I want to thank all of you who responded to my request to help me figure out exactly how to describe my skin care and makeup company, Paula’s Choice, to other people who don’t know my products, books, or bulletins.

All of your comments were thoughtful, insightful, flattering, humbling, and truthful. Most of all they stimulated a meaningful contemplation of what my business is all about.

My marketing team and I have spent quite a bit of time discussing what you have contributed. It has brought a keen understanding of how those of you who shop Paula’s Choice, read my books, or use Beautypedia.com experience what we have created.

After reading all of your absorbing and fascinating comments, I think I can sum up my company and life’s work like this:

Paula’s Choice is a specialized range of skin care and makeup products I formulated after 32 years of research and writing 18 books analyzing the facts about skin care and makeup products.

Because my only mission is to help you find the best products to take care of your skin I am the only cosmetics company in the world that recommends products other than my own.

Come visit us at PaulasChoice.com and find out what you are missing!

Inorder to compose the summaries of the brands Paula reviews, we have to gather information about the company history and background in order to put the brand’s products into context for Paula and, of course, for the benefit of Beautypedia subscribers. While compiling information for Sally Hansen, I encountered another positively baffling encounter with a customer service rep, which just might be the kookiest yet!

I thoroughly searched Sally Hansen’s website and that of their parent company Coty, Inc. to find some information about the brand—for instance, who is Sally Hansen? Why is she so focused on nail care? How did the company come to be a drugstore mainstay?—and was coming up with zilch. I couldn’t find any information, not even when it was founded and by whom—basic stuff that almost all cosmetic brands put on their websites. Even a search on Wikipedia and Google yielded no results. So I opted to call Sally Hansen’s customer service, explaining that I was doing some research on the brand and wanted to know some background history. Here’s how that conversation transpired:

Me: Hi! I’m doing some research and I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit about the Sally Hansen brand. Who is Sally Hansen? How did the company originate? Or can you put me in touch with someone who might know?

SH: Sure! I can direct you to our website. All that information is available on SallyHansen.com.

Me: Actually, I started there, and there’s no “About Us” info on your site at all. Or if it is there, I’m just not seeing it.

SH: Then it should be on Coty.com.

Me: I tried there too, but Sally Hansen isn’t even listed as one of Coty’s affiliate brands. That’s why I thought I’d give you a call.

SH: Well, I guess that site hasn’t been updated in awhile! Can you please hold?

*TEN MINUTES PASS*

SH: Sorry for the long delay. I can tell you that Sally Hansen wasn’t actually a real person, and all the other company history information we have is available at SallyHansen.com.

Me: Okay, that’s helpful. But I’m just not seeing where that information is on your site. Can you tell me the tab you clicked on or the URL of what you’re looking at?

SH: Did you click on Contact Us or Customer Service?

Me: Yes, I’m looking at that page now.

SH: All the company information is listed there.

Me: But there’s nothing there.

SH: Well, then, I’m told that’s all the information we have.

Me: So all the information you have is no information?

SH: Yes, all the information we have is listed there.

Me: But have you looked at the page? There’s nothing there. It’s only the customer service phone number and an email address.

SH: Well, you should send your inquiry via email and someone can get back to you.

Me: Great! Which department receives those emails?

SH: This department. Customer Service.

Me: But aren’t I talking to you now? How would emailing you help?

*EXTREMELY AWKWARD SILENCE*

Me: Thank you for your time.

*CLICK*

So, dear readers, after all that, all I know for sure is that Sally Hansen wasn’t actually a real person. Whether or not that accounts for the company’s gaps in their employees’ logic and the staggering lack of background information they give their customers, I can’t say. But in my experience this kind of doublespeak and nonsense at the customer service level doesn’t bode well for how their products will stand up to Paula’s scrutiny. Either way, look for those reviews on Beautypedia soon!

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!

Every day, I call cosmetic company after cosmetic company (either their marketing departments or customer service call centers), send e-mails to the same, and visit cosmetic counters in stores in order to gather product information for the product reviews that will eventually show up on Beautypedia.com. I do this day after day, (it is a full time job), despite the frustration because I really do love my job, even though getting information from a cosmetics company is harder than squeezing water from a rock.

