Saturday, February 12, 2011
What's in a Name?
I have debated this post for a few days. On the one hand it speaks specifically to the fact that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics does not practice what it preaches, on the other it catches a lot of innocent handmade sellers up in a situation not of their own making. I am very cognizant of the fact that the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics situation has cast a bad light not only on indie cosmetics in general, but could possibly effect handmade sellers negatively as a whole. Though I personally have no issue continuing to purchase handmade, and do so quite regularly still, I am well aware that this situation has made people gun shy. For that reason I will not be including supporting links to the products I mention though that has been my practice thus far. I will also be removing any identifying information for these sellers. These wonderful artisans do not deserve any further identification with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, especially since they had nothing to do with the company's choice to sell unapproved products, and simply lent their names in good faith to a company they felt they could trust. They are just another in a long line of innocent victims and I do not wish to cause them any further issues.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
Labels:
Etsy,
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics,
Handmade,
Recall
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're Not Alone
Subscribe
Easy Access
ACE Books
Amazon Payments
Artfire
ASPCA
Attorney General
Bellasugar
Better Business Bureau
Big Cartel
Business Opportunity
Buyer Beware
Cellini Red
Charity
Child Safety
Closing
Coastal Scents
Complaints I Filed
Consumer Affairs
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Consumer Reports
Consumerist
Contact
Copyright
Cosmetic Safety
Craftzine.com
Craigslist
Cream Eyeliner
Dammit Pigment
Detroit Handmade
Detroit Urban Craft Fair
Disney
Double Labels
Ebay
Email
Etsy
Etsy Call Out Blog
Facebook
FDA
Federal Trade Commision
Flickr
Frankening
Freedom Of Information Act
FTC
Get Crafty
Gift Cards
Gift Certificates
Gift Exchange
GLAAD
Glam Rock Magazine
glittermail
GlitterSniffer
GlitterSniffer Bath
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics
GlitterSnifferCosmetics.highwire.com
Glow in the Dark
Google Checkout
Handmade
HBO
I Answer Your Questions
Ingredients
Internet Crime Complaint Center
Kids in Danger
Labeling
Lawsuit
Listia
Mail and Telephone Order Merchandise Rule
Maker City Faire
Mascara
Media
MedWatch
Mermaid Tail
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Michigan Radio
Mineral Makeup Class
My Story
New Products
News
Not Approved
OFT
Old Stock
Open Letter
Overview
Party
Paypal
Perfect Mint
Personally Identifying Information
PETA
Pigmentchick
PIRGIM
Pissed Consumer
Promises
Psycho Bath Co
PureLuxe
purpose
Randoms
Recall
Refund
Rep. John D. Dingell
Repackaging
RipOffReport.com
Sanrio
Seuss
Soap
Statement
Store Credit
Technorati
Terms of Service
The Conservatorie
The Princess Bride
The Spotted Box
Tim Burton
True Blood
TWLOHA
USPS
Vegan
Wayne County Health Department
Web
Wholesale
Women's Health
Working Girl Cosmetics
Your Story
Blog Archive
-
►
2012
(2)
- 05/06 - 05/13 (1)
- 01/08 - 01/15 (1)
-
▼
2011
(171)
- 12/25 - 01/01 (1)
- 11/20 - 11/27 (1)
- 11/13 - 11/20 (2)
- 11/06 - 11/13 (1)
- 09/04 - 09/11 (1)
- 08/21 - 08/28 (1)
- 08/14 - 08/21 (2)
- 07/31 - 08/07 (4)
- 07/24 - 07/31 (2)
- 07/17 - 07/24 (1)
- 07/10 - 07/17 (2)
- 07/03 - 07/10 (1)
- 06/26 - 07/03 (2)
- 06/19 - 06/26 (2)
- 06/05 - 06/12 (1)
- 05/29 - 06/05 (1)
- 05/22 - 05/29 (2)
- 05/15 - 05/22 (7)
- 05/08 - 05/15 (5)
- 05/01 - 05/08 (6)
- 04/24 - 05/01 (7)
- 04/17 - 04/24 (6)
- 04/10 - 04/17 (2)
- 03/13 - 03/20 (3)
- 03/06 - 03/13 (1)
- 02/27 - 03/06 (7)
- 02/20 - 02/27 (9)
- 02/13 - 02/20 (3)
- 02/06 - 02/13 (11)
- 01/30 - 02/06 (7)
- 01/23 - 01/30 (16)
- 01/16 - 01/23 (14)
- 01/09 - 01/16 (8)
- 01/02 - 01/09 (32)
-
►
2010
(53)
- 12/26 - 01/02 (53)
About Me
Powered by Blogger.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be constructive in your comments. Any comments posted to this blog that may be considered defamatory, inflammatory, or threatening to anyone will be removed.