine there, enter " preiskampf der parfumhersteller ".
    The programme is approx 7 mins in duration. Although the programme is in german, tables and statistics are shown which I am sure everyone here will understand.
    I hope the people genuinely interested in this topic will do so - so that they can get a true impression of what I am referring to.

    Many posters totally misunderstood the whole point of this thread. It is not about companies selling counterfeit perfumes. It is all about perfume companies selling authentic perfumes and through false claims corperations being eliminated from the market place. A dangerous game that could affect the budget/ spending power of all basenoters.
    The streaming can be seen on the MDR website only for a couple more days, then it will be removed. Please have a look at it.
    Last edited by david; 9th August 2014 at 02:07 PM.

  21. #81

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by KeLLsTar View Post
    Thanks for the heads-up David. I'd love to see this documentary. Adding to others comments in this thread - whilst there's no doubt that they wouldn't be very happy with online retailers & would do everything they could to overpower them, I find it very doubtful that they would have the power to censor an entire countries Internet access.

    Paying Internet Service Providers to create networks blocks so it's impossible for people to purchase from their competition. Talk about illegal. Imagine if private companies could do this, it would be a huge issue. What a conspiracy theory! What a story!
    Thanks KeLLstar. It really is all true, sadly. If you go onto the ebay france platform, you will find no sellers of LVMH perfumes. If you look on the ebay US site or the ebay UK site you will find sellers of LVMH perfumes. The real scandal is that LVMH has got away with persuading french high courts to block ALL perfumes with the name Vetiver !!
    ps Please see a recent post from me here explaining how/ where you can watch the tv documentary on the MDR.de website.

  22. #82

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by PalmBeach View Post
    What I continue to find amazing with you, if someone agrees with your position, they offer an intelligent reply, but forbid anyone who gives a reasonable reason to disagree with your point of view, they become brainwashed toadies.




    Unfortunately, I have seen this play before with David. I personally wish he would stick with discussing some of the marvelous perfumes he finds in his travels.
    I think you should have a look at my recent thread about Lush/ Gorilla perfumes. Many people dissagree with me about Lush fragrances, but I accept that and don't have a problem with it. I even replied to Riverwide saying, basenotes would be very boring if we all had exactly the same tastes. Vive la difference.
    The problem with this particular thread is that many posters totally misread/ misunderstood the original post. This thread was not about online perfume companies selling fakes, it was about online companies selling authentic perfumes at lower prices and being unfairly treated by corperations who are using dirty tactics to eliminate them.
    As a basenotes member I am truly grateful for online sellers who can offer me the genuine article for less than half the price it would cost at a Sephora store.
    Last edited by david; 9th August 2014 at 03:22 PM.

  23. #83
    Basenotes Junkie Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    802

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    I think you should have a look at my recent thread about Lush/ Gorilla perfumes. Many people dissagree with me about Lush fragrances, but I accept that and don't have a problem with it. I even replied to Riverwide saying, basenotes would be very boring if we all had exactly the same tastes. Vivre la difference.
    The problem with this particular thread is that many posters totally misread/ misunderstood the original post. This thread was not about online perfume companies selling fakes, it was about online companies selling authentic perfumes at lower prices and being unfairly treated by corperations who are using dirty tactics to eliminate them.
    As a basenotes member I am truely grateful for online sellers who can offer me the genuine article for less than half the price it would cost at a Sephora store.
    I completely understood your original post. It was about how cheapskates need government intervention to help them buy expensive perfume for half off.
    Last edited by Wheatstraw2; 9th August 2014 at 02:40 PM.

  24. #84

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    David, despite your reference to Hank and me as brainwashed corporate toadies, it doesn't change the feeling that I have enjoyed reading your genuine, friendly, low-key posts here for some time and I think that that's who you really are.

    You're applying populist thinking to a luxury goods market. I think that if you'd given yourself a couple of extra minutes of reflection you might have decided that's not really the right way to look at it. It's not like L'Oreal, LVMH, and your adored Hermes are gouging people for water, flour, or heat. Perfume is a discretionary item. It's what you do with your fun bucks. I don't think that you need government protection when it comes to your perfume hobby. If the price is too high - unfairly high, in your view - then you can always find other hobbies. Someone else here, I think mocha, pointed out the weird antipathy towards perfume manufacturers one often sees here and I have to say that it puzzles me too.

    I think that you just got overexcited by something you saw on television. I look forward to more of your posts.
    Let me please explain...

    As an american Wheatstraw2, you enjoy the huge privilege of having an enormous range of both perfume discount retail chainstores and the freedom to shop at online perfume stores. Here in France we do not. Our french ip address is censored and blocked at source. I recently tried to buy a rare discontinued perfume that I found on strawberrynet. When I tried to click on "buy it" a notice in french popped up telling me because of french laws I am forbidden to buy this product. Also, many items I see on ebay US and other countries I am unable to buy because of these radical restrictions.
    As if all that is not bad enough, I now see this alarming tv documentary that shows that L'Oreal is trying to eliminte online perfumeries in Europe for selling, (authentic) discounted brand names. I really envy you for living in a country with such freedom and healthy competition where it would be almost impossible for such a thing to happen. Imagine, your computer is blocked and you are told you cannot buy a certain perfume because you live in the US.
    I hope you can now understand the gravity of the situation here in Europe.
    I hope you will remain a friend and read my threads. This one is particularly inportant to me, because of my situation here. I hope to have at least a certain amount of freedom to be able to buy from online retailers who offer discounted prices on their perfumes. As a fragrance fan it's very important to me.
    Last edited by david; 9th August 2014 at 03:16 PM.

  25. #85

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    I completely understood your original post. It was about how cheapskates need government intervention to help them buy expensive perfume for half off.
    ???

  26. #86

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    I completely understood your original post. It was about how cheapskates need government intervention to help them buy expensive perfume for half off.
    Or maybe how multibillion dollar multinational corporations need government protection to buttress their profits?

  27. #87

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Well, French, German and Spanish courts agree that L'Oreal and others have been bad boys:

    http://us.fashionmag.com/news/Perfum...l#.U-ZBl2IaySM

    http://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/new...e_fixing/87018

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/l-or...ixing-1.994125

    The findings included how these firms dealt with their retail outlets to keep prices high. If the courts are finding problems, there's no reason for anyone here to doubt that these companies have used illegal tactics.

