"Kevin, that's just not the case. Your original picture may have a profile and its colours may be as you intended, but the JPEG that you posted does not have any profile. As a result, the colours are way beyond believability - even more saturated than I think you intend."
Also, and this directed to John, how do you know what Kevin intended??? What makes you think what he posted is not what he intended? That seems to me to be quite an assumption.
OK, I got to get out of this conversation or I might get hired to be on "The View".
Well, obviously I cannot know exactly what he intended. But the lack of the colour profile tells me that the appearance of the JPEG in the browser simply doesn't correspond to those intentions, whatever they may have been.
That's not an assumption but how colour management works on the web. Can we agree that, whether Kevin wants highly-saturated colours or Dave wants more subdued colours, we all want the viewer to see those colours displayed as closely as possible to the image on our colour managed monitor? Fair? So you ensure that the JPEG is exported with the colour profile embedded, meaning your or my colour managed browser can then figure out how best to display the JPEG. If you don't embed that profile, it's a crap shoot (whatever one of those may be) on the other end. Here, for some reason Kevin's profile has been stripped out of the JPEG, and we're seeing the typical increased saturation in the reds.
So the very absence of the profile tells us the JPEG isn't what he intended, and in this case it's exaggerated by what we are told about the actual colours (lots of reds), and maybe by Kevin's liking for saturated images. See, that was painless, wasn't it?