Hacker News Reader

Comment by zmitri | Hacker News Reader

And yet she packed a make-up kit. For someone who is "protesting" corporate greed it seems contradictory to wear cosmetics from a protestor's perspective-- they have a gigantic profit margin.

As a male, I'll never understand how cosmetics are so entrenched in the lives of females.

View on HN

Gigantic profit margins? Estee Lauder had a 2.1% profit margin last quarter.

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:EL

Cosmetics are entrenched because beautiful women are sought after. It's not very complicated.

Make-up itself costs very little to produce, so I suppose I could have just said mark up.

I'm not an equity expert, but I have the feeling that how that one specific company has performed over one quarter isn't a great indicator. They still had double digit EBITD margins last year, and I know L'Oreal had double digit margins for something like 20 years in a row.

Out of interest, do you personally think cosmetics make someone "beautiful"?

There are a lot more costs than what it took to purchase the raw materials. It wasn't one specific quarter, it was simply the last quarter. And they were the first large cosmetics company I could think of.

I have no strong opinion on cosmetics either way, but it would be hypocritical for me to hate on someone for buying something with large profit margins. I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro attached to a 27" Cinema Display. Apple's margins last quarter? 25.58%. Their Return on average equity was a staggering 44.81%. Now that's fat.

I wasn't hating, I'm a free market capitalist. I was suggesting it was contradictory of the protestor.

I have not looked hard at these financials (nor do I have ANY experience with the cosmetic industry) but it appears Estee Lauder has a Gross Profit Margin of 79% in its most recent quarter. That is pretty incredible. Of course, this excludes advertising expense, but it does provide evidence of significant mark-ups on their products.

Where'd you get that data? The google finance page seems to state 7.99% not 79% in 2011. You sure you didn't misplace a decimal?

Gross profit just counts cost of goods sold, not expenses like your employees. Cosmetics are high make up on a marginal basis, but involve lots of boots on the ground and advertising. Their Net Income is what you and I were talking about and is not outrageous at all.

(This is fairly similar to drug companies--very high marginal costs but in the end very normal profits.)

Agreed, but instead of "very high marginal costs", you meant, "very high marginal income" or "very high gross profit".

Ignoring the sexism of your second statement, your first statement is filled with self-righteousness.

Capitalism is a system of contradictions. Saying someone cannot argue with capitalism because they benefit from it is just an ad hominem attack. No one in the modern age can live outside of capitalism therefore everyone becomes a part of it. The equivalent stance is "feudalism should not end because you have benefited so much from feudalism which has given you your life so far and all you own" if said while feudalism was the norm. Everyone on this planet is presently affected by the positives and negatives of global capitalism.

Feel free to argue the ideas of the protests or the point of the article, that some people are living in New York very cheaply. Constructive debate is always welcome.

I don't quite understand how it is sexist. I'm actually interested in how makeup has come to be so predominant in the lives of women but not men. I've spoken with many people about it before, and most women actually liked the fact that I wasn't into makeup. I find it especially interesting in this case, where the person is limited in what they can bring and still cares about something like makeup.

Anyway, I thought some people might have something interesting to say on HN (where people's views aren't as aligned with mainstream media due to their forward-thinking disruptive mindsets) ... but it seems like it was taken as an attack.

I'm not trying to debate, I just find it strange.

You may find this article on recent research thought-provoking: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/13/fashion/makeup-makes-women... - "Wearing makeup...increases people’s perceptions of a woman’s likability, her competence and (provided she does not overdo it) her trustworthiness." (Journal link: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal....)

"For someone who is "protesting" corporate greed it seems contradictory to wear cosmetics from a protestor's perspective-- they have a gigantic profit margin."

And, when did Revlon get that TARP money again?

They are not just protesting TARP recipients, but "corporate welfare and corporate greed." I live in New York and went down to Zucotti Park a few days ago and was told this. They were also flying upside down American Flags. It's not just Wall Street they are upset with.

You should at least understand that a "make-up kit" isn't a tackle box full of chemicals. It's generally pretty tiny.

Really not something to nitpick on.

What really got me is the profiteering on the photo taking.

> As a male, I'll never understand how cosmetics are so entrenched in the lives of females.

really? same reason people like nice clothes. looking "better" is a competitive advantage to help you get the "best" mate. makeup is a means to that end.

That's fair, but it's definitely not the most effective means. If a woman takes 5-10 minutes to apply make up each day, and if they decided to allocate that towards some other activity, the amount of time spent doing something more productive would add up very quickly. I personally find that it makes women less appealing as it's quite superficial, and a waste of time/money.

Telling women not to wear makeup is like telling guys to "be yourself". Great advice if you're a naturally gorgeous woman, or an extroverted and socially adept man. For the rest of us, not so much.

I appreciate the honest and rational response. I felt like I was being berated for asking a sincere (although perhaps misinterpretted) question.

I think you're confusing make up with too much make-up for the most part(with some exceptions) if it's obvious a woman is wearing makeup she's got too much of it on IMO.

This is why engineers aren't running fashion and beauty companies. It's not about efficiency. It may not make sense to you, but it very much does to a staggering number of people.

And to tie it all in, this is why Steve Jobs was such a visionary, because he understood both engineering and aesthetics, function and form. A lot of people understand one or the other, it's the rare person who can empathize with the necessity of both.

"Do you want to sell sugar water for the rest of your life or come with me and change the world?"

I wouldn't be surprised if cosmetics were lumped in with sugar water on that one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com