    Here is the story from the first link above:

    A Paris appeals court upheld the fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance.
    Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined: Jean-Paul Gaultier, Issey Miyake, Chanel, Clarins Fragrance Group, Hermes, Christian Dior, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Guerlain, l'Oreal, LVMH Fragrance Brands, Sisheido Europe and YSL.
    Distributors Marionnaud, Sephora and Nocibe were also fined.
    In its original ruling, which concerned events between 1997 and 2000, the price watchdog said said the companies "had arrangements with distributors... to put an end, for each product under the brand name, to any competition between retail outlets for these products".
    The agreements saw "price police" ensuring distributors were sticking by the deal, and "pressure and threats of commercial reprisals for those distributors that refused to apply the prices imposed by the brand", it said.
    Last edited by noggs; 9th August 2014 at 04:25 PM.

  28. #88

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by tensor9 View Post
    Or maybe how multibillion dollar multinational corporations need government protection to buttress their profits?
    Thanks. You get it.

  29. #89

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by noggs View Post
    Well, French, German and Spanish courts agree that L'Oreal and others have been bad boys:

    http://us.fashionmag.com/news/Perfum...l#.U-ZBl2IaySM

    http://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/new...e_fixing/87018

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/l-or...ixing-1.994125

    The findings included how these firms dealt with their retail outlets to keep prices high. If the courts are finding problems, there's no reason for anyone here to doubt that these companies have used illegal tactics.
    Thanks noggs.

  30. #90

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by noggs View Post
    Well, French, German and Spanish courts agree that L'Oreal and others have been bad boys:

    http://us.fashionmag.com/news/Perfum...l#.U-ZBl2IaySM

    http://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/new...e_fixing/87018

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/l-or...ixing-1.994125

    The findings included how these firms dealt with their retail outlets to keep prices high. If the courts are finding problems, there's no reason for anyone here to doubt that these companies have used illegal tactics.

    Here is the story from the first link above:

    A Paris appeals court upheld the fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance.
    Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined: Jean-Paul Gaultier, Issey Miyake, Chanel, Clarins Fragrance Group, Hermes, Christian Dior, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Guerlain, l'Oreal, LVMH Fragrance Brands, Sisheido Europe and YSL.
    Distributors Marionnaud, Sephora and Nocibe were also fined.
    In its original ruling, which concerned events between 1997 and 2000, the price watchdog said said the companies "had arrangements with distributors... to put an end, for each product under the brand name, to any competition between retail outlets for these products".
    The agreements saw "price police" ensuring distributors were sticking by the deal, and "pressure and threats of commercial reprisals for those distributors that refused to apply the prices imposed by the brand", it said.
    If French courts are finding L'Oreal to be "bad" and David is telling us the same French courts have ruled in favor of these "bad" practices, something doesn't add up here.

    I also read and understood David's OP. Still think he's wrong. That doesn't make me think HE's bad, though.

  31. #91

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    For myself, I find that whatever I read or hear is filtered through my personal experiences, values, opinions, etc. My take on what the OP intended as the thread's topic was more about the methods being used by L'Oreal/LVMH and less about setting prices, preserving brands' reputations, supply and demand, the impact of price wars, etc. and the right or wrong of those issues. That's likely because my own experiences have more to do with defending persons against agencies with large legal budgets that file endless motions and appeals and delay resolution and otherwise bully others into submission. The facts often become less important than the pocketbook. (There's an example of what colors my personal view here: http://parentadvocates.org/index.cfm...articleID=5375) Persons with other experiences, for example those who have struggled to preserve their brand's reputations or have suffered as a result of price wars, may have their own filters, and so had a different take on what was being discussed by the OP. I'm going to try to judge what David intended as the topic by what David says it is and less on my personal perspective/filter.

    There's no question that the media can spin issues in order to manipulate viewers. It would be very interesting to me if we were to actually see the documentary and gauge how fairly all involved were portrayed for ourselves. I'm sure we'd each have a unique opinion about it. Reading summaries of the actual court cases should be even more illuminating.

    The world of fragrance is changing so fast it's hard for me to keep up and make sense about what is really going on. The internet has spawned websites like this one, blogs about scent, many more niche and indie scents are being sold in addition to an increase in gray market sales. IFRA and the EU are definitely having an impact as well. Although this conversation hasn't helped me be any less befuddled, I very much appreciate that David has raised this issue about L'Oreal. It's certainly sparked a lively discussion!</RAMBLING>
    Last edited by socalwoman; 9th August 2014 at 05:03 PM.

  32. #92

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    How many other companies throughout the business industry do this? Make a list David. You might be finished with it by next year. The only real protection we have is to be informed consumers and laugh at the amount of money the lawyers make off of the class action lawsuits. Also when you call someone out don't cry about it and expect others to come and comfort you. You seem to want to insult people then play the victim when they smack you in the face. Man up.

  33. #93

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by socalwoman View Post
    For myself, I find that whatever I read or hear is filtered through my personal experiences, values, opinions, etc. My initial take on what the OP intended as the thread's topic was more about the methods being used by L'Oreal/LVMH and less about setting prices, preserving brands' reputations, supply and demand, the impact of price wars, etc and the right or wrong of those issues. That's likely because my own experiences have more to do with defending the persons against agencies with large legal budgets that file endless motions and appeals to bully others into submission and delay resolution. The facts can become less important than the pocketbook. (There's an example of what colors my personal view here: http://parentadvocates.org/index.cfm...articleID=5375) Persons with other experiences, for example those who have struggled to preserve their brand's reputations or have suffered as a result of price wars, may have their own filters, and so had a different take on what was being discussed by the OP. I'm going to try harder to judge what David intended as the topic by what David says it is and less on my personal perspective/filter.

    There's no question that the media can spin issues in order to manipulate viewers. It would be very interesting to me if we were to actually see the documentary and gauge how fairly all involved were portrayed for ourselves. I'm sure we'd each have a unique opinion about that. Reading summaries of the actual court cases may be even more illuminating.

    The world of fragrance is changing so fast it's hard for me to keep up and make sense about what is really going on. The internet has spawned websites like this one, blogs about scent, many more niche and indie scents are being sold in addition to increased gray market sales. IFRA and the EU are definitely having an impact as well. I very much appreciate that David has raised this issue about L'Oreal. It's certainly sparked a lively discussion!</RAMBLING>
    Thanks socalwoman. Please have a look at the tv documentary, so that you can make your own personal judgement. It can be found on the MDR.de website. On the homepage is a rubrik called "mediatek".
    Click on mediatek and then enter in the their search machine (in germany it's called suche) "preiskampf der parfumhersteller". The report is only 6mins and 40 seconds long, but very indepth. (It was shown on July 22 at 20.15). Although it's in german I am sure you will get the gist of it. Price graphs are shown.

    Please have a look as soon as possible because MDR's tv programmes are only kept for a short while for internet viewing, afterwhich they are archived. At the moment it's still available for viewing.

    ps nogg's links are a wonderful insight as to what has been / and still is going on.
    Last edited by david; 9th August 2014 at 05:24 PM.

  34. #94

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by noggs View Post
    Well, French, German and Spanish courts agree that L'Oreal and others have been bad boys:

    http://us.fashionmag.com/news/Perfum...l#.U-ZBl2IaySM

    http://www.cosmeticsbusiness.com/new...e_fixing/87018

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/l-or...ixing-1.994125

    The findings included how these firms dealt with their retail outlets to keep prices high. If the courts are finding problems, there's no reason for anyone here to doubt that these companies have used illegal tactics.

    Here is the story from the first link above:

    A Paris appeals court upheld the fine imposed in 2006 by the French competition watchdog, which said the companies involved had reached illicit agreements on price fixing, enforced by procedures to monitor prices in outlets and backed up by commercial threats for non-compliance.
    Thirteen leading perfume and luxury goods companies were fined: Jean-Paul Gaultier, Issey Miyake, Chanel, Clarins Fragrance Group, Hermes, Christian Dior, Clinique, Estee Lauder, Guerlain, l'Oreal, LVMH Fragrance Brands, Sisheido Europe and YSL.
    Distributors Marionnaud, Sephora and Nocibe were also fined.
    In its original ruling, which concerned events between 1997 and 2000, the price watchdog said said the companies "had arrangements with distributors... to put an end, for each product under the brand name, to any competition between retail outlets for these products".
    The agreements saw "price police" ensuring distributors were sticking by the deal, and "pressure and threats of commercial reprisals for those distributors that refused to apply the prices imposed by the brand", it said.
    These rulings appear to be on a different point from what david is trying to convince how bad the perfume companies are. One is on legal action against counterfeits, another is on anti-competition.

    However, what I see most inconsistent in this thread is in the attitude that some people take: perfume companies owe it to the consumers (e.g., perfume lovers here) that they have to sell the perfumes and to sell them cheaply. But if consumers find that perfume companies are unethical, then why are consumers still hankering after the products they sell? Should not they take the ethical stand and refuse to buy such perfumes?

    If every consumer takes a united stand and refuse to buy overpriced perfume (legally from official retailers), causing the companies to make losses, then a natural supply and demand effect will bring prices down. Unfortunately, that is not going to happen, and for reasons some of the esteemed members here have already made above (such as Wheatstraw2, DuNezdeBuzier, baaghji).

    While we all love low prices, but we should also know that there is indeed a cost to all these perfumes. It may not be so apparent for the big designers, but for the small niche/indie/artisanal perfume brands? If say, Andy Tauer, working so hard to make a living from his labour of love does not even see any returns, is there a possibility that his brand may not survive and we thus lose a valuable source of perfume creations? That's what the bigger issue. As consumers, of course we would shop around, but for the businesses, removing the online retailers whose profits do not really go back to the creators that really need the income, that's a more harmful long-term consequence.

  35. #95

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    If French courts are finding L'Oreal to be "bad" and David is telling us the same French courts have ruled in favor of these "bad" practices, something doesn't add up here.

    I also read and understood David's OP. Still think he's wrong. That doesn't make me think HE's bad, though.
    ?....the tv documentary I have been referring to is a german one and the courts were german courts, not french courts. The laws in Germany are very different to the laws in France. Please have a look at the documentary, then you will understand.

  36. #96

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by silentrich View Post
    How many other companies throughout the business industry do this? Make a list David. You might be finished with it by next year. The only real protection we have is to be informed consumers and laugh at the amount of money the lawyers make off of the class action lawsuits. Also when you call someone out don't cry about it and expect others to come and comfort you. You seem to want to insult people then play the victim when they smack you in the face. Man up.
    "The only real protection we have is to be informed consumers"..... these words are coming from you.
    I am an informed consumer - and I started this thread to inform other consumers here on basenotes. Most have been very appreciative and have thanked me for bringing it to their attention. Some have even provided additional information on the subject.
    These guys and girls make this club a wonderful place. A few people here seem intent on spoiling sensible discussion. I wish those people would grow up.

  37. #97

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    ?....the tv documentary I have been referring to is a german one and the courts were german courts, not french courts. The laws in Germany are very different to the laws in France. Please have a look at the documentary, then you will understand.
    Apparently the German courts found L'Oreal to be just as guilty as the French did. But as stated above, the issues are different from your complaint anyway. My point is that there's nothing wrong with a company stating that sales of unauthorized merchandise are counterfeit if that's their way of getting control over pricicing and distribution back.

  38. #98

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    Apparently the German courts found L'Oreal to be just as guilty as the French did. But as stated above, the issues are different from your complaint anyway. My point is that there's nothing wrong with a company stating that sales of unauthorized merchandise are counterfeit if that's their way of getting control over pricicing and distribution back.
    No. Not true. The german courts sided with L'Oreal.....which prompted MDR Telivision Company, (very respectable) - (comparable to BBC), to investigate... I feel like I am talking to a brick wall here ....please watch the documentary. If there's something in the german language you don't understand I will gladly translate.

  39. #99

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    Oh boy. I'll try to do this quickly.
    You probably shouldn't.

