≡ Menu

Will Elizabeth Arden change their formulas?

PMA says…The South Korean LG probably is buying Elizabeth Arden. I think the acquisition will be great for Elizabeth Arden because LG has wonderful high end cosmetic brands in South Korea, like SUM:37, Beyond, O Hui, The History of Whoo etc. Their cosmetics have not only great formulas, but stunning packages as well. So, I think LG can revitalize Elizabeth Arden. And you? Thoughts? Opinions? On the other hand, some consumers don’t like seeing their favorite brand being bought by another…

The Beauty Brains respond: 

When a company is acquired the first thing people complain about is “they changed my favorite product.” Sometimes this is true, sometimes not but here are some of the primary reasons companies change formulas after an acquisition.

Mislabeled products

Often smaller companies do not follow the proper labeling rules so the new, bigger company has to go through all the old labels/formulas and fix them to be compliant. They may not even actually change the formula but to consumers the label looks different so they think the product has changed.

Unstable formulas

Sometimes the acquired formulas do not meet the stability requirements of the bigger company. Therefore the formulas have to be redone to meet quality standards.

Manufacturing efficiencies

A big reason that formulas are changed is because the big company can achieve a significant cost savings by switching out certain raw materials for ones that the big company gets at a good price. They believe they can make the same quality product at lower cost.

Regulatory reasons

One company may use ingredients that are not allowed in another. Therefore, acquisitions may trigger reformulation to remove a chemical not allowed by the new owner.

There are some other reasons like manufacturing capabilities, raw material supplier contracts, etc. but those three are the main ones. Whether the reformulated products are better or not, well that depends on who you ask.

Comments on this entry are closed.

  • rozy May 5, 2014, 8:39 am

    I wish companies would stop caving to consumer demand for paraben free products fueled by pseudoscience fearmongering. I hate paraben free. Lush sucks. Screw moldy products that don’t last as long.

  • Eileen May 5, 2014, 10:35 am

    Meeting the new parent company’s requirements–both self-imposed and imposed by the government–can certainly make for some differences in labeling, formulation, and marketing. And, since beauty has become a global business, it’s not at all unusual for companies to release certain products in one country but not in another because of ingredient issues or the preferences and needs shown by their target demographics. (Is there a makeup loving woman alive who doesn’t remember Lancôme’s highly coveted Erika F eyeshadow that could not be sold in the US? LOL ). But, unless the new parent company wants to bury their acquisition and eliminate it from the competition, it’s in their best interest to preserve the integrity of popular products and slowly introduce “improvements” so as not to alienate the brand’s customer base. It will be interesting to see how EA is developed. This could just be a case of “the more things change, the more they stay the same”. Time will tell 🙂

  • Judith May 6, 2014, 3:43 am

    I agree about the parabens, a lot of times what they put instead is even harsher for the skin. A lot of those so called natural products contain a lot of irritants. Weleda for exemple is full of essential oils and alcohol denat