Liz Earle owned by Avon

All_eBayed_Out

I am horrified at this. I have been using liz earle products since 2002. What on earth has Avon bought for? All their products in their magazine are harsh & totally over-processed.

*Vikki*

All_eBayed_Out wrote: »

All their products in their magazine are harsh & totally over-processed.

I never knew this, must be why they are so cheap! How did you find out about that?

Emma37

All_eBayed_Out wrote: »

I am horrified at this. I have been using liz earle products since 2002. What on earth has Avon bought for? All their products in their magazine are harsh & totally over-processed.

Maybe because generally Avon has a downmarket image, and by owning a prestigious name like Liz Earle they'll be better thought of.

All_eBayed_Out

There is a blog from Liz here about nothing changing for customer and that its a "partnership".

http://blog.lizearle.com/lizearle/2010/03/a-new-partnership.html

donnac2558

All_eBayed_Out wrote: »

There is a blog from Liz here about nothing changing for customer and that its a "partnership".

http://blog.lizearle.com/lizearle/2010/03/a-new-partnership.html

Yes, she did put that up. But then as I said it appeared in not sure which daily newspaper online business section that it was a buy out. So Avon now own Liz Earle. Someone actually put a link up to the business news announcement on shoppingtelly.com. Bit of a difference between partnership and buyout though. Also seems the Isle of Wight newspapers are outraged about it all, they believe that jobs will be going no matter what Liz says. Look at Cadburys buyout, no jobs will stay in the UK, then they moved. Avon make the US stuff in the US and UK/European market stuff is made in Poland. Liz Earle's facebook has been in meltdown for over a week.

Parabens are freaking alot of people out these days. Because the Beauty Bible etc bang on about them. Yet Liz Earle has always had them and yet wins the Green Beauty Bibles awards etc. Of course old Liz has been best friends with the Beauty Bible duo since the early 90's when they worked on magazines together.

Emma37

The company has been sold. It has been 100% acquired by Avon. Liz Earle is playing it down by calling it a partnership.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23819146-liz-earle-sells-beauty-business-to-avon.do

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Financial/Avon-acquires-British-skincare-company-Liz-Earle

jenniewb

Emma37 wrote: »

The company has been sold. It has been 100% acquired by Avon. Liz Earle is playing it down by calling it a partnership.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23819146-liz-earle-sells-beauty-business-to-avon.do

http://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Financial/Avon-acquires-British-skincare-company-Liz-Earle

Wow- makes me wonder if she either got fed up with the making of stuff/coming up with new ideas or of she ever really wanted to design the stuff in the first place! I used to want to be a designer (part of me still does) of textiles, but the lack of being able to own your work (people stealing ideas or 'buying' your work and putting their name on it (this is what happens) puts me off. I think many people feel this way- which is why it just seems so odd that Liz Earle would want to hand over all the rights to anothert company to do what they want with it!

Maybe she has something else up her sleve? or maybe the Bahamas are calling...

Emma37

Jennie, I think an estimated £17million had something to do with her decision.

beautyscientist

I would rather that this hadn't happened for a number of reasons, but the world is the way it is and Liz Earle can do whatever she thinks best with her company.

In terms of what it means, I think it is bad news if you work for the company. There are obvious economies that can be made merging two companies like this.

For the customers it could work out well or badly. They might reformulate the products which might make them worse. But I think this is unlikely. The cost savings would be pretty modest and the risk of upsetting the paying punters pretty high. I don't think they are likely to do this, not for a long while at any rate. They might even invest in R&D - probably in the US rather than here - and expand the range. So it could concievably be good news for the poeple who love the product.

But my prediction is that they will not change the products very much. The most logical strategy from a making money point of view is to take the successful products and get them more widely distributed. This is not really a disaster, but it does mean that the development of the range will now be in the hands of 'brand managers' i.e., marketing people. In a few years a brand that once had a distinct personality will be just another name on the shelf.

beautyscientist

Emma37 wrote: »

Jennie, I think an estimated £17million had something to do with her decision.

I don't think the figure has been disclosed, but if she got that much for it she did pretty well. The Body Shop went for £652 million, which was a lot bigger.