I stopped by the Clinique counter at our local Nordstrom yesterday to purchase their new Even Better Clinical Dark Spot Corrector so I could review it for www.beautypedia.com. Even Better Clinical Dark Spot Corrector is a reformulation of Clinique’s Even Better Dark Spot Corrector (the change is the addition of the word Clinical). Both are supposed to fade discolorations, including marks from acne. The Clinique Consultant, decked out in the usual white lab coat, told me they had not received the new Clinical version yet but if I pre-order it now they’ll include some goodies as a thank you for being patient. I thought, “why not?” and went ahead with the pre-order.

While she was filling out the paperwork, I asked if she had used the new Clinical version (Clinique salespeople typically get new products in advance so they can use them before they’re sold to the public). “Oh yes,” she said. “In fact, I’m surprised at how fast it worked to lighten some dark patches on my cheek. They’ve already faded in less than two weeks! I keep looking at where the spots used to be and wonder if I’m imagining the improvement!” I told her that her skin looked great but noted she was wearing enough foundation to hide minor discolorations. In turn, she asked me if I had used their existing Even Better (non-clinical) product, the one that launched about a year ago. I said I had tried it but didn’t notice any results that made continued use worth it (hey, why not be honest?).

After my admission she happily exclaimed, “Yes, the original Even Better didn’t work all that well for most people. That’s why Clinique created Even Better Clinical! It works much faster on discolorations than the original version and has lots more antioxidants!” Her comment about the original correlates with our review of this product (though I’m sure when the original version launched she wasn’t sharing this with her customers). We stated the 0.5% salicylic acid was too low and the pH of 4.4 too high to permit exfoliation to occur. Exfoliation can definitely help improve skin tone and assist with fading discolorations, but Clinique’s Even Better wasn’t good enough.

I asked the Consultant if the original Even Better (which I noticed still lining the shelves behind her) was going to be discontinued. “No, at least not yet. Clinique doesn’t want to disappoint the people that like this product, and, you know, it hasn’t been around that long—it would look odd if we suddenly took it away.” What an admission.

Long pause. “But wait,” I said. “Didn’t you just tell me that Even Better Clinical works much faster and is, for all intents and purposes, a much better formula than the original?” Her response was, as expected, “Yes.” With a confused look on my face, I asked, “But you’re still going to sell the one that doesn’t work that well?” She nodded. “OK,” I said, “but I’m still confused….who wouldn’t want the version that lightens their dark spots faster?” This assumes, of course, that the new Clinical version really does have a better formula than the original.

At that point, all she could do was hand me my pre-order receipt, smile, and move on to the next customer. It was so odd. I knew she agreed with me, that my logic wasn’t lost on her, but she really didn’t have a plausible explanation as to why the company is keeping an inferior version of their product around. She also couldn’t explain why the new version works better; instead, she just stated that it did. It’s true that some Clinique customers may like the original version of Even Better, but why not train the Consultants to sell them on the benefits of the (allegedly) improved formula? If anything, it seems Clinique agreed with our original assessment of Even Better’s inability to improve skin tone and discolorations; otherwise, why launch a new version so soon?

Here comes another study saying one company’s products are better than someone else’s. Like most of these studies, it all sounds pretty darn convincing. But wait; let’s consider the fine print before we go shopping…

You may have seen recent media reports that a study in the very proper British Journal of Dermatology revealed that using Olay’s Pro-X products improves wrinkles just as well as prescription tretinoin (the active ingredient in the topical medications Renova, Retin-A, etc.). The big deal being made is that Olay Pro-X, a “non-prescription brand” that’s readily available, has come up with an anti-wrinkle skin-care routine that can be considered “as effective as the leading wrinkle brand regimen at half the price”. And they’re guaranteeing it, too, which only confirms how much faith they have in the results (but these days, who doesn’t guarantee their products?).

The study was the comparative type, and involved 196 women between the ages of 40–65. Half of the participants used Olay Pro-X products and the others used a cream containing 0.02% tretinoin. The majority of participants used the products for 8 weeks, at which time the results were tabulated. The headline conclusion was that in just 8 weeks, the Pro-X routine worked just as well as tretinoin. But wait, there’s more…

On the surface, the results sound very impressive, but before you speed to your local Walgreens or Rite Aid to fill your basket with all things Pro-X, consider this: the study, like so many things in life, has critical fine print that cannot be ignored.