It’s a sad fact, but more than half of the e-mails I send asking for information about a company’s products (often the same as any consumer might), never gets a reply. Even fewer phone calls are ever returned. If I were a customer, I would have long since thrown in the towel on trying to contact these companies, and I surely would never purchase any products from companies who seem to place such little value in their customers. Understanding that strong customer service breeds brand loyalty, and with such a competitive market to boot, it makes sense that the smaller brands tend to reply more often, because to them each and every customer counts. It’s ironic that even with a smaller brand’s limited staff they are still able to excel at customer service, while the large companies are definitely remain the worst offenders – and with their deep pockets and overpriced products, there’s just no excuse!

Here’s a classic example: Christian Dior. In the past two weeks, I have made no less than 50 calls to 1-800-929-DIOR – a number which, incidentally, is not available anywhere on their website, and was given to me by the extremely helpful customer service staff at Nordstrom, because Dior’s old customer service number on file here at Beautypedia is out of service, with no forwarding number either! Each time I call Dior, I’m greeted by a fancy French-accented voice that instructs me to press #1 for “Product or Consumer Information.” From there, the phone rings twice before a voice tells me that no one can take my call. Then, a dial tone. No option to leave a message, no operator to re-direct my call. This happens no matter what time of day it is, on any day of the week. If it weren’t my job to be so tenacious, I would’ve given up on Dior long, long ago.

At this point, contacting Dior directly has become somewhat of an office joke. For about a week straight, I would call three or four times per day on speakerphone just for amusement. As a result, we’ve become strangely endeared to the voice on the other end (I’ve named her Frenchy), and each time I am transferred to “Product or Consumer Information,” I wait, brows raised in mock anticipation, until the inevitable “We’re sorry…” and then the dial tone that follows. In the meantime, I’ve taken to calling Dior counters for the information I need, but because department stores have to stagger their schedules, the counters are rarely staffed with anyone who knows anything about Dior. Case in point: It took no less than 14 calls to Dior counters across the country before I found one staffed with an actual Dior representative. When I asked her my product question, she replied: “I’m sorry, I’ve only been with Dior for 2 days, but I worked for Chanel for years, do you have any questions about that brand?” I must admit, I was tempted to give her my answer in dial tone, but I knew she wasn’t to blame. It’s all just typical of an industry that doesn’t really want to answer customer questions unless they have your cash in hand first – and probably not even then!

Every now and then we hear from cosmetic companies after we review their products. We really do welcome their comments (well, most of the time… Sometimes the comments are just so off the wall it’s just irksome), but it’s always so strange how so many companies are quick to respond to us when they object to something we’ve written, yet trying to get information from them before we’ve written a word is almost impossible.

We recently received a letter from the Vice President of Product Development and the Director of Education for the Nia 24 brand. They took issue with several points in our review of their products. They did provide some clarification and we made changes where appropriate. Overall, what they were pushing for is for us to admit that the form of the B vitamin niacin that they use in their products was superior to every other form.

I know this will make for a longer, more technical blog than we normally do, but for those interested in how we handle such correspondence, I have included the original letter below along with my responses to each point. Interestingly, the overall review for this brand was quite positive but their form of niacin is not the best. That part of the review has not changed! I stand by the research I originally used as well as the documented sources provided in my response to the company. Enjoy!

Here’s the letter from Nia24 with our responses in red.

Dear Bryan, Paula and Associates:

It was recently called to our attention by a loyal fan of NIA 24® and subscriber to your Beautypedia website that the information you have posted about the NIA 24® products is inaccurate. Indeed, after reading the review ourselves, we wanted to clarify a few discrepancies in hopes that you will alter your website to reflect the true facts that substantiate and support NIA 24®.

1. “their claims for niacinamide.” (under “Strengths”, line 2) – To clarify, Niadyne Inc, maker of NIA 24®, does not make claims about niacinamide because that is not the ingredient in our products. As you mention further down in your review, NIA 24® products are based on nicotinic acid – an alternate form of Niacin chosen for two reasons:
(1) the presence of nicotinic acid receptors on skin cells (see attached, newly published article)
(2) nicotinic acid is known to increase levels of cyclic AMP within skin cells and release the hormone leptin intracellularly. Nicotinic acid has been clinically proven to affect hyperpigmentation reduction pathways through these receptors found within skin. Conversely, niacinamide has not been shown to have such effects.

