Code of Conduct
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 121 to 167 of 167
  1. #121

    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.
    I have consulted with David and he agrees. I am moving the thread over to the General-forum.
    Last edited by furrypine; 13th August 2014 at 05:17 PM.
    "The cure for boredom is curiosity.
    There is no cure for curiosity."
    - Dorothy Parker

  2. #122

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by andym72 View Post
    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.
    Having read my post, there was a typo.
    Were I said " buys from them at a discount", I meant to say "buys them at a discount".
    If that is the case, then the shop is not an authorised retailer and as such, they have every right to prosecute for suspicion of counterfeiting.
    I hope that clarifies my position on this matter.

  3. #123

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    Having read my post, there was a typo.
    Were I said " buys from them at a discount", I meant to say "buys them at a discount".
    If that is the case, then the shop is not an authorised retailer and as such, they have every right to prosecute for suspicion of counterfeiting.
    I hope that clarifies my position on this matter.
    What it clarifies is that you will happily switch from trying to make one point of argument, to making a different point of argument while implying no such switch has happened, when your original point of argument has been torn to shreds. That must be some form of documented argumentative fallacy, maybe some form of Red Herring fallacy, it is definitely evidence of confirmation bias.

    The right to prosecute for suspicion of counterfeiting was not the point you were making.

    Let me quote you with your typo corrected, in context, and some clarification of the "thems":

    "If some unscrupulous web store buys them [fragrances] at a discount and, sells their products below the retail price set by them [the suppliers], they [the suppliers] have the right to prosecute".

    Nothing to do with counterfeiting. And actually, the use of anti-counterfeiting laws in the cases investigated in this documentary are also nothing to do with counterfeiting, they are to do with controlling sales prices, and finding out where in the supply chain to apply a sanction. Both of which are illegal under EU law (and I notice you are from the UK like me, so those laws apply to any supplier and retailer where we are from too).

    And before you switch into ad hominem and make a claim that I am a socialist and therefore can be ignored, well, I'm not. I am a capitalist, but I'm one that believes that the checks and balances of trading laws are needed in capitalism, to ensure that the apparatus for driving capitalism towards the optimum solution, competition, continues and survives. Competition is actually an annoyance for most businesses, their life would be made so much easier without it, and given any chance to wound it or destroy it, they will, due to the human nature of greed.

    I get the impression from the position you are taking that you prefer a Laissez-faire system. Laissez-faire does not lead to optimised capitalism. It leads to exploitation.

  4. #124

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Well, they are selling their fragrances in a counterfeit manner (not an authorised retailer) and below their recommended prices. How they choose to prosecute using current laws is up to them. I stand firm on my statement. Also, although I live in the UK, I am a spanish national and so, sometimes I fail to express my thoughts in an orderly and precise manner (fortunately, not very often).
    Fair competition with products independently manufactured is welcome in business. Selling third party products without authorisation at a discounted price is not fair competition and, I can fully understand why they would want to crush such practices by any means necessary.
    As manufactures, they have every reason to believe unauthorised sales of their goods below recommended retail prices to be counterfeit and, have the right prosecute accordingly.
    Last edited by Viffer; 13th August 2014 at 10:12 PM.

  5. #125

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    I so much enjoyed reading this thread. I find the heterogenic views here to be quite enriching. Thanks to all the smart and fervent contributors!
    Last edited by Graphite; 13th August 2014 at 09:55 PM.
    Our greatest evils flow from ourselves. – Jean-Jacques Rousseau

  6. #126

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by silentrich View Post
    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.
    Respectfully, it seems that many disagree with you and find this thread a refreshing change from.... "Creed batch numbers" or "what I happen to be wearing today".
    Last edited by david; 13th August 2014 at 10:43 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  7. #127

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    they have every right to prosecute for suspicion of counterfeiting
    One would assume that they would need proof pf counterfeiting, an that any proof that the articles are not counterfeit would invalidate the claim. The way to sell in a counterfeit manner is to sell counterfeit goods. Somehow I do not think Wal-Mart, Big Lots, Dollar General, Costco, or others are facing a lot of suits for buying and selling at discounts.

