GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and Amazon Payments

I received two emails regarding the Amazon Payments post from July 30, 2011.

The first was from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics President Lela Warren asking for a retraction or correction of the post. She stated that the information contained in the post was false. She also asked that I remind people that should anyone email Amazon and get the GS account shut down refunds would not be able to commence. She is also very disappointed in me.

I emailed her in response and asked for supporting documentation that anything posted was incorrect and committed to correcting or retracting anything that was in error, as has always been my policy. I have received no response.

The other email I received was from a seller who uses Amazon Payments. This seller informed me that they have never had to confirm shipment prior to receiving funds.

A commenter on the Complaints Facebook page, however, had a different experience, and was required to confirm shipment.

The Amazon Payments issue appears to still be up in the air as to what expectations Amazon has in terms of using them as a payment processor. I contacted Amazon Payments with questions about their policies (without mentioning GS, but as an interested potential client), but have yet to hear back from them. Should the post need to be amended I will do so willingly and as quickly as possible, though from the looks of it Amazons terms may be a moot point, as GS is planning on moving to their third payment processor in less than a week.

It should also be noted that Lela Warren visited the Complaints Facebook page and posted a comment that left no doubt as to her intentions.

A couple of things in regard to this comment: The post about Amazon Payments, as written, serves as an examination of GS' business practices, showing that despite the commitment to taking things slow and doing them correctly the company jumped back in without having a complete understanding of what they agreed to or how to implement it. At no point was it intimated that I had contacted Amazon about shutting down the account, nor did I incite anyone to to do any such thing. This is one of the aspects of this situation that puzzles me, the thought that anyone has the power over others to compel them to do anything. If that were the case I'd have used my incredible Svengali-like mind powers to make Lela give people refunds months ago.  Brass tacks, people will do what they want to do; it's a matter of free will and I don't think that's something that Lela quite understands.

The other piece of this is the fact that Lela was able to comment at all. Lela Warren was banned from the Complaints Page for repeated violations of the posting guidelines. As a matter of fact, during the discussions about the refund process she asked for her posting rights to be restored. I declined and considered the matter settled. So how was she able to comment despite the ban on her account? Simple. She has two accounts.

I have posted previously regarding Lela Warren's Facebook account. She opened her current Lela GlitterSniffer Warren account after having her original Facebook account deactivated by Facebook for advertising. Not only did the original account violate Facebook terms for advertising, but the second account violates the terms in its very existence. Once Facebook shuts down your account you do not simply open another. The terms of use are very clear on this. Also very clear is the policy on having more than one account.

You will not create more than one personal profile.

The plain fact of the matter is this: When the owner of a company commits to doing things the right way they must follow through on that commitment at every turn, up to and including the use of a social networking site. It stands to reason that people would still have questions about intent when even the simplest of rules are not being followed.

It's a very simple process. If you don't want people to question what it is you are doing make every effort to do it correctly, or when there is an issue be upfront, honest, take ownership, and fix it. The existence of the dual Facebook accounts is just an example of the behavior that got GS where it is today. Another is the release of customer information, including names and addresses, posted to the company Facebook page for a period of 12 hours. Though the photo was removed there was absolutely no acknowledgement of the issue by the company, nor was at least one of the affected customers contacted to make them aware of the issue. Things do not simply go away or not happen because they are ignored. There is a basic truth to all of this. If you do not wish for these things to be posted about don't engage in any behaviors that would warrant the posts.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if all I had to post about was people receiving refunds nothing would make me happier. But I made a commitment when I started this blog and it was to post things as factually as possible. Issues cannot be overlooked simply because there is a refund carrot being dangled at the end of a stick. To do so would be unethical and negate the very purpose of the blog, which was to examine these business decisions so that people could make safe, informed decisions. To expect that it would change course because Lela wants it to is ludicrous.

And so I will continue to post about all aspects of GS business. The outcome of that business does not rest on me but on the decisions and actions of the company. Accepting that and fixing the issues instead of deflecting culpability onto others is the first, and most needed, step for the company to remain viable. It's a step the company will have to take itself.