/Bad Dragon General/

[GreenLeopard87]

I'm ready for February cause I gotta see what the new dessert color will beeeee! Hopefully they're not going to be cheap and just make the vday colors all month.

I don't want any toys right now but if the color is right, I can find something to want lol.

Does DamnAverage do a whole Valentine's thing? Would they put their food colors over hers?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they compete or impose on one another (although many will jump to disagree with me). EE has done some incredible food/dessert themed pours also. I think most of the forum goers are respectful of all the major silicone artists and get the toys that best suit their needs and tickle their fancies. I have a lot of DA toys and some of them are in chocolate themes. DAs marbles look best, almost like those Guylian Belgian chocolates! But BD does highlights very well. And if there's a chocolate highlight that I like, that would be reason for me to try a new toy! EE on the other hand is so precise in their work, they literally put the cherry on top. Each has their strengths and they cater to many different tastes (no pun intended) and fantasies.

I'm just excited for these themes because they bring back some of the uniqueness of colorations that were taken away when there were manufacturing limitations imposed on some things. It keeps things fresh while presenting consistency. If I order a turquoise toy, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get. Which is what BD seems to be striving for as there was a lot of discontent about color and quality consistency. The gem, planet, and now dessert themes are super fun! And there seems to be a good amount of support from the community for them as well!

[Roverseer2]

I'm ready for February cause I gotta see what the new dessert color will beeeee! Hopefully they're not going to be cheap and just make the vday colors all month.

I don't want any toys right now but if the color is right, I can find something to want lol.

Does DamnAverage do a whole Valentine's thing? Would they put their food colors over hers?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they compete or impose on one another (although many will jump to disagree with me). EE has done some incredible food/dessert themed pours also. I think most of the forum goers are respectful of all the major silicone artists and get the toys that best suit their needs and tickle their fancies. I have a lot of DA toys and some of them are in chocolate themes. DAs marbles look best, almost like those Guylian Belgian chocolates! But BD does highlights very well. And if there's a chocolate highlight that I like, that would be reason for me to try a new toy! EE on the other hand is so precise in their work, they literally put the cherry on top. Each has their strengths and they cater to many different tastes (no pun intended) and fantasies.

I'm just excited for these themes because they bring back some of the uniqueness of colorations that were taken away when there were manufacturing limitations imposed on some things. It keeps things fresh while presenting consistency. If I order a turquoise toy, I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to get. Which is what BD seems to be striving for as there was a lot of discontent about color and quality consistency. The gem, planet, and now dessert themes are super fun! And there seems to be a good amount of support from the community for them as well!

I don't think a few dessert-themed pours are the same as having a whole dessert event, but I see where you're coming from. I also haven't really seen BD bringing back many of the customization options they lost through events, it seems to always be new marbles? And since they didn't even announce the end of the zodiac theme, it seems kind of weird for them to add another monthly color that they can kind of forget about updating later.

I don't know. It just kind of feels weird to me to start something up that another company has already been doing for years, especially when BD already has a lot of sales and exclusive colors. But maybe that's just me?

[gooedneighbor]

I think "dessert as stand-in for oral sex" imagery is common enough in pop culture that it's probably not ripping off another company. That "Lollipop" song--the old one, I mean--is from the 50's, and the fact that there have been multiple other hit songs with the same concept released since then illustrates the point.

This isn't to say BD has never blatantly ripped off another company. Just that this particular concept predates fantasy silicone dong makers in general and can't be said to be owned by any of them.

[Kisa]

I think "dessert as stand-in for oral sex" imagery is common enough in pop culture that it's probably not ripping off another company. That "Lollipop" song--the old one, I mean--is from the 50's, and the fact that there have been multiple other hit songs with the same concept released since then illustrates the point.

This isn't to say BD has never blatantly ripped off another company. Just that this particular concept predates fantasy silicone dong makers in general and can't be said to be owned by any of them.

