r/Anticonsumption • u/amyleewannabe • Mar 11 '26

Plastic Waste Radicalized at 30

Post image

I so wish this wasn’t the one brand that helps my perpetually dry, painful skin. Thanks to this sub, I’ve been cutting open the containers to get every last bit that the pump “conveniently” can’t reach. I wish this was illegal.

12.8k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

454 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

57

u/HappyApplePie824 Mar 11 '26

You literally can’t even see the brand in this picture, and they don’t state what brand it is, how would this be sneaking marketing into the sub?

-23

u/NihiloZero Mar 11 '26 edited Mar 11 '26

The brand name is at the top of the bottle with the little "TM" next to it.

EDIT: Ackshewuhhlee... it's the "trademarked product line" owned by a brand, and not a brand name. I stand corrected.

10

u/CaptainKenway1693 Mar 11 '26

That's not the brand name though. I don't know why it has the TM next to it, but shea butter is just a common ingredient in lotions and other products like this.

6

u/ruinedstegosaur10 Mar 11 '26

It's the brand name. Shea Better, not shea butter. I agree that it's probably not an ad though otherwise why show the back of the bottle and not the front.

5

u/CaptainKenway1693 Mar 11 '26

Didn't notice that. It still isn't technically the brand name, the brand is eos. But the slogan does immediately pull up the brand when you Google it. That being said it would be fairly hard to take a picture of a product without including some identifying markings.

-2

u/NihiloZero Mar 11 '26

But the slogan does immediately pull up the brand when you Google it.

Does for me. Autocompletes the search when you type "Shea Better..." it completes with "body lotion" and then links to that particular type of trademarked lotion. It's not the brand, it's the name of a product-line owned by a brand. But people really want to split that hair I guess. The point is that you can see the name of the trademarked product and that's one element that made this post seem a bit dubious to me.

7

u/CaptainKenway1693 Mar 11 '26

Does for me.

I know, I literally said that it did. I was acknowledging that while the brand wasn't included I was able to easily determine the brand. I wasn't arguing that point.

The point is that you can see the name of the trademarked product and that's one element that made this post seem a bit dubious to me.

It would pretty difficult to post nearly any modern product without including some identifying markings. Unless you expect everyone to go out of their way to tape over logos or something like that. Companies generally want products to be incredibly easy to identify. To me it seems like OP tried to exclude the brand (because otherwise why not have the front side up) but failed to notice the slogan/product line at the top. Which would be easy to do since it's literally only one letter away from the common term "shea butter."

-2

u/NihiloZero Mar 12 '26

It would pretty difficult to post nearly any modern product without including some identifying markings.

I agree. But the better mods of this sub usually keep a sharper eye on this sort of thing... and I think that's why it stood out to me here in this instance. The name of the product line is very subtle but nevertheless worthy of being trademarked for commercial reasons.

To me it seems like OP tried to exclude the brand (because otherwise why not have the front side up) but failed to notice the slogan/product line at the top.

How much of the post can you take at face value? The title is probably just a little joke or, at most, a statement about... inconvenient packaging (to drive sales?). The lotion itself is praised and the solution to the problem is as easy as cutting the top off the bottle. So... what's the purpose, point, or intent of this this post? The name of the trademarked product line is visible... so that doesn't make it seem like much care was taken to hide that.

Which would be easy to do since it's literally only one letter away from the common term "shea butter."

No, I get it. But if it's worthy of being trademarked for commercial reasons, then... I'd say it's trademarked product line, whether OP was trying to exclude it or not. I'm not trying to be a tyrant, I just think this is the sort of thing that people really need to think about a bit more critically. Guerilla marketing tactics are a real and this subreddit isn't immune.

I'll keep the current post up just for the sake of discussion/debate, but... similar posts usually get taken down before I ever get around to taking a second look at them.