Proctor and Gamble (Avril Lavigne's Fragrance Partner) Supports Animal Testing

[gustavoi]

Originally Posted by Luckycharm

I wouldn't be surprised at this point to learn that her clothing line will be made by 6 year olds in China working 18 hour days for like $0.10 an hour.

oh! and Welcome Back!

[wiedzma_ple_ple]

Well, let's say that Avril doeasn't know anything about this testing on animals. Sure, a lot of people don't, that's "fine", maybe she doesn't either.
But, c'mon!
SHE chooses company she wants to work with.
SHE decides who's gonna make her parfume.
And that's HER duty to find out if there's everything ok with the company. Did anyone expect that they would come and tell that there's sth wrong?

Maybe she just didn't think about it, that she should do some research.
Or maybe she's just not intrested. I really hope not, and I'd really rather think that she's not like this. She hasn't, but now she's changed a lot.
Anyway, whatever the truth is, it's only her mistake.

I hope, that, when she finds out that we all don't like it and we're not gonna support this company she'll do sth.

[TheNuBi]

Originally Posted by Luckycharm

I understand that companies will always choose the cheapest method because then they can have a larger profit margin, but animal testing really doesn't ensure the cheapest end product for the consumer. If you look at Olay skin products for an example they are nearly the most expensive, if not THE most expensive, drugstore skin product brands on the market.

This really isn't about consumers being cheap. It's about companies being cheap and consumers being ignorant and unconcerned about how their products were made. I hear what you're saying too and ultimately I think it will be the consumers who will have to take the first step to ending this vicious cycle. What really gets me is that Avril and her perfume are not helping AT ALL. If anything, she is perpetuating this cruelty.

I understand the cheapest method may not always ensure the cheapest product. Companies will always sell somthing as high as people are willing to pay it. Again I don't know much about vitro testing so you can correct my if I'm wrong but as I said before, I'll assume it's more expensive than animal testing. Now lets say Olay or P&G were to switch from cheaper animal testing and started using a more expensive alterative methods, what would happen is that they would now jack up the already rediculously high prices of their products to an even more rediculous amount to make a profit which would most likely turn off alot of the average consumers to purchasing their stuff especially with the economy the way it is today. There is only a certain amount alot if not most people are willing pay for "high end" products or the more expensive products before they decide it's not worth it and choose to purchase the "lesser" and cheaper product. Example: Pepsi and Shasta sodas, both are pretty much the same thing and both taste almost exactly the same, yet Pepsi is a brand name and Shasta is not, a 2 liter bottle of Pepsi costs on average a $1.30 in my area where a 2 liter bottle of Shasta is 99 cents. At the store I used to work at Shasta outsold Pepsi about 3 to 1 because it was cheaper and taste the same however we still sold enough Pepsi to make a decent profit because there are still a few people who are willing to pay a little extra because it's a brand name product (and maybe because they liked the taste a little better). But let's say Pesi decided to make their soda's using a more expensive alternitve method and for the sake of argument we'll say they even now use superior quality ingredients but they jack the price of Pepsi to $2.30 for a 2 liter bottle now, but Shasta remains 99 cents, I can almost guarentee most people would stop buying Pepsi and turn to the cheaper alternative. Basically it's kind of a combination of consumers being cheap and ignorant and corperations knowing they can only charge so much for their products before people stop buying. If they were to use a more expensive alternate method they would have to choose to either keep the prices the same and make less money or jack up the price and risk losing buisness because people are unwilling to pay. As long as people are willing to pay their price, 9 out of 10 times companies and corperations make their products a cheaply as possibl and sell it as high as possible.

Again I don't know if vitro testing costs much more than animal testing though so I admit I could be way off on this. But your 100% correct in saying it will ultimatly be up to the consumer to take the first step, but sadly most consumers will only make that first step when it effects their wallet, not the methods used to make or test products.

I'll also admit the more I think about it, the harder it is for me to defend Avril on this issue as much as I would like to. I like to think she had no idea of what was going on (though admittedly it seem unlikely) and if she didn't she should have had her managers or whoever check up on it. However as her fan I will give her the benefit of the doubt and assume she made a stupid mistake and forgot to check up on P&G and their testing methods untill proven otherwise.

[Luckycharm]

^^ To the above post, I'm not going to quote the entire thing.

I understand that corporations will choose the cheapest production cost and sell it for the highest price they can. My point is that if enough consumers demanded them to quit animal testing they would have to. If they upped the price, people would stop buying it. But if people are demanding it enough for them to have to stop animal testing, and they can't raise the price, they're just going to have to cut into their profit margins. They have enough room to do so. Believe me, corporations would rather make 50% less than their original profits than make $0 revenue from not selling anything.

It wouldn't really affect the consumer's wallet too much to buy products that were not tested on animals. St. Ives products are pretty good, not tested on animals, and cheaper than Olay skin products. I think the problem is enough people don't know who tests on animals. The people on this board who are giving me crap about calling that person dumb (this is the only reply I'm giving you guys so don't expect anything else) prove my point on that.

Maybe they're not totally dumb but I think being that ignorant is just sad, because it allows things like animal testing to keep happening.

[avrilrocks07]

Ive noticed people havent posted in here in a while but has anyone told avril about this????

Please i would love to know of she knows or not about it and does anyone know if her perfume is STILL coming out made by P&G????

[.DramaQueen5x-]

Stop bringing this up, Its already been talked about.