Guest viewing is limited

Pink magic price drop-your voices have been heard!

WilteredFire said:
Hey guess how cheap pink magic is here in the UK at one place? They're really glad about it too! Anybody wanna take a guess?

£60. Aboutttttttt, lets say 90bucks near todays exchange rate with the GbpUsd. Wonder how many people are actually going to be buying it. Now that im working with a supplement company here, dont think Id recommend them to stock a supplement as high priced as this.

Hope for the sake of consumers it can come down drastically to a more sensible price in the UK.
Click to expand...

It is hard to use UK prices as a proper gauge. They are usually considerably higher than the US ones, even after adjusting for shipping, import taxes, and a small profit margin.
 
iForce said:
Everyone complaining about the price needs to learn simple business. When company A(USP labs or any company) makes a product, they must make a certain profit % on that item for them to even consider selling it. From there, the distributor who buys it and resells it is required to make their profit, and finally a store must buy it and yet again make a certain % profit.

It's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

Economics 101. Reps!
 
matthew76 said:
Price is dictated by getting your product picked up at large distributers (GNC, Lone Star, Etc). I have no doubt that raw material weighs the price as well, but shaking hands with GNC comes with a cost (from consumers). Larger distributers will not pick up product x if they will not make money on it.
Click to expand...

I already covered that class...

iForce said:
Everyone complaining about the price needs to learn simple business. When company A(USP labs or any company) makes a product, they must make a certain profit % on that item for them to even consider selling it. From there, the distributor who buys it and resells it is required to make their profit, and finally a store must buy it and yet again make a certain % profit.

It's the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...
 
strategicmove said:
It is hard to use UK prices as a proper gauge. They are usually considerably higher than the US ones, even after adjusting for shipping, import taxes, and a small profit margin.
Click to expand...

I'd hate to imagine what the Australian supplement stores are going to try to flog this off for.... They were still selling Jack3d for around 90-100 bucks a tub when our dollar was almost equal with the US.
 
ProteinMurder said:
Two bottles for $70 and I'd be all over it like stink on a monkey, much like everyone else I'm guessing *nudge nudge, wink wink*

Otherwise......WAY to much for Herbs.
Click to expand...

We respect your opinion but the above will never happen with PM.

We don't even have enough for the current demand and that will be the issue with PM for at least a year or maybe 2....selling PM will never be the issue but trying to keep up with the demand.

The are extracting specifically and we need a boat load of herb to produce a small amount of extracts.

I could sell you the crude herb for $70 all day long....
 
matthew76 said:
Like the beta testers that did not purchase the product? No. Censorship at its finest.
Click to expand...

Removing a comment by an individual that did not use a product from a product review section has nothing to do with true censorship. It assures correctness and fairness. Potential buyers that want to base their purchase decisions on published reviews should be able to go through genuine reviews, positive or negative, before making their choices. Fake reviews (reviews by individuals that never used the product in question), whether positive or negative, are not only unfair to genuine reviewers (those that actually used the product before posting their comments), but will also ultimately mislead potential buyers. This is contrary to the intended purpose of product reviews. Hence, this is why fake reviews should be removed, and this is also why this removal is not censorship in the classical sense.

Now to beta testers. If you review the logs of beta testers, you should observe that Pink Magic (in its weaker beta version compared to the current version) received a resounding vote of approval. As is usual in beta-testing situations, beta testers are not obliged to buy the final product. This was not different in the case of Pink Magic. Yet, I do not know of many beta testers that were Inner-Circle members, received the Inner Circle Pink Magic e-mail, had funds at the time, and did not buy Pink Magic. If any beta tester did not buy Pink Magic, it was certainly not because he did not like the beta product.
 
matthew76 said:
Like the beta testers that did not purchase the product? No. Censorship at its finest.
Click to expand...

I suppose you read it to comment on it?

If you read it and you believe that was censorship, you are just picking a fight on a forum.