This has been clarified on Beautypedia. However, there is ample research proving niacinamide (nicotinamide) is a cell-communicating (cell-signaling) ingredient too, not to mention its effect on hyperpigmentation. Sources include: International Journal of Molecular Medicine, August 2008, pages 229-236; Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, April 2008, pages 298-304; Current Medicinal Chemistry, Volume 13, 2006, pages 883-895; and IFSCC Magazine, Volume 5, No. 4, 2002, pages 285-289)

2. “very small line of products” (under “Weaknesses”, line 1) – The product offerings within NIA 24® represent a stream-lined product range developed for physician dispensing that effectively delivers clinically-proven efficacious levels of the Pro-Niacin® molecule in an easy to use regimen still able to be tailored to various skin types.

This is a fact. The Nia 24 line consists of seven products. Yes, that’s streamlined but hardly an assortment of products capable of meeting the needs of “various skin types”. Therefore, we believe the line’s size is a weakness because it does not offer enough products to meet a variety of skin types, preferences, and other mitigating factors.

3. “no exfoliants” (Weaknesses, line 1) – The Physical Cleansing Scrub is a physical exfoliant using spherical jojoba beads encapsulated with the Pro-Niacin® molecule, which roll across skin to provide gentle exfoliation without tearing the skin.

This has been corrected so it now reads “No AHA or BHA exfoliants”. We actually praised your scrub and put it under “strengths”. I apologize that the distinction wasn’t originally made clearer.

4. “sole sunscreen contains irritating fragrance chemicals” (Weaknesses, Line 2) – NIA 24® products are fragrance, color and dye-free with masking agents that simply mask the less desirable odors inherent in mineral sunscreens.

Your mineral sunscreen contains the following fragrance chemicals known to cause irritation (all are on the EU list of 26 fragrance allergens required to be listed if they are part of a cosmetic company’s fragrance blend):

• Eugenol
• Citronellol
• Geraniol
• Isoeugenol
• Limonene
• Linalool

In addition, it contains the ingredient methyldihydrojasmonate, which is INCI-classified as a fragrance ingredient by virtue of its function (Source: International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook, Eleventh Edition, 2006, page 1,353).

Eugenol and isoeugenol are problematic, with isoeugenol less of a sensitization concern. We doubt the amount of the fragrance ingredients listed above are cause for concern for the majority of consumers, but the fact remains that skin-care products are better off without them (Sources: Journal of Applied Toxicology, May 2008, pages 530-534; Toxicologic Pathology, 2007, pages 696-701; and British Journal of Dermatology, February 2000, pages 279-283).

5. “NIA 24® is all about the B vitamin niacinamide” (1st paragraph, Line 1) – This is inaccurate. NIA 24® does not contain niacinamide but rather, a patented form of Niacin, called Pro-Niacin®, made of nicotinic acid with an added lipophilic tail. This patented structure enables optimal penetration of the molecule through the lipid-rich stratum corneum, deep within skin to deliver Niacin to the lower epidermal layers where skin cells divide. As skin regenerates, healthy Niacin-enhanced cells gradually replace older unhealthy cells to promote the generation of healthier skin cells from the inside-out and build a stronger skin barrier.

You can call it whatever they want, but the fact is they you’re using one of many forms of niacinamide (Myristyl nicotinate). We do mention that your form of niacinamide is not the same as pure niacinamide, but that they have similar functions. The doctors behind Nia 24 have published several papers on niacin, which is another name for niacinamide. Nicotinic acid is the scientific name for vitamin B3 (Source: www.naturaldatabase.com).

6. “how it [Pro-Niacin®] performs on skin isn’t fundamentally different from how “regular” niacinamide functions” (3rd paragraph, last sentence) – On the contrary, study data indicates that Pro-Niacin®, which effectively delivers nicotinic acid (not niacinamide) is very much “fundamentally different” for the following reasons:

(1) Its patented structure dramatically improves penetration of the molecule into skin, delivering Niacin to skin cells to stimulate natural repair processes (see attached graph from clinical study comparing Pro-Niacin® to niacinamide).

