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.
Friday, August 5, 2011
You've Got Glittermail!
I posted the other day that the store credit packages from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had been given Delivery Confirmation numbers. Those packages began arriving yesterday. In all I have almost 150 pictures of packages. It would be overwhelming to post them all so I'll post a select few here.
All of the packages that I have seen arrived well packaged with only one leak. They were bagged together according to product type: Pigment or Soap. Included in each was a sheet which listed ingredients for all products. This sheet also had a manufacturers/distributor statement, but no listing of net weight or uses. There were individual labels on some, but not all, the products. Most pigments came unlabeled individually, with no indication of the names.
It is important to note that since the products were all packaged in plastic bags together by product type that the sheet included appears to meet FDA requirements for labeling, as long as everything that needs to be on a label is present. The missing net weight information and, especially, the uses are troubling as these items are required for labels. Since GS uses ingredients such as Ferric Ferrocyanide and Chromium Oxide Green in some of their pigments it is important that it be noted these shades are not approved for lip use in the US. This was not indicated on the sheet, in the packages, nor is this information available on the site.
The store credit packages were given for those that either asked for the credit in lieu of a refund, were only eligible for store credit, or, in one case, as a gesture of good faith. Those with store credit sent their requests, with color families and preferred products, though as far as can be determined no one was able to make specific requests.
What follows are photos of the packages. They will be separated according to package and, when the information is available to me, how much the store credit was for. In all I have been sent photos of four packages and I am publishing photos from each.
Package 1, around $50.00 in store credit. There were no issues with this package. None of the colors were named.
Package 2, $40.00 in store credit. The package came with $.85 postage due, there is what appears to be hair embedded in one of the soaps, an unidentified 'toothpicklike' foreign object packaged in another, unidentified black spots on another. This customer had requested no soap be included in her package.
Package 3, around $30.00 in store credit. There were no names on any of the pigments, something had leaked in the bag containing the perfume items, the massage bar arrived melted, and the solid perfume had no discernible scent except wax.
I want to thank everyone for sharing.
**8/5/11 ETA** Moved a photo from Package 1 to Package 3 as it uploaded incorrectly.
All of the packages that I have seen arrived well packaged with only one leak. They were bagged together according to product type: Pigment or Soap. Included in each was a sheet which listed ingredients for all products. This sheet also had a manufacturers/distributor statement, but no listing of net weight or uses. There were individual labels on some, but not all, the products. Most pigments came unlabeled individually, with no indication of the names.
It is important to note that since the products were all packaged in plastic bags together by product type that the sheet included appears to meet FDA requirements for labeling, as long as everything that needs to be on a label is present. The missing net weight information and, especially, the uses are troubling as these items are required for labels. Since GS uses ingredients such as Ferric Ferrocyanide and Chromium Oxide Green in some of their pigments it is important that it be noted these shades are not approved for lip use in the US. This was not indicated on the sheet, in the packages, nor is this information available on the site.
The store credit packages were given for those that either asked for the credit in lieu of a refund, were only eligible for store credit, or, in one case, as a gesture of good faith. Those with store credit sent their requests, with color families and preferred products, though as far as can be determined no one was able to make specific requests.
What follows are photos of the packages. They will be separated according to package and, when the information is available to me, how much the store credit was for. In all I have been sent photos of four packages and I am publishing photos from each.
Package 1, around $50.00 in store credit. There were no issues with this package. None of the colors were named.
Package 2, $40.00 in store credit. The package came with $.85 postage due, there is what appears to be hair embedded in one of the soaps, an unidentified 'toothpicklike' foreign object packaged in another, unidentified black spots on another. This customer had requested no soap be included in her package.
 |
| Something resembling a hair embedded in the soap |
 |
| 'Toothpicklike' object in the packaging |
 |
| Black spots |
 |
| Black spots |
 |
| Postage Due |
 |
| A Leak |
 |
| A Leak |
 |
| Melted Massage Bar |
 |
| Solid Perfume with No Scent |
Package 4. This package arrived with $3.28 postage due, a melted massage bar with a brown lump in it, a half full glitter vial, and both a fullsize and sample of the pigment Rings of Saturn. Rings of Saturn was swatched for comparison purposes. After opening and swatching the pigment the customers eyes became irritated and puffy. Previous to this the customer had never had a reaction to any GS pigments.
 |
| Melted Massage Bar |
 |
| Unidentified Brown 'Lump" in the Melted Massage Bar |
 |
| Unidentified Brown 'Lump" in the Melted Massage Bar |
 |
| This Collection was originally released in February |
 |
| Rings of Saturn. Swatched dry on bare skin, 2 swipes each. Left swatch is the sample, right is the fullsize. |
I want to thank everyone for sharing.
**8/5/11 ETA** Moved a photo from Package 1 to Package 3 as it uploaded incorrectly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