Here’s what Olay states in their ads and on the company’s Olay Professional Web site, “The prescription [meaning tretinoin] takes 24 weeks to see full results and longer term comparative results may be different”. So after all the hype, Olay’s study really just showed that Pro-X isn’t as effective as tretinoin because, as it seems, they published results prematurely.

We know tretinoin can take 24 weeks (6 months) of consistent use for positive results, and that the results continue to improve the longer a person uses tretinoin. Olay must know this too, or they wouldn’t have the fine print disclaimer needed to meet the standards of the journal this study was published in.

Interestingly, they mention that a small number of women in the study continued their regimens for an additional 16 weeks, meaning they used either Pro-X or tretinoin for a total of six months. The results? Only that “both groups continued to improve” and that the overall wrinkle reduction was 20%, but they didn’t indicate if the women using tretinoin had even better results (I am betting they did). Wouldn’t it be great to speak to some of the women who participated in this study? I wonder how many of them are still using Pro-X?

Estee Lauder has a new anti-wrinkle product (I know, what a shock; add this to the other 300 anti-wrinkle products they sell from their various lines). Perfectionist [CP+] Targeted Deep Wrinkle Filler ($39.50 for 1 ounce) is said to be a “powerful daily treatment for your deepest wrinkles”. It’s designed to be used on lines around the eye, creases in the forehead, furrows between the brow—anywhere you have lines that don’t go away when your face is expressionless.

This type of product isn’t anything new. Estee Lauder’s defunct Prescriptives brand offered a version of this product years ago in their Magic line, Lancome had their Touche Optimage Line Blurring Concentrate, and Lauder-owned Good Skin (sold at Kohl’s department stores) sells TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler. All of these are silicone-based serum-like products that serve as a soft spackle for wrinkles and large pores. You pat the product into and over creases, and they have a superficial, temporary filling effect. How long results last depend on the formula and, more critically, how expressive you are. And of course, none of these products have even a fractional ability to work like Botox or dermal fillers, but that’s another story.

We’re about to review this new Perfectionist product on Beautypedia, and although we don’t typically try products before we review them (we prefer to focus on the ingredient list, product claims, and research rather than personal experience which doesn’t help thousands of women know what really works) I decided to give this a go. At age 36, I have some minor lines around my eyes and wanted to see how Perfectionist would work to “push up” my wrinkles, as the copy on the packaging reads.

I followed the directions provided and dispensed a small amount of this wrinkle filler into my lines, gently patting to smooth the excess. This filler has a texture that is very much like spackle, so I instantly felt like I was doing some serious patchwork under the bright lights of my bathroom. Perfectionist feels supremely silky and sets quickly to a soft, powder-like matte finish laced with subtle sparkles, which I didn’t care for. The filling effect was impressive. It really did a good job of smoothing superficial lines—definitely better than my usual moisturizer.

Here’s the part where things started to go downhill. I reasoned that most women using this product are likely to apply it before makeup. After all, why bother with the cosmetic effect of filling lines right before going to sleep? You want your lines to be less apparent during the day, right? So once Perfectionist had set, I pulled out a Lauder foundation and applied it around the eyes. Imagine my surprise when the makeup looked TERRIBLE over the area where Perfectionist was applied. Lauder’s liquid foundation looked patchy and, as the day went by the skin around my eyes looked cracked and crepy—Perfectionist + foundation actually made me look older! How depressing is that?

Back at the office, I tried several other foundations over the Perfectionist Wrinkle Filler. Any liquid or cream-to-powder foundation with any type of silicone in it didn’t look good. In fact, the combination made wrinkles and even minor lines more apparent. When I applied a silicone-free foundation (Laura Mercier’s Oil-Free) over Perfectionist, the result was great. This combination kept the lines filled while actually allowing the foundation to look better than it does when used alone. The problem is that the majority of foundations, concealers, and most tinted moisturizers sold today contain one or more forms of silicone. You shouldn’t have to give up your favorite foundation or concealer in order to experience the benefits (however temporary) Perfectionist offers.

Oddly enough, the aforementioned TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler from Lauder-owned Good Skin works beautifully with foundations and concealers that contain silicone.

One more comment: Lauder isn’t known for offering fragrance-free skin-care products, and Perfectionist is no exception. After a few days of applying this product around my eyes, I experienced stinging and tenderness on my skin and in my eyes. Both issues went away as soon as I stopped using this product, which has a much stronger scent than what anyone should be applying so close to their eyes (and what woman who purchases this product to fill wrinkles isn’t going to try it around her eyes?)

