E-Bay - Long, some may want to skip this!

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
 
Yep, my ex-CDC was always willing to take back packets. Even if they were a little out of date! Bless her. She was a gem.
 
Sorry, I do apologise for that to all Cambridge users and counsellors who read my posting.

I made a big assumption that the companies operated in a similar fashion, and many of the complaints that I've been reading online are that people can't return their foodpacks (albeit this is primarily LL). I imagine the selling price is what makes it so attractive to sell the packs on e-Bay, which is going to be virtually impossible to control, practically speaking, as long as there is a supply and a demand.

Kimmer
 
No problem at all we are actively encouraged not to oversell and to buy back from customers providing of course the stock is in code and saleable to prevent the current situation on Ebay.
 
My cdc was always swopping packets in the begining (and still would if I find Id gone off a flavour) bought a few extra so if I didnt like any I would have enough to see me through the week but she keeps a close eye on how many I buy each week so I dont get a large stock .This means I wont get enough to sell on ebay so I think she does her best to prevent ebay sales from her stock .She is also a great cdc
 
she keeps a close eye on how many I buy each week so I dont get a large stock .

Mine was the same. Kept it very tight, but was also flexible in the case of emergency. I never had more than a couple spare.
 
Nicely worded post Kimmer, thought provoking and another tilt to the on going saga. I think people will soon wake up to the fact that it is more expensive on ebay so from that point of view I don't understand people's logic in buying from there unless they live in a place that they can't get to a CDer -
 
Oh, I don't doubt it for a second that there are great individual counsellors out there, and mine swaps packs with me all the time. I suspect the problem arises when people either don't do more than a couple of days of a week, and then quit, sign up for a four-week refresher (you have to take the packs for for weeks upfront), or buy loads more than they need. My counsellor is excellent (LL) - she always swaps packs I don't like, and I know that if you pay for 4 weeks of a refresher, but don't complete it, you have the remainder on credit if you go back. I also know that's not the case with all counsellors, and if one has the choice between credit they'll never use and a 100% profit, a lot of people are going to select the second option.

What I'm basically saying in my initial post is that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot the companies can do other than supplying people with the bare minimum of what they need, and allowing returns or refunds if one doesn't complete a term they've signed up for (which also sort of seems unfair). Otherwise, we're just hoping that clients will not sell on e-Bay out of concern for others and the Program names. Problem is, if they haven't stuck with the programs long enough to see fantastic results, that's not likely to happen, is it?

K.
 
My CDC is the same - she lets me have around 4-5 days spare, but always lets me have loads of tetras cos im a bugger for living off them only :)
She always swaps my packs too - like when i found out i was sensitive to the soups she changed to all my favourite shakes and gave me a few freebies cos i was poorly!

That's why i love CDC's, they know how to excite you after a few weeks SS! teeheehee xxxx
 
perhaps someone could do a sale on ebay, but without selling anything, pointing out the pitfalls of buying on line, and maybe the www.addresses of LL/CD/W8 etc, and the ACTUAL costs of the things so people realise just how much they are being ripped off? If the starting price was 1p then you could get lots of lookers and therefore potential new customers once they realise how to go about it.
 
Well, that's what I'm saying - it's Lighter Life's problem, not ours.

Right now, they can't prevent it any more than I can prevent people from coughing on me on the tube or spitting on the sidewalk. People are going to do what they're going to do.

K.
 
Am I alone in not really giving a toss what anyone else decides to buy or not buy on e-bay? Let them get on with it!

:p

I'm sure that lots of people don't give a damn, but there again, there's many of us who do care about vulnerable people being conned.

Well, that's what I'm saying - it's Lighter Life's problem, not ours.

Well yes, it is their problem, not ours, but then if I was a registered gun user, I would be concerned about people selling guns to anybody.
 
I know, but it's not in my power to do anything. THAT is what I'm saying. It's not my problem because I CANNOT do anything, other than not sell them on e-Bay and hope that people don't buy them. I think it's risky not only for VLCD reasons, but there is always a risk in buying food or medicine from an unknown source that could have been improperly stored or even tampered with.

If it's not illegal, the fact that it's not right and potentially damaging is my OPINION. That is why I have tons of foodpacks that I won't sell on e-Bay, but feel that I don't have the RIGHT to tell anyone else that they should not.
 
Just want to add one thing to this - I have posted elsewhere that my very skinny daughter purchased packs of LT on ebay because there was no way anyone official would sell them to her at her size. (She was an 8 wanting to be a 6 :eek:)

However, the return address for the packs was a pharmacy.....
 
I know, but it's not in my power to do anything. THAT is what I'm saying. It's not my problem because I CANNOT do anything, other than not sell them on e-Bay and hope that people don't buy them.

Yes, I understand that. There is little we can do except talk about the dangers of it, which hopefully these threads are doing.
but feel that I don't have the RIGHT to tell anyone else that they should not.
Agreed, but I don't think any members of this forum really mean to use that tone.

If someone came on here and said "I have anorexia and can't get my packs from a counsellor, so I'm going off to Ebay to get them, then I reckon a few of us would try to talk her out of it. If I went into a chat room and a young girl told me that she was meeting up with an older chap she had met in another chat room, again, I would suggest that she didn't. Wouldn't dream of telling her what she must or mustn't do;) I would worry for her though. I'm just not the type to think "oh well...her problem".

Just want to add one thing to this - I have posted elsewhere that my very skinny daughter purchased packs of LT on ebay because there was no way anyone official would sell them to her at her size. (She was an 8 wanting to be a 6 :eek:)

However, the return address for the packs was a pharmacy.....

:eek:
 
Did someone mention a Gonk?!
 
I'm not sure what you're implying about my feelings on the issue, but I'm going to leave it here.

I certainly would advise others who don't meet the criteria for the diet not to purchase the sachets anywhere. I certainly wouldn't sit silently and watch people engage in activities that were dangerous, whether that be dieting, meeting men on the internet (?!), taking drugs, or what have you. Advising them is not the same as preventing them, though, and it doesn't mean I don't care what happens to other people (which in fact I do, quite a bit).

The intent behind my original post is to suggest that it might be a good idea for it to be a policy in all of the counsellor's offices to either carefully monitor the packets being purchased, offer refunds for packs or outstanding fees, make it clear that people don't need to feel ashamed or embarrassed if they decide not to do the diet and want to return the packs, or make it more difficult/ less profitable to sell them. This would make them less available to the people most likely to be harmed. And they can do this because it's their trademarked products and they have the resources to investigate and plan a solution that will be effective.
 
Back
Top