Did you read it?
 
strategicmove said:
Removing a comment by an individual that did not use a product from a product review section has nothing to do with true censorship. It assures correctness and fairness. Potential buyers that want to base their purchase decisions on published reviews should be able to go through genuine reviews, positive or negative, before making their choices. Fake reviews (reviews by individuals that never used the product in question), whether positive or negative, are not only unfair to genuine reviewers (those that actually used the product before posting their comments), but will also ultimately mislead potential buyers. This is contrary to the intended purpose of product reviews. Hence, this is why fake reviews should be removed, and this is also why this removal is not censorship in the classical sense.

Now to beta testers. If you review the logs of beta testers, you should observe that Pink Magic (in its weaker beta version compared to the current version) received a resounding vote of approval. As is usual in beta-testing situations, beta testers are not obliged to buy the final product. This was not different in the case of Pink Magic. Yet, I do not know of many beta testers that were Inner-Circle members, received the Inner Circle Pink Magic e-mail, had funds at the time, and did not buy Pink Magic. If any beta tester did not buy Pink Magic, it was certainly not because he did not like the beta product.
Click to expand...

It wasn't even a review on the product.....he is just being silly.
 
I am in no way picking a, "fight."
WTF?
Hater, non-responder, now picking fights? Come on Jacob, I was simply making an observation that if the bad one was removed (which if you re-read the first page, you will see that I fully agreed with that), but to have reviews for a product that is not even being SOLD at that time is a bit one-sided. In the past, Nutra would remove all of them saying, "the product has not been released to our customers yet, so the reviews were taken down." You would even agree that it was the correct thing to do. What's different now? This happened with PRIME, by the way.

I digress. I am sure a, “Review PM and WIN,” thread will pop up soon enough.


USPLabs said:
I suppose you read it to comment on it?

If you read it and you believe that was censorship, you are just picking a fight on a forum.

Did you read it?
Click to expand...
 
matthew76 said:
I am in no way picking a, "fight."
WTF?
Hater, non-responder, now picking fights? Come on Jacob, I was simply making an observation that if the bad one was removed (which if you re-read the first page, you will see that I fully agreed with that), but to have reviews for a product that is not even being SOLD at that time is a bit one-sided. In the past, Nutra would remove all of them saying, "the product has not been released to our customers yet, so the reviews were taken down." You would even agree that it was the correct thing to do. What's different now? This happened with PRIME, by the way.

I digress. I am sure a, “Review PM and WIN,” thread will pop up soon enough.
Click to expand...



It wasn't a review of Pink Magic, it was a trashing of PRIME.
 
pink magic will never compare to steroids.

want safety, you can get way better gains from a 6 week cycle of hd, and use otc products as a pct.

and those will be gains worth paying for, without the sides.

i'll take primordial performance's turinabol over some herbs and spices any day.
 
jbryand101b said:
pink magic will never compare to steroids.

want safety, you can get way better gains from a 6 week cycle of hd, and use otc products as a pct.

and those will be gains worth paying for, without the sides.

i'll take primordial performance's turinabol over some herbs and spices any day.
Click to expand...

Who compared Pink Magic to steroids?

What is hd?
 
I compare ever natural supplement to steroids. why, because so far, steroids are the only supplement that do what they claim to do.

hd is 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1,4-diene-3b,17b-diol

one of the safest ds on the market, if not the safest.
 
jbryand101b said:
I compare ever natural supplement to steroids. why, because so far, steroids are the only supplement that do what they claim to do.

hd is 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1,4-diene-3b,17b-diol

one of the safest ds on the market, if not the safest.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's safe?
 
because there is years of research on what it converts to 4-chloro dehydromethyltestosterone.

which I have used both.

and I feel my knowledge on anabolics is pretty solid, and I think most members would agree.

but aside from the anecdotal evidence from users of hd over the years, there is data based evidence to support it.

this isn't saying it cannot be abused, and not used in a safe manner. this is to say, if used properly, will provide dramatic results compared to any natural product, with very minimal side effects, and those will subside after ceasing the compound.
 
I have not used pink magic, or any of usp labs products. and this is due to the cost of them.

I cant justify the cost:benifit.

so I have no idea how well the product works, but so far, nothing I've used gives the results of anabolics.

and If I didn't use anabolics, from what i've learned as an exs major, I dont see why I cant achieve the best results naturally without using other products besides food, protein, creatine, water.
 
jbryand101b said:
because there is years of research on what it converts to 4-chloro dehydromethyltestosterone.

which I have used both.

and I feel my knowledge on anabolics is pretty solid, and I think most members would agree.

but aside from the anecdotal evidence from users of hd over the years, there is data based evidence to support it.

this isn't saying it cannot be abused, and not used in a safe manner. this is to say, if used properly, will provide dramatic results compared to any natural product, with very minimal side effects, and those will subside after ceasing the compound.
Click to expand...

to each his own...
 
jbryand101b said:
I compare ever natural supplement to steroids. why, because so far, steroids are the only supplement that do what they claim to do.

hd is 4-chloro-17a-methyl-androst-1,4-diene-3b,17b-diol

one of the safest ds on the market, if not the safest.
Click to expand...

Steroids are not consideredas supplements, the rest may be true about no comparison to steroids.
Supplements add to but steroids replace natural hormones.
 
USPLabs said:
to each his own...
Click to expand...

I smiled when I saw this, because I also wanted to post exactly the same four words in response to his comments!
 
hardknock said:
Steroids are not consideredas supplements, the rest may be true about no comparison to steroids.
Supplements add to but steroids replace natural hormones.
Click to expand...

Good post!
 
how do you figure.

steroids dont replace your hormones. your body sense the extra, and slows production of it's own. but it is still producing it's own testosterone. just much lowered levels.

only reason herbal test booster dont cause your body to cease production of its natural hormones, is because they arent strong enough to do so.


obviously herbal test boosters and pharmacologic test boosters are in different leagues.

but the goal is ultimately the same, to increase the anabolic/androgenic levels high enough to lead to desired effects.

with one, you are supplementing with herbs and spices. with another, you are supplementing with synthetic, chemically altered hormones.

coming round circle, we feel the way we feel, and I feel it isn't worth the money.

however, if you gave me a list of the ingredients, and how much of each is in each serving, (none of that proprietary blend bull crap) then i'd be able to research them, and make an intelligent decision on whether it is worth the money or not.

other people obviously feel different. :D
 
jbryand101b said:
...


obviously herbal test boosters and pharmacologic test boosters are in different leagues....
Click to expand...

"Pharmacologic test boosters"? What are these and what does this phrase mean?
 
hardknock said:
Steroids are not consideredas supplements, the rest may be true about no comparison to steroids.
Supplements add to but steroids replace natural hormones.
Click to expand...

A steroid not yet banned but sold without FDA regulation would still be considered a supplement. At least by technicality. Furthermore, a supplement is anything extra you are deciding to supplement your normal processes and diet with.

Guess I'll be supplementing my diet with some turinabol lv hehe. Bang for the buck.
 
USPLabs said:
Yes, the manufacturing process takes 2 weeks.

Silly.

that statement is almost as sloppy as Fedors last fight..
Click to expand...

You're a smart businessman.

I bet you laugh at every dumbass who shells out their hard earned money for "Pink Magic", laughing all the way to the bank.
 
JohnT said:
I suggest you look up FIXED COSTS vs. VARIABLE COSTS, this better explains the "price drop".
Click to expand...
Here's some reading for you...
 

Attachments

  • Con-Terr.jpg
    Con-Terr.jpg
    20.1 KB · Views: 319
Ubiyca said:
I suggest you look up "being taken for a ride" because that's what's happening to you if you buy into this crap.
Click to expand...

Do you consider yourself on a mission to dissuade others from buying a particular product you label as crap? Why do you feel you have to go to this extent to repeat yourself? What exactly is your objective?
 
Ubiyca said:
You're a smart businessman.

I bet you laugh at every dumbass who shells out their hard earned money for "Pink Magic", laughing all the way to the bank.
Click to expand...

Just laughing at how emotional men can get on a forum simply over the name of a supplement.

Reminds me of the images of Men Crying at a Michael Jackson concert in the 80s....

For a NAME to evoke such emotion and passion in men is one of the best business moves in the history of USPLabs.

The hysteria is off the charts.

We definitely need to add a "tear" smiley face to the list when men discuss Pink Magic.
 
USPLabs said:
Just laughing at how emotional men can get on a forum simply over the name of a supplement.

Reminds me of the images of Men Crying at a Michael Jackson concert in the 80s....

For a NAME to evoke such emotion and passion in men is one of the best business moves in the history of USPLabs.

The hysteria is off the charts.

We definitely need to add a "tear" smiley face to the list when men discuss Pink Magic.
Click to expand...

Uhhh.. what?

First off, who's getting emotional.. besides maybe yourself?

Second, It's not the name we care about, although yes, it is probably the gayest name for a sports supplement in the history of supplements. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

That said, I admire your business and marketing skills. You know how to generate a tremendous amount of hype, trust (IC deals) and promise. I bet a lot of other company guys are jealous/envious of your slick marketing skills.
 
Ubiyca said:
Uhhh.. what?

First off, who's getting emotional.. besides maybe yourself?

Second, It's not the name we care about, although yes, it is probably the gayest name for a sports supplement in the history of supplements. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

That said, I admire your business and marketing skills. You know how to generate a tremendous amount of hype, trust (IC deals) and promise. I bet a lot of other company guys are jealous/envious of your slick marketing skills.
Click to expand...

:32:
 
I think where theres money involved like in this industry, I dont think people are really going to reveal their "real" profit margins...At the end of the day if somebody was to tell you they sold you a product with a cut throat profit margin, how can you really trust them when it comes to money matters? And im not talking about USP but the supplement companys in general. No matter what they all say regarding their high prices and profit margins, at the end of the day...Can the consumers really trust for 101% what they're telling us about their pricing is real or not? And why would any business tell their customers the truth about their pricing anyway, wouldn't that hurt their business I wonder?

I had an experience before buying a computer product where a company worker told me they couldn't price match a particular product because it had a "very low profit margin" ... While their competing company was offering the same product for a few bucks less...And the company I was buying from on the other hand had a scheme with another website whereby they give ANY customers upto 10% cashback on their purchase...Wtf? What happened to the low profit margin then? Where did that 10% come out from then? Why not knock the product back 10% instead of making rubbish claims about a low profit margin?

And this was on a product that was costing over $70 ... I doubt a companys going to a stock a heavy ass electronic product for a measly 2-3$ profit, what a crock of crap honestly. After this experience with this PC product, it really brings bad memories when in the supplement industry I hear about something being sold at near cost price or having a very low profit margin, It really makes me think that should I even trust such a statement?

I hope this gives a different perspective on things regardless of what people say about pricing and manufacturing and all the middlemen involved etc. If there wasn't enough profit involved for everybody they wouldn't bother doing business IMO. Im sure everybody somewhere is making good profits.
 
Oh forgot to mention ... Just was buying some high quality engine oil for my car, a Mobil brand oil...1 or 2 of the retailers here in the UK said to me they wont price match as they also have a "low profit margin" (cough cough BS cough cough) .... Lo and behold I got in touch with a guy online who was selling them, I happened to pick up the same engine oil for about 20-25% cheaper and that was only because that guy was told by MOBIL to not lower HIS price as it was a "premium product" ... Otherwise I would have got the product for about 30-40% cheaper then the cheapest shop price, delivered from ONLINE....So again in that situation, WTF happened to the companys low profit margin? This guy doesn't even have the buying power that this shop had, but yet this big retailer has a "cut throat margin". Laughable honestly. Pisses you off though when you hear about a low profit margin and then you can pickup the same product for fair bit cheaper elsewhere, Just doesn't make sense.
 
strategicmove said:
"Pharmacologic test boosters"? What are these and what does this phrase mean?
Click to expand...


really man, you are a rep for the company. I dont want to come off like an ass for a product no consumer knows anything about d/t the "secret" ingredients.

but, do they just make anybody a rep for companies?

