Why Smashbox sell 'exclusively' on QVC?

[AllThatGlitters]

I didn't know that there was an unsavoury history behind Smashbox in the UK, resulting in stores not wanting to stock them...

http://www.britishbeautyblogger.com/2010/05/can-smashbox-ever-start-over-in-uk.html

An excerpt:

'However, its launch was horribly tainted when the PR who helped the brothers with the launch was drug raped by an assailant thought to be a friend of the Factors the very evening of the launch in Selfridges.'

 

[RedT]

I read this yesterday and I have to say, I'm really torn. I think if we were to judge every brand on the people/dealings behind it we'd never buy anything from anyone. At the same time this whole thing leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and I wouldn't want to support the Factor brothers if this is how they conduct themselves. I'm a massive Smashbox fan so I feel a real dilemma now about buying any more from them.

I often wondered why Smashbox (now also sold in Debenhams) was never written about in the beauty magazines and why no-one was ever as enthusiastic about it as me!! I rate it as a brand and it's cetainly a lot better than many other brands which receive huge coverage in the beauty press. Guess this explains it...

 

[baileyboo]

Smashbox is now owned by Estee Lauder

 

[Gemster]

I read this yesterday and I have to say, I'm really torn. I think if we were to judge every brand on the people/dealings behind it we'd never buy anything from anyone. At the same time this whole thing leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and I wouldn't want to support the Factor brothers if this is how they conduct themselves. I'm a massive Smashbox fan so I feel a real dilemma now about buying any more from them.

I often wondered why Smashbox (now also sold in Debenhams) was never written about in the beauty magazines and why no-one was ever as enthusiastic about it as me!! I rate it as a brand and it's cetainly a lot better than many other brands which receive huge coverage in the beauty press. Guess this explains it...

I agree with this comment RedT, and as some of the posters on the British Beauty Blog stated there are many many companies out there with extremely unsavoury pasts, and probably an awful lot more that we know nothing about, as the owners/CEO's etc have enough power and money to cover things up and keep them quiet.

I am very shocked to read this story as knew nothing at all about it, but it won't put me off Smashbox. It has now been bought by Estee Lauder anyway - though I'd bet they have got more than a few skeletons in their cupboard as well!

 

[White Russian]

If a friend of mine commits a crime, I would hope that people would not tarnish me with that crime and I would hope they wouldn't seek to destroy my business as a result. Had it been someone who owned or worked for the company I could fully understand people not wanting to buy from the brand, my understanding is he (assuming the crime occured as it was never prosecuted) had nothing to do with smashbox and instead was a family friend.

 

[RedT]

If a friend of mine commits a crime, I would hope that people would not tarnish me with that crime and I would hope they wouldn't seek to destroy my business as a result. Had it been someone who owned or worked for the company I could fully understand people not wanting to buy from the brand, my understanding is he (assuming the crime occured as it was never prosecuted) had nothing to do with smashbox and instead was a family friend.

Absolutely White Russian, this is why I'm torn about the brand though. I don't believe Smashbox as a brand is culpable for what happened. However after the fact I do believe Davis Factor could have been a bit more diplomatic in his statement to the press. What he said was very callous. I imagine if he'd expressed sympathy and said they'd co-operate in any investigation etc etc it would have garnered them some respect, even if it was only paying lip service.

 

[AllThatGlitters]

What I find interesting about this is the fact that Smashbox weren't some big exclusive catch landed by QVC. QVC seems to have been the only outlet willing to take them on. Makes you wonder how many other QVC 'exclusive relationships' come about because of the brand's problems with mainstream outlets?

 

[loubylou]

smashbox isn't exclusive to qvc anymore i have a large counter in my local debenhams if qvc keep saying their exclusive they are lying

 

[RedT]

smashbox isn't exclusive to qvc anymore i have a large counter in my local debenhams if qvc keep saying their exclusive they are lying

They've finally stopped saying it's exclusive to QVC but always make a point that it's only available in a few 'select' outlets. Debenhams? Select?!

I mailed them 3 or 4 times to point out that it was a blatant lie to claim it was exclusive even before Debenhams as JBD stocks it. I always got the standard reply that they'd look into it...

 

[petpixie]

It wouldn't put me off because I think big business is rife with undesirable people with alley cat morals. If we were to start examining the behaviour and morality of a lot of these people, we would be sleeping on the grass drinking rain water and foraging the countryside for food. Our banks and our government, two supposedly bastions of civilization have proved to be unscrupulous and immoral what chance is there that any industry/business is any better?

 

[RedT]

It wouldn't put me off because I think big business is rife with undesirable people with alley cat morals. If we were to start examining the behaviour and morality of a lot of these people, we would be sleeping on the grass drinking rain water and foraging the countryside for food. Our banks and our government, two supposedly bastions of civilization have proved to be unscrupulous and immoral what chance is there that any industry/business is any better?

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel although it still taints my view of the brand somewhat. I just feel that we should be more selective as consumers and not 'endorse' bad practice by continuing to buy from such companies. But at the end of the day, it would mean spending hours researching everything we buy and that's just not practical.

 

[Gemster]

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel although it still taints my view of the brand somewhat. I just feel that we should be more selective as consumers and not 'endorse' bad practice by continuing to buy from such companies. But at the end of the day, it would mean spending hours researching everything we buy and that's just not practical.

I watched a documentary about companies who had their origins in Nazi Germany and profited massively from slave labour of concentration camp inmates. I have to admit I haven't been able to view those companies in the same light again, even though it was 70 years ago and they have made ammends and paid financial compensation. But some of them are such 'conglomerates' (if that's the right word??) it would be almost impossible to boycott them, plus I'm sure are there are 1000's more who have profited from corrupt regimes & the misery of others that I'm not aware of. As you say RedT, we can't spend hours researching everything, and even if we did, we would end up not buying anything at all as PetPixie said.

 

[barbedwire]

I watched a documentary about companies who had their origins in Nazi Germany and profited massively from slave labour of concentration camp inmates. I have to admit I haven't been able to view those companies in the same light again, even though it was 70 years ago and they have made ammends and paid financial compensation. But some of them are such 'conglomerates' (if that's the right word??) it would be almost impossible to boycott them, plus I'm sure are there are 1000's more who have profited from corrupt regimes & the misery of others that I'm not aware of. As you say RedT, we can't spend hours researching everything, and even if we did, we would end up not buying anything at all as PetPixie said.

It's a toughie this - like you rightly say - if we rigidly stuck to these rules none of us would drive VWs! My father drove them for years - and we also had sets of Krupps scales in the house without knowing about their past.

I feel torn about this, the 'moralistic' side of me is already stamping it's foot and saying 'ner mer smashbox' but realistically whichever cosmetics I choose to use sooner or later something will crop up with whatever brand I choose that I find a bit dodgy or don't like. I wasn't really a big Smashbox user - mainly their mascaras which I really rate. I am shocked by this story tho - and find it reprehensible.

 

[tinaborder]

It is a difficult one. However, like many of you say there are many nasty characters behind a lot of businesses that we all come into contact with every day - don't get me started on Tesco and their complete lack of morals.

On a positive note though...
PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) fully endorse Smashbox. They don't use animal tested products in making their own products which is much better than 'not tested on animals' as that just means the product itself hasn't been tested. For this reason I support the brand.

 

[katyd]

Just a small point - and in no way do I endorse the actions of the individual if true - but can I just say that the article states that no individual was ever convicted.

In any event as a legal professional can I point out that smashbox could have a cause of action against the writer and publisher of the article and further against anyone who reproduces the article -including the forum for libel. May I suggest that the link is removed?

 

[katyd]

I'm not suggesting they would,just that they could. I wouldn't want to cause any trouble for Graham.

 

[donna255]

I was thinking the same as Katyd.

Also the PA who was attack is now married with children. Yet this blogger, who actually sounds like a friend of the PA Is bringing this up all these years later no doubt causing upset to the PA and her family.

 

[tinaborder]

I was thinking the same as Katyd.

Also the PA who was attack is now married with children. Yet this blogger, who actually sounds like a friend of the PA Is bringing this up all these years later no doubt causing upset to the PA and her family.

If you read it it does say that the PA had final approval on the piece before it was published online. Also, just because there was no conviction does not mean that it did not happen - it means there was not enough proof. Whether or not it did happen the comment from one of the Factor brothers was disgusting. However, as I have already said there are lots of bad people in business that we cannot escape from.

 

[DrJude]

Just a small point - and in no way do I endorse the actions of the individual if true - but can I just say that the article states that no individual was ever convicted.

In any event as a legal professional can I point out that smashbox could have a cause of action against the writer and publisher of the article and further against anyone who reproduces the article -including the forum for libel. May I suggest that the link is removed?

I agree here. Whatever people's views on the truth behind this bloggers blog in the society we live in a person is innocent until proven guilty...

 

[AllThatGlitters]

I don't see how this is libellous. The events described are a matter of public record, and it's certainly true that Smashbox have been strikingly absent from department store counters in the UK. Smashbox would be hard pressed to refute anything that was said in the blog, and Estee Lauder are hardly likely to want to push the story back into the public domain just after they've bought the brand, are they?