Talk:Lush (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Criticism

The stores have bad odour problems. I added this as criticism and it was instantly reverted. I agree with the fansite tag below, should be edited to give some perspective.

^I removed the following text as there is no qualifiable source for the statements. 'There have been rumours previously in relation to other nearby companies and offices complaining about the scent throw affecting their premises. However, to common knowledge, this has not resulted in any closure. Lush company is focusing high end market which is very different with mass products market' If you can find a publication saying the scent affects other business' condutcing their own business then by all means, cite it and put it it. I'm leaving the criticism section for the time being as we do require balance, but your personal views should not be included in an encyclopaedia. Shaybear♥ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaybear (talk • contribs) 03:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you really need to cite the odour problems of Lush. It's immediately apparent to anyone walking within 40 metres of a Lush shop. Shaybear's pretty clearly biased on this matter as a self-confessed collector of Lush products (according to his/her User page) and I don't have the time nor wherewithal to compete in an edit-fight. Flangazor 10:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that I use LUSH makes the statements about the scent of LUSH any more encyclopaedic? If it were appropriate to include surely we'd have information on the odour emitted by McDonalds turning off vegetarians, or people smelling the odour of baking break from Bakers Delight or other baking stores? I am editing the way a Wikipedia member should and I find it incredibly frustrating to see you labelling my edits as biased. Shaybear♥ —Preceding comment was added at 05:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm a recent customer for the first time, always avoided the store due to the smell, the day i went in you could go down the hall of the mall and not smell the store. I think it's very subjective, but when i say i get my sampoo and soap there the first common response is "How do you stand the smell?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.14.79 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Folks, to say that a scented product store "smells" is like saying that a mcdonalds serves "food", or that bathrooms smell, or flower shops smell. The only source that should be added for this is if a neighborhood or business alliance complained that the stores smell was making it difficult for shoppers passing by. I have not heard of such an action taken, and there are a lot of stores which sell scented products (like all dept stores, body shop, head shops, all bath and body shops). chemically sensitive people know not to enter stores selling perfume, etc. its basically a trivial matter.76.232.8.123 (talk) 03:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Fansite tag

I've added the Fansite template to this article, as I am concerned that it is entirely uncritical gushing praise. Whilst I'm sure that Lush does have countless devotees, the article reads almost like advertising or public relations blurb from the company itself, and seems to have many phrases taken verbatim from their advertising catalogue "Lush Times". In particular I am concerned about uncritical praise for the company's ethical and environmental stance, focussing solely on their products and ingredients, which does not consider other ethical and environmental dimensions such as energy wastage in their stores (have you ever seen an open Lush store that has its doors closed to conserve heat?), distribution by trucks, sourcing of build materials for their shop furniture, effects on asthma sufferers who happen to walk past and general promotion of consumerism. However since I do know that Lush is a store that genuinely does have an army of very loyal customers, I am assuming good faith and marking this as fan behaviour rather than advertising by corporate sockpuppets. Andrew Oakley 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh. Well, actually, the store in Philadelphia always seems to have its doors closed when I go past. I'm pretty sure that 100% of stores in the USA get their merchandise shipped in by truck, and probably a similar number applies overseas, so I'm not sure I see your point. And, uh, yeah, they're want you to consume their products, oddly enough. That's how economies tend to function and stuff. Dunno about the furniture in their stores - If you have a source that says one way or the other what they're made of, well then by all means, add it. Snarfies 02:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC) blah blah blah

^I'm totally with you Snarfies, I don't really see how conservation of energy within the stores is at all related to the facts presented [that their products are cruelty free, they try to minimise the amount of packaging to reduce landfill and the company is very ethically aware]? To be honest Andrew, your comment reads as if you have a beef against the company. And no, FYI we're not 'corporate sock puppets'. Shaybear♥

Product links

I'd like to add a link with more info re: Lush Bath Bombs and Lush Bath Melts, which are two extremely popular best sellers of the company. Would this be okay? Friday33 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Friday33

^I don't see why not. But if you add details on two of the products where would you stop? Would you mention the shower gels, etc? Shaybear♥

I would only add information on the products I'm familiar with...is anyone out there familiar wih the Lush shower gels? Friday33 23:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)Friday33

^^My point was more that this is an encyclopaedia, and as such doesn't really need a seperate section in retail outlet/business articles on the specific items that are manufactured or sold.

I think it would be best to just list the range items LUSH make / sell as the actual names and types vary so much from country to country.

Eg: Bath bombs, bubble-bars, shower gels, cleansers, moisturisers, etc.Shaybear♥

Handmade?

