-
Big company vs Small company - Who’s more evil?
-
love this conversation. smaller are more “evil” and yeah, eveilnis not the word. they di t know. they havent had thier hands slapped. there is not as much to loose. they havent had the experience or they are just look for an edge and ready to take the risk. so many reasons!
-
Perry said:Our system also makes it much more risky for big companies to cut corners than small companies. If a large multi-national puts a product out on the market that harms people, they will get sued to the tune of millions of dollars.Agree, big companies they know what they’re doing.
Perry said:If a small company does the same, they just go bankrupt, shutter the business and start a new one. This encourages more risky behavior.have seen these vicious cycle many times, some didn’t even want to sustain the businesses, just want quick cash with risky product and when they tickled under FDA’s nose they just shut their companies down, and of cause start a new one.
PhilGeis said:Understand marketer frsutration, but a lot of what is claimed as benefit is pretty subjective if not silly. Mark’s point is much more compelling - the risk better be very small. By ignorance or worse, smaller companies are often guilty of driving failed risk assessment.I can’t speak for all marketers out there, for me - standard product like moisturizer, shampoo etc. doesn’t have to have claims - if texture, fragrance , experience and the price is right with a little boost of advertisement, the sale happens.
But if it’s a sunscreen or certain moisturizer with claim, have to submit efficiency and other tests for approval ( take lots of budget and time ) and if exporting to some countries with false claim - that would be dead on arrival and risking company to be banned for good.
So pretty much I stay in line and hoping our company will get to Billion one day lol.if an entrepreneur happens to come across this post, hope this gives you some or little benefit or idea.
-
Marketing shouldn’t be deceptive, marketers are just lazy. It’s easier to throw unsubstantiated claims like ‘cellular’, ‘genefique’, ‘antiaging’, ‘stem cells technology’ than creating an experience. I remember commercials of camay soap in 90’s. It was all about experience and ‘luxury’ and having a fine perfume added to a bar of soap. It was a popular soap back then. Consumer happily pays for experience. Having said that unsubstantiated claims come from both sides. In case of large companies it just gets proof read by the legal department.
-
ngarayeva001 said:Marketing shouldn’t be deceptive, marketers are just lazy. It’s easier to throw unsubstantiated claims like ‘cellular’, ‘genefique’, ‘antiaging’, ‘stem cells technology’ than creating an experience. I remember commercials of camay soap in 90’s. It was all about experience and ‘luxury’ and having a fine perfume added to a bar of soap. It was a popular soap back then. Consumer happily pays for experience. Having said that unsubstantiated claims come from both sides. In case of large companies it just gets proof read by the legal department.
Consumers haven’t happily paid for the Camay experience in decades - tho’ last I heard it had some presence in Eastern Europe. P&G hasn’t suppoorted the brand in many years and sold what’s left to Unilever.
Large companies typically have all claims reviewed by legal - not “proof read” - and do generate data for many relevant claims tho’ puffery is still in practice. I disagree with the your claim of equivalency to small companies in this context. If nothing eelse, it’s much less expensive and impactful on brand to generate (even seemingly) relevant data than defend vs. challenge. -
@PhilGeis, you are right, I have chosen a bad example. I was trying to make a point that in most cases cosmetics doesn’t do anything noticeable when it comes to changing how skin actually looks (unless it’s a drug). So I think a good marketing should be focused on experience because most of claims are misleading by nature.
-
ngarayeva001 said:@PhilGeis, you are right, I have chosen a bad example. I was trying to make a point that in most cases cosmetics doesn’t do anything noticeable when it comes to changing how skin actually looks (unless it’s a drug). So I think a good marketing should be focused on experience because most of claims are misleading by nature.
I sure agree. Cosmetic claims are often subjective and rarely (at least this old balding guy) significant - so my focus has been on safety and tha is what the big companies do fairly well.
-
I always choose big companies to buy. They smell and feel nicer.
Small companies can be ruthless too. I see some selling shea butter and almond oil whipped together as miracle creams for acne and other skin conditions. And selling for £30 a 50g pot selling thousands a week
-
Think ignorance and arrogance of many smaller companies places their customers individally at greater risk, and they generally fly under the regulatory radar. But, if a big company screws up - market size exposes many more consumers.
-
Perry said:@Learntounlearn - Thanks for the heads up. Yes, we are making some updates on the website and there is a link issue that is redirecting to that page. Bottom line…we’re working on getting that fixed.
If only we were a big company. They’d have dozens of people working on the problem
Hi Perry,
I have previously bookmarked many discussions but now when I open them, it gets directed to landing page.
Is it possible to have a search bar only for forum topics as the available search bar on site works only for blog topics.
Thanks -
@Learntounlearn - Sorry about that. My web guy moved some things around and all the links to discussions got changed in a very subtle way.
If you want to go to the previous discussion that you bookmarked, you need to add a “/#/” in the link.
For example, if the link was this…
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/discussion/comment/56166
You’ll need to change it to this…
https://chemistscorner.com/cosmeticsciencetalk/#/discussion/comment/56166
Log in to reply.