PAA General Thoughts?

On that note, I have to say that I'm not a brand loyalist (or the reverse), so in either case the concept of drama - especially old drama - escapes me. My interest is for performance and performance alone, and while I might prefer the small burger joints, on occasion I will leave my shame at the door and chomp on a greasy Big Mac and fries. Variety is the spice of life, but special sauce sometimes hits the spot.

Because that's how I roll. Loyalty and enmity of any depth are reserved for issues of King and country, not for soap brands, no matter how wonderful or despicable.

You can get cheaper soaps with better performance. You even mentioned one, Stirling (which actually comes in a 5 oz. container, I believe). Ask anyone who has used both and 9 out of 10 are going to say Stirling is better. You can get Barrister & Mann for that price which by all accounts is miles ahead of PAA. Heck, a tub of B&M Latha is only $11. Mystic Water, Shannon's, Mike's, etc. I could go on and on. All of these are cheaper and out perform PAA. Now that I think of it, it didn't even make TSE's top 25 artisans! And he has used a lot of soaps. Not that his opinion is the gospel or anything, but I trust his evaluations.

Stirling soaps in the plastic tub are 5.8 oz.

I thought for sure this would be closed when I clicked on it today. Nice jobs guys.

BadDad  I'm not disagreeing with the fact other companies may review negative reviews and remove them, that hardly makes the practice right.   One only need to look at Maggards to see how a review process should be run, ethically and openly.  This maker even has gone to the length to email individuals leaving a bad review and tell them why they are wrong in their assessment and then not post that review..... for a maker to tell a customer they are "wrong" and "naïve" to me is not only unprofessional, it's downright absurd.  

Andyshaves right with you on price.  If you are going to be priced that much higher on software it better deliver much better or at least better than your competitors and frankly, I don't think this software fits the bill.

I won't ever question this companies passion for wet shaving and they do make some quality products. You all have made some excellent points here both as to the strength of the line of their products and the detriments as well.


Good discussion thus far.  I could care less about past "controversies" and hopefully this thread isn't hijacked into that realm.

Im right with you on removing bad reviews. I think if you are going to have a review process in your site for customers to leave opinions, than those shoukd be left as they are, and not moderated. But it is a very common practuce, which is why publications like Consumer Reports and Yelp exist. Outside and independant review databases would not exist if everyone had an open review system in place. Thats a failing of the market, not the individual comoanies, in my opinion.

What bothers me more than that is the process of specifically giving people free product in exchange for a "professional review". Amazon has a process where professional reviewers are giving products with thw promise to provide a review after rwceilt. These people get a lot of free products from a lot of different places. If they provide positive reviews, they get more free products. It has incentivized positive reviews, and hurts the validity of the review process. Unlike a youtuber getting a single sample to review, these people are actually profiting from the review process.

And I definitely agree that any company should not be proactively disrupting negative review sources witb emails chastising the individual providing the review. Obviously this is something yku are close to. I have never heard of it, but I have no reason not to take your word for it. As long as it is an accurate and respectable review, I think a company would actually benefit by allowing a public display of it. It shows they arent afraid of public input...

Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk

Chris, I so very much agree with you about this.  While I use Amazon I want to say "shame on you" to them for the way they have corrupted their review system.  Some products have nothing but compensated reviews, which to me are invalid (sorry about that NeoXerxes and others who are compensated for reviews but that is how I feel).  Amazon reviews by star rating are now shown by percentages instead of numbers and reviews are listed by "Top" reviews instead of by most recent.  The only way to change that is to go into the reviews and change the setting, and it must be done for each product.  All of these ploys weaken the review system in Amazon, in my opinion, and if PAA is pulling shenanigans like removing negative reviews then that is even worse than what Amazon is doing.  (Please notice my stressing of "if" because I do not know whether or not this is being done.)

As to David's original post, I have never tried a PAA product but based on the very balanced posts I have seen here I would be inclined not to.  The products seem to get mediocre to good reviews, from what I am seeing here.  There are no really bad reviews but no great ones either.  There are so many other artisans who seem to be thought of more highly based on product, price, or both that I don't feel the need to give these a try; I don't think I am missing something extraordinary.

Hey Freddy,


I did not know, that NeoXerxes is compensated for reviews ?

This information is very interesting for me to hear, and could explain why he was banned from that other shaving forum - or perhaps I'm wrong ?

I have followed and enjoyed NeoXerxes top list of shaving creams and soaps, but always find it a bit weird, that he seems to always support PAA, when the brand is up for discussion..........  

Find their prices high, products mediocre and scents muddled. Much better out there for the money

Bad for traditional wet shaving Brian.
I have tried numerous versions of HTGAM & PAA soaps and they were awful, not even bringing up price or his dreadful behavior.
This grifter and his sycophant girlfriend really have no reason to be in the business.

NeoXerxes reviews are indeed invalid for being compensated (as Freddie mentioned above) not to mention the private PM he wrote I have stating his intent to discredit Cold River Soap Works on behalf of another artisan.
Again another example of dreadful behavior in the so called "artisan" community.

I'm curious, having read a lot of NeoXerxes posts on the other forum before his ban, what artisan is he supporting and paid to support ?

If indeed it's true that he talked CRSW down as supported by another artisan, I'm at a loss of words.......

.....but special sauce sometimes hits the spot.