    The manufacturers, at the high end, are not price takers and do in fact set their own prices. How is this possible? You may have forgotten that luxury goods businesses don't compete primarily on price. Your analysis applies to copper pipe and grain and other commodities. In many cases, luxury products, or status symbols (read some Thorstein Veblen) are Veblen Goods. Seriously, do you honestly believe that Roja Dove, Clive Christian, Amouage and Kilian are price-takers? I don't. And I don't believe that the apparel businesses at Hermes and Louis are price-takers either. Ferrari's a big company now but even they aren't price takers.
    Firstly, this is not the high end. This is about L'Oreal and LVMH. They may be high end for you, but that is another discussion. Secondly, this is about fragrance. I'm sorry, but I have to repeat what I posted earlier. Fragrance is not a luxury industry, and the vast majority of fragrance is attainable even at regular retail price. If you think televisions, tablets, or cell phones are not commoditized products that are not in competitive markets that are not produced by price takers, then you at least have some consistency in not being correct. But at the same time, if you want to call perfume a luxury good at a retail price level far below to only in-line with those other non essential items that are sold at different strata to price discriminate between high and low volume buyers, then there's going to be an issue. Fragrance is not luxury. Fragrance and accessories were targeted by marquee brands specifically because they can be sold at volume for much lower prices but with relatively high margins to entice customers to purchase a hint of the actual luxury they could never afford or experience in haute couture, which was in rapid decline as clothing production spread, became more automated, and social ideals shifted away from bespoke wardrobe. Fragrance is cheap, even at inflated prices it has nothing at all to do with supercars. I think most everyone knows what Ferrari is, they can go to Marshall's or Ross and pick up Scuderi Black 7 days a week for less than a fast food lunch. Fragrance, in particular the efforts of L'Oreal and LVMH, the multinational brand managers that most certainly compete on price and reduce input costs at every opportunity, is nothing like a true luxury good. It is superfluous, unnecessary, but totally separate from a status symbol to many, many billions of people on this planet. And I must say, the idea that price takers exist only in commodities and not in branded finished goods is one that does not likely exist anywhere else.

    As far as for a few of us arguing in favor of what L'Oreal does being characterized as the work of luddites trying to force commerce back into the stone age, the high-end manufacturers have set up e-commerce capability themselves. So have Neiman Marcus and Saks. Boom. Problem solved. That was easy.
    Uh, no. The problem is the exercise of price controls that stifle the competitive advantage of anyone that is not NM or Saks. Your solution is to create oligopoly. What sort of solution is that? What reality is it that benefits the consumer by disavowing the reducing of their costs for products of the exact same quality through multiple channels? Is this the one where these manufacturers go screaming and running from their industries when their margins tighten yet they still turn a profit and can grow in excess of their costs? Is this some industry that exists in a fold of space where laws of rational actors does not apply?

    And lastly, there's this idea in there somewhere that efficiency gains will make us all better off. Well I'm sure they will, but not in luxury goods, psychiatry, eye surgery, providing a quality liberal arts education, tutoring, fine art, or even street art. You're looking at the entire world through the lens of how commodity products are sold. (Including soap, toothpaste and laundry detergent, which never take the role of status symbols). A lot of what goes into an Aston Martin is made by hand. There's an incredibly wonderful video clip on the internet somewhere that shows how Berluti shoes are made. At Aston and Berluti, you don't see "efficiency gains" as being important. Have you ever seen pictures of the main workroom at Kiton? It looks like something out of the 50s. These products are not made better by efficiency gains, they're emblematic of all of the good stuff that got left behind by efficiency gains. Elie Saab is not going to create more incredible dresses through efficiency gains. The magic in an Elie Saab dress - and it is the most dazzling (apparel) magic I know of - is in the work that can only be done by the manual labor of one or two ancient, experienced, patient women doing the sewing and the beadwork.
    And again, that has absolutely nothing to do with fragrance, and especially L'Oreal or LVMH. I fell that if someone complained about the gross take split for Hollywood blockbusters based on comic books, you would wax poetic about your preferred one man play. Or if there was discussion of the poor wage gains and incredibly high employee turnover at Sam's Club, you would trail off about your friend who runs an organic farmer's market. You are completely and utterly off the point. It is quite astounding. Almost as astounding is your missing of the fact that niche houses make soap, detergent, shower gels, and deodorants. If you aren't paying $60 for a bar of soap because it's a status symbol, then maybe there's some other reason. Please explain. And while you are at it, please explain how efficiency gains would not help in eye surgery or arts education. Did these endeavors suddenly stop requiring overhead, rents, supporting labors, maintenance,specialized equipment, research & development, and more? Do they have access to infinite funding? I would certainly hope not, because that would make all money worthless.

    I think that you'll find that a lot of the demand for "niche" fragrance is really there, mostly, because it's expensive. (Almost all consumers of status symbol objects deny that that's what they're doing, but that's mostly what they're doing). It's a status symbol with a partially positively-sloped demand curve. Just the other day, the forum was visited by a perfumeur who said that heavy discounting of his product by a rogue distributor had threatened to hurt his brand. That's from the horse's mouth. Now you and some others here say that once the manufacturer sells to the distributor, the producer's involvement has ended and whatever happens after that is none of his concern. Why didn't you try to help him understand that when he was posting here?
    Probably because that, again, has nil to do with a personal care brand with 30 billion dollars in annual revenue.

    Also, if the demand curve were positive, that would be a Giffen. I don't know if there's an economist on the planet who would buy off on that theory.
    Last edited by Lomaniac; 10th August 2014 at 04:02 AM.

  40. #100

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Perfumes are actually classed as 'Luxury Goods' within the E.U.
    http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsr...d-Luxury-Goods
    Directory contribution link:-
    http://www.basenotes.net/contribute.php

  41. #101

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    You probably shouldn't.


    Firstly, this is not the high end. This is about L'Oreal and LVMH. They may be high end for you, but that is another discussion. Secondly, this is about fragrance. I'm sorry, but I have to repeat what I posted earlier. Fragrance is not a luxury industry . . .
    Your entire argument fell apart with this statement. Do you need perfume to function in life in any capacity? The answer is squarely "NO." Thus it is beyond a doubt a luxury item.

  42. #102

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    This thread continues to offend me and I intend on going through the proper channels to get it taken down. I’d be quite surprised if BN wishes to be associated with such content. If it is, I'll promptly delete the remainder of this post and be on my way.
    Last edited by DuNezDeBuzier; 13th August 2014 at 01:39 PM.
    Simplex Sigillum Veri

  43. #103

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Guys, let's mellow out for a while before posting in this thread anymore. It's fine to have a rational debate on matters such as this, but it's absolutely not cool to call each other names and get nasty. Also, keep the perspective that just because you have certain view of the subject does not necessarily mean that others share that view—nor does it mean that the view is objectively correct.

    Let's keep this thread open a while longer, but be more cognizant and considerate of differing perspectives than we have been so far. If the name-calling or the "if you don't agree, you're wrong" type posts continue, we'll close this one up.

    Keep in mind that you're getting bent out of shape over perfume. PERFUME.