I'm one to believe that there is "nothing new under the sun." If you come up with an idea all in your own, and then search around in Google you'd probably find that someone has already done that exact thing, or at least something similar. The only thing you can do is make your idea your own, and add your own personal brand of style to it.

Anything that isn't trademarked or copyrighten us legally up for grabs, and as long as you make something at least slightly different from the "original" than you are legally in the clear.

[karla-chan]

I think "dessert as stand-in for oral sex" imagery is common enough in pop culture that it's probably not ripping off another company. That "Lollipop" song--the old one, I mean--is from the 50's, and the fact that there have been multiple other hit songs with the same concept released since then illustrates the point.

This isn't to say BD has never blatantly ripped off another company. Just that this particular concept predates fantasy silicone dong makers in general and can't be said to be owned by any of them.

I'm one to believe that there is "nothing new under the sun." If you come up with an idea all in your own, and then search around in Google you'd probably find that someone has already done that exact thing, or at least something similar. The only thing you can do is make your idea your own, and add your own personal brand of style to it.

Anything that isn't trademarked or copyrighten us legally up for grabs, and as long as you make something at least slightly different from the "original" than you are legally in the clear.

I think there is a moral be careful not to step on anyone's toes, but there is also some ideas that a really common. So it all depends on how it's presented I think.

I really love the cake themed idea, and a lot. I think as long as BD do it in their own way, and makes sure they look different to what DA is offering, it's fine. People can just choose their own preferences then.

Overall I'm also a really big fan of the themed colours. It's one of my favourite things about the company actually. So I'm glad they are adding more to that list.

[Idra]

I have some... complicated feelings about copyright laws. I see why they were invented, and yes, I think they're a good idea as long as it serves the legitimate purpose of protecting someone's idea. But I also think all art/literature/etc builds off itself, and when you prevent that, you stifle creativity. I'm also not a fan of the way that big corporations abuse copyright laws (especially the walt disney copyright expansion, which is some primo bullshit).

More to the point with this discussion, it really comes down to "has BD done enough to distinguish itself and its dessert ideas from the rest of the people who make fantasy dessert dongs?" and I think that's going to be personal. I mean, "fantasy dessert dongs" is a pretty specific category all by itself. There are some things I would definitely say BD has not made distinct enough (the recent caramel apple pours, for example, are almost identical to some frisky beast caramel apple pours for their eggs -- bright green base color, caramel drips, the only real difference was that BD's highlight was thinner). Now, did they copy FB? Probably not, and it's been a while since FB had those eggs afaik. But that's really not the point -- the point is, they're SO similar and personally I think BD should have chosen a different theme and not replicated pours already made by FB so closely. ESPECIALLY since BD is a much bigger business.

So far the champagne cake color seems pretty different from what I've seen from other makers, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to BD that sweet/dessert items & sex have been together as a concept for a long time. But I know, for example, DA usually has her "discount chocolate day" around February. If BD's February dessert color is heavily chocolate themed, then yeah, you better believe I'm going to be side eyeing them. I get that you could argue "Valentine's day and chocolate go together!" but like, this is A Thing DA has been doing for a while now and it's specific enough to be kind of a problem for me if BD also does the thing. Again, even if it doesn't mean they COPIED her or "stole her idea", it's still just... icky. And they shouldn't do it.

[karla-chan]

I can see how doing chocolate in the same month could be seen as BD stepping on their toes, since they could choose a different month for that. Since chocolate cake IS going to happen since its a classic.

I personally hope they do something like red velvet for Valentines day. Since red is an associated colour.

[Kisa]

I have some... complicated feelings about copyright laws. I see why they were invented, and yes, I think they're a good idea as long as it serves the legitimate purpose of protecting someone's idea. But I also think all art/literature/etc builds off itself, and when you prevent that, you stifle creativity. I'm also not a fan of the way that big corporations abuse copyright laws (especially the walt disney copyright expansion, which is some primo bullshit).