    It is not the role of a retailer to set prices to protect the status of the supplier, it is to set prices to protect their status as a going concern. If you sell the exact same product, which is what is happening here, then you provide more for the price, or charge a lower price. Since this is online selling, added customer service, sales floor appearance, location, etc. are immaterial. People often buy online due to lower price, this is their advantage. There is no reason for a retailer to compromise their advantage and lose competitive position just to support an unrelated business. The producer can direct sell and deal with exponentially more orders to process if they are hell bent on preserving their price structure. Businesses quite often get it wrong, that is why there are bankruptcy procedures and returns in the stock market are not guaranteed.

  8. #128

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    Well, they are selling their fragrances in a counterfeit manner (not an authorised retailer) and below their recommended prices. How they choose to prosecute using current laws is up to them. I stand firm on my statement. Also, although I live in the UK, I am a spanish national and so, sometimes I fail to express my thoughts in an orderly and precise manner (fortunately, not very often).
    Fair competition with products independently manufactured is welcome in business. Selling third party products without authorisation at a discounted price is not fair competition and, I can fully understand why they would want to crush such practices by any means necessary.
    As manufactures, they have every reason to believe unauthorised sales of their goods below recommended retail prices to be counterfeit and, have the right prosecute accordingly.
    Have a look at the tv documentary. I explained how to find the link on one of my earlier posts in this thread. The tv documentary found evidence that one company had knowingly sold stock of a perfume to international wholesalers, then after filing lawsuites against an online retailer, falsely claimed that they had destroyed all stocks of the said perfume,(the one that they had sold) and falsely claimed that the perfume being sold by the retailer therefore MUST be counterfeit.
    A dirty trick if ever there was one.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  9. #129

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    This Supreme Court decision suggests what such companies can do in the USA:

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/41...-rights-abroad

  10. #130

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Bigsly View Post
    This Supreme Court decision suggests what such companies can do in the USA:

    http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/19/41...-rights-abroad
    Thanks for this Bigsly. Interesting. However, having read the article I think this is something different to what we are discussing, (?). Forgive me if I am wrong.
    Once again thanks. It's a really interesting link !
    Last edited by david; 15th August 2014 at 11:11 AM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  11. #131
    Basenotes Institution 30 Roses's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    11,590
    Blog Entries
    7

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Wheatstraw2 View Post
    ...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....
    Wheatstraw, I've only just read this thread today and have looked in vain for the post you are referring to. Can you point me to the thread where this perfumer posted? Thanks.


  12. #132

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Have a look at the tv documentary. I explained how to find the link on one of my earlier posts in this thread. The tv documentary found evidence that one company had knowingly sold stock of a perfume to international wholesalers, then after filing lawsuites against an online retailer, falsely claimed that they had destroyed all stocks of the said perfume,(the one that they had sold) and falsely claimed that the perfume being sold by the retailer therefore MUST be counterfeit.
    A dirty trick if ever there was one.
    David.
    If a company contracted as an authorised reseller is instructed to destroy stock (and, I assume, being compensate to carry out the instruction) then sells that stock to third parties well, that is fraud, period!.

    The buyer of said stock (with or without knowledge that the transaction they entered into was fraudulent) had no right to sell the goods without authorisation, be it at recommended retail prices or, at a discount. Had the buyer been in a contract with L'Oreal, it would not have entered the fraudulent transaction to start with.

    L'Oreal has a right to protect its interest and that of the consumer. Manufacturers don't instruct suppliers to destroy stock without good reasons. Who knows, the batch may have been compromised and not fit for purpose. It may have been contaminated and dangerous to apply on humans.

    As it is, the goods were supposed to have been destroyed and should not exist. This fact makes the fragrances sold counterfeit.

    Imagine a car manufacturer instructing an authorised dealer to destroy a particular model batch with specific serial numbers because, they are defective and can't be repaired.
    Then the dealer decides to sell those cars to your local car supermarket. You buy it and, crash the vehicle suffering serious injuries or worst, loss of life.

    You will not only be suing the car supermarket... you will be suing the manufacturer as well, claiming they did not take due measures to ensure your safety.
    Same concept applies here.

    As for the documentary... It is very easy to take the cynical stand and brand L'Oreal as the evil greedy monster. But, I work in media (I am a photo journalist) and know for a fact that, Tv companies and news papers, bend the truth to increase audiences... Don't believe everything you see on TV or the printed news mate!