  44. #104
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Tacoma, WA
    Posts
    528

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Wow ad hominem central here. A few of you need to read this wiki (not the be all and end all source, but good enough) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

  45. #105

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    But of course all of that got updated in 2008...
    That's very nice but not related to my point, which has to do with how monopolies were outlawed but now what we have are a few companies that act as a monopoly in practical terms. It clearly occurred in the US auto industry quite a while ago, and in fact AMC was "propped up" by the "big three for quite a while, but now I would contend that it has reached proportions (in the number of businesses as well as the kinds of businesses) that should lead to a different terminology, and I suggested "faux capitalism." I'm not sure what there is to disagree with here, because what happened is major and obvious. Perhaps one thinks that this is capitalism at its "purest,": but I don't see how one could argue that guys like Adam Smith would approve of it (and perhaps even women like Ayn Rand!).
    Last edited by Bigsly; 10th August 2014 at 08:45 PM.

  46. #106

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    I'd like to hear someone's view from China on this issue. Threads like this shouldn't exist period. Presenting the information in a blog is great, but all this is about is picking sides and arguing the politics involved. Bad idea and a poor thread.

  47. #107

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    This thread continues to offend me and I intend on going through the proper channels to get it taken down. I’d be quite surprised if BN wishes to be associated with such content. If it is, I'll promptly delete the remainder of this post and be on my way.

    It’s an embarrassment. Most know porn when they see it and most know populist claptrap when they hear or read it. The OP is slanted, naïve, abundant with falsehood and wrought with misdirected anger. I'm reminded of a Beavis n Butthead bit where one of them is having a hard time understanding basic math and says something about being angry at numbers. He’s either too lazy or stupid to learn and displaces his anger.

    First off, derision would be better targeted at the legislators that enacted the law allowing for the justice system to deem trademark infringed product as counterfeit in these situations. Not those corporations (or individuals) protecting their interests under these laws.

    Second, for years the big companies have been suing eBay (and other such platforms) in efforts to hold eBay more responsible for the trademark infringement / counterfeits activity running rampant on its platform. Some cases have gone against eBay, others not so much. Isn’t it true that it is eBay (and other such platforms) that decided upon the IP address restrictions and other such measures, probably as a result of actual or potential litigation brought forth by LVMH? Again, your beef should be with eBay. In its efforts to comply with either actual or potential court findings, settlements, etc. eBay’s reaction displeases you, but you blame LVMH which has every legal right to protect its brand. You expect any sensible reader to believe that LVMH is so powerful in France, that it lords over the land like some King throwing down such dictum and, voila, no one in France can purchase any fragrance with vetiver in its name online? Incredible. If the French cannot do this, however, it is likely the result of online platform filtering gone awry indirectly related to LVMH legal fights to protect its brand. Huge difference.

    Third, use of terms such as ‘escapades, dirty tricks, false claims, baffled judges, bullying/terrorizing tactics, systematic terrorisation’ connotes a very slanted EVIL CORPORATION view. My sensibilities nurtured through formal education (CPA, MBA) and decades of work experience simply do not allow me to read something like this and let it go unchecked in this forum. You’re either naïve and don’t see it for what it is (populist ideology) and/or are simply ignorant as to the realities of the current IP legislative apparatus and how it works, similarly and differently, in developed countries and/or economic unions. Without the dogma, the OP might have worded it in a balanced manner, something like this:

    L’Oreal’s legal victory spells higher prices for us!

    I’m pissed. I watched a TV program {hyperlink} informing me I have less access to some perfumes at lower prices these days as a result of court findings in Germany and other countries that have sided with L’Oreal and other big names in their efforts to protect their brands/trademarks/intellectual property. Seems the courts have decided that genuine L’Oreal product is considered counterfeit if it is not obtained through channels authorized by L’Oreal. I don’t know what the law is and I don’t know whether it was applied properly, but I think this is wrong. I think I have the right and deserve access to the lowest possible price for any product in the marketplace regardless of who is selling it or how the seller obtained it. I hold L’Oreal and the other big names responsible for this. They obviously have the law on their side, but I think it is simply amoral of big business to exploit the legal avenues available to them in order to maintain, what I think, are the exorbitant prices of their perfumes.

    Speaking of which, I’m also similarly pissed at LVMH and the other big names for suing eBay and others over the last several years. As a result of either findings or settlements or both, in France eBay and others have resorted to filtering, by IP address and other means, so as to help reduce the unauthorized sales of LVMH and other big names’ fragrances. This has resulted in some rather perverse outcomes; for one, the French cannot buy any fragrance online with vetiver in its name... now how crazy is that?


    You might have even added an action plan or such, like “I propose we all contact our locally elected gov’t official and see what we can do to get the legislation responsible for this outcome stricken from the books… now, who’s with me?” or "I propose we all boycott L'Oreal, LVMH, and others for these immoral, granted legal, antics... now, who's with me?", or similar.

    You might have even expressly asked the group for validation of your evil corporation ideology though, implicitly, I'd say that's exactly what you were looking for.

    You might have even qualified the whole thing with “I’m told by friends and family that I have lefty bleating heart tendencies, I have no formal education in business, and I don’t mean to offend those with conservative sensibilities, but please bear with my take on an issue that will likely effect all of us looking to buy perfumes at the best possible price”, or similar. Hell, I would have probably had a chuckle and given you wide berth with that one.

    But no, you leapt right into a populist diatribe targeting BIG CORP as evil doers. Those that disagreed, politely I might add, were labeled with derogatory terms and those that agreed were expressly applauded by you as if this were some type of virtual gang fight, or catty jr. high school clique. How this invective escaped moderation is beyond me. But there it is…

    This thread was DOA.
    I find it ironic that you're guilty of the same naïveté you accuse the OP of. "Blame the government", as if our current government is still responsive to the will of the people. (Look up some statistics regarding public opinion and government policy. I'll just tell you how it goes: there is almost no correlation. Now look up some statistics of business interests and government policy. Guess how that goes?) In your naïveté, you assume the standard line of an actual functional government. The poor corporations are just following the rules we set, right? To an extent that's correct, except the rules they follow are not ours, but theirs. And by some miracle, those rules just happen to tilt in their favor. Funny how that works.

  48. #108

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    I think that it's time to close this thread now.
    Directory contribution link:-
    http://www.basenotes.net/contribute.php

  49. #109

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    O.K., so there's been a cooling off period and we are going to open this thread for further posting.

    Please consider the Code of Conduct 'though!