The attached “study” is simply a graph showing their form of niacinamide performed better than “regular” niacinamide. There are lots of studies from Procter & Gamble indicating niacinamide’s affinity for certain cell receptors. The doctors behind Nia 24 may feel their form of niacinamide is superior, but that stands to reason given their stake in the company (Sources: British Journal of Dermatology, September 2008, pages 567-577; Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 860-865; and Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2007, pages 20-26).

To further illustrate this point, consider this quote from the Cosmetic Ingredient Review board’s final report of the safety assessment of niacinamide and niacin: “The CIR Expert Panel considered that Niacinamide and Niacin are sufficiently similar from a toxicologic standpoint to combine the available data and reach a conclusion on the safety of both as cosmetic ingredients.” They also stated that “Both ingredients are readily absorbed from skin, blood, and the intestines and widely distribute throughout the body” (Source: International Journal of Toxicology, 2005 Supplement, pages 1-31).

(2) As stated previously, Nicotinic Acid stimulates mechanisms NOT stimulated by niacinamide. Refer to attached 2009 published paper for a more in depth review.

Their paper mentions this but the studies were done by the doctors behind Nia 24 and the paper has a disclaimer stating that it is “sponsored research managed in accordance with the Arizona Board of Reagents conflict-of-interest policies, supported in part by Niadyne Development. All of the published studies on PubMed dealing with myristyl nicotinate were performed by the doctors behind Nia 24. In contrast, there is significantly more (and more varied) research about niacinamide’s role in skin care and overall health care. If anything, when we wrote the review we relied more on those studies instead of what the Jacobsons have published about their form of niacinamide. Although it’s true that P&G’s studies on niacinamide are tied to their use of this ingredient in several Olay products, there is a wealth of independent, substantiated research on niacinamide that is simply lacking for myristyl nicotinate. However, based on what we know about how niacinamide functions topically, we concluded that the Nia 24 products would, in fact, offer skin multiple benefits.

This is an important bit of research sourced from the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, April 2004:

Nicotinic acid (also generally known as niacin) and niacinamide (also known as nicotinamide) are similarly effective as a vitamin because they can be converted into each other within the organism. The blanket term vitamin B(3) is used for both. Niacinamide is a component of important coenzymes involved in hydrogen transfer. Here, the two codehydrogenases, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD) and nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADP) are of central importance. Topical application of niacinamide has a stabilizing effect on epidermal barrier function, seen as a reduction in transepidermal water loss and an improvement in the moisture content of the horny layer. Niacinamide leads to an increase in protein synthesis (e.g. keratin), has a stimulating effect on ceramide synthesis, speeds up the differentiation of keratinocytes, and raises intracellular NADP levels. In ageing skin, topical application of niacinamide improves the surface structure, smoothes out wrinkles and inhibits photocarcinogenesis. It is possible to demonstrate anti-inflammatory effects in acne, rosacea and nitrogen mustard-induced irritation. Because of its verifiable beneficial effects, niacinamide would be a suitable component in cosmetic products for use in disorders of epidermal barrier function, for ageing skin, for improving pigmentary disorders and for use on skin prone to acne.

If this is true, and we have no reason to doubt it isn’t, it can be argued (just as we did in the summary for Nia 24) that these ingredients are so similar that their benefits overlap: either one is going to improve your skin. Nia 24 products are going to benefit your skin due to myristyl nicotinate’s similarity to niacinamide.

7. “This isn’t an affordable line by any stretch of the imagination.” – See attached Competitive Cost Analysis comparing NIA 24® to similar physician channel brand. In comparison to other lines that provide similar clinically proven results within skin, this line is quite competitive and is not considered “pricey” by most of our accounts.

The slides presented are not legible and the attachment cannot be enlarged beyond 100%, which still keeps the typeset unreadable. Regardless, although Nia 24 may be a deal when compared to other physician-owned/dispensed brands, the fact remains that there are mass market products with niacinamide that should give any consumer pause when they’re considering which brand to purchase.

I also found this bit of research interesting:

Mammals predominantly use nicotinamide rather than nicotinic acid as a precursor for NAD biosynthesis. Nicotinamide phosphoribosyltransferase (Nampt) is the rate-limiting enzyme that converts nicotinamide to nicotinamide mononucleotide in the NAD biosynthetic pathway from nicotinamide in mammals. The same protein has also been identified as a cytokine (pre-B-cell colony-enhancing factor or PBEF) or an insulin-mimetic hormone (visfatin).

