Showing posts with label Big Cartel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Big Cartel. Show all posts
Monday, January 17, 2011
Big Cartel/Old Stock/Refund
As I was researching today I ran across some information that reminded me of some of the commitments made by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
In her statement admitting to using unsafe dyes and selling non vegan products GS proprietor Lela Warren made the following commitment:
To ensure that they meet the standards they have set forth for themselves GS stated that they were only going to be selling through their official website.
GlitterSniffer has a BigCartel site.
The site contains a listing for a Back to Basics Collection which includes the recalled pigment Flight Club.
Perhaps this is an oversight on GS part, as we know that the company further committed to discard all unsold product as evidenced here:
Except this is what actually happened:
It does not need to be said that selling the old stock off in a lot is far different than discarding it.
In regards to the recall refund policy the company stance, in part, taken from the official website includes the following information (emphasis mine)
According to the official company stance in order to receive a refund you must return your pigments and any pigment not on the recall list is ineligible.
I received a refund today without meeting any of these guidelines.
These instances clearly illustrate that the commitments that GS has made to its customers are not set in stone. GS has in the recent past shown through their actions that as a company they can choose to make a business decision not in line with their official policy. I am hopeful that my refund is a benchmark that GS has set for itself, and that they will disregard their current recall guidelines and refund any consumer that feels unsafe using their products. Their choice as a company to refund me outside of the guidelines shows they could easily accomplish this. They were both willing and able to in my case, so there is nothing aside from policy, which they have a demonstrable history of disregarding, that is stopping them from doing so for others.
In her statement admitting to using unsafe dyes and selling non vegan products GS proprietor Lela Warren made the following commitment:
To ensure that they meet the standards they have set forth for themselves GS stated that they were only going to be selling through their official website.
GlitterSniffer has a BigCartel site.
The site contains a listing for a Back to Basics Collection which includes the recalled pigment Flight Club.
Perhaps this is an oversight on GS part, as we know that the company further committed to discard all unsold product as evidenced here:
Except this is what actually happened:
It does not need to be said that selling the old stock off in a lot is far different than discarding it.
In regards to the recall refund policy the company stance, in part, taken from the official website includes the following information (emphasis mine)
We are refunding at the price of $6.50 per 5g pot, $4.00 per 3g pot, and $1 per clamshell with proof of purchase. The proof of purchase we are requiring is that the recalled pigments are sent back to GS Cosmetics with Delivery Confirmation.And this, taken from an email reply today:
According to the official company stance in order to receive a refund you must return your pigments and any pigment not on the recall list is ineligible.
I received a refund today without meeting any of these guidelines.
These instances clearly illustrate that the commitments that GS has made to its customers are not set in stone. GS has in the recent past shown through their actions that as a company they can choose to make a business decision not in line with their official policy. I am hopeful that my refund is a benchmark that GS has set for itself, and that they will disregard their current recall guidelines and refund any consumer that feels unsafe using their products. Their choice as a company to refund me outside of the guidelines shows they could easily accomplish this. They were both willing and able to in my case, so there is nothing aside from policy, which they have a demonstrable history of disregarding, that is stopping them from doing so for others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
