Estee Lauder charges $450 for its 1.75oz Re-Nutriv anti-wrinkle cream. It’s very effective at diminishing the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles. We know, because it contains the same active ingredient complex as our ultramarine night cream, which delivers the very same results. Our price, however, is $50 for 2 ounces, a mere fraction (1/9th) of what Estee Lauder charges to cover its massive advertising budget and legions of high-priced employees.*
Or take our replenishing facial moisturizer, $25 for 2 ounces. Its claim to fame is real steam-distilled cucumber extract. Using the same ingredient, odd that Sisley of Paris charges $145 for theirs. This ripoff is in full swing every day at your friendly department store, hair salon or Sephora, where you get Yugo quality at a Porsche price, simply to cover obscene marketing costs--and profit margins. (Hair salons make more money on the products they sell than the haircuts they give.)
*Most notably its chairman, Ronald Lauder, an avid art collector who paid a record-setting $135 million in 2006 for one Klimt painting. No matter how you slice it, you gotta sell a lotta moisturizer to afford something like that, even if you're overcharging by an almost criminal amount.
By the way, Estee Lauder owns about 30 "independent" brands including Aveda, Bumble & Bumble, Origins, Jo Malone, etc. Many others are owned by L'Oreal (Kiehl's, Lancome, Garnier, The Body Shop, etc.) with the mass market sewed up by titans like Proctor & Gamble (Olay, Max Factor, Cover Girl, Noxzema) and Unilever (Dove, Axe, Vaseline, Pond's, etc). Industry consolidation tends to drive consumer prices up, thus contributing even fatter margins to the manufacturer.
