April 2015 Acquisitions

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok. Sure. Got it. I probably read too fast again and just caught the general drift of what you were saying... It's easy to do. [emoji51]

I think you need to stand out in this niche product corner. Yes, the designs certainly give a head start (and so very clever). I'm just wondering why more artisans don't have good quality labels?! I know that Dr Jon's labels were done by a graphic design company (not by him, the soap maker). So he obviously thought it important enough to throw money in that direction. So why don't others do the same thing?!
No harm no foul but sheez man that's bordering on fanboi territory....."AGH negative comment on my product!!!", shoot first, actually read the post later! ;)

Your point regarding labels or perhaps more specifically as packaging is one that enters interesting territory. I won't dwell on it too much BUT I've been doing a lot of reading over at SMF and a few other places and a number of things have become relatively evident, atleast IMHO anyway. And this holds firm, albeit with some caveats for shaving soaps although I've derived it from discussions/overview of artisan soaps (non-shaving specific).

Essentially it's not that hard to come up with a very good base soap formula. It's pretty simple and even very high end shaving soap formulas using the absolute latest HP (hot processed) high stearic acid mixes that B&M etc do (and recently the majority of the 'general best' shaving soaps are now HP along this line) - are freely available and with a very small amount of tweaking I'd be surprised if not on par for usage performance in a very short time.

So it's a pretty level playing field......so how do the players differentiate themselves???

For bath/general use soaps it's aesthetics - which personally I think is somewhat crazy but as someone here said, look at the store 'Lush' and the variety of soaps they sell - ironically I am amused by the buyer's desire to have additives free soap/organic etc - and yet all those colours and the additives needed to allow the designs to be done to them are while certainly non-toxic are going all over them. Thankfully shaving soap doesn't really rely on aesthetics.

Scent is a BIG ONE. And it's absolutely alarming out of the total cost of a given batch of soap the % of the cost thats devoted to the IMHO relatively optional/low priority aspect of it's scent. It can easily be 20-50% of the overall batch cost! And while HP soaps tend to use less it's still perhaps the largest overall cost area! And while I know it's lovely to have a well scented soap (shaving or otherwise) very few of them will really linger on you that much/long after you've washed off and then put several other differently scented products on top over them e.g ASB, moisturiser, cologne. Don't get me wrong but this is a real area where a seller can differentiate themselves, as Will @B&M has - but (and I plead guilty) to this - I think consumers again somewhat disproportionately weight this relatively lightweight factor into their decision making. Oh and if you have a reaction/irritation to the soap it's almost certainly the scent (EO or FO) that caused it.

Ingredient label appeal is also one that is alarmingly strong in soap making. Now I'm sorry to pop anyone's bubbles but soap makers will openly discuss how they just have felt compelled to put certain things in their soaps despite them either having no real benefit to the end soap over the standard/old formulation for the vast majority of users....or sometimes even making it worse but almost all the time making the actual cost of the soap higher! Case in point, MdC is remarkably simple and the most commonly copied shaving soap recipe. Why? It's apparently a wonderful soap. However modern consumers want all kinds of exotic butters and oils in their soap as they perceive it will make it better. Reality is that these are often much of a muchness with simple base ingredients e.g tallow, stearic acid, glycerine but many times more expensive - but the consumer is always right and so in they go as it sells better and thats the bottomline.

And packaging for artisans is really the last variable one - though multi-nats etc have marketing to rely on as well.

Anyway forgive me for blabbing on but it's a somewhat curious area, though one can see similarities to many other product areas and the sometimes irrational behaviour & purchase motivators that consumers exhibit within them. Haha the funny thing is I make no claims to have no been absolutely as bad as anyone in this area before myself, so please don't take this as me attacking anyone's priorities or decisions as it's absolutely not. :)
 
Yep, yep. I'm listening @stillshunter but I promised my wife no more soaps for a year (yeah, right) after just receiving the Soap Commanders. I'll keep my eye on this though.
Well we'll see if we can't get a sample out to you mate. Will depend on when I buy a tub of my own - as in the interim I need to extract every last mg of goodness from the sample received from @filobiblic
 
Commenting on the Anne Bonny exclusively, the scent is superb - closest thing to the now extinct Johnny Goodsir (listening @Dale.Whiley ?). However, the lather is far superior to JGS.

Yep, yep. I'm listening @stillshunter but I promised my wife no more soaps for a year (yeah, right) after just receiving the Soap Commanders. I'll keep my eye on this though.
I'll send you a sample @Dale.Whiley
Just PM me your address mate.
 
No harm no foul but sheez man that's bordering on fanboi territory....."AGH negative comment on my product!!!", shoot first, actually read the post later! ;)

Your point regarding labels or perhaps more specifically as packaging is one that enters interesting territory. I won't dwell on it too much BUT...
Well, good to get it out of the system eh mate? [emoji4]

You've got a lot of fair points you've listed, and certainly consumers (and soap makers) are fickle things...

Not a Fanboi... *shudder*...I just think people don't get past the packaging with many things in life... I thought this was one of them. [emoji14]
 
Scent is a BIG ONE. And it's absolutely alarming out of the total cost of a given batch of soap the % of the cost thats devoted to the IMHO relatively optional/low priority aspect of it's scent. It can easily be 20-50% of the overall batch cost! And while HP soaps tend to use less it's still perhaps the largest overall cost area! And while I know it's lovely to have a well scented soap (shaving or otherwise) very few of them will really linger on you that much/long after you've washed off and then put several other differently scented products on top over them e.g ASB, moisturiser, cologne. Don't get me wrong but this is a real area where a seller can differentiate themselves, as Will @B&M has - but (and I plead guilty) to this - I think consumers again somewhat disproportionately weight this relatively lightweight factor into their decision making. Oh and if you have a reaction/irritation to the soap it's almost certainly the scent (EO or FO) that caused it.
Guilty as charged. I am certainly one of those consumers who disproportionately weighs the relatively lightweight factor of scent into their decision making. The more I ponder this the more I think the 20-50% of cost proportion is just about right....as that is about the factor scent plays in the overall value proposition of a soap/cream for me.
 