Source for the above: http://http://journals.lww.com/co-gastroenterology/Abstract/2007/03000/The_regulation_of_nicotinamide_adenine.11.aspx

8. “Their claims of superiority aren’t supported in published studies” (last paragraph, 6th line) – This is completely inaccurate. With over 150 clinical studies, many funded by the National Institutes of Health and many listed in the attached document (only about 20 of these are provided on our website), clinical substantiation of the superiority of myristyl nicotinate to other forms of Niacin is available for your review in high quantity.

I looked over many of these studies, some of which were more claim substantiation-oriented. I didn’t find a single one that concluded myristyl nicotinate was superior to niacinamide. The National Institute of Health Web site didn’t have any of these superiority studies, either though they have considerably more information on niacinamide and skin than myristyl nicotinate and skin.

9. “You’re just as likely to see the same benefits from using less expensive products that contain efficacious amounts of niacinamide. (last paragraph, 7th line) – Please refer to attached graph illustrating the delivery of Pro-Niacin compared to niacinamide. In addition, please refer back to #2 and the attached published article which reviews the presence of nicotinic acid (not niacinamide) receptors on skin cells and the pathway of leptin release and hyperpigmentation reduction via nicotinic acid.

This is a repeat of your belief that the type of niacinamide Nia 24 uses is superior to other forms of niacin. You have not shown irrefutable proof that this is the case. Therefore, given the copious research on niacinamide, it was fair and honest of us to conclude that a consumer is likely to see the same benefits using a well-formulated product with niacinamide as they would using Nia 24’s version of this vitamin.

Again, it is our desire that your review of the NIA 24® products reflect accurate information and convey the 30 years of science that have gone into the making of this range. This proprietary niacin molecule is substantiated with 79 patents granted/pending and over $10 million in clinical data. We have also been chosen by the National Cancer Institute as a potential skin cancer prevention agent. Thus, there is a wealth of clinical studies and data backing the validity of any and all claims made by Niadyne, Inc.

Without question myristyl nicotinate has potential as a chemoprotective and anti-cancer ingredient, particularly in regard to skin cancer and precancerous lesions. However, so does niacinamide (not to mention many drugs such as 5-fluorouracil or imiquimod). The fact that the National Cancer Institute acknowledges myristyl nicotinate doesn’t mean it is the best or the only option to protect skin from UV damage that may lead to various skin cancers.

To be honest, doing “field work” for Beautypedia is always stressful. Though I’m certain I’ll probably never be exposed as working “undercover” for Beautypedia at the cosmetics counters, there are a fair amount of nerve racking encounters (pun intended) that take over when I’m trying to get information that you know someone doesn’t want you to have, regardless of whether you are entitled to it (and when it comes to ingredient listings on cosmetics that is absolutely public information).

Before I came to work for Beautypedia, I was easily intimidated by cosmetic counter people; they always made me feel “sized up,” and less aware and informed then they are. Now that I have learned quite a bit doing my job here at Beautypedia and reading Paula’s reviews and accumulated research I know these salespeople are pathetically misinformed and I can see that the judgmental arch in their brows is completely meaningless.

A recent OMG moment took place at a Clarins counter. I approached with my Beautypedia coworker, and we browsed the displays, picking up testers and trying to seem interested while we scanned for the specific item we were seeking. The counter person greeted us, and I explained that I was doing some pre-Mother’s Day shopping for my Mom who has very sensitive skin. Before I bought her anything, I explained, I’d need to check the ingredient list with my Dad to be sure that it didn’t contain any of her “no-nos.” This all seems plausible enough, and well within my rights as a consumer, so once I’d found the $80 jar-packaged anti-wrinkle cream I sought, I began to jot down the ingredients on a small notepad.

Before I’d finished the first row of ingredients, the lady stopped me and said, “You really only need to write down the first five ingredients.” She looked me square in the eye, and continued, “The rest aren’t really that important.” Really? Really!! That’s interesting because the product’s claims showcase the inclusion of specific extracts, and in this product, which has 42 ingredients total, the ingredient featured by name on the box is #18! So if the first five ingredients are the only ones that matter, then why boast about the 18th ingredient? Doesn’t make sense, does it? Needless to say, I wrote down all 42 of the ingredients, and walked away, shaking my head in disbelief once again.