  13. #133

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    If a company contracted as an authorised reseller is instructed to destroy stock (and, I assume, being compensate to carry out the instruction) then sells that stock to third parties well, that is fraud, period!.
    No,it isn't. I'm not quite sure what makes you think it would be. It is legitimate product. They own it.You could claim breach of contract, and then they would have to prove the contract is valid. If a contract said the seller would surrender their first born upon the first retail transaction, they wouldn't have much of a shot in court to get that upheld. Just because it is in a contract does not mean it is legally binding. That's kind of why tort law exists.

  14. #134

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    http://www.mdr.de/umschau/video211264.html

    does this link work for everyone? it's the video

  15. #135

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    No,it isn't. I'm not quite sure what makes you think it would be. It is legitimate product. They own it.You could claim breach of contract, and then they would have to prove the contract is valid. If a contract said the seller would surrender their first born upon the first retail transaction, they wouldn't have much of a shot in court to get that upheld. Just because it is in a contract does not mean it is legally binding. That's kind of why tort law exists.
    All of this talk about laws and contracts is fine, but obfuscates the obvious: a company has 100% control over distribution of their products. Look at Chanel. I can't easily find genuine Chanels outside of their authorized merchant network, which is relatively limited. They have put the brakes on third party sellers, even here in the states. I don't see anyone complaining about it here.

    You can talk about tort laws and precedents from the early twentieth century til you're blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that a company can repossess merchandise from unauthorized merchants if said merchants are operating illegally or in breach of contract. Ultimately the manufacturer can find whatever recourse necessary to deem sales of THEIR product illegitimate.

  16. #136

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    a company has 100% control over distribution of their products.
    a company can repossess merchandise from unauthorized merchants if said merchants are operating illegally or in breach of contract. Ultimately the manufacturer can find whatever recourse necessary to deem sales of THEIR product illegitimate.
    Quite simply, no. They do not have 100% control, that is the relevance of the first sale doctrine. They cannot by default seek remedy for breach of contract, the contract itself has to be legal. The manufacturer does not by default have the ability to control sales and determine legitimacy. You wish to take away all power of all parties other than manufacturers, and that truly lacks any logic. You seem to have an irrational hatred of retailers, and retailers who are charging you lower prices. If you are so appalled by the exorbitant size of your bank account, I'll give you my paypal address so you can alleviate yourself of these unwanted funds even faster.

  17. #137

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    Quite simply, no. They do not have 100% control, that is the relevance of the first sale doctrine. They cannot by default seek remedy for breach of contract, the contract itself has to be legal. The manufacturer does not by default have the ability to control sales and determine legitimacy. You wish to take away all power of all parties other than manufacturers, and that truly lacks any logic. You seem to have an irrational hatred of retailers, and retailers who are charging you lower prices. If you are so appalled by the exorbitant size of your bank account, I'll give you my paypal address so you can alleviate yourself of these unwanted funds even faster.
    Now you're just getting emotional. Like I said, good luck finding a Chanel perfume on Fragrancenet, Amazon, and many other discounters. They didn't break the law, and neither did L'Oreal. When a company knows what they're doing and do it well, people respect that. Some companies know what they're doing but perhaps they're not as well organized as their competition - see L'Oreal - and people use that opportunity to throw their entitlements down on the table and complain about it, which is essentially just venting frustration. I understand what you're saying, Lomaniac, but just find it to be manifestly wrong, and I've provided a clear example of how. Take it or leave it, I don't care either way.

  18. #138

  19. #139

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    http://www.mdr.de/umschau/video211264.html

    does this link work for everyone? it's the video
    Thanks for sharing the link Lomaniac !
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  20. #140

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Viffer View Post
    David.
    If a company contracted as an authorised reseller is instructed to destroy stock (and, I assume, being compensate to carry out the instruction) then sells that stock to third parties well, that is fraud, period!.

    The buyer of said stock (with or without knowledge that the transaction they entered into was fraudulent) had no right to sell the goods without authorisation, be it at recommended retail prices or, at a discount. Had the buyer been in a contract with L'Oreal, it would not have entered the fraudulent transaction to start with.

    L'Oreal has a right to protect its interest and that of the consumer. Manufacturers don't instruct suppliers to destroy stock without good reasons. Who knows, the batch may have been compromised and not fit for purpose. It may have been contaminated and dangerous to apply on humans.

    As it is, the goods were supposed to have been destroyed and should not exist. This fact makes the fragrances sold counterfeit.

    Imagine a car manufacturer instructing an authorised dealer to destroy a particular model batch with specific serial numbers because, they are defective and can't be repaired.
    Then the dealer decides to sell those cars to your local car supermarket. You buy it and, crash the vehicle suffering serious injuries or worst, loss of life.

    You will not only be suing the car supermarket... you will be suing the manufacturer as well, claiming they did not take due measures to ensure your safety.
    Same concept applies here.

    As for the documentary... It is very easy to take the cynical stand and brand L'Oreal as the evil greedy monster. But, I work in media (I am a photo journalist) and know for a fact that, Tv companies and news papers, bend the truth to increase audiences... Don't believe everything you see on TV or the printed news mate!
    Viffer,
    When these companies sell off stock,discontinued lines of their fragrances, (as was the case with Diesel Plus Plus and Diesel Zero) they sell it to huge companies who buy the whole lot. One such company is EDJO in the Netherlands. They then distribute it, (sell it on) to other buyers. In the case of EDJO you are looking at a minimum order of around 28,000 pieces, (bottles of fragrance). Those buyers then re-distrubute the stock and sell it on in minimum quantities of 10,000 pieces. Such quantities are only suitable for very large chain retailers. So the stock is bought up and broken down into smaller quantities and sold on again. In the case of the German chain retailer Rossmann, (mentioned in the tv documentary) I would guess that they probably would not order more than 5,000 pieces for their stores throughtout Germany. The selling/ distribution chain continues on until small scale wholesalers distribute much smaller quantities, allowing a single store retailer to order a minimum of say 20 pieces. By this time the original stock from the company has been through many stages of re-sale and re-distribution. Once the stock has been bought at the different levels, it is entirely up to the buyers what they do with that stock. The company has absolutely no power to say, " right everybody - destroy all existing stock, at every level". Markets don't work like that, (thank God). Of course governments can intervine in the case of contaminated food products or cars with brake defects, but I have never heard of such a case with fragrance.
    The nearest thing I heard was the perfume Blonde from Versace was found to contain a cancer inducing substance and the company pulled it from the shelves overnight. Still, even in cases like that they could not control what happened to the stock and you will still find Blonde for sale on the internet and in small perfumeries.
    In the case of this MDR tv documentary I do believe the film makers because they clearly provided more than enough evidence to prove what was going on and both previously and subsequenty L'Oreal was imposed with heavy fines for their deception and price fixing. Noggs provided us with this edidence in his links. With all due respect it seems like you do not want to know the truth.
    Last edited by david; 14th August 2014 at 02:48 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  21. #141

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    The facts of the matter have been clearly communicated by you and others. This is most evident in the way that all counter arguments are based on emotions rather than legal precedent, hypothetical situations and the actions of entirely separate companies.

  22. #142

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Is reading through this whole thread worth it or can someone put this in three lines...

  23. #143

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by TLS View Post
    Is reading through this whole thread worth it or can someone put this in three lines...
    maybe this will help
    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    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.

  24. #144

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Thank's for that, Lomaniac.

  25. #145

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    Now you're just getting emotional. Like I said, good luck finding a Chanel perfume on Fragrancenet, Amazon, and many other discounters. They didn't break the law, and neither did L'Oreal. When a company knows what they're doing and do it well, people respect that. Some companies know what they're doing but perhaps they're not as well organized as their competition - see L'Oreal - and people use that opportunity to throw their entitlements down on the table and complain about it, which is essentially just venting frustration. I understand what you're saying, Lomaniac, but just find it to be manifestly wrong, and I've provided a clear example of how. Take it or leave it, I don't care either way.
    This is absolute nonsence and extremely naive. If L'Oreal did not break the law then why did they receive multimillion dollar fines ? noggs has provided clear evidence of that in his links. L'Oreal was found guilty of price fixing, (which is illegal). So they did break the law.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  26. #146

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    If nothing else, at least this thread has educated many people about international laws regarding perfume companies and price fixing. It seems many members were totally unaware of these laws and assumed price fixing was allowed.

    So now... when you see your favourite perfume sold by an online discount retailer, don't have a guilty conscience - go for it !

    oh and....ps.... thank capitalism and the laws of free trade and never accuse me of being a "lefty" for starting this thread.

