Code of Conduct
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 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.
    Currently wearing: Y by Yves Saint Laurent

  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.
    Currently wearing: Y by Yves Saint Laurent

  3. #63
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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.
    RARE PERFUME DECANTS - FACEBOOK (closed group) - Hundreds of ultra rare extraits available, including Djedi and Nombre Noir.

  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
    DuNezDeBuzier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    CITY by THE LAKE
    Posts
    2,017

    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
    3,214

    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.
    Last edited by PalmBeach; 8th August 2014 at 05:24 PM.

  7. #67
    Dependent Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    1,150

    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
    Moderator
    furrypine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Oslo
    Posts
    3,268

    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
    674

    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
    Dependent Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    1,150

    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
    6,803

    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
    silentrich's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Fort Myers, FL
    Posts
    5,225

    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
    Dependent Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    1,150

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    Dependent Wheatstraw2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Palm Springs
    Posts
    1,150

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    Basenotes Plus
    tensor9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,619

    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?
    Currently wearing: Asian Green Tea by Creed

  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.
    Currently wearing: Cuirs by Carner Barcelona

  28. #88
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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
    david's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cote d´Azur
    Posts
    2,796

    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.

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