More to the point with this discussion, it really comes down to "has BD done enough to distinguish itself and its dessert ideas from the rest of the people who make fantasy dessert dongs?" and I think that's going to be personal. I mean, "fantasy dessert dongs" is a pretty specific category all by itself. There are some things I would definitely say BD has not made distinct enough (the recent caramel apple pours, for example, are almost identical to some frisky beast caramel apple pours for their eggs -- bright green base color, caramel drips, the only real difference was that BD's highlight was thinner). Now, did they copy FB? Probably not, and it's been a while since FB had those eggs afaik. But that's really not the point -- the point is, they're SO similar and personally I think BD should have chosen a different theme and not replicated pours already made by FB so closely. ESPECIALLY since BD is a much bigger business.

So far the champagne cake color seems pretty different from what I've seen from other makers, and I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to BD that sweet/dessert items & sex have been together as a concept for a long time. But I know, for example, DA usually has her "discount chocolate day" around February. If BD's February dessert color is heavily chocolate themed, then yeah, you better believe I'm going to be side eyeing them. I get that you could argue "Valentine's day and chocolate go together!" but like, this is A Thing DA has been doing for a while now and it's specific enough to be kind of a problem for me if BD also does the thing. Again, even if it doesn't mean they COPIED her or "stole her idea", it's still just... icky. And they shouldn't do it.

One of my hobbies is makeup, and one thing I notice when I look at all the eyeshadows and lipsticks.... I end up finding the same exact shade popping up in several companies. Some even with the same names. An example is Sally Hansen's nail polish named Pacific Blue, it was really popular, and what did Maybelline do? Make the exact same color for their nail polish line and named it Pacific Blues.

It's that "stepping on toes?" Probably, but why would Maybelline care? They aren't sister companies, they will never have to work with one another. People are still going to buy their product, and there's nothing Sally Hansen can do, but say "well we made this color popular first." Sally Hansen later reformulated the color, and ruined the formula, so even though Sally's is cheaper, ain't nobody is buying that color anymore. They all go to Maybelline and other competitors for that shade now.

Seeing as it's very rare that a company can "own" the rights to a color, Maybelline is free to copy that color and use a very similar name. Heck they could have used the same exact shade name if they wanted because the name wasn't trademarked, and you can't copywrite a title (as far as I know).

In the marketing world it's really all about finding the products you want, the brands you want to support, and the price point you like. Sure EE may have done similar colors, but to me personally I don't care, because EE doesn't have a single toy I like so I'm not going to buy any of their things. And I don't think that Candy Apple thing is synonymous with EE like the Tiffany blue is to Tiffany's, so they can't own the red and green drip color combo and DA can't own having chocolate themed toys for V-day.

Art inspires art, and to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

[karla-chan]

One of my hobbies is makeup, and one thing I notice when I look at all the eyeshadows and lipsticks.... I end up finding the same exact shade popping up in several companies. Some even with the same names. An example is Sally Hansen's nail polish named Pacific Blue, it was really popular, and what did Maybelline do? Make the exact same color for their nail polish line and named it Pacific Blues.

It's that "stepping on toes?" Probably, but why would Maybelline care? They aren't sister companies, they will never have to work with one another. People are still going to buy their product, and there's nothing Sally Hansen can do, but say "well we made this color popular first." Sally Hansen later reformulated the color, and ruined the formula, so even though Sally's is cheaper, ain't nobody is buying that color anymore. They all go to Maybelline and other competitors for that shade now.

Seeing as it's very rare that a company can "own" the rights to a color, Maybelline is free to copy that color and use a very similar name. Heck they could have used the same exact shade name if they wanted because the name wasn't trademarked, and you can't copywrite a title (as far as I know).

In the marketing world it's really all about finding the products you want, the brands you want to support, and the price point you like. Sure EE may have done similar colors, but to me personally I don't care, because EE doesn't have a single toy I like so I'm not going to buy any of their things. And I don't think that Candy Apple thing is synonymous with EE like the Tiffany blue is to Tiffany's, so they can't own the red and green drip color combo and DA can't own having chocolate themed toys for V-day.