We routinely receive emails (lots of emails) from new and longtime readers asking us to review a specific brand or product. It never ceases to amaze us how many brands are out there that we’ve yet to review—given the millions of products available, you’d think no one in the world would have a single skin-care complaint!

Lately I’ve received a series of emails from readers that leave me shaking my head at the audacity some of these cosmetic companies have. These women who write to us have the best intentions of finding products that work for them, but they’re increasingly up against some of the most ridiculous claims and prices we’ve ever seen. I wasn’t a bit surprised when I explored some of the products these women were intensely curious about…and found out that they were terrible in most respects. Good thing they checked with us first, but imagine all of those who don’t and wind up financially and emotionally down when the wow-factor claims don’t show up in the mirror. One more reason why, as Paula states, “You need a Cosmetics Cop!”

 But back to these emails I field daily…the more I thought about it, the more I couldn’t put my finger on why even well-informed, Paula-educated consumers still get curious about products with miraculous claims and stratospheric prices. For example, one of the messages asked about a serum with placental enzymes that cost $200 for an ounce. Not only was the price outrageous, but the formula, quite frankly, sucked. Alcohol was a major ingredient, and it contained irritating plant extracts, too. Of course, placental enzymes (which come from animals, not people) have no effect on skin, but that’s fodder for another blog. This woman must’ve felt that the price and claims added up to something special, because she honestly wanted to know if this serum was worth abandoning the one she normally uses from Paula’s Choice. That’s a hard question for me because after reviewing thousands of products, I know the value of our formulations but at the very least if a woman is going to make a change it should be for the better, not for worse. 

I know women are always looking for the best products. They always want to know if some secret ingredient or formula really exists. The perpetual lure of advertising and dollar signs makes us second-guess ourselves. Is the grass really greener if only we spend a lot more money? With so many products vying for our attention, it’s easy to let our hopeful human nature to take over regardless of how much it costs. That’s not the most rational or pragmatic approach, but in the midst of seeing things we don’t like about our appearance (wrinkles, sagging skin, discolorations) who isn’t tempted to ignore reality and wish for the fantasy? I imagine many women, despite being consistently disappointed by products that don’t work as claimed, remain hopeful because of the boost they get from feeling as if they are doing something to address their appearance. It may not be the best thing and it may cost much more than it realistically should, but simply making the effort and refusing to give up has to count for something, right?

What do you think? Are my theories spot-on or did I completely miss the mark? As cosmetics consumers, how vulnerable are all of us to fantastic claims coupled with jaw-dropping prices?

I recently visited my hometown to see my family before the holidays. While there, I met with a high school friend of mine that I hadn’t seen in nearly 15 years (where does the time go?). As we caught up on each other’s lives,  naturally we discussed what’s going on with several of our former classmates. I asked about our friend Joanne, as I had lost touch with her and noticed she wasn’t on Facebook (and these days, who isn’t on Facebook?). My friend paused and then revealed some sobering news: Joanne died in August 2006, at age 32, the victim of melanoma. I was stunned. Joanne was a bright, effervescent woman with a quick wit and sense of sly sarcasm that made many boring yet required high school courses much more bearable. I looked forward to seeing her in class and passing her in the hallway, where we’d often make each other laugh with just a silly glance.

As I took this news in, I realized one thing that didn’t click right away: Joanne was a sun worshipper. In fact, my friend mentioned that on sunny days, the two of them would often skip class and lay out on the beach at Lake Lansing, slathered in suntan oil. Joanne had naturally blonde hair and dark eyes, a combination that, along with her light skin tone, allowed her to tan after she became sufficiently freckled. I recalled her stating that she wanted to stay dark enough so that “all the freckles connected”. I also recalled being jealous of how dark she could get. Being lighter than her, it used to bother me that my attempts at tanning were basically useless (not to mention painful) and, as a lucky result, tanning became practice I quickly abandoned despite the pressure to not be pale.

Unfortunately, Joanne learned the hard way that keeping a tan at all costs can end up costing a person their life. Melanoma is the rarest form of skin cancer, but its numbers are on the rise, especially among young women who continue tanning (whether in the sun or, even worse, in tanning beds). The death rate for melanoma is startlingly high: 79% of those diagnosed will succumb. Melanoma is also the second most common cancer in women between the ages of 25–30, though the median age of diagnosis is 45, a time when it may be too late to stop the spread of this deadly skin disease.