Then knocks a hole in it, leaves you doubled over, and hightails it for the nearest exit.

***Disclaimer*** This was a weak attempt at fast food humor, and in no way meant to reflect upon the product currently being discussed.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CHSeifert please read post 33 on this thread for full details on the subject. I don't know what else I can say to entirely made up accusations. Feel free to send me a PM if you have any lingering questions or doubts.

It goes without saying that I am not and have never been paid or otherwise compensated to support or attack anyone.

Find their prices high, products mediocre and scents muddled. Much better out there for the money

Bad for traditional wet shaving Brian.
I have tried numerous versions of HTGAM & PAA soaps and they were awful, not even bringing up price or his dreadful behavior.
This grifter and his sycophant girlfriend really have no reason to be in the business.

NeoXerxes reviews are indeed invalid for being compensated (as Freddie mentioned above) not to mention the private PM he wrote I have stating his intent to discredit Cold River Soap Works on behalf of another artisan.
Again another example of dreadful behavior in the so called "artisan" community.

I'm curious, having read a lot of NeoXerxes posts on the other forum before his ban, what artisan is he supporting and paid to support ?

If indeed it's true that he talked CRSW down as supported by another artisan, I'm at a loss of words.......

It is in no way true and I have contacted an attorney regarding the matter (it gets deeper and uglier from here, but this is not the time or the place). I'm unaware as to whether NeoXerxes has done the same, though I know that he was considering it.

Im right with you on removing bad reviews. I think if you are going to have a review process in your site for customers to leave opinions, than those shoukd be left as they are, and not moderated. But it is a very common practuce, which is why publications like Consumer Reports and Yelp exist. Outside and independant review databases would not exist if everyone had an open review system in place. Thats a failing of the market, not the individual comoanies, in my opinion.

What bothers me more than that is the process of specifically giving people free product in exchange for a "professional review". Amazon has a process where professional reviewers are giving products with thw promise to provide a review after rwceilt. These people get a lot of free products from a lot of different places. If they provide positive reviews, they get more free products. It has incentivized positive reviews, and hurts the validity of the review process. Unlike a youtuber getting a single sample to review, these people are actually profiting from the review process.

And I definitely agree that any company should not be proactively disrupting negative review sources witb emails chastising the individual providing the review. Obviously this is something yku are close to. I have never heard of it, but I have no reason not to take your word for it. As long as it is an accurate and respectable review, I think a company would actually benefit by allowing a public display of it. It shows they arent afraid of public input...

Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk

Chris, I so very much agree with you about this.  While I use Amazon I want to say "shame on you" to them for the way they have corrupted their review system.  Some products have nothing but compensated reviews, which to me are invalid (sorry about that NeoXerxes and others who are compensated for reviews but that is how I feel).  Amazon reviews by star rating are now shown by percentages instead of numbers and reviews are listed by "Top" reviews instead of by most recent.  The only way to change that is to go into the reviews and change the setting, and it must be done for each product.  All of these ploys weaken the review system in Amazon, in my opinion, and if PAA is pulling shenanigans like removing negative reviews then that is even worse than what Amazon is doing.  (Please notice my stressing of "if" because I do not know whether or not this is being done.)

As to David's original post, I have never tried a PAA product but based on the very balanced posts I have seen here I would be inclined not to.  The products seem to get mediocre to good reviews, from what I am seeing here.  There are no really bad reviews but no great ones either.  There are so many other artisans who seem to be thought of more highly based on product, price, or both that I don't feel the need to give these a try; I don't think I am missing something extraordinary.

Hey Freddy,


I did not know, that NeoXerxes is compensated for reviews ?

This information is very interesting for me to hear, and could explain why he was banned from that other shaving forum - or perhaps I'm wrong ?

I have followed and enjoyed NeoXerxes top list of shaving creams and soaps, but always find it a bit weird, that he seems to always support PAA, when the brand is up for discussion..........  

Hi Claus,

Peter (NeoXerxes) cleared that up here and in a PM to me.  He is almost never compensated for his reviews.  If he has not been compensated then it will be a straight review.  However, if and when he is compensated in any way, including being given a sample of the product to review, he will clearly state that in his review.  By all means, continue to read his reviews.  They are informative and classy and being upfront about letting his readers know if he is being compensated for the odd review, we can read them with confidence.  I, in no way, meant to denigrate Peter or his reviews and I apologize for the misunderstanding.

Take care,

Freddy

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.

I don't want to hijack and run off a tangent, but I wanted to acknowledge that I agree with everything you've said here. And I do see, as well, where reasonable critique of current practices(i.e. splash cost) does sometimes trigger a knee-jerk reaction. I apologize for that, but c' est la vie, you get used to certain things. I will try to remember this and control those knee-jerks.

I do still think that discussions of performance and practices are easy to separate, even with a company like PAA/Crown King...

Thanks :-) I'm sorry for the confusion. I really have nothing against PAA/CK. I'm happy they're thriving, regardless.

Id be more than happy to pay $25 for one of his aftershaves, but I would like it if they were "cleaner," and simpler. Most of them are obtusely complex, and it's challenging to enjoy the nuances of the fragrance.

As others have said, I can get 2 more ounces of soap, that performs much better for me, for a cheaper price from Stirling. If PAA ever came down to a price that matches the product quality (IMO), I'd buy from them anytime.