Art inspires art, and to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

As an artist I feel pretty passionate about staying moral with these things, just because you can get away with it. Doesn't make it okay. There is a difference between stealing work in a shady way, and being inspired by as well. However when you take inspiration from something it is your own take on it, and you are doing it differently to what inspired you. Artist inspire each other all the time.

Some idea's can't be copyrighted though, but if you knowingly make it too much alike something already on the market it is pretty shady. Especially it will be directly competing with what came first, and potentially damaging the sales of the other company. Which BD have the power to do.

For me not to side eye BD they need to make sure it is not alike. They are more then capable of doing their own thing.

[Idra]

Art inspires art, and to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

Spoilered cause hoo boy I meant it when I said this is a complicated issue for me and it got long (just to clarify, my original comments about copyright laws weren't super related to the fantasy dick discussion, since I don't think anyone has actually done anything illegal here)

► Show Spoiler

I also adore makeup!! For me this issue is different from makeup, mostly, but I also have complicated feelings about makeup duping. But most of this isn't about the law, it's about your personal feeling on whether something is different enough to be a unique product. Those two nail polishes aren't, really. Art and creativity build on the ideas and expressions that have come before them; copying someone else's color and naming it almost the exact same thing in order to make money isn't creative, unique, or a valid use of artistic inspiration. Whether Sally Hansen owns the legal copyright to the color or the name, it's about whether Maybelline has added anything to the world by making their version, and they didn't. It's also just kind of poor taste. (The same argument applies to BD and FB's caramel apple colors.)

It's also a much bigger deal for me that in this case it's a big business stepping on a smaller one. I remember the year everyone was desperately trying to dupe Chanel Peridot, which actually is a super unique color. Tons of companies came out with a similar one a few months later. Although it was obvious what the other companies were doing (copying a popular brand which made a popular product, WITHOUT adding anything new or unique to the table, in order to make sales for themselves) and although it's not the greatest thing to do, I didn't really have a moral/ethical problem with it. Chanel will be fine without their nail polish being 100% unique. But if maybelline and sally hansen and revlon and all the rest decided to start ripping off indies? Then yeah, I'm gonna be extremely upset about it. Many indie eyeshadow companies have colors you can't get anywhere else, often gorgeous duochromes and such, and if Chanel decided they really wanted to make the exact duochrome that sugarpill did, would I have much more of an issue? Yeah. Chanel was fine when Peridot stopped being unique; sugarpill and fyrinnae and geek chic might not be.

For better or for worse, the fantasy sex toy industry is expensive, luxury, and niche. There are plenty of people who can't afford these toys or who can barely afford them, and BD is already the biggest company and the company most heavily associated with the fantasy toy industry. Their decisions have a real effect on other companies -- which they know, just like they also know (and anyone heavily engaged in the fantasy toy industry knows) about other makers' events. If they decide to have a chocolate month in February, for example, then it means that many people who are interested in chocolate themed dicks, but don't know about DA's event or have only ever heard of BD are going to be purchasing their chocolate dicks here instead of there, and that less people are likely to say "hey, you're looking for something chocolatey, have you heard of DA?" when you can get BD's chocolate dicks right here. As such -- whatever the law says, because you're right, no one owns the idea of a brown and white marble -- in my opinion BD has a moral, not legal, obligation to just not fucking do it.

Secondly, with makeup, if something is made, then you're stuck with buying that version of that product. You can't call a makeup company up and go, "Hey, I really like the naked palette, but can you maybe swap out buck for something a little more cool toned?" And you can't call up Essie and go, "hey, I really like your formula but Sally Hansen has this color I adore, can you make me a turquoise nail polish with some pearlescence and maybe some gold dazzle in it?" But with BD toys, you can always ask for a custom made toy. Most of DA's chocolate pours are marbles, so if you really wanted a chocolatey toy and DA's models don't work for you, then you absolutely can say "Hey, BD, can I get a brown and white marble, please?" and have your BD chocolate dick on your doorstep a couple weeks later. Because you can customize whatever toy ALREADY to be exactly how you want it, unlike with makeup, there's much less of a reason to play the duping game. So again, in this hypothetical scenario, BD wouldn't be adding to the world by doing something DA already does, they wouldn't be doing anything unique, and they'd be harming other people/businesses. Not really a thing I feel like supporting, regardless of legality.

