topic Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing in Beauty

Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

Vamp — Tue, 06 Sep 2016 23:48:42 GMT

Just saw this story. I never subscribed to Julep for this very reason. I'm glad they've stopped.

http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/makeup-company-julep-to-pay-3-million-for-deceptive-marketing/

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

conlt — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:03:58 GMT

The thing is that she will still walk away with millions in her bank account, but she will meet her maker one day.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

Vamp — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 01:32:20 GMT

I've never been a fan of "club" type marketing, where they send you new products every month. I'd rather pick out my own products, thankyouverymuch. The other issue that has prevented me from ever purchasing any Julep polish is that it is more expensive than Chanel and Dior, ounce for ounce. You pay less per bottle, but you also get much less. I get it that businesses need to be profitable to continue, but I am pretty tired of excessive greed. Sorry, Julep. I'm not biting.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

IMissSuperPoke — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 03:54:05 GMT

Good thing somebody stopped them from continuing to take money out of ac punts after requesting a cancellation. I never do these types of things because businesses like this you can't know who you can trust.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

juperier — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 05:51:03 GMT

Interesting article. That explains why I recently read a comment that the author had not had a problem cancelling.

I never became a Julep "maven" partially because I read so many comments regarding how difficult it was to unsubscribe. But mostly because I've never been convinced that there is anything unique about the brand that makes it worth the amount charged for the ridiculously small amount of product in the bottles.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

lulu2 — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:52:10 GMT

I was a "maven" for awhile. I had no difficulty cancelling my subscription.

They had some nice products and their packaging was gift like. The girl who does my nails hated when I brought Julep polish. The bottles tipped over when she was getting polish on the brush. She didn't like the brush, either.

On at least 2 occasions, my polish arrived broken at the neck of the bottle. (what a mess) I was told they used hand blown glass bottles and that was the nature of glass bottles.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

greamy — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:36:02 GMT

I have nice strong nails, I bought Julep and started using it to polish my nails. It a short time, I had broken nails and stopped using it. Will not buy this again.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

Andreatoo — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 19:59:54 GMT

Not a fan of the product, I received a bottle in one of those discovery kits from the Q and it literally peeled off in sheets, but I'm inclined to believe her version over the AG's.

Governmental agency giving deceptive informaiton is no stretch...

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

depglass — Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:21:18 GMT

Disappointing, I absolutely swear by their lip balm. Put it on before bed and have smooth lips in the morning.

Re: Julep paying $3 million for deceptive marketing

suzyQ3 — Thu, 08 Sep 2016 16:53:49 GMT

@Andreatoo wrote:
Not a fan of the product, I received a bottle in one of those discovery kits from the Q and it literally peeled off in sheets, but I'm inclined to believe her version over the AG's.

Governmental agency giving deceptive informaiton is no stretch...

Having just read the whole article linked to in the opening post, I think the contrary is far more likely.

It seems that the company has not had a good track record at all in terms responsible customer service, so why would I believe them now, when they have a motive to protect themselves and the government has no motive to give out deceptive information?