Are there any brands you don't buy for moral/social reasons (as in, other than price/quality)?+

Personally I avoid L'oreal because I find their advertising very fake, even more so than other brands, and misleading. Example: Making Beyonce way lighter. Also not sure if I buy that Gwen Stefani's hair color comes from a drugstore box....

message by rc630
more messages

expand whole threadAre there any brands you don't buy for moral/social reasons (as in, other than price/quality)?+rc6302/13/2013 12:19AM

I will not buy Manglaze products because I think they are crudely named+++oscarnabby2/13/2013 7:42AM

I only buy makeup online as i think companies exploit the australian market.$36 for a mac lipstickmisscoutureland2/13/2013 2:30AM

Not reall but I had a choice between two similar products I would choose the more green/not tested +zoeferret2/13/2013 12:45AM

Yep. Lots, due to animal testing +++kf20122/13/2013 12:35AM

Totally agree with you. (: I'm glad I never got into L'Oreal DS stuff, haha.Inyoung2/13/2013 12:50AM

Armani is owned by L'Oreal, but does not animal test (so I've heard).laurenli2/13/2013 12:43AM

I stay away from brands where the parent company tests, as well.kf20122/13/2013 12:46AM

oh, I see. :) laurenli2/13/2013 12:51AM

I won't buy Lime Crime stuff or American Apparel np.laurenli2/13/2013 12:26AM

I won't purchase from AA, either, clothes or otherwise.kf20122/13/2013 12:36AM

3rdmtvsux2/13/2013 1:30AM

What's the problem with AA?salamanderempress2/13/2013 12:28AM

I saw a news piece on the owner/CEO a while back. +laurenli2/13/2013 12:29AM

i can see that balmsaway2/13/2013 12:35AM

He basically is, but AA is one of the only big companies to produce their goods in the US + + +mewmewmow2/13/2013 12:35AM

I think AA could support equal opportunity & fair pay without resorting to gross, exploitative +++kf20122/13/2013 12:45AM

ITA - AA advertising is horrible. Hello sexual objectification at its worst!moremi2/13/2013 4:51AM

Dov Charney is super creepy; I dislike AA as a whole. I don't need to see nips in an ad for a skirtrc6302/13/2013 12:32AM

IKR?! call me a prude, but the few times I've been on the website I've been appalled and disgusted.laurenli2/13/2013 12:33AM

To comment below: I generally think this too but a user posted on this board saying+rc6302/13/2013 9:08AM

I don't go to Walmart because their workers eploited, underpaid, and seemingly miserable.VAmom2/13/2013 8:09AM

totally agreesilencio2/13/2013 12:42AM

I'm also upset thinking of kids being exposed to that. Think how many youngsters have access to +laurenli2/13/2013 12:39AM

Same, and it's not prudish bc it's not about sexual liberation but rather feels like exploitationkoushi2/13/2013 12:35AM

Srsly, just looking at his picture, he is exactly what you would imagine a perv to look likekoushi2/13/2013 12:31AM

I am an equal opportunity h00r...*bows head in shame*Absalom2/13/2013 12:25AM

Same here :( *wallows in consumerism*gconn2/13/2013 12:26AM

*chains gconn, builds fort and gluts* HeheheAbsalom2/13/2013 12:28AM

I've been bleh on UD ever since their flipflop over animal testing and imperialistic white knight++koushi2/13/2013 12:22AM

Same. Even though they're technically "safe" again now, it left me with a bad taste +++kf20122/13/2013 12:37AM

didn't know about the second part. ewsilencio2/13/2013 12:28AM

It's not literally what they said, but these were the undertones as they tried to justify++koushi2/13/2013 12:30AM

yeah that's ridiculous. as if the US is some moral model to aspire tosilencio2/13/2013 12:41AM

Word.raissanina2/13/2013 12:23AM

I won't purchase Illamasqua post "the ad"raissanina2/13/2013 12:20AM

Which ad?kaykre2/13/2013 12:24AM

the blackface adraissanina2/13/2013 12:26AM

I find people are much too sensitive to this, just try to appreciate the artistry. saarahkb42/13/2013 12:52AM

i get why this is a big deal in the us... but... mimilerio2/13/2013 12:37AM

That's doesn't excuse it at all. They aren't ignorant to the implications. They sell themselves as +mewmewmow2/13/2013 12:42AM

But what if in THEIR culture it is not racist? Just because it is in certain places does not mean ++Pinkpuff092/13/2013 1:43AM

This kind of image has been deployed all over the worldraissanina2/13/2013 12:41AM

@mimilerio ITA with you, there is absolutely no need for you to apologize.Pinkpuff092/13/2013 1:41AM

I totally agree with you and I don't think you should feel the need to apologize for your opinion. saarahkb42/13/2013 12:53AM

sorry i didnt mean to offend anyone... or get people upset+++mimilerio2/13/2013 12:51AM

I could see how it would be offensive on its own, but paired with the white one ++rc6302/13/2013 12:30AM

'Intention' doesn't really matter.mewmewmow2/13/2013 12:35AM

*takes shot* defending racism based on intent, check. does that excuse all the racist cartoons,++koushi2/13/2013 12:34AM

I wasn't defending racism, I was stating my opinion that I don't think the ad was racist. +rc6302/13/2013 12:49AM

This. Racism has nothing to do with intent--it's about structures of oppression, including images.raissanina2/13/2013 12:36AM

I'm not going to rehash the discussion we had on the board, ++raissanina2/13/2013 12:32AM

D:gconn2/13/2013 12:28AM