Next summer, when the Seattle clouds clear and the rain dissipates, I’ll be paying extra attention to playing it safe in the sun—and thankful for the knowledge I’ve gained after working so closely with Paula on the topic of how sun exposure damages our skin.

Joanne, wherever you are, I hope you’re still making people laugh. You are missed and your untimely passing will serve as a powerful reminder to all who knew you as they consider how to protect their skin from the sun. Joanne’s family left this as her final message: “Wear your sunscreen, hats, protective clothing. DON’T DIE TO BE TAN! Stay away from tanning booths and beds! It’s not just a little spot you have removed and live on. This is a DEADLY BEAST.” I couldn’t agree more!

If you’re a fan of Paula’s books and Web sites, you’re well aware that she’s a big proponent of using skin-care products that contain antioxidants. Research has shown time and again that topically applied antioxidants have multiple benefits for skin, particularly in the presence of sunlight. What I didn’t fully realize was how critical antioxidants are as we age. Here’s what I learned from a recent article published in the peer-reviewed journal Cosmetic Dermatology:

• Skin exposure to UV radiation can completely exhaust the skin’s natural supply of antioxidants. With continued unprotected sun exposure, UV rays can act like a kid in a candy store, indiscriminately “helping themselves” to your skin’s support structure. It’s as though your skin’s soldiers (its natural supply of defenses against oxidative damage) have laid down their arms, allowing the enemy to win the war. The result? With continued unprotected sun exposure, skin’s oxidative defense system becomes incapable of fully regenerating itself. What’s worse, the little that does get regenerated is consistently weakened and less capable of defending skin from damage.
• Topically-applied antioxidants not only prevent damage from reactive oxygen species (or ROS, rouge molecules generated by free radical damage) but they also help prevent the conversion of normally harmless or helpful substances in skin into pro-oxidants. Imagine that: going without sufficient antioxidant protection and ignoring sun protection means innocent substances in skin begin acting like criminals, looting your skin of what it needs to look youthful and resist damage.
• This last point I already knew but it bears repeating: there is no single best antioxidant. In fact, shopping for skin-care products centered around one antioxidant (like vitamins C or E) means you won’t be giving your skin its best chance of recovering from the various types of damage caused by oxidation and sunlight. There are thousands of antioxidants available, and among those that have the most research, one thing has become clear: different antioxidants have different strengths and weaknesses. For example, although vitamin C is involved in collagen synthesis, it isn’t fat soluble. That means it needs help to penetrate the lipids (fats) naturally present in skin if it is to reach its target and do the most good. Some antioxidants are all-around free radical scavengers while others work better to regenerate substances in skin that work to defend it from oxidative damage and inflammation. The bottom line is that taking a cocktail approach to using antioxidant topically is best. Variety is the spice of antioxidants!

I am continually fascinated by new research concerning how antioxidants impact our skin and overall health. Learning about how and why they work and how they should be formulated for maximum efficacy is one of the most exciting parts of my job. Best of all is the feedback we get from customers who’ve used our antioxidant-rich serums and moisturizers. The changes they see in their skin are exactly how well-formulated products loaded with antioxidants are supposed to work. Couple this with daily sun protection, a healthy diet, and smart lifestyle choices and you’re well on your way toward keeping skin’s defense systems ready to handle the reality of living in an oxygen-rich world.

J ust seconds ago I finished approving the last round of edits for what will be Paula’s next book, Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, 8th Edition. The book is huge! Even with our decision to only include lines readers ask us about most often (over 120 brands) the book still ended up being over 1,200 pages. I almost hurt my arm carrying the manuscript back to the designer’s office (and a special thanks to our graphic designer for making these books look so good).

Just last week Paula took me and our team out for a beautiful celebratory dinner at one of Seattle’s finest restaurants. It was a special evening, and the culmination of months of demanding, exacting work. It really does take a village to publish a book that candidly reviews thousands upon thousands of skin care and makeup products!

My team and I have spent the last couple of months making sure the book is as current as possible before it goes to print. Talk about anxiety! Thanks to lots of Starbucks drinks and healthy doses of humor we have made it to the end of another edition of Paula’s most popular book. Just like for the 7th Edition, we have Beautypedia to fall back on. Beautypedia serves as an extension of Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, and includes reviews of over 130 more brands we couldn’t fit into the book. Believe me, it eases our anxiety about sending the book to the printer and finding out, mere days later, that a major line is launching a new anti-wrinkle cream or another brand is completely redoing its makeup. When we were only writing books, such announcements left us crestfallen. With Beautypedia, we can make these changes as they occur, so the book, as it exists on Beautypedia, won’t be out-of-date.

