Skip to main content

the currency gouging index

i'm starting to include references to this more and more as i post. you'll notice it mostly in posts related to cosmetics, because those are where there is a clear difference in canadian versus u.s. prices.

canadian vs u.s. dollar 2010- 2011
basically, the story is this:

the canadian dollar is worth more than the american dollar and has been for several months. in fact, for the last couple of years, we've been dancing with parity on an ongoing basis. many canadian consumers can accept the fact that our import taxes are a little higher, or that there is duty to be paid on imported goods, but considering that for every canadian dollar paid, american companies are making money if they charge the same price as they do to americans. [e.g., using yesterday's exchange rate from the bank of canada- a product sold at $25usd to a canadian customer would net $25.81usd if the customer paid in canadian dollars]

we are a reasonable people. most of us do not mind paying a couple of extra dollars for the convenience of being able to buy in our own country [although even saying that seems weird], but there are limits and many companies insist on pushing those limits. and so i give you the cosmetics "currency gouging" hall of shame/ fame for summer 2011. [i'm choosing cosmetics because the price changes from country to country. buying music is paid in usd and costs the same no matter what currency is in your bank account, which makes it an awesome time to buy music. i'm perfectly willing to look at any other industries if people are interested.]

hall of shame

armani- hmm... one eyes to kill eye shadow in the u.s.= $32. in canada? $42. one rouge d'armani lipstick in the u.s.= $30. in canada? $38. are you f**king kidding me? armani products are stellar, but you're going to have to do a lot of convincing to get me to believe they're that much better in canada than they are in the united states.

m.a.c.- well, at first glance, the differences don't seem so huge- $14.50usd vs. $17.50cad for a lipstick or eye shadow- until you consider that m.a.c. are a f**king canadian company. seriously, despite the fact that they were purchased by estee lauder, their head office is still located in toronto [ok, technically newmarket, but they're seriously a block and a half north]. they should be charging us less!

givenchy- you'll see in my previous post that the pricing for a gloss from givenchy is $29cad versus $26.50usd. that's not so bad, right? well no, but on my on line order, i got dinged an extra $1.88 on the givenchy gloss only for "duty". what the hell is the inflated canadian price covering if it's not the extra import taxes we call "duty"? you're double dipping, givenchy.

hall of fame

guerlain- i was originally just going to make this a hall of shame, but i felt that i would be doing a disservice. guerlain are a really expensive brand, which is kind of sad because more people should be able to enjoy their products. the one thing that you can say about guerlain is that they're pretty much equally out of reach no matter what side of the border you stand on. price of a rouge g in the u.s.? $46. in canada? $50. price of a limited edition rouge g lipstick in the u.s.? $47. in canada? $50. that little differential is actually a key component of the guerlain pricing strategy. in fact, permanent products are priced above [but not grossly above] the exchange rate, but limited edition products are priced much closer to the current exchange rate. in fact, guerlain's limited edition blush/ bronzer powders are priced the same or less in canada as they are in the u.s. why do that when the regular products maintain a difference? guerlain is being very smart. they know that with the canadian dollar at parity or above, selling at the same price is a winning proposition. so for products that are only available a limited time, why not offer them at the same price? for permanent products, they are betting that, over the long term, the canadian dollar will be lower than the american, so it makes sense to guard permanent prices higher to protect themselves from a cad collapse. smart, smart, smart business and an excellent way to curry favour with the folks north of the border.

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …