GlitterSniffer Bath Basics

As we come to what looks to be the end of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics story there is a portion that has yet to be addressed, that of GlitterSniffer Bath.

GS Bath started off as an apprenticeship with Lela Warren for Brandy Cameron. In an effort to grow Brandy's skill in Bath and Body the free program was offered to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics customers for a varying cash donation for supplies. All labor was to be donated by Lela and Brandy. And just what was Brandy learning from Lela? Given the documented history and the reports of the conditions of formulation at GlitterSniffer Cosmetics it is a valid question.

So what did finally arrive for those in the bath pool?

An experimental product

Relatively intact, save for the dust shaped Bath Bombs. It appears to be well packaged, though the product has issues with irregularity. GS was always very upfront about their Bath Bombs being hand molded, so no surprises there. What about the labeling?

Depending on the actual ingredients in the bath products at the bare minimum the labels affixed to the packaging require:

1. Wording on the package that identifies the product as "Soap"
2. Net weight of product
3. Name and address of business

Again, depending on ingredients, the products sold by GlitterSniffer Bath would either fall under the purview of The Consumer Product Safety Commission ('true' soap) or FDA (soap that is detergent and/or makes cosmetic/health claims). As there has been no disclosure about what, exactly, was in these products by the company it is unclear at this point as to just what labeling is required. However, slapping on a label that says "Soap" does not appear to meet even the minimum requirements.

For illustrative purposes only, here are some Indie bath and body shops and their labels/product handling.

One Hand Washes The Other:

Simply Sweet Skin:

GlitterSniffer Bath began selling via Artfire in short order. Things started off well, with several sales. It was verified through the sale of one of the Unicorn Birthday Scented Soaps that GS Bath was indeed under the reigns of Brandy Cameron, as seen in this Paypal receipt:

From a customer service standpoint the transaction went off without a hitch. The soap arrived in a timely manner, was well packaged, a Delivery Confirmation number (which updated regularly) was sent to the customer, and the package included a receipt and a coupon for 10% off the next order. Here is the soap itself:

It seems that GS Bath may have learned all too well at least one past business practice from GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.

There was absolutely no labeling on this product. Not even a sticker identifying it as soap.

GS Bath then hit a road bump. 

I was unable to verify conclusively if the Google Checkout account being used was a separate one for GS Bath or the GS Cosmetics account. All receipts I saw were remitted to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics via Google Checkout, but they were all for combined purchases from both GS and GS Bath.

As it stands now the GlitterSniffer Bath Artfire is empty, and no one has checked in for a month. There was an interesting development this week for GS Bath. The shop has moved from a paid 'Pro' account to a 'Basic' account. Per Artfire the 'Pro' fees are automatically debited from a credit card on file every month on the same date as the inception of the shops' 'Pro' status. One could surmise from this that either the card was declined or the 'Pro' account was canceled.

Pro

Basic

At this point it appears that just short of 25 sales GS Bath has ceased operations, at least for the time being.

Another interesting thing to note, despite no communication from the company, removal of the Fan Page and private Facebook Group, no checkins on their Artfire for a month, and the ongoing FDA investigation, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics maintains their 'Pro' status.

 

*Note: All pictures and links to products/shops other than GlitterSniffer Bath/GlitterSniffer Cosmetics are used for illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement or recommendation. Thank you.

5/31/11 ETA: Corrected Beauty in the second paragraph to read Body. B&B stands for Bath& Body.

All That "Glittermails" is Not Gold

Within the last month there have been various orders that have been received from customers of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. While we know that some customers are still awaiting their "glittermail" perhaps there is a chance it will arrive, albeit not in as timely a manner as promised. One of the orders received was placed in December 2010.

It should be noted that there have been people who were pleased with what they received. There have also been some concerns.

From the customer who attempted to use her free gift card in December 2010. She finally received a package at the end of March, 2011:

 

The collection had opened and spilled all over the contents of the package.

Perhaps it was a fluke? An issue with this particular mailer? Let's compare.

GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recently released a Video Game Collection, comprised of pigments, glitter, bath items, and solid perfume. Here is what customers were expecting:

Note the 'pot' of perfume in the photo

The product listing tells a different story about the perfume packaging

Here are links and photos of what three customers actually received.

A former GS Admin who was an originator for the idea for the Video Game Collection:

GlitterSniffer Cosmetics does not use sifter stickers, FYI.

Advertised as a rhinestone encrusted twist up tube, the solid perfume arrived in a pot.

Broken Soap

"Filled" glass potion vials

 

It's a bath bomb, in case you were wondering.

Customer number two, whose package arrived in a similar state:

Broken Soap

Not so full

Well, on the upside, it is a pretty shade of blue.

Customer number three, whose package arrived intact:

Intact soap, unwrapped except for the outer packaging

Bath Bomb

Still not a tube

Maybe GS meant 'tube shaped solid perfume'?

Dictionary.com defines 'filled' as "to make full; put as much as can be held into".

As far as these three examples of the Video Game Collections go there were no ingredients included either on the cosmetic items (pigment, glitter, bath bomb, and perfume) or on the outer packaging as per FDA Guidelines, and the soap wasn't labeled as soap (a possible issue for the Consumer Product Safety Commission).

In four of five cases the product was either not as described, or arrived in virtually unusable condition.

Thank you to everyone who allowed their photos to be published.

*Please note, I am more than willing to present both sides, as evidenced by the link to the positive review, and if an order has been received in a timely, well packaged, FDA compliant manner I'd be happy to publish photographic evidence of that as well. Please feel free to send them to me, along with permission to publish. Thank you.

4/27/11 ETA: There have been numerous comments that stated the change to the perfume was announced on the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook page. I have found no evidence for this in numerous Google cache searches or in the @glitt3rsniff3r Twitter feed, but due to the overwhelming substantiation by several people, both supporters and others I felt I would be remiss if I did not include this information. I will continue to look for supporting documentation as to this matter. Please note that at least one of the customers published here expected the tubes and as such appears not to have been aware of any such announcement. It also begs the question as to why the photos in the listing show the pots but the listing states it will be in a tube. An oversight perhaps in regards to the listing, yet still a consumer issue as they were not sent specifically what was promised in the listing. More information as it becomes available. Thank you.

New Randoms-Labeling

I received pictures today of the new "Randoms" now being offered by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.

The pigments came packaged together in a plastic bag, with an ingredients list affixed to it. The individual jars were not labeled with ingredients.

The ingredients list states it "may contain".

This does not appear to meet FDA labeling guidelines. When a fullsize product is sold it must contain ingredients, use, and place of manufacture/distributor statement on each individual jar. The stackers currently being sold by GS are exempt from this strict ingredient  labeling, but not the manufacturer/distributor statement and use guidelines, as they are considered one full size product and cannot be individually labeled by color, hence the "may contain" ingredient labeling.

The order contained  a sample which was labeled only with a GlitterSniffer sticker.

As this is a sample size, and not a fullsize product, the FDA labeling guidelines do not apply.

The order also contained a fullsize "Random", which has no label at all.

Suffice to say, this product meets none of the FDA labeling requirements and could therefore be called possibly misbranded and subject to FDA action.