Quote"But, you've in no way proved that RLPL is profitable"Quote Did I not say: "I hope that when RL aims RLPL toward something, it is profit, as RLPL has from a financial standpoint been less than viable, costing the company money rather than making it." ?
My mistake; I missed this.
I mentioned that it does not make sense as to direct profitability, I cannot speculate as to a greater "˜halo' effect, nor is the case that I cannot understand the "˜halo' effect, just that it is beyond my current writings which are directed at profits made only through the sale of RLPL items.
That is not how I read your comments; I believed you asserted that the RLPL is run for standalone profits. If you never asserted this, I apologize. (Although I suggest you re-read your posts to see how this was the impression.)
And then RLPL fragrances appeared on the market, and the only reason I can assume this is to profit from the RLPL brand name (directly)...or is the RLPL fragrance an attempted to make people purchase Polo fragrances? (Which, incidentally has been on the market for quite sometime and has been popular all on its own).
I hope you realize this is a totally facile argument. No one said that the company wouldn't hope to achieve profits from RLPL, just that they might continue the line even in the face of losses, and that standalone profits might not be the primary objective of the RLPL line. Given that the fragrance line is likely licensed, why would they turn down the revenues, plus the benefits from the marketing of the fragrance? I know nothing of this fragrance, but I assume it is a premium priced product, which I would suggest would again help to elevate the image of our friend Ralph's products more generally.