Hello There, Guest! Register

Login or Register to remove all advertising


1 user browsing this thread: (0 members, and 1 guest).

Post Reply 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Author Message
Senior Member

Joined: Aug 2012
Sex: Male
Posts: 1,380

Reputation: 1595
Rep Post

Post: #31
01-26-2018 11:33 AM

(01-26-2018 6:51 AM)TheManInTheFedora Wrote:  Certainly, all in good taste and constructive criticism rather than outright libel.

NOTE: I neither expressly nor implicitly accuse PT of any wrongdoing. For whatever reason(s), I have three products which have not worked for me...with a plethora of tests on them. I acknowledge that it could be chalked up to body chem. or even a bad batch...this happens even with the best of firms. Perhaps, my bad for not having a chance to test all the products at once during the trial period. This would be easier if it was just one product rather than multiple products during the same trial period. One learns from one's mistakes. Still, I am willing to reorder Swoon at some future date...albeit scented to give it another spin. Then, I will be in a better position to see whether it works for me or not.

One of the functions of this forum is to report the good, the bad and the ugly...call it like you see it. At the same time, many here have been burnt by the Androtics debacle. Hence, it helps to maintain a sensitivity towards such future incidents. It helps protect listmates and it also helps keep vendors on the ball from having an overblown sense of complacency.

Regarding quality of service or product, it is well known that many businesses who have outgrown their modest beginnings unwisely choose to cut corners.

This expresses itself in quality of service....not responding to customers concerns, using inferior materials to cut cost, but squeeze out max profit etc. It happens. It is a reality. For example, in the fragrance industry....reformulation occurs quite often for many reasons e.g., some materials become banned, costs must be cut, tastes change etc. The thing is....the producer will never admit to this....even when questioned they will tell their clients that it is the same product as it always has been....baloney! They lie in your face...quite legally as they hide behind 'trade secret.' The same can be said of a dram of Jack Daniels from the 1980s tasted different from batches nowadays...same with Bushmills black label from 1970s to modern batches(less distillate diluted with more grain alcohol filler than before). I could even pick up differences between a dram of Jameson's 1780 from the late 1990s compared to the re-released Jameson's select reserve which is supposed to be the same whiskey product under new packaging. They are simply cutting corners. In some cases, the product is a mere shadow of its former self..in other cases the product is not ruined, but it is not the same.

The point is products after a while can and do change for various reasons...not always for the better. Whether they drop the ball in QC or a merger takes place or traditional materials get banned or even their marketing department surveys that tastes have changed. The producers/vendors often will not admit that the product has changed, thereby insulting their clients intelligence. Caveat Emptor ..always.

Fair and balanced. I've never seen anything that gave me great concern in your posts.

I feel some throw the baby out with the bath water. IE...Some are just mostly negative and it doesn't take much to get them there.
01-26-2018 11:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply

Share This Thread
Post Reply 

Forum Jump:

Login or Register to remove all advertising
Current time: 07-25-2021, 12:37 AM
Contact Us Home Return to Content Lite (Archive) Mode RSS Syndication Forum Disclaimer