    Thanks.
    Directory contribution link:-
    http://www.basenotes.net/contribute.php

  50. #110

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Since this thread isn't really about perfume but about business practices and government, perhaps it should be relocated to the General forum or some other place.

  51. #111

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    Oh boy. I'll try to do this quickly. The manufacturers, at the high end, are not price takers and do in fact set their own prices....

    ... You're looking at the entire world through the lens of how commodity products are sold. (Including soap, toothpaste and laundry detergent, which never take the role of status symbols). A lot of what goes into an Aston Martin is made by hand. There's an incredibly wonderful video clip on the internet somewhere that shows how Berluti shoes are made. At Aston and Berluti, you don't see "efficiency gains" as being important. Have you ever seen pictures of the main workroom at Kiton? It looks like something out of the 50s. These products are not made better by efficiency gains, they're emblematic of all of the good stuff that got left behind by efficiency gains. Elie Saab is not going to create more incredible dresses through efficiency gains. The magic in an Elie Saab dress - and it is the most dazzling (apparel) magic I know of - is in the work that can only be done by the manual labor of one or two ancient, experienced, patient women doing the sewing and the beadwork.
    I think the disconnect here is that we have brands, that usually trade in luxury because the creation of their main products are as much about craft as they are about manufacturing, moving into a market that can still be claimed to be luxury because it is a non essential, but that is as mass produced as any other commodity. Every instance of a Elie Saab dress requires craft. In contrast, the craft phase of an Elie Saab perfume is a one off short lived event at the beginning. Once the perfumery work of the Nose, and the bottle sculpting work of the designer is over, every instance of an Elie Saab perfume is mass produced. The production complexity, costs and methods of a 100ml bottle of Elie Saab perfum is not that dissimilar to a 100ml bottle of salad dressing. It is commonly stated that the bottle of perfume costs more to make that the juice it contains.

    So we have companies, brands, that are used to not being price takers and used to setting their own prices, which is fair enough for the crafted products they have built their brand value on, moving into a market (the mainstream perfume market) that is to a large part driven by price. These brands are drawn to this market because they can expand their reach to new consumers, and the profit margins on such high unit sales items are amazing. However, if that market is a free market that will drive prices down with sales competition between outlets, they will damage and dilute their brand, because it is being associated with products that are affordable enough not to be considered prestigious. The big disconnect here is that perfume that is mass produced (or anything that is mass produced for that matter) cannot by definition possibly ever be considered prestigious. But these brands want to have their cake (stay prestigious) and eat it (greatly increased profit).

    So there are 2 anti competitive tactics at work here to try and retain some of that prestige. One is to set up what are really cartels with favoured distributors that are happy to stick to a pricing regime. The other is to use legal statues that the brand companies lobbied legislators to create for one purpose (anti counterfeiting), for a completely different purpose, namely to discredit the authenticity of products being sold by unfavoured distributors and by extension to discredit the reputation of those distributors, ultimately to put them out of business.

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    But as stated above, the issues are different from your complaint anyway. My point is that there's nothing wrong with a company stating that sales of unauthorized merchandise are counterfeit if that's their way of getting control over pricicing and distribution back.
    I disagree that there is nothing wrong. It is basically a state legislation backed smear campaign.

    This is one of the things I find ironic about capitalism. All players in a capitalist market are competing with each other. To compete more effectively and come out on top, they all want to "find an edge". Some do this with the price of the product. Some do this with the quality of the product. But all too often some do this by altering the playing field in some way so that they are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage, but by doing this, they are breaking a fundamental part of what makes a capitalist market work, the competition. In a move that they were driven to by the urge to compete, they have actually stopped competing. A drugs cheat in athletics chooses to dope because of the urge to compete, but as soon as they do dope, they are no longer really competing.

    The wrongdoing in this case happened way before these anti-counterfeiting laws were used for ulterior purposes. The wrongdoing was partly the companies themselves lobbying legislators to make the laws wider, more powerful and more encroaching than they needed to be, and partly the legislators for being swayed by the lobbying and going along with it.

  52. #112

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by andym72 View Post
    I think the disconnect here is that we have brands, that usually trade in luxury because the creation of their main products are as much about craft as they are about manufacturing, moving into a market that can still be claimed to be luxury because it is a non essential, but that is as mass produced as any other commodity. Every instance of a Elie Saab dress requires craft. In contrast, the craft phase of an Elie Saab perfume is a one off short lived event at the beginning. Once the perfumery work of the Nose, and the bottle sculpting work of the designer is over, every instance of an Elie Saab perfume is mass produced. The production complexity, costs and methods of a 100ml bottle of Elie Saab perfum is not that dissimilar to a 100ml bottle of salad dressing. It is commonly stated that the bottle of perfume costs more to make that the juice it contains.

    So we have companies, brands, that are used to not being price takers and used to setting their own prices, which is fair enough for the crafted products they have built their brand value on, moving into a market (the mainstream perfume market) that is to a large part driven by price. These brands are drawn to this market because they can expand their reach to new consumers, and the profit margins on such high unit sales items are amazing. However, if that market is a free market that will drive prices down with sales competition between outlets, they will damage and dilute their brand, because it is being associated with products that are affordable enough not to be considered prestigious. The big disconnect here is that perfume that is mass produced (or anything that is mass produced for that matter) cannot by definition possibly ever be considered prestigious. But these brands want to have their cake (stay prestigious) and eat it (greatly increased profit).

    So there are 2 anti competitive tactics at work here to try and retain some of that prestige. One is to set up what are really cartels with favoured distributors that are happy to stick to a pricing regime. The other is to use legal statues that the brand companies lobbied legislators to create for one purpose (anti counterfeiting), for a completely different purpose, namely to discredit the authenticity of products being sold by unfavoured distributors and by extension to discredit the reputation of those distributors, ultimately to put them out of business.



    I disagree that there is nothing wrong. It is basically a state legislation backed smear campaign.

    This is one of the things I find ironic about capitalism. All players in a capitalist market are competing with each other. To compete more effectively and come out on top, they all want to "find an edge". Some do this with the price of the product. Some do this with the quality of the product. But all too often some do this by altering the playing field in some way so that they are at an advantage and others are at a disadvantage, but by doing this, they are breaking a fundamental part of what makes a capitalist market work, the competition. In a move that they were driven to by the urge to compete, they have actually stopped competing. A drugs cheat in athletics chooses to dope because of the urge to compete, but as soon as they do dope, they are no longer really competing.