They claim that their products are hand-made - what exactly does this mean? For a company that operates worldwide, I find it hard to believe that someone mixes the soaps in a large bowl in the back of the store... --Grace 03:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Handmade does not imply "made in the store", it doesn't even imply it is made in small quantities. Other than that, hand made is just that: hand made. Wijnand 09:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The company's products are indeed made by hand, manually mixing ingredients in large containers (notably, new unused kitty litter trays and new unused plastic drainpipes), according to my wife, a former member of retail staff who visited their Poole UK HQ. They are not mixed on the premises, they are mixed at their Poole HQ and possibly other international centres. Andrew Oakley 11:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This was posted on the Australian LUSH forum by the user 'Lulu' who works for LUSH mailorder. See the post [if you're registered to the forum] here: http://www.lushnz.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16628329

'Handmade means made by our hands. I myself have spent many happy hours stirring pots of Rockstar while Steady Eddie poured Fever massage bars into moulds. And one day you will all have the chance to see for yourselves, I hope! Even the UK wouldn't out in a machine to pour shapmoo into bottles, Hilary has said, even though some staff actually wanted one to save their hours of pouring Veganese! So I can confirm, even the gift boxes- every single one wrapped individually by a staff member in the Gift Wrapping Room (sort of like Tori Spelling)!!'Shaybear♥

"store"

I think this page should be moved to Lush (company) or something similar, since the title "Lush (store)" seems to suggest that it is just one place. The article is about the company, not its retail outlets. Thoughts? --Grace 05:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

^That's actually a very good point, I agree. Shaybear♥

Criticism?

I am no fan of lush's products, but neither do I have anything against them. I think the 'overpowering smell' comment isn't neutral enough, I for one quite enjoy the smell of lush compared to that of the street. Browsing the shop is a very relaxing experience because of this magical scent, I don't know how the staff manage to get any work done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.86.21 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Marketing

This article reads like an investor brochure. I'm tempted to add an NPOV tag. Not that I disagree with it any, and the shops do smell absolutely wonderful. njaard 23:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to start with pointing out what you think isn't neutral, and see if anyone can do something about it? I for one don't think it's all that bad, factually, although some parts do need to be reworded. -- Wijnand 11:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more of a systematic bias than any actual lack of neutrality. Nothing seems to be wrong, nothing even appears to be written non-neutrally, but the article is so overwhelmingly positive about the company that I just get that feeling. It could be of course that there's nothing bad to say about them. Also, saying that the stores tend to "smell strongly to some people" reeks of weasel words; pardon the pun. Actually, don't pardon the pun. njaard 05:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that. The problem may be in part that only those people who are very positive about the company have contributed to this article. Then again, it's not so much about "saying something bad about them" as stating facts neutrally, which arguably even people who like the company can do. I do not agree that this article reads as an advert; that is going way too far. Because of this, I removed the advert tag from this page. Wijnand 13:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I write the Lush Times and I did not write any of the information in the entry. (Not my style at all.) Lush does not actively seek investors, so if the article reads like an investor brochure, then that's a surprise - because there isn't one. As anyone who has visited a Lush factory will tell you, they are astonished to find that products are made by real people, using their hands, and the kind of food mixers and containers that you would find at a restaurant. They are made in the UK, Canada, Italy, Japan and Australia, with local ingredients wherever available (e.g. fruit and veg, sea salt) to minimise shipping. There is no warehousing; products are shipped direct to stores to reduce transport carbon footprint, and to keep the products fresh. There's a lot of cynicism about Lush amongst people who don't know the company well - which is understandable because it often does sound too good to be true - but there is nothing untrue in the encyclopaedia entry that I know about, and I've been working there since 1996. Mo Constantine invented the Bath Bomb and the solid shampoo bar and Helen Ambrosen invented The Bubble Bar and solid conditioner. They are patented in their names and you can look them up at the UK patent office. The smell: Lush is often accused of pumping it out into the street, but actually it's the scents from the unpackaged products escaping all by themselves. If the products were packaged it would smell less, as the essential oils and absolutes would stay sealed up. Whether you like it or not is personal taste, but once you've been inside a shop for a minute or two, you stop noticing it like pretty much any other scent, as your nose stops sending the signals to your brain. Sarah McCartney (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I have some difficulty with the concept of "handmade cosmetics". What exactly does this mean? What's the difference between a human operator putting small quantities into a small scale mixing vessel (as used in a normal kitchen/restaurant) and a human operator putting larger quantites into a much larger mixing vessel? The human input is identical, only the scale is different. OK, in some instances, a liquid may be pumped from the original container into the vessel, but it is still a human operator involved in the operation - by holding the pump. And, when all's said and done, it makes absolutely no difference to the quality or performance of the product, whichever way it's manufactured! This just seems like marketing bluster to make it sound as though there is some major advantage to "handmade", where there is absolutely none! BenPara (talk) 12:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find the advantage to handmade products is ethical and promotes good labour. It shows that love and care has gone into the products rather than a robotic machine pumping them out. The products are completely hand made with bare hands (or gloved hands). Machinery is only used to do things like heat or cool the products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.119.83 (talk) 22:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Products (Preservatives specifically)