With every new book one of our laments is that we always get feedback from readers asking us about the brands didn’t include. Although such feedback is welcome, we all feel disappointed since we endeavor to include a mix of well-known brands along with niche lines that have gained in prominence or popularity. As much as we try to hit a bull’s eye that will please everyone, we know that some readers will be upset that their favorite brand (or one they’re curious about) isn’t in the book. All I can do, besides apologize and let them know we track requests for all brands readers ask us about, is steer them toward all of the brilliant products we recommend in the latest book and on Beautypedia.com. I can say with 100% confidence that there is nothing in any line we didn’t review that could possibly surpass the best of what’s in the book and on Beautypedia.com. That may be hard to believe, we all want to believe there is an ultimate best or miracle lurking about somewhere, but after working with Paula on six books, countless newsletters, Beautypedia, and thousands of pages of content, heck, even I’d bet on that claim, and I’m not much of a gambler!

OK, I know this was a bit of a pat-ourselves-on-the-back blog entry, but I hope when the book is available (December) that you’ll agree it was a job well done. I’m thrilled with the team effort and thankful to Paula for the opportunity she’s given us to help educate consumers about the fascinating, sometimes brilliant, and often utterly maddening cosmetics industry!

A fan of Paula’s recently sent us a transcript of an online chat he had with a customer service representative from the Murad brand. He was inquiring about the prominence of denatured alcohol (the type of alcohol Paula recommends avoiding) in one of the company’s pore-refining products. He was, wisely, inquiring about why Dr. Murad would use such a drying, irritating ingredient in a skin-care product.

He sent us the chat transcript he had with the Murad customer service representative, here’s their response:

“Some Murad products do contain a certain type of alcohol. Alcohol, in the context of cosmetic formulations, is a frequently misunderstood ingredient. This is despite the fact that it can be extremely beneficial in a particular formula. A mild cosmetic alcohol, Specially Denatured (SD) Alcohol (SDA) is an excellent delivery vehicle commonly used in astringents, toners, and gels. SD Alcohol is not necessarily dehydrating to the skin when it is mixed with other moisture-binding ingredients.”

Since this information conflicted with what Paula has written about this type of alcohol, he decided to ask us why Paula’s opinion about alcohol differs from Murad’s. I’m glad he did, because what the Murad representative told him was at the very least misleading but mostly it was just false. Paula and I were both appalled. Here was our response:

“The issue isn’t that Paula has a different opinion. Alcohol being damaging to skin isn’t about opinion any more then saying at night the moon rises and in the morning it sets. Alcohol (meaning SD alcohol, methanol, ethanol, or benzyl alcohol) in terms of being a skin irritant, generating free radical damage, causing cell death, and damaging the skin’s barrier are the facts as demonstrated by extensive published research. (Sources: Clinical Experimental Dermatology, September 2009, online, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology, November 2008, page 26; Alcohol Research and Health, 2003, Volume 27, Issue 4, pages 277-284).

There is nothing to “misunderstand” about alcohol as it’s used in cosmetics, especially when it is one of the main ingredients. Yes, it can de-grease skin and prompt a shine-free finish and because it disrupts the skin’s barrier it is a vehicle to get ingredients into skin. However, lots of other ingredients can do that without the inherent risks to skin health alcohol presents.

There is no such thing as a “mild cosmetic alcohol” any more then there is a mild consumable martini. SD alcohol refers to ethanol (pure alcohol) that has been “specially denatured” so it is unfit for drinking. It is absolutely not a case of a unique alcohol that’s somehow made gentle enough for inclusion in cosmetics.

The Murad representative was right that alcohol is less dehydrating to skin when it is mixed with other moisturizing ingredients, but why mitigate the damage and just not include it in the first place? I would love to see Murad, or anyone else for that matter, present research showing any benefit alcohol has in skin care products.

Overall, aside from this issue, Dr. Murad has perhaps the largest selection of poorly formulated products I’ve seen. He tends to use irritating ingredients with no rhyme or reason or proven benefit to skin. Of course, Murad has some good products, too (I’m bracing myself for the vitriol from the Murad fans out there) but by and large this isn’t a line with a creator who understands the problems that occur when skin is repeatedly subjected to irritating ingredients without a benefit.