    The wrongdoing in this case happened way before these anti-counterfeiting laws were used for ulterior purposes. The wrongdoing was partly the companies themselves lobbying legislators to make the laws wider, more powerful and more encroaching than they needed to be, and partly the legislators for being swayed by the lobbying and going along with it.
    Thanks for this post andym72. Some brilliant examples in your reply. Indeed, at the end of the day it is ironic that something mass produced and costing no more than the retail price of a bottle of salad dressing should be branded a luxury item with luxury taxes.
    Also, I love your paragraph with the example/ metaphors referring to level playing fields and cheats who use dope to get an unfair advantage. This is clearly what the company has been doing.
    These were the sort of posts I was hoping for when I started this thread. Not the foaming at the mouth responses.
    Last edited by david; 13th August 2014 at 01:04 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  53. #113

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Not foaming at the mouth but, as some people has already said.
    They make it and, have the right to say who can sell it in their behalf.
    If some unscrupulous web store buys from them at a discount and, sells their products below the retail price set by them, they have the right to prosecute. The reasoning is simple; these people selling practices are, without a doubt, detrimental to sales from their own stores and, other authorised retailers who stick to their contracts.

    Current top 10 (in no particular order)
    Houbigant Fougere Royale
    IDOLE De Lubin Vintage EDT
    Armani Prive Ambre Soie
    MDCI Chypre Palatin
    Boadicea The Victorious Almas
    Baldi Occhio Di Tigre
    Xerjoff Rich Wood
    Aramis Calligraphy Rose
    Bentley For Man Absolute
    Grossmith Golden Chypre

  54. #114

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Thank you for the thoughtful post andym72.

    One other aspect of the 'prestige' angle that drives me crazy is how difficult some companies make it to actually sample their stuff, apart from in a bricks and mortar store where the experience is quite different to being able to consider a perfume in the peace and quiet of one's home. Here in the Netherlands Guerlain is one of the worst in this aspect - one just can't find samples to buy. I love so many Guerlain perfumes - true classics - but there are way too many that I haven't been able to try apart from a whiff in a store. And don't get me going on the exclusives...!
    The marketing tactic seems to be to create craving without giving the consumer the chance to explore it - and whacking on a hefty price tag to make the product appear more 'valuable' to our elitist instincts. I just find it all so tiresome and dishonest.
    Make it easy for me to experience your product and I'll thank you for it - and likely buy some.

    My apologies for straying a bit from the main theme of this thread.

  55. #115

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by DuNezDeBuzier View Post
    This thread continues to offend me and I intend on going through the proper channels to get it taken down. I’d be quite surprised if BN wishes to be associated with such content. If it is, I'll promptly delete the remainder of this post and be on my way.

    It’s an embarrassment. Most know porn when they see it and most know populist claptrap when they hear or read it. The OP is slanted, naïve, abundant with falsehood and wrought with misdirected anger. I'm reminded of a Beavis n Butthead bit where one of them is having a hard time understanding basic math and says something about being angry at numbers. He’s either too lazy or stupid to learn and displaces his anger.

    First off, derision would be better targeted at the legislators that enacted the law allowing for the justice system to deem trademark infringed product as counterfeit in these situations. Not those corporations (or individuals) protecting their interests under these laws.

    Second, for years the big companies have been suing eBay (and other such platforms) in efforts to hold eBay more responsible for the trademark infringement / counterfeits activity running rampant on its platform. Some cases have gone against eBay, others not so much. Isn’t it true that it is eBay (and other such platforms) that decided upon the IP address restrictions and other such measures, probably as a result of actual or potential litigation brought forth by LVMH? Again, your beef should be with eBay. In its efforts to comply with either actual or potential court findings, settlements, etc. eBay’s reaction displeases you, but you blame LVMH which has every legal right to protect its brand. You expect any sensible reader to believe that LVMH is so powerful in France, that it lords over the land like some King throwing down such dictum and, voila, no one in France can purchase any fragrance with vetiver in its name online? Incredible. If the French cannot do this, however, it is likely the result of online platform filtering gone awry indirectly related to LVMH legal fights to protect its brand. Huge difference.

    Third, use of terms such as ‘escapades, dirty tricks, false claims, baffled judges, bullying/terrorizing tactics, systematic terrorisation’ connotes a very slanted EVIL CORPORATION view. My sensibilities nurtured through formal education (CPA, MBA) and decades of work experience simply do not allow me to read something like this and let it go unchecked in this forum. You’re either naïve and don’t see it for what it is (populist ideology) and/or are simply ignorant as to the realities of the current IP legislative apparatus and how it works, similarly and differently, in developed countries and/or economic unions. Without the dogma, the OP might have worded it in a balanced manner, something like this:
    L’Oreal’s legal victory spells higher prices for us!

    I’m pissed. I watched a TV program {hyperlink} informing me I have less access to some perfumes at lower prices these days as a result of court findings in Germany and other countries that have sided with L’Oreal and other big names in their efforts to protect their brands/trademarks/intellectual property. Seems the courts have decided that genuine L’Oreal product is considered counterfeit if it is not obtained through channels authorized by L’Oreal. I don’t know what the law is and I don’t know whether it was applied properly, but I think this is wrong. I think I have the right and deserve access to the lowest possible price for any product in the marketplace regardless of who is selling it or how the seller obtained it. I hold L’Oreal and the other big names responsible for this. They obviously have the law on their side, but I think it is simply amoral of big business to exploit the legal avenues available to them in order to maintain, what I think, are the exorbitant prices of their perfumes.

    Speaking of which, I’m also similarly pissed at LVMH and the other big names for suing eBay and others over the last several years. As a result of either findings or settlements or both, in France eBay and others have resorted to filtering, by IP address and other means, so as to help reduce the unauthorized sales of LVMH and other big names’ fragrances. This has resulted in some rather perverse outcomes; for one, the French cannot buy any fragrance online with vetiver in its name... now how crazy is that?


    You might have even added an action plan or such, like “I propose we all contact our locally elected gov’t official and see what we can do to get the legislation responsible for this outcome stricken from the books… now, who’s with me?” or "I propose we all boycott L'Oreal, LVMH, and others for these immoral, granted legal, antics... now, who's with me?", or similar.

    You might have even expressly asked the group for validation of your evil corporation ideology though, implicitly, I'd say that's exactly what you were looking for.