Guilty as charged. I am certainly one of those consumers who disproportionately weighs the relatively lightweight factor of scent into their decision making. The more I ponder this the more I think the 20-50% of cost proportion is just about right....as that is about the factor scent plays in the overall value proposition of a soap/cream for me.
So if it's got that high a proportion of cost, then that ought to play a significant factor (as per Stillsy's comment)?

I'd also argue that for some soaps, the scent may be only 2% of the total cost... (I'm looking at you Arko!)
 
You've got a lot of fair points you've listed, and certainly consumers (and soap makers) are fickle things...
The average consumer certainly is - and unfortunately often incredibly badly mislead or confused by the mixed/misleading info that comes from makers & other already hook,line & sinker'd consumers. Soap makers.....not so much. Especially the ones that do it commercially, they do tend to know the realities of the situation & their craft and as the rule of supply & demand is so powerful they just give consumers what they want.

Not a Fanboi... *shudder*...I just think people don't get past the packaging with many things in life... I thought this was one of them. [emoji14]
No, I know you're not. Packaging is a very interesting part of the overall consumer decision making weighting, not so important with some items but absolutely critical/massive in others. Essentially to reverse engineer my point the vast majority of shaving soap makers (given that unlike artisan soap makers, who can make their bars/cakes of soap look like works of art) have very simple-basicish packaging. But the last generation of makers seem to be progressing in this area, Dr Jons strikes me as simply being the best example of this - and its something I think they've done exceptionally well.

Guilty as charged. I am certainly one of those consumers who disproportionately weighs the relatively lightweight factor of scent into their decision making. The more I ponder this the more I think the 20-50% of cost proportion is just about right....as that is about the factor scent plays in the overall value proposition of a soap/cream for me.
Yup, me too - otherwise how could I justify having many multiple soaps from the one maker (which I actually now think is kinda silly...but anyway a big soap sale down the track is on the cards!). Don't get me wrong, in no way 2nd guessing you weighting it at 20-50% of your decision making process (though that does leave scant room for other factors) but my view on it is that whilst I enjoy a well scented soap as much as another user for all intents and purposes I do not think it is possible for scent alone to make a soap give a better shave.

That said I would theorise that some scents might lead one to perceive that you've had a closer, cleaner shave......now which ones they are I don't know BUT and this is a very rough example but with a normal bath soap one that has a scent TRADITIONALLY associated with cleanliness e.g lemon, eucalyptus, mint etc could quite conceivably lead people to feel it gave them a better clean than the exact same soap that was UNSCENTED.

But thats the only actual tangible difference I can see it making. So a lot of consumers are essentially buying these many extra soaps and paying a significant % of the price for these for the undeniably great scent that these have for the few minutes that they're on our faces. And I say this as a user with 30+ soaps.........thats kinda an interesting realisation. I have to say I do find it fascinating how consumers make their decisions....I'm a bit ASPY so perhaps it's just me who sees it this way but it's curious when broken down and I might pop a thread up on it with a poll to see why/what people feel are the main draws to any given shaving soap.

So if it's got that high a proportion of cost, then that ought to play a significant factor (as per Stillsy's comment)?

I'd also argue that for some soaps, the scent may be only 2% of the total cost... (I'm looking at you Arko!)

Well it would have to - otherwise it would mean the consumers are being somewhat irrational in their decision making - but that said RARELY are unscented versions of soaps (when they're actually available) discounted to accurately reflect the cost differential in making them compared to their scented stable mates.

You're about right, and it's prolly even less I think Arko uses Limonene, which is very, very cheap and a synthetic replicant of that found in lemon peel etc. Funny thing is I would wager that if they made an unscented version as well - or something equally as cheap e.g eucalyptus - they'd significantly up their overall foreign sales.

The thing is that scent - along with exotic butters etc in soaps/shaving or not is actually in a rather 'inefficient' delivery medium -e.g the soap thats put on it a wet environment and only on the surface (your skin) for a few mins. So if you want a great scent or moisturiser on your skin and you from a logical perspective want it to last/work as well as possible......your most effective path would be getting it via a specialist delivery vehicle e.g a cologne/EDT or for the latter a lotion/cream. Like I said , just interesting/curious/trivial stuff now I've seen a tad of behind the soapmaker's curtain. (y)
 
Oh great, there goes my incentive to buy a tub of my own. Thanks a bunch Filo!!! ;)
Fine *takes one for the team* Stillsy, could you send me a sample please ?
 
I got these Dr Jons mainly on the strength of the Classic scent sample Fil sent me. It is a great soap and a great scent. The Hydra came because I like citrus too.

I am happy to send small samples if anyone wants one.
 
... and that, is how you burn through 4 centuries of soap within a year!
 
Burn through?

It just means I don't have 4 centuries of soap in a cabinet somewhere… Mark just admitted to having 5 centuries but he's an overachiever
 
Burn through?

It just means I don't have 4 centuries of soap in a cabinet somewhere… Mark just admitted to having 5 centuries but he's an overachiever
To put it politely ;)
If he started indiscriminately sending out samples as generously as you do, he might rediscover 1/2 his bathroom and garage :p
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top