Adj. 1. pharmacologic - of or relating to pharmacology

phar·ma·col·o·gy (färm-kl-j)
n.
1. The science of drugs, including their composition, uses, and effects.
2. The characteristics or properties of a drug, especially those that make it medically effective.

pharma·co·logic (-k-ljk), pharma·co·logi·cal (--kl) adj.
pharma·co·logi·cal·ly adv.
pharma·colo·gist n.
----------------------------
:deal:
Pharmacology (from Greek φάρμακον, pharmakon, "drug"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of drug action.[1] More specifically, it is the study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function. If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals. The field encompasses drug composition and properties, interactions, toxicology, therapy, and medical applications and antipathogenic capabilities. The two main areas of pharmacology are Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics. The former studies the effects of the drugs on biological systems, and the latter the effects of biological systems on the drugs. In broad terms, Pharmacodynamics discusses the interactions of chemicals with biological Receptors, and Pharmacokinetics discusses the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of chemicals from the biological systems. Pharmacology is not synonymous with pharmacy, which is the name used for a profession, though in common usage the two terms are confused at times. Pharmacology deals with how drugs interact within biological systems to affect function. It is the study of drugs, of the reactions of the body and drug on each other, the sources of drugs, their nature, and their properties. In contrast, pharmacy is a biomedical science concerned with preparation, dispensing, dosage, and the safe and effective use of medicines.

Dioscorides' De Materia Medica is often said to be the oldest and most valuable work in the history of pharmacology.[2] The origins of clinical pharmacology date back to the Middle Ages in Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine, Peter of Spain's Commentary on Isaac, and John of St Amand's Commentary on the Antedotary of Nicholas.[3] Clinical pharmacology owes much of its foundation to the work of William Withering.[4] Pharmacology as a scientific discipline did not further advance until the mid-19th century amid the great biomedical resurgence of that period.[5] Before the second half of the nineteenth century, the remarkable potency and specificity of the actions of drugs such as morphine, quinine and digitalis were explained vaguely and with reference to extraordinary chemical powers and affinities to certain organs or tissues.[6] The first pharmacology department was set up by Buchheim in 1847, in recognition of the need to understand how therapeutic drugs and poisons produced their effects.[5]

Early pharmacologists focused on natural substances, mainly plant extracts. Pharmacology developed in the 19th century as a biomedical science that applied the principles of scientific experimentation to therapeutic contexts.[7]


lets just say, okay jb, you are right, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. and call it a day.

obviously no one can say this product is crap. as no one knows whats in it except usp labs.

but you guys really do deserve the anamosity. you charge high prices in a time like this, and dont have the respectability to give consumers the ability to research the ingredients and make an informed decision.

(usp labs) :deal: "buy pink magic, it's amazing, trust us"

(usp labs view of the customer) :32: "duh, okay, looks awsome"
 
jbryand101b said:
you charge high prices in a time like this, and dont have the respectability to give consumers the ability to research the ingredients and make an informed decision.

(usp labs) :deal: "buy pink magic, it's amazing, trust us"

(usp labs view of the customer) :32: "duh, okay, looks awsome"
Click to expand...
Yeah, but who is responsible for the decision to purchase it? So really it is a matter of who is chasing the carrot even though it is tied to a stick caught in a tornado... you can only make decisions for you in the end.
I do not think USP views the consumer to be ignorant, really.
 
oh i totally agree. consumers who buy something like this only feed the beast.

it's all good though. you gotta play the game, dont let the game play you.
 
jbryand101b said:
really man, you are a rep for the company. I dont want to come off like an ass for a product no consumer knows anything about d/t the "secret" ingredients.

but, do they just make anybody a rep for companies?

