kimmer
Member
Hi all,
I hope you don't mind me adding my somewhat boring thoughts on the matter, but I was just reading these posts, and a few of things sprung to mind:
1) Abstinence using 4 foodpacks a day is an extreme and useful tool to lose weight quickly, but it could be a dangerous one in the hands of someone who cannot 'officially' do the diet for some medical reason. These are generally the people that cannot purchase foodpacks from a counsellor and do so at a premium on e-Bay. It's likely going to be someone like this that eventually does some sort of damage to themselves, contacts the newspapers, and smears the name of Lighter Life, and Cambridge.
2) As LL foodpacks contain - well, food - there is nothing immoral or illegal, per se, in selling them, as long as they're not tainted or expired, since the contents aren't any different than other diet or non-diet low-calorie shake (arguably, they're healthier due to the vitamin content). The danger is the potential for people to consume 500 calories per day when it's unhealthy for them to do so, and this cannot be controlled by anyone other than the individual themselves.
3) If the primary concern of LL and Cambridge is the protection of others and their brands, they should make it easier for others to return unused packets if they elect not to continue on the program rather than enforcing rigid adherence to the customer agreements. This is a major source of income for many diet companies, as it is guaranteed whether a client sticks to the diet or not. You would NEVER see a diet suggest that "your foodpacks are free up front - just pay for them when you reach your goal weight".
Trying to place the ethical burden on e-Bay or clients is simply a way of controlling the product without having to give up revenue. By refusing returns on foodpacks that can be resold, they perpetuate what they say they're trying to prevent. Don't forget, Lighter Life and Cambridge are sophisticated companies run by sophisticated head offices. They know what they're doing, they cover their bases, and they are balancing what they can do to protect money and reputation against public interest. They do have the resources to address the issue differently if they choose.
I'm not criticising either of the companies - they've done a lot for me, and I am fully supportive of the diets. They are also grown-up businesses, and I don't fault them for their practices. I just believe that managing this issue is their problem. By insisting on maximising their profits by adhering to a no-returns policy, they lose more control of their products by forcing them into the e-Bay market.
Again, sorry if this is intensely boring, but I do get a little irritated listening to how the companies are 'terribly concerned' for the health of e-Bay purchasers, but don't want to take action themselves to prevent it. Irritated because while they have improved the lives of hundreds drastically, they aren't so concerned with the health of other users they'd do anything that impacts their own revenues.
Kimmer
I hope you don't mind me adding my somewhat boring thoughts on the matter, but I was just reading these posts, and a few of things sprung to mind:
1) Abstinence using 4 foodpacks a day is an extreme and useful tool to lose weight quickly, but it could be a dangerous one in the hands of someone who cannot 'officially' do the diet for some medical reason. These are generally the people that cannot purchase foodpacks from a counsellor and do so at a premium on e-Bay. It's likely going to be someone like this that eventually does some sort of damage to themselves, contacts the newspapers, and smears the name of Lighter Life, and Cambridge.
2) As LL foodpacks contain - well, food - there is nothing immoral or illegal, per se, in selling them, as long as they're not tainted or expired, since the contents aren't any different than other diet or non-diet low-calorie shake (arguably, they're healthier due to the vitamin content). The danger is the potential for people to consume 500 calories per day when it's unhealthy for them to do so, and this cannot be controlled by anyone other than the individual themselves.
3) If the primary concern of LL and Cambridge is the protection of others and their brands, they should make it easier for others to return unused packets if they elect not to continue on the program rather than enforcing rigid adherence to the customer agreements. This is a major source of income for many diet companies, as it is guaranteed whether a client sticks to the diet or not. You would NEVER see a diet suggest that "your foodpacks are free up front - just pay for them when you reach your goal weight".
Trying to place the ethical burden on e-Bay or clients is simply a way of controlling the product without having to give up revenue. By refusing returns on foodpacks that can be resold, they perpetuate what they say they're trying to prevent. Don't forget, Lighter Life and Cambridge are sophisticated companies run by sophisticated head offices. They know what they're doing, they cover their bases, and they are balancing what they can do to protect money and reputation against public interest. They do have the resources to address the issue differently if they choose.
I'm not criticising either of the companies - they've done a lot for me, and I am fully supportive of the diets. They are also grown-up businesses, and I don't fault them for their practices. I just believe that managing this issue is their problem. By insisting on maximising their profits by adhering to a no-returns policy, they lose more control of their products by forcing them into the e-Bay market.
Again, sorry if this is intensely boring, but I do get a little irritated listening to how the companies are 'terribly concerned' for the health of e-Bay purchasers, but don't want to take action themselves to prevent it. Irritated because while they have improved the lives of hundreds drastically, they aren't so concerned with the health of other users they'd do anything that impacts their own revenues.
Kimmer