    You might have even qualified the whole thing with “I’m told by friends and family that I have lefty bleating heart tendencies, I have no formal education in business, and I don’t mean to offend those with conservative sensibilities, but please bear with my take on an issue that will likely effect all of us looking to buy perfumes at the best possible price”, or similar. Hell, I would have probably had a chuckle and given you wide berth with that one.

    But no, you leapt right into a populist diatribe targeting BIG CORP as evil doers. Those that disagreed, politely I might add, were labeled with derogatory terms and those that agreed were expressly applauded by you as if this were some type of virtual gang fight, or catty jr. high school clique. How this invective escaped moderation is beyond me. But there it is…

    This thread was DOA.
    Well said!

    Current top 10 (in no particular order)
    Houbigant Fougere Royale
    IDOLE De Lubin Vintage EDT
    Armani Prive Ambre Soie
    MDCI Chypre Palatin
    Boadicea The Victorious Almas
    Baldi Occhio Di Tigre
    Xerjoff Rich Wood
    Aramis Calligraphy Rose
    Bentley For Man Absolute
    Grossmith Golden Chypre

  56. #116

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    Not foaming at the mouth but, as some people has already said.
    They make it and, have the right to say who can sell it in their behalf.
    If some unscrupulous web store buys from them at a discount and, sells their products below the retail price set by them, they have the right to prosecute. The reasoning is simple; these people selling practices are, without a doubt, detrimental to sales from their own stores and, other authorised retailers who stick to their contracts.
    No, in the EU they don't have a right to prosecute. They don't even have a right to set a minimum retail price or to bind retailers into contracts that set minimum prices. Any such contract is immediately null and void by statue, suppliers setting minimum prices to retailers is illegal. In the EU, retailers have the right to sell a product they have got from a supplier as low as they like, even at a loss if they want. Any sanctions imposed by a supplier on a retailer that does sell lower than the supplier wanted is also illegal.

    This is why these supplier companies are not prosecuting on the grounds of breaking a pricing contract, they are prosecuting on the grounds of selling counterfeit goods (when they know for certain the goods aren't counterfeit). To prove the goods are not counterfeit, the retailer would have to show a purchase audit trail that leads back to the supplier. They have to disclose where they got the product from. The supplier, in turn, then knows which middle man they directly sold to which led to the supply to that retailer, and they can stop selling to that middle man, closing the supply chain.

    Yes, at that point, the supplier has broken the law, because it is a sanction. But the retailer or the middle man would then have to prove it was a sanction in court, because as you say, the supplier still has the right to sell or not to sell to whoever they want. And most companies would rather be pocketing what little profit they have than spending them on legal fees.
    Last edited by andym72; 13th August 2014 at 02:14 PM.

  57. #117

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    Not foaming at the mouth but, as some people has already said.
    They make it and, have the right to say who can sell it in their behalf.
    If some unscrupulous web store buys from them at a discount and, sells their products below the retail price set by them, they have the right to prosecute. The reasoning is simple; these people selling practices are, without a doubt, detrimental to sales from their own stores and, other authorised retailers who stick to their contracts.
    As has been stated many times here before, laws here in Europe do not allow fixed prices with regard to fragrances. Companies are allowed to suggest "recommended" retail prices, but they are not allowed to fix them. If a small online firm wants to sell fragrances, offering them with discount, they are perfectly allowed to do so and nobody can stop them. They are not breaking any laws.
    Last edited by david; 13th August 2014 at 01:46 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  58. #118

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    As has been stated many times here before, laws here in Europe do not allow fixed prices with regard to fragrances. Companies are allowed to suggest "recommended" retail prices, but they are not allowed to fix them. If a small online firm wants to sell fragrances, offering them with discount, they are perfectly allowed to do so and nobody can stop them. They are not breaking any laws.
    great mindboggling thread, David...and yes, you are right!

  59. #119

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by gimmegreen View Post
    One other aspect of the 'prestige' angle that drives me crazy is how difficult some companies make it to actually sample their stuff, apart from in a bricks and mortar store where the experience is quite different to being able to consider a perfume in the peace and quiet of one's home. Here in the Netherlands Guerlain is one of the worst in this aspect - one just can't find samples to buy....

    My apologies for straying a bit from the main theme of this thread.
    I don't think you have strayed that much at all. What you are describing is the retail phenomena known in English as "showrooming" - consumers going to a bricks and mortar store to check a product out, deciding they like it, and then going home to get on their tablet to buy it from an online retailer for 20% less.

    This is the big downside of online retailers. Most goods really need to be tried before you buy them. Even for goods that aren't partly "used up" by trying them the way perfume is, like a camera for instance, the whole process of shipping it to your home, then shipping it back, then for the retailer to check it's all back in one piece and resell-able is so so wasteful. No wonder so many retailers charge restocking fees. In the UK, all the camera stores have been put out of business by the likes of Amazon, so now it's very difficult to try out photography equipment that isn't mainstream, like certain lenses.

    I don't think any retailer, online or otherwise, has worked out a proper solution to this issue in retailing. One solution would be to split the cost of things sold in Bricks and Mortar stores into a "retail services" fee and a material costs fee. A bit like the difference between a restaurant and a takeaway. Go to a restaurant, and you get charged for the food, and charged for the waiter service separately. Get a takeaway and you are only charged for the food.

    For perfume, there is the simple answer you mention - samples. But selling samples online again undermines the bricks and mortar department stores, which are the very retailers upholding the prestige pricing. And online retailers that split full bottles and do their own decanting into generic sample bottles are on shaky legal ground.
    Last edited by andym72; 13th August 2014 at 02:24 PM.

  60. #120
    Dependent caferacer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    1,251

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by noggs View Post
    Since this thread isn't really about perfume but about business practices and government, perhaps it should be relocated to the General forum or some other place.
    Seconded. Great idea, noggs.

Similar Threads

  1. Bug: vBulletin Up To Its Old Tricks
    By kbe in forum Community Centre Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th March 2011, 01:15 PM
  2. Does my mind play tricks on me?
    By Desmond Hume in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th October 2010, 03:51 PM
  3. Dirty dirty musk -- love it or hate it? (In your SO's view)
    By moltening in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 24th October 2008, 08:47 PM
  4. Francis Kurkdjian's big bag of tricks..
    By zztopp in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 24th April 2008, 07:04 AM
  5. Spray Tricks
    By mad_handerchief in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd February 2007, 03:56 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  



Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000