On a recent trip to Sephora to gather ingredient lists for a couple of products, a saleperson approached me while I browsed the blushes. The young man was wearing a fitted black tee shirt and a spiky Mohawk, what has become the standard Sephora uniform (well at least in Seattle). Before I knew it, I was somehow sucked into an on-the-spot makeover! He escorted me over to a well-lit mirror, where he began going through the array of makeup brushes he wore on his belt, placing one after another them on the small table like serious medical tools. Even as I protested, he continued, saying that he just wanted to show me what a good bronzer could do — that alone made me very nervous because my complexion is extremely fair! I wanted to leave, to run away screaming as soon as his kabuki brush hit the bronzer, but by that point I felt bound to humor him, imagining this is exactly how many women feel when they are corralled into mini-makeovers either willingly or unwillingly like me who succumb under sales pressure.

When he finished my face, I was visibly unimpressed. I looked 10 years older and like I’d been streaked with lines of brownish gold. Personally, the only makeup I really needed was a new mascara and even though I knew I should consult Beautypedia.com before I hit the stores, in a desperate move to end the makeover before things went from bad to worse I blurted out that all I needed was a new mascara. Before I knew it, he had lead me to the cashier to purchase an $18 tube of Bare Escetuals’ Buxom Lash Mascara, an “amazing” lengthening and volumizing mascara, he explained, with a “ridiculous” oversized rubber brush and intense black color that doesn’t budge. “You’ll love it,” he promised. I was so flummoxed I paid for the mascara and went to get the ingredient information I needed from another store.

When I got it home, it turned out the mascara brush was indeed ridiculous, but not in a good way. Applying the product felt like a circus act, the brush so unwieldy that I couldn’t keep from getting mascara on my upper lids no matter how hard I tried. Even worse, the sheer size of the brush made any discrete application to the corner of my eye impossible. As the day wore on, I noticed the mascara had flaked and smudged below my eyes. Turns out, the product was anything but amazing and I certainly didn’t love it. I was angry at myself for letting the Sephora salesperson have his way with my face and I felt silly and bamboozled into an overpriced and inadequate product. And I know better than this!

After I calmed down, I decided to look up Bare Escetuals’ Buxom Lash Mascara on the web site I work for, Beautypedia.com, just to see what Paula thought of the product, and wouldn’t you know it… Paula’s review voiced every single problem I’d encountered! If only I’d referred to it first, I would’ve saved time, money and could’ve told Mr. Sephora salesperson to get a hair cut and leave me alone!

One of the enjoyable parts of researching for Beautypedia (and there are many!) is creating the various stories we need to use that will gain us access at a cosmetic counter to the ingredient lists they often refuse to let us write down. As fictitious are our tales often are, these stories don’t exactly haunt our consciences because they often reflect the kind of questions that Beautypedia subscribers ask us all the time and are never so far-fetched that they don’t resemble that of an actual customer. Examples would be when subscribers seek to check an unknown ingredient with their dermatologist, or cross check for interactions with other products, or just simply want to be informed consumers. We know we are working on your behalf when we’re out there collecting information, which makes it all the more frustrating when the answers don’t come easily, or in many cases accurately.

Fortunately for Beautypedia subscribers, we have the expertise to tell if the information we’ve been given by a cosmetics counter representative doesn’t add up. Without that kind of expertise, however, consumers trying to figure out what to buy are at a serious disadvantage. If there’s one thing that we’ve learned as researchers for Beautypedia, it’s that the cosmetics counter people don’t consistently or even often distribute correct information. Whether it’s intentionally misleading or (more likely) simply borne of bad sales training which produces complete and utter misinformation of their own product, we’re frequently reminded that salespeople are exactly that, salespeople and it’s not wise to rely on the information they give you about skin care or the value of the products they sell.

Case in point: Last week I called a Shiseido counter for foundation’s ingredients and the salesperson couldn’t even find the ingredient list on the box. And even though I patiently assured her that it was there somewhere, she became flustered and snapped “I’m the one looking at it, and I can assure you it’s not listed.” You can imagine the restraint it required not to call her back and gloat, after the next counter I called had found it without any trouble at all.

