RE: Unilever5 Jul 2022 16:20
Does STC not, however, provide a threat to the skin cosmetic companies?
At present thousands of products are sold in stores, many of which may do very little for consumers skin. However, that doesn't stop customers buying them.
The poundshop, for example, sells all manor of knock off skincare products that probably do little. However, STC will shine a light on the products people actually need, which in time will harm the sales of the mass crap. Just think, every Christmas the likes of boots and superdrug chuck out gift sets of bog standard moisturiser and skin care products. The type of thing endorsed by celebrities etc. This cheap crap is unlikely to get a recommendation from STC and therefore STC would indirectly be damaging the mass crap market, which makes the likes of unilever a lot of money.
Unilever love the fact that some consumers buy 10 different tubes of moisturiser, desperate to find the right one. Whether they go stale in a cuboard or chucked in a bin, Unilever still make money.
In a world where people only buy what they know is right for their skin, does it not somewhat reduce the amount of products available and thus hurts someone's bottom line? The counter arguement is, of course, that there are more sales of the "right" products, but i feel the speculative gift pack/cheap tat market takes a hit. That in itself is also a greener way to go about things, but since when did big corporations put green ahead of money?
A devils advocate view, but certainly a consideration on the old SWOT analysis