The subsection is misleading in that it allows the reader to assume that Lush do not use preservatives. In fact, Lush use a combination of Paraben based preservatives in their liquid based products.

While there is no scientific evidence to suggest that paraben based preservatives are considered unsafe, they are the subject of intensive speculation and regulatory bodies responsible for the cosmetics industry in the EU are considering reclassifying certain parabens as suitable only for rinse off applications.

---

To clarify, Lush only uses two kinds of Paraben in their products: Methylparaben and Propylparaben. Both of these particular preservatives are food grade, and are thus safe enough to put onto skin as they are safe enough to ingest. --13:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the section that stated that the parabens Lush uses are "the safest parabens." We can re-add it when someone finds a reference. --Blackpoms (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ethos

The animal testing declaration is not objective as it suggests that Lush's animal testing policy is superior to that of a company operating a Fixed Cut Off Date.

In fact, the Lush animal testing policy is flawed in the fact that all cosmetic raw materials have at some point been tested on animals making it impossible to adhere to such a policy.

The animal testing policy Lush operate is not audited by an independent body and no evidence that raw materials are effectively vetted is made publically available.

The Humane Cosmetics Standard (operated by the BUAV in the UK) is the only standard requiring a companies animal testing records are made available for audit by an independent body. The Humane Cosmetics Standard requires that a company operates a Fixed Cut Off date policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhino mac (talk • contribs) 14:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, many people do believe that Lush's policy is superior to a fixed cut off date. The policy isn't flawed, unless you have misunderstood what they mean by it. They don't care whether or not an ingredient has been tested, but in fact they just refuse to deal with anyone who conducts animal tests. Many ingredients which adhere to the fixed cut off date rule are made by companies which still conduct animal tests. Their policy is not based on raw materials, but on the companies that make them. This is a much more restrictive requirement that many products approved by BUAV would not meet. Inkwell 21:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Lush don't deal with companies that have had any history of testing that ingredient on animals. The cut off date is irrelevant, Lush won't deal with them full stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.119.83 (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Ask me why I'm naked"

Product promotions by Lush employees wearing only aprons are becoming popular around the world. Someone with enough knowledge plese write a section about them. 59.92.102.156 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I can get to this within the next few weeks. It has stirred up some controversy in some cities due to city ordinances and the like. --Blackpoms (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

B Never

I think there should be section in here about the B Never cosmetics company that is affiliated with Lush. I don't think there's enough information about it to warrant another whole article. --Blackpoms (talk) 01:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The History Section

The history section is really suffering from a lack of sources. I was thinking about drastically shortening it and finding sources to go along with what was kept, but didn't want to jump in and do so without taking other opinions into account.

So. Anyone reading this: what do you think of the idea of getting rid of the unsourced material and keeping only that which can be sourced? Or even better: does anyone know where a good source for this information can be found?

Thank you! -FaerieInGrey (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up on this: A large portion of the history section is lifted directly from http://www.lushie.com/bigbook-cosmeticstogointro.html and is marked with a copyright from the same. On that note, I have started re-writing it. Help finding outside sources would be greatly appreciated. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There is still far too much unsourced information in the over-lengthy Introduction to this article, and much of the content would be better moved into the History section with proper inline citations, if someone would care to do it.Parkywiki (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

"Safe synthetics"?

This article makes much use of the term "safe synthetics", without explaining what that means. It sounds like marketing fluff to me - no manufacturer would knowingly use "unsafe synthetics". 129.67.18.159 (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Website

Since LUSH is a British company which was founded and has its headquarters in the United Kingdom, surely the website should be listed as Lush.co.uk as it is the original and not Lush.com (the American version)?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Lush (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090203211133/http://info.lush.co.uk:80/palmoil to http://info.lush.co.uk/palmoil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

'Looks naked'

"Furthermore, from May 2015 onwards Lush is working on a type of packing. Lush's future looks naked."

What, I didn't understand a word of that? Do you mean packaging? Is 'looks naked' a good thing or a bad thing? Also a citation would be nice. --86.11.3.164 (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)