Locating the ingredients isn’t the only hurdle, however. Sometimes, companies can’t decide which ingredients they’re using at all. Take, for instance, a few phone calls we made recently to a few cosmetic counters in order to confirm the active ingredient in a Laura Mercier sunscreen. ALL SPF products must list the active ingredients they use in their products. I mean, it’s a simple question: “Can you tell me the active ingredients for your sunscreen?” The first counter person told us, “Argan Oil,” which, incidentally, is neither a sunscreen ingredient nor an active ingredient of any kind. The next counter we called told us “Oxybenzone,” which is indeed a sunscreen, but the counter rep couldn’t tell us the amount used and it is rarely used by itself on an ingredient list. We then called Laura Mercier’s corporate office; they told us “titanium dioxide,” a wholly different ingredient from the last, and the amount they specified? “Less than 1%.” If that’s the case it doesn’t amount to much more then an SPF of 2! Geesh!

As researchers for Beautypedia, it’s fair to say we work the beat for the Cosmetics Cop precinct. Every day we take to the phones and to the streets in an effort to track down complete and correct ingredient information for the thousands of products housed in Beautypedia. Considering that no formula-specific or trade secrets are revealed within these lists (and that these products go on our bodies and faces) it’s simply baffling that this information isn’t made readily available. Companies like to boast about their newest, magical ingredients and then suddenly get shy when you want to know anything more (basic stuff like studies or research details). The more time we spend patrolling the industry for Beautypedia, the more we feel that you should know the kind of lengths we have to go to do our jobs– it’s sometimes amusing, often maddening, and always makes us shake our heads in disbelief.

What’s so infuriating is that sometimes even the bigwigs in the cosmetic industry agree that disclosing ingredient information is important, and yet either hypocritically or just because they think no one will notice they keep this information deliberately unavailable or difficult to access. For example, in this month’s ELLE Jane Lauder (VP and GM of Origins, not to mention Estee Lauder’s granddaughter) went on the record as saying “Every company should be clear about what ingredients it is using.” If only that were true! This quote brought a groan from all of us here at Beautypedia that could have been heard around the world. First of all, Estee Lauder is one of the more notorious companies for making it almost impossible for us to get ingredient information from – their web sites are void of ingredient listings. For us that means we have go to the cosmetic counter and transcribe it by hand, or contact their call center and wait 1-5 days for the ingredient list to be sent to you, if it arrives at all.

I receive several emails per week from Beautypedia subscribers. Most of these messages concern products we’ve reviewed on the site, which is to be expected. The gratifying news is that most of our subscribers find value in our reviews and end up telling us that they have finally found products that work really well for them. But every now and then an email arrives that makes me wonder how emotionally attached some people are to the products they use. One arrived recently: a subscriber asked about a cleanser and moisturizer from a well-known spa brand that she was using. Both products received an unhappy face because they contained irritating fragrant plant oils that aren’t helpful for skin. The woman still asked if the products were any good or not. No, they’re not—and the “why” is right there in the review!

After thinking about her message a bit more, the subtext became clear: despite our review, she simply liked the products and wanted validation. She stated that the cleanser felt good and removed her makeup, while the moisturizer had a texture that she really likes. My response was that yes, the cleanser is capable of doing what you expect, but so can many other cleansers that don’t expose skin to fragrant irritants and also cost a lot less. As for the moisturizer, a great texture can be created from basic ingredients (such as thickening agents and emulsifiers); that doesn’t make it a state-of-the-art product or make it capable of performing as claimed or worth the price.

The frustration is that this well-intentioned subscriber wanted to know why the products work well for her since we wrote that they were problematic. I reminded her that unless we had information to the contrary we wouldn’t know smoking was problematic until a long time after we began the habit.

I was encouraged that this woman was willing to change products, but could also tell she really didn’t want to. I wasn’t sure what to tell her other than to experiment with cleansers and moisturizers we rate highly and see if she notices a difference (she certainly could find some less expensive options—the duo she was using cost over $60). I hope she takes my advice and keeps in mind that just because a product doesn’t seem to be visibly irritating skin, it may very well be doing just that if it contains ingredients known to be irritating. No one should have to tolerate irritation when the offending ingredients offer no benefit for skin (they may smell good, but that’s not a wise way to choose skin-care products).