    Think about it.
    Last edited by david; 15th August 2014 at 12:37 PM.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  27. #147

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    This is absolute nonsence and extremely naive. If L'Oreal did not break the law then why did they receive multimillion dollar fines ? noggs has provided clear evidence of that in his links. L'Oreal was found guilty of price fixing, (which is illegal). So they did break the law.
    You have that exactly backwards. Your question should be, "if third party sellers weren't breaking the law, why were they fined?" I love how both you and Lomaniac have completely and conveniently ignored my clear point about Chanel in this context.

  28. #148

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    You have that exactly backwards. Your question should be, "if third party sellers weren't breaking the law, why were they fined?" I love how both you and Lomaniac have completely and conveniently ignored my clear point about Chanel in this context.
    Firstly. I'd like to thank you for taking part here and giving your perspective. My reply to your post was concerning L'Oreal which you had claimed had broken no laws.
    I have now looked at the Chanel issue. I have just looked on US ebay. I typed in the search engine there and found 3,971 listed Chanel perfumes on sale, all at below the recommended retail price.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  29. #149
    Basenotes Plus

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    13,283

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    Firstly. I'd like to thank you for taking part here and giving your perspective. My reply to your post was concerning L'Oreal which you had claimed had broken no laws.
    I have now looked at the Chanel issue. I have just looked on US ebay. I typed in the search engine there and found 3,971 listed Chanel perfumes on sale, all at below the recommended retail price.



    They can't all be fakes either
    Directory contribution link:-
    http://www.basenotes.net/contribute.php

  30. #150

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    I love how both you and Lomaniac have completely and conveniently ignored my clear point about Chanel in this context.
    That's because you do not have a point about Chanel. L'Oreal generates 4 times the revenue. L'Oreal employs 57 times as many people. There is no market equivalence between them. You are drawing a parallel where market presence does not have parity. You are trying to continue this extravagant luxury comparison between brands that have totally different images and retail price levels. L'Oreal has 17 brands just under Luxe. They own Maybelline, Redken, and the Body Shop. Chanel doesn't have anything to do with L'Oreal.

  31. #151

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    perhaps this question is a bit dumb or naive, but if the resellers/distributors are being sued for selling fakes, i would assume a receipt from their original purchase with the company would be some kind of proof of selling the real thing? i.e. let me buy 1000 bottles of real [insert fragrance here] from the manufacturer. now let me go out of my way to acquire 1000 fake bottles, sell those instead, and do absolutely nothing with the 1000 real ones i got.

    as for the whole blocking thing by LVMH, disgusting indeed. also, this level of ignorance today by the french gov for enforcing it is inexcusable and it would be a good time to insert favorite gov incompetence jokes.

    however, i do think any company has a right to stop selling to a distributor or reseller if they advertise below MAP (minimum advertised price, if there was one) or any other terms that they BOTH agreed to in the contract.

  32. #152

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by fp627 View Post
    perhaps this question is a bit dumb or naive, but if the resellers/distributors are being sued for selling fakes, i would assume a receipt from their original purchase with the company would be some kind of proof of selling the real thing? i.e. let me buy 1000 bottles of real [insert fragrance here] from the manufacturer. now let me go out of my way to acquire 1000 fake bottles, sell those instead, and do absolutely nothing with the 1000 real ones i got.

    as for the whole blocking thing by LVMH, disgusting indeed. also, this level of ignorance today by the french gov for enforcing it is inexcusable and it would be a good time to insert favorite gov incompetence jokes.

    however, i do think any company has a right to stop selling to a distributor or reseller if they advertise below MAP (minimum advertised price, if there was one) or any other terms that they BOTH agreed to in the contract.
    Not at all naive and thanks for joining in. If you read my post about 9 posts back, (a reply to viffer) it explains the problem of proving the genuine article by showing a receipt. The product has been sold on in a chain so many times that it would be impossible to trace it back to the original seller, (the said company). Also, there was a trick the companies use by deliberately,(secretly) placing some sort of code inside the packaging. This was highlighted in detail in the tv documentary. This code was shown under a special light by the programme makers. By inserting this code the companies are pretending that the product does not belong to them - although it clearly does.These are tricks used to eliminate the small players and keep illegal fixed high prices to make larger profits and to keep shareholders happy.
    Please have a look at the 6 minute tv documentary. One poster has provided a direct link.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  33. #153

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    IMHO, in a more perfect world the burden of proof would be on the accuser. Variations in packaging or the color of the juice could be used. A side-by-side wearing by the jury or judge might show that one scent was discernibly different from the other. And in the case of Lancome, surely they have the wherewithal to prove something wasn't authentic with use of gas chromatography, unless I've watched a few too many episodes of CSI.

