Comments on: Why Are Products From Lush More Expensive?

By: Nel

Nel — Sat, 26 Nov 2011 06:02:14 +0000

Lush doesnt claim that their products are handmade, THEY ARE. Ive been to the factory, I’ve met the little faces on the stickers. Yes they do source a lot of their products through fair trade deals just ask a staff member or check their youtube page. there is so much information about these dealings.

By: Rae

Rae — Thu, 30 Jun 2011 13:17:53 +0000

Lush claims their products are hand-made. Many handmade products are oftentimes more expensive.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:47:11 +0000

oh! did i mention LUSH products are handmade and that some of their ingredients come from other parts of the world. perhaps their pricy products have something to do with this? also, do they follow fair trade standards, if so this would explain it even more? for eg, fair trade coffee costs a bit more than non-fair trade coffee…..because its more ethical in the sense that the actual market price is given to farmers for the coffee they grow, as opposed to being paid less and hence exploited.

By: Shirin

Shirin — Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:30:41 +0000

What is appealing abt LUSH is that they do not allow and buy ingredients that have been tested on animals and their products are also free of all animal testing. This doesn’t mean that animal based products such as honey aren’t used, its just derived ethically.Therefore in this respect, LUSH is a better choice than many other non-ethical companies such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Clorox,Beiersdorf ,Colgate ,Johnson & Johnson,L’Oreal ,PZ Cussons,Reckitt Benckiser. If you’ve noticed some of these companies like Procter & Gamble, don’t only produce beauty care products, they also produce many household products.
Even so called ethical companies such as the Body Shop which was bought over by L’oreal and Burt’s Bees which was bought over by Clorox, are not comparable to LUSH.
But it is true that LUSH is expensive! I’m not sure how much of a consumer base they have. Though 9 dollars for a bar shampoo doesnt seem so bad, their soaps on the other hand are quite expensive!

By: Lulu

Lulu — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:27:50 +0000

…of course, paying an outrageous price for something, only to discover you’ve “been had”, certainly tests notions of personal “well-being”. There’s nothing like seeing a product directed towards a female audience priced at $23.00, sitting next to an exact equivalent (and sometimes, a superior product) marketed towards men, that’s been priced at $6.99. I wonder if these same companies produce a topical cream that soothes blood boiling, since I’m willing to pay for that novelty while witnessing female consumers being virtually kicked in their collective chest and head.

Not to knock The Ladies (I happen to be one) but you have to hand it to male consumers when it comes to buying cosmetics; they don’t seem to suffer bunk well. Sure, this is likely the result of a long tradition of social expectation towards women, where they are constantly pushed to “do” femininity to maintain their social status and value—and this has resulted in a history of marketing strategy that’s long tied “hope” with cosmetics—but it often seems men refer to the old Abe Lincoln adage while choosing to make a purchase: “Fool me once, it’s your fault. Fool me twice, it’s mine.” Products that don’t deliver are quickly given the boot; there also seems to be a limit to how much cash male consumers will fork over for the possibility and how much of a time commitment will be allowed to see if a product will “work” as advertised. Ladies, don’t be suckers. It had better be a dam*@d special fragrance additive to justify paying so much more for the “girly product”.