Adj. 1. pharmacologic - of or relating to pharmacology

phar·ma·col·o·gy (färm-kl-j)
n.
1. The science of drugs, including their composition, uses, and effects.
2. The characteristics or properties of a drug, especially those that make it medically effective.

pharma·co·logic (-k-ljk), pharma·co·logi·cal (--kl) adj.
pharma·co·logi·cal·ly adv.
pharma·colo·gist n.
----------------------------
:deal:
Pharmacology (from Greek φάρμακον, pharmakon, "drug"; and -λογία, -logia) is the study of drug action.[1] More specifically, it is the study of the interactions that occur between a living organism and chemicals that affect normal or abnormal biochemical function. If substances have medicinal properties, they are considered pharmaceuticals. The field encompasses drug composition and properties, interactions, toxicology, therapy, and medical applications and antipathogenic capabilities. The two main areas of pharmacology are Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics. The former studies the effects of the drugs on biological systems, and the latter the effects of biological systems on the drugs. In broad terms, Pharmacodynamics discusses the interactions of chemicals with biological Receptors, and Pharmacokinetics discusses the absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion of chemicals from the biological systems. Pharmacology is not synonymous with pharmacy, which is the name used for a profession, though in common usage the two terms are confused at times. Pharmacology deals with how drugs interact within biological systems to affect function. It is the study of drugs, of the reactions of the body and drug on each other, the sources of drugs, their nature, and their properties. In contrast, pharmacy is a biomedical science concerned with preparation, dispensing, dosage, and the safe and effective use of medicines.

Dioscorides' De Materia Medica is often said to be the oldest and most valuable work in the history of pharmacology.[2] The origins of clinical pharmacology date back to the Middle Ages in Avicenna's The Canon of Medicine, Peter of Spain's Commentary on Isaac, and John of St Amand's Commentary on the Antedotary of Nicholas.[3] Clinical pharmacology owes much of its foundation to the work of William Withering.[4] Pharmacology as a scientific discipline did not further advance until the mid-19th century amid the great biomedical resurgence of that period.[5] Before the second half of the nineteenth century, the remarkable potency and specificity of the actions of drugs such as morphine, quinine and digitalis were explained vaguely and with reference to extraordinary chemical powers and affinities to certain organs or tissues.[6] The first pharmacology department was set up by Buchheim in 1847, in recognition of the need to understand how therapeutic drugs and poisons produced their effects.[5]

Early pharmacologists focused on natural substances, mainly plant extracts. Pharmacology developed in the 19th century as a biomedical science that applied the principles of scientific experimentation to therapeutic contexts.[7]


lets just say, okay jb, you are right, and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. and call it a day.

obviously no one can say this product is crap. as no one knows whats in it except usp labs.

but you guys really do deserve the anamosity. you charge high prices in a time like this, and dont have the respectability to give consumers the ability to research the ingredients and make an informed decision.

(usp labs) :deal: "buy pink magic, it's amazing, trust us"

(usp labs view of the customer) :32: "duh, okay, looks awsome"
Click to expand...

You see, your problem is that you come across completely arrogant, yet are not able to use the word "pharmacologic" in the correct context. I have a firm grasp of the meaning of pharmacology (and know a lot about the subject, too, by the way), and that was why I wanted you to explain your misuse of "pharmacologic". Feel free to review my post history and you will see multiple uses of the word in the correct context. "Pharmacologic test boosters" as a phrase has no technical meaning! When you write "herbal test boosters and pharmacologic test boosters", it wrongly suggests that these are two different classes of test boosters, but there are no pharmacologic test boosters. Rather both herbal testosterone boosters and synthetic (read hormonal/prohormonal/steroidal) testosterone boosters induce a pharmacologic or pharmacological effect! So, cut your arrogance and learn the concepts first, then learn to apply them correctly!
 
strategicmove is one of the most knowledgeable, helpful people on this forum. whatever you might think of usplabs or pink magic, don't ever think even for one minute that strategic doesn't know his stuff.
 
thebigt said:
strategicmove is one of the most knowledgeable, helpful people on this forum. whatever you might think of usplabs or pink magic, don't ever think even for one minute that strategic doesn't know his stuff.
Click to expand...

of course he is...its part of his strategy
 
USP Labs needs to release a potent herbal formulation called "Green Magic."

It would be the perfect PCT protocol to chill out all this Pink Magic induced rage.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top