I get that this is a personal line to draw, and it's okay if your line is different from mine. If they come out with red velvet cake, like was suggested, or something else dessert-y but not chocolate-y for February, or even if they do chocolate in a different month, I'm fine. But in February? Nah.

[Idra]

As an artist I feel pretty passionate about staying moral with these things, just because you can get away with it. Doesn't make it okay. There is a difference between stealing work in a shady way, and being inspired by as well. However when you take inspiration from something it is your own take on it, and you are doing it differently to what inspired you. Artist inspire each other all the time.

Some idea's can't be copyrighted though, but if you knowingly make it too much alike something already on the market it is pretty shady. Especially it will be directly competing with what came first, and potentially damaging the sales of the other company. Which BD have the power to do.

For me not to side eye BD they need to make sure it is not alike. They are more then capable of doing their own thing.

ALSO ALL OF THIS, 100%

[Kisa]

One of my hobbies is makeup, and one thing I notice when I look at all the eyeshadows and lipsticks.... I end up finding the same exact shade popping up in several companies. Some even with the same names. An example is Sally Hansen's nail polish named Pacific Blue, it was really popular, and what did Maybelline do? Make the exact same color for their nail polish line and named it Pacific Blues.

It's that "stepping on toes?" Probably, but why would Maybelline care? They aren't sister companies, they will never have to work with one another. People are still going to buy their product, and there's nothing Sally Hansen can do, but say "well we made this color popular first." Sally Hansen later reformulated the color, and ruined the formula, so even though Sally's is cheaper, ain't nobody is buying that color anymore. They all go to Maybelline and other competitors for that shade now.

Seeing as it's very rare that a company can "own" the rights to a color, Maybelline is free to copy that color and use a very similar name. Heck they could have used the same exact shade name if they wanted because the name wasn't trademarked, and you can't copywrite a title (as far as I know).

In the marketing world it's really all about finding the products you want, the brands you want to support, and the price point you like. Sure EE may have done similar colors, but to me personally I don't care, because EE doesn't have a single toy I like so I'm not going to buy any of their things. And I don't think that Candy Apple thing is synonymous with EE like the Tiffany blue is to Tiffany's, so they can't own the red and green drip color combo and DA can't own having chocolate themed toys for V-day.

Art inspires art, and to quote Pablo Picasso: "Good artists copy, great artists steal."

As an artist I feel pretty passionate about staying moral with these things, just because you can get away with it. Doesn't make it okay. There is a difference between stealing work in a shady way, and being inspired by as well. However when you take inspiration from something it is your own take on it, and you are doing it differently to what inspired you. Artist inspire each other all the time.

Some idea's can't be copyrighted though, but if you knowingly make it too much alike something already on the market it is pretty shady. Especially it will be directly competing with what came first, and potentially damaging the sales of the other company. Which BD have the power to do.

For me not to side eye BD they need to make sure it is not alike. They are more then capable of doing their own thing.

Yeah I've said in previous posts in other boards, taking (or stealing as Picaso put it) ideas/inspiration from others is fine as long as you make it your own.

Straight making something exactly the same as someone else and slapping your name on it is at best copying, and is cheap.

But in terms of legal stuff, morals don't really enter into much. You can side eye all you want, it isn't going to take any food off of anyone's plate.

[karla-chan]

It's fucking dildo colors

It's still people's livelihoods, and artists are subject to this kind of thing all the time and loose money from it. So although it's just "whatever" it could be taking food off someone's plate.