I was recently in our local Nordstrom store, checking out some new philosophy makeup products. Because fall is upon us and lots of cosmetic companies are gearing up for big launches, the philosophy salesperson was eager to inform me of what was coming to the counter soon. Along with a new foundation and some other potentially intriguing makeup items was the claim she kept repeating: “…which will be paraben-free.” At one point I stopped her and asked what was so bad about parabens (I was curious to see what she’d say). Her reply was “Well, they cause cancer, especially breast cancer.” I replied that from the research I’ve seen there is no definitive link between breast (or any other type of) cancer and parabens. I asked where she got her information, to which she replied “That’s what they tell us in training.” Sigh. Cosmetic companies love using scare tactics to sell their products.

As I continued to take notes on the new makeup items, I asked her what was so bad about parabens. She admitted she didn’t know for sure, but philosophy is moving away from using them because “it’s just better for the products”. “Besides”, she said, “parabens aren’t natural.” Without wanting to further the debate since I was done with my research, I just smiled and nodded. So that’s what she was getting at all along. Never mind that parabens are, in fact, derived from a natural source (berries) the real theme is that philosophy is changing their marketing message to the familiar theme of natural = good, synthetic = bad, health-threatening, toxic, insert-your-own-unpleasant-adjective-here.

If I had more time to spend discussing this with her (she really was helpful and quite earnest in her fervor for philosophy) I would’ve mentioned that it would be far better if philosophy took an inventory of all the irritating ingredients in their formulas, many of which are natural, and removed those instead of parabens. But such a move would never happen because most consumers are convinced beyond a doubt that any natural ingredient is preferred to one of synthetic origin (often referred to as “chemicals” even though everything in our world is composed of chemicals). The truth is there are good and bad ingredients of either origin, not to mention that most cosmetic formulas wouldn’t be nearly as elegant or effective without the synthetic ingredients that play integral parts-and that includes parabens and other preservatives.

All of us were shocked to read the announcement in Global Cosmetic Industry on Monday, September 21st that The Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. will close global operations for their longstanding Prescriptives brand. Prescriptives came on the scene in 1979, during a time when it was rare to find a cosmetic line offering more than a half dozen shades of foundation. It was rarer still to find a foundation that didn’t have overtones of pink, rose, peach, orange, or copper. Prescriptives changed all of that, ushering in not only a new method of shopping for foundation (Colorprinting) but offering some truly neutral to yellow-toned shades among the less desirable options. Over the years the line expanded to include a full complement of makeup along with skin care and fragrance. In some ways, their success was the blueprint for the parade of makeup artist lines now available, not to mention a trigger for the other Lauder-owned brands to improve their foundations, which they eventually did.

Like us, you may be wondering why this decision was made. After all, Prescriptives is a well-known, established brand that offers a bevy of outstanding products (it was painful removing all of the Paula’s Picks from the book). The answer comes down to today’s economic climate, at least according to this statement from The Estee Lauder Companies: “After a thorough analysis of the Prescriptives brand, management concluded that the brand’s long term business model is no longer viable given the current market environment.” Fabrizio Freda, president and CEO of The Estee Lauder Companies commented “Ultimately, this action allows us to focus on those areas that we expect to benefit the company, our shareholders and business partners.” Definitely classic corporate rhetoric, but the reality is that we’ll likely see other brands succumb unless more consumers return to the department store to shop for cosmetics. I admit, many department store cosmetic items are way overpriced, but cannot deny there are hundreds of excellent products to consider, too. The trick is getting consumers to open their wallets at a time when most have cut way back, and justifiably so.

Due to this business decision, we have cut the Prescriptives line from Paula’s upcoming book, Don’t Go to the Cosmetics Counter Without Me, 8th Edition. The book will be available in December, and because Prescriptives will cease operations as of January 30, 2010 it didn’t make sense to keep it in (thank goodness this announcement didn’t come after the book had gone to print!). We will maintain the Prescriptives brand on Beautypedia until February 2010. The company has stated that they will continue to have a retail presence online until their inventory is depleted. We will not be reviewing any new Prescriptives products on Beautypedia because, well, what’s the point?

Oddly, one Prescriptives product escaped this massive downsizing: Calyx fragrance. This popular scent will be sold at department store fragrance counters once Prescriptives has shut down their full service counters worldwide.