3 ms·

The Noka Chocolate scam: reselling a competitor's product after rebranding it

• gus_massa 14y ago
  There is a link to the second (and 3 .. 10) part at the bottom of the page. It's difficult to see because its color is light grey.
  • e1ven 14y ago
    Wow! Thank you! I was very confused how to read the rest of the story, noted the date, and realized it HAD to be finished, and was about to google for each section.. Very helpful, thank you.
• abhayb 14y ago
  The title is somewhat inaccurate/misleading. The conclusion the blog comes to is that there are far better chocolates available for far less and that Noka are intensionally obtuse and misleading about how their chocolate is made and where it comes from. Their site and other marketing material gave the impression that they oversaw the entire chocolate making process from "bean to bar", while in actuality they bought blocks for chocolate from what Dallas Food found to be Valrhona. This buying of chocolate and "rebranding" it is commonplace and accepted. What is not accepted or acceptable is concealing the source of the chocolate and misleading potential buyers. The real issue (I wouldn't call it a scam) is that Noka doesn't seem to add any value while marking up the chocolate massively. And while being evasive about the chocolate's provenance. Once again, reselling and "rebranding" chocolate is no different from the OEM-Brand Company relationship and is not an issue.
• Evbn 14y ago
  How does reselling someone's product make them a "competitor"? In the world of luxury chocolate, price is the main feature. If it were lower priced, customers would be less satisfied.