  34. #154

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    That's because you do not have a point about Chanel. L'Oreal generates 4 times the revenue. L'Oreal employs 57 times as many people. There is no market equivalence between them. You are drawing a parallel where market presence does not have parity. You are trying to continue this extravagant luxury comparison between brands that have totally different images and retail price levels. L'Oreal has 17 brands just under Luxe. They own Maybelline, Redken, and the Body Shop. Chanel doesn't have anything to do with L'Oreal.
    Once again ignoring my point: the size of the company is not it. Chanel has eliminated third party sales on all but Ebay (where you have to weed through used and fake merchandise), yet no complaints from you. I think your entire argument lacks the wind to fill Chanel's teeny-tiny microscopic upstart sails.

  35. #155

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    Once again ignoring my point: the size of the company is not it. Chanel has eliminated third party sales on all but Ebay (where you have to weed through used and fake merchandise), yet no complaints from you. I think your entire argument lacks the wind to fill Chanel's teeny-tiny microscopic upstart sails.
    Hank, why do you not want to see the facts. Genuine Chanel perfumes are available on ebay. They are not all fakes - probably a very small number may be. Most of them to me appear to be genuine to me. I do agree with you that no Chanel perfumes can be found on amazon, although, (strangely) many Christian Dior perfumes...and they both belong to the same company, (LVMH) ??? !!!
    But at the end of the day, the very fact that Chanel has managed to eliminate third party sales makes them highly suspicious. This is against the law of free trade. Thanks for bringing up this point.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  36. #156

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by socalwoman View Post
    IMHO, in a more perfect world the burden of proof would be on the accuser. Variations in packaging or the color of the juice could be used. A side-by-side wearing by the jury or judge might show that one scent was discernibly different from the other. And in the case of Lancome, surely they have the wherewithal to prove something wasn't authentic with use of gas chromatography, unless I've watched a few too many episodes of CSI.
    Good points. Unfortunately in Germany the accused has to prove that the perfume is not a fake....and the accusing companies have thought of everything - even intruducing false codes to win their case.
    Please watch the tv documentary where this point is highlighted in detail.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  37. #157
    hednic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McLean, NYC, & Búzios
    Posts
    83,789

    Default Re: German Television Documentary

    After having read through this very interesting thread, have to watch that documentary.
    Remember that while it is perfectly acceptable to criticize the content of a post - criticizing the poster is not.
    Mean spirited, nasty, snide, sarcastic, hateful, and rude individuals don't warrant or deserve other individuals' acknowledgement or respect.

  38. #158

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    I do agree with you that no Chanel perfumes can be found on amazon, although, (strangely) many Christian Dior perfumes...and they both belong to the same company, (LVMH) ??? !!!
    Chanel is privately held. Also, their profitability is twice that of LVMH. This is obviously due to their ability to charge higher prices for comparably priced raw materials. I don't know why consumers would want to pay more for roughly the same ingredients, but some apparently do. There is some misunderstood difference, but I think these government regulations in the EU and the restrictions self-imposed by the industry are highlighting the fact that these multi-billion dollar firms are playing the same game by the same rules as far as compositions go.

  39. #159

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    But at the end of the day, the very fact that Chanel has managed to eliminate third party sales makes them highly suspicious. This is against the law of free trade.
    It's not highly suspicious at all. Everyone knows Chanel runs a tight ship in regards to distribution. They have that right. Some people on Ebay isn't really the same thing. Sure people sell THEIR Chanels on Ebay, and they are third party sellers, but a lot of the fakes look very real, and many of the sales on there are for used vintages. If your answer is, "well I can still buy it on Ebay," then Chanel has done a terrific job of whittling buyer options down.