Which is why many artists have a great deal of empathy for things like this. Since the core principles do effect them personally.

[Kisa]

It's fucking dildo colors

It's still people's livelihoods, and artists are subject to this kind of thing all the time and loose money from it. So although it's just "whatever" it could be taking food off someone's plate.

Which is why many artists have a great deal of empathy for things like this. Since the core principles do effect them personally.

Except with sex toys colors isn't the primary selling point. I mean, sure a nicely colored dick is a plus. But a pretty color isn't going to get me or most people in the sex toy market to buy a toy if they don't like the actual sex toy model. EE and DA and anyone else can come up with the best color combos ever, but I still won't buy their toys because their models don't appeal to me. I know some people like their trophy dicks, but I'd say the majority of buyers are looking for toys that they can actually use.

All those fancy colors DA and EE are making may be appealing, but the only people buying their toys are the niche community of buyers they have carved out in an already niche market. If they want to draw in more money, then they'll have to go the route BD did and make toys that appeal to a wider variety of people and increase their manufacturing department so they can pump out their orders. If not, they can stay as their super niche business making toys for their super niche customers. Which is totally fine, they'll just have to be fine with other companies making colors kinda-sorta similar to theirs.

[Syntyth]

As an artist I feel pretty passionate about staying moral with these things, just because you can get away with it. Doesn't make it okay. There is a difference between stealing work in a shady way, and being inspired by as well. However when you take inspiration from something it is your own take on it, and you are doing it differently to what inspired you. Artist inspire each other all the time.

Some idea's can't be copyrighted though, but if you knowingly make it too much alike something already on the market it is pretty shady. Especially it will be directly competing with what came first, and potentially damaging the sales of the other company. Which BD have the power to do.

For me not to side eye BD they need to make sure it is not alike. They are more then capable of doing their own thing.

Spoilered cause hoo boy I meant it when I said this is a complicated issue for me and it got long (just to clarify, my original comments about copyright laws weren't super related to the fantasy dick discussion, since I don't think anyone has actually done anything illegal here)

► Show Spoiler

I also adore makeup!! For me this issue is different from makeup, mostly, but I also have complicated feelings about makeup duping. But most of this isn't about the law, it's about your personal feeling on whether something is different enough to be a unique product. Those two nail polishes aren't, really. Art and creativity build on the ideas and expressions that have come before them; copying someone else's color and naming it almost the exact same thing in order to make money isn't creative, unique, or a valid use of artistic inspiration. Whether Sally Hansen owns the legal copyright to the color or the name, it's about whether Maybelline has added anything to the world by making their version, and they didn't. It's also just kind of poor taste. (The same argument applies to BD and FB's caramel apple colors.)

It's also a much bigger deal for me that in this case it's a big business stepping on a smaller one. I remember the year everyone was desperately trying to dupe Chanel Peridot, which actually is a super unique color. Tons of companies came out with a similar one a few months later. Although it was obvious what the other companies were doing (copying a popular brand which made a popular product, WITHOUT adding anything new or unique to the table, in order to make sales for themselves) and although it's not the greatest thing to do, I didn't really have a moral/ethical problem with it. Chanel will be fine without their nail polish being 100% unique. But if maybelline and sally hansen and revlon and all the rest decided to start ripping off indies? Then yeah, I'm gonna be extremely upset about it. Many indie eyeshadow companies have colors you can't get anywhere else, often gorgeous duochromes and such, and if Chanel decided they really wanted to make the exact duochrome that sugarpill did, would I have much more of an issue? Yeah. Chanel was fine when Peridot stopped being unique; sugarpill and fyrinnae and geek chic might not be.

