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.

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.

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.