  40. #160

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    It's not highly suspicious at all. Everyone knows Chanel runs a tight ship in regards to distribution. They have that right. Some people on Ebay isn't really the same thing. Sure people sell THEIR Chanels on Ebay, and they are third party sellers, but a lot of the fakes look very real, and many of the sales on there are for used vintages. If your answer is, "well I can still buy it on Ebay," then Chanel has done a terrific job of whittling buyer options down.
    ...and every "informed" person knows full well the antics of LVMH. The director of the company invested heavily in shares in Hermes and then (against the will of Hermes) tried an aggressive takeover of the company.It didn't succeed. He was found guilty, and (thank God) Hermes is free from the shakles of LVMH.I personally prefer perfume brands, (such as Jean Patou) to be under the umbrella of Procter&Gamble. Anything is better than LVMH ! Unfortunately, the vision of George Orwell has come true. These corperations have grown dangerously large and now have the monopoly.
    We have all become "corperate toadies".
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  41. #161

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    It's not highly suspicious at all. Everyone knows Chanel runs a tight ship in regards to distribution. They have that right. Some people on Ebay isn't really the same thing. Sure people sell THEIR Chanels on Ebay, and they are third party sellers, but a lot of the fakes look very real, and many of the sales on there are for used vintages. If your answer is, "well I can still buy it on Ebay," then Chanel has done a terrific job of whittling buyer options down.
    "If your answer is, well I can still buy it on ebay"..."then Chanel has done a terrific job of whittling buyer options down"
    No. If I can still buy it on ebay, they have clearly not done a good job.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  42. #162

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by Lomaniac View Post
    Chanel is privately held. Also, their profitability is twice that of LVMH. This is obviously due to their ability to charge higher prices for comparably priced raw materials. I don't know why consumers would want to pay more for roughly the same ingredients, but some apparently do. There is some misunderstood difference, but I think these government regulations in the EU and the restrictions self-imposed by the industry are highlighting the fact that these multi-billion dollar firms are playing the same game by the same rules as far as compositions go.
    Thanks for this info. I thought Chanel was under the LVMH umbrella.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  43. #163

    Default Re: German Television Documentary

    Quote Originally Posted by hednic View Post
    After having read through this very interesting thread, have to watch that documentary.
    Thanks hednic. Someone on this thread has provided a link to the 7 minute tv documentary, but it will not be active for very much longer. Try and see it as soon as possible.
    ps. enjoy your travels and try to check out Cuir Sensuel !!!
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  44. #164

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by david View Post
    "If your answer is, well I can still buy it on ebay"..."then Chanel has done a terrific job of whittling buyer options down"
    No. If I can still buy it on ebay, they have clearly not done a good job.
    Ebay is hardly a go-to for Chanels.

    David I'm not going to belabor this anymore than I already have, but I just want to ask you: do you believe that when a company produces a product, anyone should be allowed to sell their product, at absolutely any price they please? Please give me a straight answer. This is a yes or no question.

  45. #165

    Default Re: German Television Documentary

    Money makes the world go round. Amen!

  46. #166

    Default Re: L'Oreal - Ruthless Dirty Tricks

    Quote Originally Posted by HankHarvey View Post
    Ebay is hardly a go-to for Chanels.

    David I'm not going to belabor this anymore than I already have, but I just want to ask you: do you believe that when a company produces a product, anyone should be allowed to sell their product, at absolutely any price they please? Please give me a straight answer. This is a yes or no question.
    Hi Hank.
    This is how I see it. If company "X" manufacture a product and sell it on, (to whoever)....the deal is done. So my answer is a straight yes. I do believe in a free market. In a capitalist system, provided the laws are adhered to and no prices are allowed to be fixed. Let the free market ultimately determine the value of product X.
    " Only wimps swim with the current "

  47. #167

    Default Re: German Television Documentary

    The thought that anyone from a capitalist region would answer no is laughable. When the manufacturer sells the product, they have generated their revenue. That is it, they have sold it to their customer and made their money. Price is just a (terrible) way to communicate information about the product. Might as well not allow reviews to be made and posted if the concern is that consumers might get a more accurate picture of the manufacturing.

Similar Threads

  1. Bug: vBulletin Up To Its Old Tricks
    By kbe in forum Community Centre Archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11th March 2011, 02:15 PM
  2. Does my mind play tricks on me?
    By Desmond Hume in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 5th October 2010, 04:51 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, 09:47 PM
  4. Francis Kurkdjian's big bag of tricks..
    By zztopp in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 24th April 2008, 08:04 AM
  5. Spray Tricks
    By mad_handerchief in forum Male Fragrance Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 22nd February 2007, 04:56 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