For better or for worse, the fantasy sex toy industry is expensive, luxury, and niche. There are plenty of people who can't afford these toys or who can barely afford them, and BD is already the biggest company and the company most heavily associated with the fantasy toy industry. Their decisions have a real effect on other companies -- which they know, just like they also know (and anyone heavily engaged in the fantasy toy industry knows) about other makers' events. If they decide to have a chocolate month in February, for example, then it means that many people who are interested in chocolate themed dicks, but don't know about DA's event or have only ever heard of BD are going to be purchasing their chocolate dicks here instead of there, and that less people are likely to say "hey, you're looking for something chocolatey, have you heard of DA?" when you can get BD's chocolate dicks right here. As such -- whatever the law says, because you're right, no one owns the idea of a brown and white marble -- in my opinion BD has a moral, not legal, obligation to just not fucking do it.

Secondly, with makeup, if something is made, then you're stuck with buying that version of that product. You can't call a makeup company up and go, "Hey, I really like the naked palette, but can you maybe swap out buck for something a little more cool toned?" And you can't call up Essie and go, "hey, I really like your formula but Sally Hansen has this color I adore, can you make me a turquoise nail polish with some pearlescence and maybe some gold dazzle in it?" But with BD toys, you can always ask for a custom made toy. Most of DA's chocolate pours are marbles, so if you really wanted a chocolatey toy and DA's models don't work for you, then you absolutely can say "Hey, BD, can I get a brown and white marble, please?" and have your BD chocolate dick on your doorstep a couple weeks later. Because you can customize whatever toy ALREADY to be exactly how you want it, unlike with makeup, there's much less of a reason to play the duping game. So again, in this hypothetical scenario, BD wouldn't be adding to the world by doing something DA already does, they wouldn't be doing anything unique, and they'd be harming other people/businesses. Not really a thing I feel like supporting, regardless of legality.

I get that this is a personal line to draw, and it's okay if your line is different from mine. If they come out with red velvet cake, like was suggested, or something else dessert-y but not chocolate-y for February, or even if they do chocolate in a different month, I'm fine. But in February? Nah.

I agree with all of this. You two said it better than I could, but this's exactly how I feel.

[GreenLeopard87]

A lot of comments have been made that you can copy, but make it your own. I have never seen a BD marble that looks as good as DAs. I've had hundreds of BD toys, stalked thousands of adoptions. DA HAS something unique that BD CANNOT copy even if they tried. That's why I personally buy certain DA models that I need because, holy shit those marbles. If BD poured silicone into a DA mold, I am willing to bet money it would never look as good as DA pouring silicone into the same mold. And that makes her work unique enough that BD can't compete if someone is looking for a particular style chocolate marble.

While I respect everyone's opinions and thoughts, I still believe that each company has something unique that others don't. They have unique designs. Unique pours. Unique styles. And a chocolate color is almost 100% guaranteed and there's a 1/11 chance it will happen this month. But each company would execute it differently. BD may have a 2-3 chocolate colored marble that has no consistency to it. EE may do some insane precision work or a swirl. DA makes it look like actual chocolate (which no one else accomplishes). And FB may make an egg.

Some dessert colors won't be feasible because of manufacturing limitations. Such as... A tiramisu for example - no splits for BD anymore. Therefore many desserts will simply be off the table. That could explain the caramel apple coincidence - there are only so many finite combinations which could be represented with such a unpredictable medium. But then again... Caramel apples happen at a particular time in the year, so it's hard to say that it's a complete ripoff. I think a caramel apple in February would be weird as fuck.

The sale approach is also different. BD is making customs while DA has drops. Limited quantity and model drops. What if you miss out on a specific DA chocolate colored model because you weren't fast enough? Or had to work? That toy still sold and DA is still getting paid. BD able to churn out hundreds of toys in the same color (maybe big batches of silicone ready to go), is a whole different model that you can't expect DA to match. If DA wanted to boost production and visibility, she could look at getting extra help or attending events like BD does. But with all that's going on in her life, it seems that it's not very feasible. So as long as her product sells (which a lot do, and very fast), there really isn't any squashing of her sales or business because her models and pour styles are so unique and there is consistent demand for it.

