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).

G’day mates! How ya goin? No worries, everything has been like a dog’s dinner and I’ve been running around like a blue arse fly! (Australian slang is just a trip).

I’m in Melbourne now. It’s been quite a weekend. My time in Korea ended up great; what an experience, and Paula’s Choice Korea has been a wonderful launch. I’m so flattered that Korean women have taken to my products with such enthusiasm! I am thrilled with the businessman heading up Paula’s Choice Korea and am confident he will continue to be successful given his Web savvy and intuitive nature concerning the cosmetics industry.

I spent the weekend in Melbourne with our Australian distributors for Paula’s Choice talking a lot of business and doing a lot of drinking, especially some outstanding red wine; Australian Syrah is the best. Australia continues to be a great market for Paula’s Choice since so many of the locals are familiar with my books (all my books have been best-sellers in Australia since I published my first one there in 1989) and many subscribe to Beautypedia.

We went to an animal sanctuary today (Sunday) and we saw kangaroos (we got to feed a group of them, just precious), wombats, koala bears, emus, and a bird of prey show that had the birds swooping over our heads.

I also went to a footie game on Saturday (Australian-rules football); This is their version of our football, but it is more a mix of soccer and, well, I’m not sure what, but it was very interesting and the stadium was huge and packed, such energy. There were over 75,000 people in attendance and this is just the beginning of the season. Sports of any kind is a religion in Australia. My Australian distributor belongs to a footie club and we had lunch with this large group of sports enthusiasts and they had me speak for 20 minutes. In the 75-year history of this organization I’m the first woman speaker they’ve ever had. It was a resounding success; everyone laughed at all my jokes, including the need for a burka to cover cellulite.

I’ve attached a picture of a bookstore carrying my books here. I have a book signing there on Tuesday evening and then off to Sydney. I have a total of 30 media interviews throughout the week and then I plan on sleeping all day Saturday. I come home on Sunday (a 16 hour non-stop flight to LA) and boy am I ready to be home! I’m having I’ve-been-out-of-the-country-too-long-traveling-the world-airport weary blues!

All the best!

A Beautypedia subscriber contacted me recently to inform me that the ingredient list we had on the site for N.V. Perricone’s Neuropeptide Eye Area Contour was incorrect. Such communication is always appreciated, and sure enough, she was correct and we updated the information on www.beautypedia.com Don’t Go The Cosmetics Counter Without Me—one of the best features of Beautypedia: real time updates!). whole year! Can you imagine? Perricone has never been a doctor prone to providing accurate, substantiated information about his products, but knowingly keeping an incorrect ingredient list on his site for so long, I mean really, isn’t that inexcusable?

As you might have suspected, the plot thickens: although the company didn’t say this directly, it appears the reason the incorrect ingredient list stayed on the site was that it was much more impressive than the real one, at least if you bought (literally and figuratively) into Perricone’s claims about neuropeptides as today’s hottest youth elixir. The outdated ingredient statement listed “neuropeptides” as the main ingredient, a seemingly impressive point and one that helps justify this product’s hefty price tag ($195 for 0.5 ounce). But the new ingredient list has his overly hyped peptides in a very different place: almost dead last. So it turns out for nearly $200 you’re getting less peptides than in $20 bottle of Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum.

Another revelation: the original ingredient list for this product listed the peptides as “CLB-253 Neuropeptide” and “CLS-72 Neuropeptide”, while the current (correct) ingredient list more accurately identifies these as form of the commonly used pentapeptides, which hardly justifies the price or gives credence to the age-reducing claims. If I had purchased this product I’d be extremely disappointed in the bait-and-switch tactics employed, not to mention the meager amount of bells and whistles this eye-area anti-wrinkle moisturizer actually has. Chutzpah, thy name is Perricone!