I wonder what trade secrets they would have shared that made Britney Brands go with them so quickly. Like was it insight into the actual revenue that wasn’t previously disclosed by Revlon or something.. Totally out of my depth but am curious
Simply knowing the details of the prior contract would be an enormous competitive advantage. Immediately allows you to undercut terms and pricing on the grounds of information that you shouldn't have had.
But beyond that, it's also about knowing all the details of the Britney brand's current manufacturing processes, stock levels, shipping times etc... instead of having to build all of that for yourself, and pose a risk of disruption in the transfer that might be less appealing to the brand, you can piggyback off of knowledge of Revlon's existing set up.
as former employees it def sounds like high possibility of stealing info and going against their contracts doing something like this. but at the same time id like to hope they would realize that and make sure to double check anything they did was legal. like just even knowing about brits contract and the deets of renewal terms/timelines could be iffy.
The timing is definitely suspicious. Even just on its face it's a surprising decision to take a brand this size from Revlon, a partner of 20 years with a long and successful history in the industry, to a new label still in its infancy as a company rather than e.g. Estee Lauder.
But then you add in the advanced stage they were at with the Revlon re-negotiation, the insane speed with which they've signed with a wholly new partner when you'd expect that to take *longer* than a renewal, and the sudden exodus of execs (all of whom are probably in breach of non-compete clauses even if they didn't actually spill trade secrets)? I don't blame Revlon for smelling several rats here.
I was thinking of non-compete clauses when I was reading the posts. I was wondering how high up the ladders were these former employees.
It's one thing to go to work for an already existing competitor company but to create a new one and "compete directly" or "steal" existing clients without a few years in between can be iffy and may breach some clauses.
When negotiations began in late 2023, the company says it had “every expectation that the relationship would continue.”
If they treated renewal contracts the way my last company treated them, it's not surprising that they got shafted, especially by someone who had all the prior contract information.
Comments 9
Reply
But beyond that, it's also about knowing all the details of the Britney brand's current manufacturing processes, stock levels, shipping times etc... instead of having to build all of that for yourself, and pose a risk of disruption in the transfer that might be less appealing to the brand, you can piggyback off of knowledge of Revlon's existing set up.
Reply
like just even knowing about brits contract and the deets of renewal terms/timelines could be iffy.
Reply
But then you add in the advanced stage they were at with the Revlon re-negotiation, the insane speed with which they've signed with a wholly new partner when you'd expect that to take *longer* than a renewal, and the sudden exodus of execs (all of whom are probably in breach of non-compete clauses even if they didn't actually spill trade secrets)? I don't blame Revlon for smelling several rats here.
Reply
It's one thing to go to work for an already existing competitor company but to create a new one and "compete directly" or "steal" existing clients without a few years in between can be iffy and may breach some clauses.
Reply
Reply
If they treated renewal contracts the way my last company treated them, it's not surprising that they got shafted, especially by someone who had all the prior contract information.
Reply
Leave a comment