Also, she has released so many new models recently, that her new models may attract new crowds. Which is always a plus. I think this year will be very successful for her with all the new designs and updates!

I am almost positive that DA fans will be more than willing to wait for her chocolate sale over BD, even if BD released chocolate color this month. It's those same fans that should help get the word out for DA, because as someone said before, BD is recognizable and easily found. Sharing photos and positive publicity and praise. I love my DA chocolate colored models. And I will be looking forward to seeing if I can get a mint chocolate toy this year because I need mint chocolate in my life. But I am still excited to see what BD releases for February because so far, I enjoyed champagne cake.

[vixenvega]

I agree with all of this 100%
To add, there are also the people that may want a chocolate pour but are unable to purchase from DA because her toys, lovely as they are, do not suit their needs.

Edit: Just read through the rest of the thread and realized my point was already made, a couple of times.

[karla-chan]

I do think it's possible for BD to have a chocolate theme and it be completely different to DA. I also think that a chocolate theme is going to happen because it's just such a classic. Just it needs to be done right.

I think there is a line that BD should be careful of, because I think it could be a negative light if it looked too much alike what DA are doing. People care about that kind of thing, and even if DA is nothing their thing would choose against BD. Plus there are people out there that find any excuses to hate on BD, so why give them fuel?

I personally think it would be that much better if they did it in a different month as well. Since it's harder to say that they have copied in a shady way. Since champagne cake looks really interesting, and I think the cake themes coming from BD are pretty sincere. I have genuine excitement for what they're going to make.

[Vitani]

It's still people's livelihoods, and artists are subject to this kind of thing all the time and loose money from it. So although it's just "whatever" it could be taking food off someone's plate.

Which is why many artists have a great deal of empathy for things like this. Since the core principles do effect them personally.

Except with sex toys colors isn't the primary selling point. I mean, sure a nicely colored dick is a plus. But a pretty color isn't going to get me or most people in the sex toy market to buy a toy if they don't like the actual sex toy model. EE and DA and anyone else can come up with the best color combos ever, but I still won't buy their toys because their models don't appeal to me. I know some people like their trophy dicks, but I'd say the majority of buyers are looking for toys that they can actually use.

All those fancy colors DA and EE are making may be appealing, but the only people buying their toys are the niche community of buyers they have carved out in an already niche market. If they want to draw in more money, then they'll have to go the route BD did and make toys that appeal to a wider variety of people and increase their manufacturing department so they can pump out their orders. If not, they can stay as their super niche business making toys for their super niche customers. Which is totally fine, they'll just have to be fine with other companies making colors kinda-sorta similar to theirs.

this.

Chocolate on valentines day is a super common thing.
but since someone else is doing it, it means nobody else can ever do it ever!

People like DA for her toys.

People like BD for their toys.

If someone wants a DA toy, someone doing the same color promotion isn't going to take any "food off their plate"

It's absolutely ridiculous.

It's all just a dick stroking contest at this point.

This.
Like....I don't give a rats ass what kind of promo colors DA is doing. I hate their toys, they look rough , too sculpted, and don't look like they'd work with my body. Bad dragon doing a chocolate marble isn't going to take my business from DA. And even for people who do like both companies, each one does different style marble pours and people will buy accordingly. Also, a lot depends on the actual toy itself. If you are lusting over a DA model, you wouldn't go to bd for the promo color.

[Drazard]

I'm pretty sure this controversy re: DA's chocolate-colours promotion and BD putting out similar colours (hypothetically or not) actually happened before, when BD came out with their Hydrogenous Zone colour (you can find it on page 13 of BD's 'sales and promotions' page). It being a swirl of cream and light brown, it DID bear some similarity to DA's milk-and-white-chocolate sort of colours, despite BD's colour supposedly being based on Jupiter. Funnily enough, the debate then about 'right or wrong' or 'does it really count' was basically the same as the one going on in this thread now!

Not got anything to add that hasn't already been said more eloquently by others - but it is interesting to see similar discussions happening over the years!