(This post was last modified: 04-09-2016, 01:50 PM by Andyshaves.)
(04-09-2016, 05:41 AM)BadDad Wrote: (04-09-2016, 05:27 AM)Andyshaves Wrote: Shaving is exceptionally subjective. Particularly, in my view, our niche community allows us to know the faces behind the things. Rod and Mandy of Stirling, Darren and Carrie of Soap Commander, Anthony of DeLuxe, and Douglas/Hodges of PAA.
Because it's such a small niche, and those faces are directly related to the product (they're not removed by ten layers of middle management) the products, the delivery, the customer service, and the community interaction of the company is a direct correlation to the owner, artisan, or vendor. It's highly personal.
By extension, what you stand for as a vendor is displayed in your products. Charging $25 for an aftershave because you can isn't bad. But, when others do it for a much lower cost and there is a question about quality or design intent, what does that say about the person behind the product? And ultimately, the company.
You're exactly right, one starts a business to make money. But what one delivers, how one acts, and the manner in which one holds themselves, in exchange for money is a direct relationship to the product in this community. There is little room to separate the individual from the product. This is why we buy from artisans and not conglomerates. We're supporting the small town, hard working business owners. But those artisans ARE their products, and the products ARE them. The price, delivery, and execution is a direct relation of the person.
That's fair enough, but again, these topics are not the place to continually rehash rumours and accusations that never amounted to anything 2 years ago, and amount to even less today. People just choose not to look past what they already believe.
Some people believe he did something wrong. Other people do not. So move on.
New shavers are going to find his products because he markets himself to the umpteenth degree. They are going to like his products because they perform well for most people. His products have a HUGE following of dedicated customers. They aren't getting the stuff for free, they are paying for it, because they like it. They like it because it performs.
This constant effort to try and get people to boycott him over some ridiculous internet nonsense(and yes, I know the story. Both sides) that occured 2-3 years ago is just ridiculous. Put it in your forum signature, "I hate PAA and will never give them my money. Ask me why" and be done with it. Start your own topic with a title like that and go nuts! Anyone that wants to find it can!
Stop hijacking actual discussions about the actual products and how they perform.
If you can't do that because your personal feelings against the character created to promote the products are so strong, then ignore the topic. This topic is supposed to be about the products, not the tools used to market the products.
I should quantify this by stating that I don't care about the past. My statement was solely based on the quality-to-cost ratio of his products, not his history. I agree wholeheartedly with what you said in the above. My point was more to the fact that I don't understand his scent design, and why he charges so much for it.
I don't hate PAA or Douglas. In fact, I took two soaps on my honeymoon: one from Stirling and one from PAA. But I do think there's something to be said about how much effort goes into marketing and networking, versus the price-to-quality ratio of his products. I first started wet shaving because of his marketing. But I almost abandoned it because his products, at the time, weren't what they are now, and the experience was terrible. I got sold a big mac and it looked nothing like the commercial. It wasn't until I found other vendors that that changed.
I don't care about history, ultimately his marketing is great for the community as a whole (it acts as a capture point for new wet shavers), and I'm happy his business is growing.
I just wish that either a.) the price of his AS would be reflective of the quality of the splashes, or b.) he would improve upon the mixed-and-muddled fragrances in many of them. I'd be more than happy to buy from him if he did that.
EDIT: I just thought about this. I guess the issue is that PAA DOES have a history. So anytime someone critiques them for their current business model or set-up, it defaults to "attacking the past." This isn't the case, but it makes it damn near impossible to critique PAA without someone screaming that the dead horse has been beat.
