Thursday, August 18, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Throws Stones From Glass Houses
Recently it was announced that GlitterSniffer Csometics President Lela Warren had been chosen to write for a 'quite popular' magazine.
Though no formal announcement was made as to the magazine name a post later on the same day featured a 'two page spread' from Glam Rock Magazine for GS. This 'spread' was actually a paid advertisement run in the Fall of 20101 as can be seen here (Issue with the two models on the cover entitled "Official Hot Mess"). As far as can be determined the only other mention of GS in the issue is a set of pigments hidden in a 'Can You Spot It' photo. It should also be noted that this magazine is published by Chelsea Tavis of Tragic Glamour, GS' web designer and current model. The position is unpaid.
Lela Warren has also taken to commenting regarding the use of her ideas by other formulators. Though I will not speculate as to who she is speaking of it has been posted previously on this blog that Issanna, former VP of GS, is using the names she herself had branded during her unpaid time at GS for her own company. It has been shown in the past that Lela does not have a compunction against doing this herself, from soap to names to collections thought up by fans, GS clearly has a history of co opting ideas.
I had initially held off posting about PigmentGirl as there was no way to confirm that the account was tied to GS. That confirmation came last week. Several convos were sent from PigmentGirl's seemingly TOS violating Etsy account to MMU sellers offering a write up in Glam Rock magazine. The convos clearly identified the person sending them as Lela of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Etsy TOS are very clear on this point. A user who has been suspended either temporarily or indefinitely may not make use of the service. Though this is not a seller account it is still possible that it is not within TOS. Lela Warren, by her own admission in an email to the GS Complaints blog, was 'kicked off Etsy' and therefore, per Etsy TOS, may not have another account unless given permission by Etsy.
Since the email asking for a retraction in which I was castigated for posting I have not heard from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics or Lela Warren, despite asking for supporting evidence that a retraction was needed and the company's promise to keep up to date regarding the refund process. My last email, on July 31, went unanswered. I'll be happy to acquiesce that it is quite possible that Etsy allowed Lela Warren to open yet another Etsy after, in her own words, 'numerous complaints'. Should verifiable information of that sort become available I'd be more than happy to post it.
The point here is not just the possibly TOS violating second Etsy account, but the assertion, once again, that GS 'original' ideas are being used while Lela scours Etsy for unique creations from other Artisans to sell as GS products. It's pronouncements like these that are disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst and speak to the 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality that got GlitterSniffer Cosmetics into the situation they are currently trying to recover from.
These new developments, from the release of customer information to the casting aspersions on other formulators, only serve to show that the sea change once hoped for from GS may be becoming a slippery slope instead.
Though no formal announcement was made as to the magazine name a post later on the same day featured a 'two page spread' from Glam Rock Magazine for GS. This 'spread' was actually a paid advertisement run in the Fall of 20101 as can be seen here (Issue with the two models on the cover entitled "Official Hot Mess"). As far as can be determined the only other mention of GS in the issue is a set of pigments hidden in a 'Can You Spot It' photo. It should also be noted that this magazine is published by Chelsea Tavis of Tragic Glamour, GS' web designer and current model. The position is unpaid.
Recently GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has been asking for collaborators for all manner of merchandise, including 3-D Artificial Nail Art.
On June 12, 2011 a user named 'PigmentGirl' joined Etsy. PigmentGirl appeared around the same time as the PigmentChick profiles began appearing around the web. Among PigmentGirl's favorites are several soap sellers and LynnsBoutique, which specializes in 3-D Artificial Nail Art.I had initially held off posting about PigmentGirl as there was no way to confirm that the account was tied to GS. That confirmation came last week. Several convos were sent from PigmentGirl's seemingly TOS violating Etsy account to MMU sellers offering a write up in Glam Rock magazine. The convos clearly identified the person sending them as Lela of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
Etsy TOS are very clear on this point. A user who has been suspended either temporarily or indefinitely may not make use of the service. Though this is not a seller account it is still possible that it is not within TOS. Lela Warren, by her own admission in an email to the GS Complaints blog, was 'kicked off Etsy' and therefore, per Etsy TOS, may not have another account unless given permission by Etsy.
Since the email asking for a retraction in which I was castigated for posting I have not heard from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics or Lela Warren, despite asking for supporting evidence that a retraction was needed and the company's promise to keep up to date regarding the refund process. My last email, on July 31, went unanswered. I'll be happy to acquiesce that it is quite possible that Etsy allowed Lela Warren to open yet another Etsy after, in her own words, 'numerous complaints'. Should verifiable information of that sort become available I'd be more than happy to post it.
The point here is not just the possibly TOS violating second Etsy account, but the assertion, once again, that GS 'original' ideas are being used while Lela scours Etsy for unique creations from other Artisans to sell as GS products. It's pronouncements like these that are disingenuous at best, hypocritical at worst and speak to the 'do as I say, not as I do' mentality that got GlitterSniffer Cosmetics into the situation they are currently trying to recover from.
These new developments, from the release of customer information to the casting aspersions on other formulators, only serve to show that the sea change once hoped for from GS may be becoming a slippery slope instead.
You've Got Glittermail...And Another Customers Address
I posted recently about the store credit packages for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. There have been some new developments with the glittermail that has been received.
In at least three cases those that received store credit packages got packages that had postage due. One of the customers who received one of these packages noticed that there appeared to be two labels on her package, one on top of the other. After removing the top label she found another label with a different customer name and address. Two other packages also had the same issue, though one was peeled back to reveal the customers own address on the second label.
The double labels could explain the postage due as it appears the label was paid and printed out for one customer, but then covered with another name and address and shipped. It is speculation at this point as to why this occurred, but it does, once again, put customer information into hands in which it does not belong. Below are pictures of two of the double labels, edited to remove personally identifying information. I am leaving in a portion of the zip code or the first letter of the city name so that it is clear these are indeed two different customer addresses.
For the first package the only issue was the postage due. The products arrived as discussed.
The second package was posted in the initial post about the store credit packages and had numerous issues aside from the double labels, including a melted soap and two of the same pigment that had striking variances in color.
In at least three cases those that received store credit packages got packages that had postage due. One of the customers who received one of these packages noticed that there appeared to be two labels on her package, one on top of the other. After removing the top label she found another label with a different customer name and address. Two other packages also had the same issue, though one was peeled back to reveal the customers own address on the second label.
The double labels could explain the postage due as it appears the label was paid and printed out for one customer, but then covered with another name and address and shipped. It is speculation at this point as to why this occurred, but it does, once again, put customer information into hands in which it does not belong. Below are pictures of two of the double labels, edited to remove personally identifying information. I am leaving in a portion of the zip code or the first letter of the city name so that it is clear these are indeed two different customer addresses.
For the first package the only issue was the postage due. The products arrived as discussed.
The second package was posted in the initial post about the store credit packages and had numerous issues aside from the double labels, including a melted soap and two of the same pigment that had striking variances in color.
You'll recall that less than a month ago GS posted pictures with customers names and addresses clearly visible on their Facebook Fan Page for a period of approximately 12 hours, an issue the company has refused to acknowledge, other than to remove the photo after a post to this blog. I previously contacted the FTC regarding other privacy issues as well. The company has now shown repeatedly that they release customer information without thought or care of repercussion or even alerting their customers that their personally identifying information has been released. While this latest privacy issue may have been a simple oversight or a case of bad judgment it gives pause to the notion that GS is doing everything in their power to do things correctly.
Labels:
Double Labels,
FTC,
glittermail,
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics,
Store Credit
Subscribe to:
Posts (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.