Fully agree with your thoughts.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.