Great 'disguised Own Brand' Hunt.

Beenie

Does anyone have a list of the cosmetics brands owned by the Estee Lauder empire?

I know that Clinique and Bobbi Brown are part of it, and Body Shop was bought out by someone big (their prices have gone up and they advertise loads now) so wondering if it was EL?

murphaph

Beenie wrote: »

Does anyone have a list of the cosmetics brands owned by the Estee Lauder empire?

From wiki:

Est!e Lauder brands include:

• American Beauty
• Aramis
• Aveda
• Bobbi Brown
• Bumble and bumble
• Clinique
• Coach
• Daisy Fuentes
• Darphin
• Donald Trump The Fragrance (discontinued)
• Donna Karan
• Est!e Lauder
• Flirt!
• Good Skin
• Grassroots
• Jo Malone
• Kate Spade (divested)
• Lab Series
• La Mer
• Kiton
• MAC Cosmetics
• Michael Kors
• Missoni
• Ojon
• Origins
• Prescriptives
• Sean John Fragrances
• Stila (sold)
• Tommy Hilfiger
• Tom Ford Beauty

Sarahsaver

The Body shop was bought by L'Or!al.

Just because a company comes under a larger umbrella company does not mean the product IS the same.

Schamansky

Sarahsaver wrote: »

Just because a company comes under a larger umbrella company does not mean the product IS the same.

So true! And just because an own brand product is made in the same factory as a branded product does not necessarily mean the product is the same, either.

---

Anyway, I've licked blood and seem to become obsessed with digging out the makers behind own brand products and some sure-fire methods and ways to identify the names behind the no-names.

Two hours of research and digging, just for this:

ALDI's Siana Anti-Wrinkle Day and Night Creams are distributed by

Maxim Markenprodukte GmbH & Co. KG, Pulheim, Germany,
http://www.maxim-markenprodukte.de/ (only in German, I'm afraid)

and produced by

Berlin Cosmetics GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany
http://www.berlin-cosmetics.de/index.html (also in German only)

both privately owned limited companies of Dr. Rudolf Giesen, who also runs companies in France and Luxembourg.

---

Mrs Schamansky says I'm sad.

Beenie

OK, I'm confused now!!

If a company produces (for instance) under one brand name an anti-wrinkle cream that really works, why would they allow inferior creams to be marketed by their other named brands? It doesn't make sense...they would surely share research and the economies-of-scale in purchasing ingredients?

Schamansky

Firstly, there is no wrinkle cream that "really" works.
(I'll be burnt at the stake for that...)

Say a company sells three differently labelled creams, one for Aldi (£1.89), one for Boots (£10.99) and one with a fancy name such as "Jacqueline de la Connerie*", distributed exclusively through fancy beauty parlours (£129.99). The products as such would still have to differ a little, with none of them being inferior to the other.

The cheapest way to create some "real" product differentiation is to play around with fragrances, colours and sensory density (= make it thicker or thinner). It doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to figure that out. The rest is packaging, design and marketing. The effect on wrinkles no matter which cream would still be the same (= minimal), but the difference in markup makes product variation worth while. Economies of scale on the cost side are not really affected, since the basic ingredients would still be the same, and that means cheap chemical commodities. There's just a few product variations for different distribution channels and different target markets.

Does anybody really believe L'Oréal products (as one example) are so expensive because so much really expensive stuff goes into them? It's all those celebrities and supermodels that aren't cheap, nor are the ads, and I don't really want to know the price of one page of advertising in Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and what have you. It's all make believe, nothing else.

---
* excuse my French.

Nickygoat

Schamansky wrote: »

and I don't really want to know the price of one page of advertising in Vogue

$121,450 for a full colour 1 page ad in Vogue, according to this.

Ouch...

Beenie

Schamansky wrote: »

Firstly, there is no wrinkle cream that "really" works.
(I'll be burnt at the stake for that...)

Schamansky, you mean <gasp> that we're being lied to??:eek:

And I really believed all those glossy ads....

<smacks forehead>

Schamansky

Beenie wrote: »

Schamansky, you mean <gasp> that we're being lied to??:eek:

Yes.

Beenie wrote: »

And I really believed all those glossy ads....

<smacks forehead>

No, you didn't. :shocked:

But someone must. The stuff sells, after all.

---

Nickygoat:

And that's only the States.

toshkininny

Schamansky wrote: »

Firstly, there is no wrinkle cream that "really" works.
(I'll be burnt at the stake for that...)

Say a company sells three differently labelled creams, one for Aldi (£1.89), one for Boots (£10.99) and one with a fancy name such as "Jacqueline de la Connerie*", distributed exclusively through fancy beauty parlours (£129.99). The products as such would still have to differ a little, with none of them being inferior to the other.

The cheapest way to create some "real" product differentiation is to play around with fragrances, colours and sensory density (= make it thicker or thinner). It doesn't take a doctorate in chemistry to figure that out. The rest is packaging, design and marketing. The effect on wrinkles no matter which cream would still be the same (= minimal), but the difference in markup makes product variation worth while. Economies of scale on the cost side are not really affected, since the basic ingredients would still be the same, and that means cheap chemical commodities. There's just a few product variations for different distribution channels and different target markets.

Does anybody really believe L'Or!al products (as one example) are so expensive because so much really expensive stuff goes into them? It's all those celebrities and supermodels that aren't cheap, nor are the ads, and I don't really want to know the price of one page of advertising in Vogue, Cosmopolitan, Elle, and what have you. It's all make believe, nothing else.

---
* excuse my French.

It would be quite refreshing if they advertised a moisturing product on t.v. that stated along the lines, "why don't you grow old gracefully, if you don't want to look old before your time, don't smoke, drink and keep out of the sun - and if you would like your face to smell nice, got money to burn, and make it easier to smooth make up on your face, try our moisturiser - which is a bit more pleasant than vaseline rubbed all over your face! :rotfl: