L'oreal is Lancome re-packaged- is it?

[ameliagrey]

Someone-who was very helpful Blackcoffee said this today. is that right?

I know there has been this debate before is Bourgois is actually Chanel. But are they?

This is L'oreal's empire:
Brands

We want people everywhere to have easy access to our products through a presence in outlets that match their individual lifestyles.

WELCOME
CONSUMER PRODUCTS L'Oréal Paris Garnier Maybelline New York Softsheen.Carson CCB Paris
PROFESSIONAL PRODUCTS L'Oréal Professionnel Kérastase Redken Matrix Mizani Pureology Shu Uemura Art of Hair
LUXURY PRODUCTS Lancôme Biotherm Helena Rubinstein Kiehl's Shu Uemura Giorgio Armani Ralph Lauren Cacharel Viktor & Rolf Diesel YSL Beauté Maison

BUT is that the same as products being the same but re-packaged?

Anyone know?

honestly chanel eyeshadows are crap - whereas bourjois (some of them) are brilliant

Simple answer, NO!

"But a make up artist today said they also re-packaged Lancome, as L'Oreal."

This may come as a bit of a shocker but some make up artists do talk rubbish! (Not me, of course! )

Large multinational corporations buy up independent cosmetics companies, like MAC, to the Body Shop for example. They do this to make money for themselves, it is their one and only motivation for doing this. They do not do it so that people who can't afford to pay for fancy packaging can have a shot at using their quality products too for a fraction of the price. Why would the do that? It's nonsense! Also, having worked for a Lauder brand myself, and therefore having a lot of their various brands in my kit (which is VERY large, so I have plenty to compare!) I can categorically say that none of the equivalent products from each brand are comparable to one another at all. My Clinique lipsticks are very different from my MAC ones, and the Lauder ones different still - as an example. This is because they are not all the same products packaged differently. I have bought Body Shop products to see what they were like, and they do not compare in any way, shape or form to Lancome. Neither do any of the L'Oreal products I've tried. You may find they use some of the same perfumes in the products, or replicate some of the shapes (ie. Bourjois eyeshadows looking and smelling similar to Chanel) - they are not daft, they are appealing to the emotional side of consumers who subscribe to these very rumours!

There is probably some crossover with R&D to a point because it would make sense to share knowledge, but they wouldn't be using the same quality ingredients in the cheaper equivalents.

Yes, some cheaper products to just as good a job as some more expensive products, and vice versa. Also what works for one person doesn't for another. It's very subjective.

MUAs are in a position to be able to use a lot of cheaper products, especially pigment based products like lipsticks because we touch up the make up frequently throughout the shoot so it doesn't matter so much if things wear off more quickly or feather, or whatever.

"OMG throw it out!"

"No,I won't thanks it's fine"

This made me pmsl too. Yes, it is fine. Products which are emolient or liquid based will breed bacteria, so foundations, mascaras, gel eyeliners, eye pencils, lipsticks etc shouldn't be kept for that long. I would use your nose, eyes and common sense to determine what this period is rather than a specific time frame. Dry, powder based products do not breed bacteria but bacteria can be present on the surface, so if you are concerned about this just get some ispropyl alcohol and wipe the surface from time to time. That will get rid of any bacteria. It's a good idea to do this with concealers and the like too to keep bacteria at bay in the shorter term.

but also how long a product lasts in the packaging is no indication of quality - I have seen some shocking green shimmery Rimmel eyeshadow from the late 80s still going strong.
And how long a product lasts on the face can be an indication of quality but more often than not it is how the product is applied. So if we are talking eyeshadow - if you use a primer, a powder, blending, then another application etc then the product will automatically last longer.

Actually, I prefer the new Bourjois foundations to any Chanel one I've tried ( and other high end brands ) and I've tried A LOT of foundations. I have not found that you necessarily get what you pay for with foundation. It's so subjective though, and I have bloody awkward skin!

I've found it's worth paying out more for powder products ( eye shadow, blush and face powder ) but lipstick and eyeliners, my favourites are cheaper brands.

BTW, when I say "they don't compare" I don't mean necessarily that either is better or worse than the other, just that they are not the same in any way.

Some cheaper products work well for some and not for others. It depends on the individual. It also depends on your affinity for make up. If you are good at blending foundation for example then you have a better chance of getting a cheaper foundation to look good on your skin where others may fail. There are a lot of cheaper mascaras that I really like, but that others don't get on well with at all. This is mostly because you can get a great result from them but have to work hard with the brush at separating the lashes and building the product in a way that doesn't make it go clumpy. There are a good few cheaper lipsticks and glosses that bleed like mad on me and give me cat's bum mouth, but this doesn't happen on the fresh faced 17 year old models I make up so I can use them at work.

But that's a different thread title addressed, rather than the original question which was asked.

This may be a slightly extreme comparison, but you wouldn't expect the same performance from a Vauxhall Astra as you would from an Insignia, nor a Toyota Aygo to be the same as a Lexus. But you might find either of the former options perfectly satisfactory for your own needs.

Of course it's not OP! But L'Oreal would love you to believe it.

It's the same urban myth that value brand corn flakes is the same as Kellogg's.

You can tell from the ingredients list it is NOT the same (cosmetics, cereal etc.).

As people WANT to believe this though (feel they are getting one over on the Big brands) the myths will self-perpetuate.

"but yes the product inside is the same. "

Categorically, no. My friend worked for L'Oreal (production) and has heard this, but no. The products aren't the same.

Some of the cheaper products in a brand managers' stable actually generate much higher margins than the high end ones (not always but sometimes)

Before anyone else implies I am a fool, I didn't say I believed the poster- I posted this to ask a question!

That is why I spent time googling to find out who owned what- which is not to say that the products are the same but in different wrappers. My OP gives details of what is owned.

Taking the example of food packaged for different companies- well, that is sometimes true. I have known people who worked on food production lines as students and they told me that canned and frozen foods are sometimes packaged for several supermarkets etc with own label/ or brands.

Who implied that you were a fool? You asked a question, people answered it. Some people explained why they thought it was true and others explained to them, as well as you, why they know or believe that it isn't true. Not all answers were directly aimed at you, they were also aimed at other contributors to the conversation.

You could've just had a thread full of "Yes", or "No" but that wouldn't make for a very interesting conversation! That would be more like a Poll.

I made the comments I did because this is a question that comes up on S&B very regularly and is usually cited with great conviction, and also answered by people who are equally convinced of this being the case. Which it isn't.

I'm a fool.

HTH.

:)

I used to work for L'Oreal.

Ditto what others have said - Lancome is part of the same company but the products are different.

They are not the same- L'oreal brings my face up in a nasty red rash, Lancome looks beautiful and feels good too.

Yep, not the same and all that jazz. I have a rather large make up collection and a wide variety of higher end to lower and even lowest (MUA eyesahdows for £1 a pop? Count me in!) And IMHO each brand has standout products, with their own positives. Except maybe Rimmel, I am yet to fall in love with anything Rimmel...

As for the food thing, I disagree too. DP is sometimes a mechanic in a factory that doesn't just pack, but produces frozen chips and other potato products for a well known brand and supermarket own brands. They are different. Packing is different to producing, I worked in a factory when I was younger and we just packed a lot of different brands, which had similar packaging but that was all.

Yep, not the same and all that jazz. I have a rather large make up collection and a wide variety of higher end to lower and even lowest (MUA eyesahdows for £1 a pop? Count me in!) And IMHO each brand has standout products, with their own positives. Except maybe Rimmel, I am yet to fall in love with anything Rimmel...

As for the food thing, I disagree too. DP is sometimes a mechanic in a factory that doesn't just pack, but produces frozen chips and other potato products for a well known brand and supermarket own brands. They are different. Packing is different to producing, I worked in a factory when I was younger and we just packed a lot of different brands, which had similar packaging but that was all.

I used to Occ Health advisor for large food production company.....they made stuff for their own known brand, stuff for Tesco and Sainsbury. It was basically the same stuff. However, the product made for M&S had more fruit in it!!

HavingKittens- this was a bit harsh IMO.

Chandon Mon 18-Jul-11 10:14:19

Of course it's not OP! But L'Oreal would love you to believe it.

Amara- I wasn't making it up! I had a friend who worked in a tinning factory when she was a student- she is now a headmistress FWIW- and she told me that they put different labels on tins of the same product. Some would be labelled Hartleys or whatever it was in 1976 and others would be supermarket labels.

The products aren't the same but you do get the benefit of the vast R&D budgets and genius boffin scientists that a company like L'Oreal can afford. Often, a new innovation will appear in a mass-market brand a year or two after being launched under a luxury brand name.

It's worth knowing which brands are bought as going concerns and which ones are part of the same operation. E.g. Lancome and L'Oreal Paris are much more closely related to each other than either of them are to the Body Shop, which was bought after many years of independence and so far has maintained its own manufacturing, distribution and administrative operations.

I don't think she meant "you" specifically, more like "the consumer". I think she was making a similar point as I was when I said this;

"You may find they use some of the same perfumes in the products, or replicate some of the shapes (ie. Bourjois eyeshadows looking and smelling similar to Chanel) - they are not daft, they are appealing to the emotional side of consumers who subscribe to these very rumours!"

There have always been similar rumours with cosmetic brands. I remember in the 80s that it was a common belief that M&S products were made by Clinique. I think, mostly triggered by the fact that the packaging and colours at that time were similar. I do think that these big corporate houses that own the smaller brands are very well aware of these rumours and pander to any seeds that may have been planted in this way by giving the consumer subliminal triggers to make people think there may just be something in it. Does that make more sense? They are a crafty lot and hire good marketing teams.

did I write that you made it up? I can believe that you were told that. My brother worked for a large company who made desserts and frozen meals for M&S, Tesco (cheap stuff and finest) etc. And there were differences, quality of ingredients just for a start (ie cream instead of milk) and amounts of them.

Put it this way... Large companies cannot LIE on the ingredients list, it's like butter - the amount of actual butter milk varies brand to brand and you CAN taste the difference. In the case of butter I often supermarket own brands to be superior. Always check the ingredients.

Amara you are spectacularly missing the point. I am not talking about ingredients, I am talking about tins of peas or whatever being labelled with different supermarket labels for the SAME peas inside.
I fully agree with what you say about ingredients and quality of them- but what I said is true as well.

You keep saying I am accusing you of lying, where have I done that??? As for tinned veg, I don't know, I don't eat it as I don't like it. Not to mention our options are a lot more varied now and I'm pretty sure that laws have changed with regards to labels since 76. People are much more concious about what they are buying, such as organic labelling.

Amara- I did not say you were lying- I did say you misunderstood- big difference!

FWIW I don't eat tinned veg either- though what we eat or like is irrelevant surely-I was posting about an old friend who worked in a factory when she was a student- not whether we ate tinned peas.

You have just admitted that you don't know about tinning and branding so why do you keep banging on saying my version is untrue? And it's nothing to do with food laws- that's just silly saying that.

I have loads of other anecdotal tales from people who work in the food industry who can tell you that a lot of frozen and tinned foods are simply branded with different labels.

Anyway- this is about cosmetics not tinned peas.

I used to work for a food flavouring company and some companies do manufacture 'own label' products for supermarkets, others don't. That is why it says on kelloggs packets 'if it doesn't say kelloggs on the box, it isn't kelloggs in the box'.

It is more likely to be an identical product repackaged if it is something simple - like cereal or canned or frozen veg - than a complex ready meal where the ingredients are generally specified by the R&D team at the supermarket.

HTH

You didn't read what I was saying, I never said you'd accused me of lying, but you did keep saying that I had accused YOU of lying but I certainly did not! Nowhere did I write 'you keep saying I am lying' nor 'you're lying'.

Thank you Christine.