Tag: haircare

Unsafe Cosmetics Owns The U.S.Government!

It is so amazing how little authority federal and state governments have over the estimated $30-billion annual cosmetics industry – even when there is compelling evidence that ingredients are dangerous. And are being sold to consumers left and right each and everyday. Did you know that under federal law, cosmetics companies don’t have to disclose chemicals or gain approval for the 2,000 products that go on the market every year. And removing a cosmetic from sale takes a battle in federal court. The same goes for entrepreneurs in my beauty industry. They will go and purchase a private label hair care/skin/makeup line, stamp their name on the line and promise you the world. Major manufacturers do this everyday, entrepreneurs in the beauty/cosmetic industry are well taught.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1938, doesn’t require FDA approval before a beauty product is sold to the public or give the agency authority to recall a harmful product. One of the biggest topics in my next film/documentary “Beautiful LieS”, involves the hair straighteners in the  beauty industry.  Billions of pounds of chemicals are produced every year to make adhesives and binders for wood products, pulp and paper products, plastics, synthetic fibers and textile finishing.  

In the United States, more than eight billion personal care items, mostly cosmetics, are sold annually for an estimated $54-$60 billion. From 2004 to 2012, cosmetics imports nearly doubled, according to FDA and industry officials. In California, where manufacturers must report chemicals in consumer products that are known or suspected of causing cancer  or reproductive effects, 700 companies reported 17,060 cosmetic products as containing one or more hazardous chemical ingredients. Unlike drugs and medical devices, cosmetics are not subject to pre-market approval or notification. A manufacturer may use any ingredient provided it doesn’t adulterate the product and it is properly labeled – except for 10 types of ingredients, including chloroform, methylene chlorine and mercury, according to FDA regulations.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA doesn’t have recall authority; instead it must start enforcement proceedings in federal court to prove harm. Thats how it all starts. So if you think about mega cosmetics company’s such as P&G, Loreal, Unilever these company’s have considerable financial pockets to pay attorneys. And they will argue their case in court until kingdom come. “Beauty industry professionals think cosmetics are tested for safety. They are not. It’s not like pharmaceuticals or even pesticides where some data are required. All the same, people slather cosmetics directly on their bodies, and absorb them in creams, deodorants, fragrances and shampoos, and ingest them in lipstick and gloss”.

The industry is highly resistant to regulation, and it provides zero information on the chemicals in products. In August, Johnson & Johnson announced it was voluntarily removing some chemicals, including formaldehyde, from its products. By 2015, the company promised to get rid of 1,4 dioxane, which is a probable human carcinogen, and several chemicals linked to altered hormones, including phthalates, triclosan and parabens.  The cosmetics industry has petitioned the FDA to strengthen some regulations. The industry recognizes the law needs modernizing in the global marketplace.  An overarching goal, however, is to avoid piecemeal state rules!

It’s going to be a long, hard haul before anything can happen. The current laws have created a perfect storm for these companies to continue to get away with it. And as long as there pockets get deeper they will get away with all this. And you the consumer are on the short end of the stick. It should shock consumers to hear how little regulation there is over the production and sale of cosmetic products. That the entire burden of proof is on the federal government to prove that certain products are harmful is unacceptable: we need safeguards put in place that require manufacturers to test the safety of their products before they reach the shelves, so consumers and Beauty industry professionals are not subject to poisonous chemicals. At the very least, the labeling of these products should inform consumers about the risks they take by using them. When cosmetic companies are expected to regulate themselves, professionals and consumers lose. We need standards in place to make sure that corporations—whether they are financial institutions, oil companies, commercial fishing companies, or food production plants—behave responsibly and do not threaten our lives.

 

You Should know FDA Authority Over Beauty/Cosmetics

 
Sorry everyone I’m not selling hair care, or teaching haircuts, or color but what I can give you is information that you should know. I have been in the Beauty/Cosmetic industry for well over 25 years and take it from me, a product is here yesterday and gone tomorrow. In Cosmetology school there is a lack of education being given to the student on laws of products, what a manufacturer can say and not say ie (labeling, ingredient’s). What governmental agency’s are there for the protection of the independent stylist and also for the salon employee. Many, many individuals will set up blogs, websites telling you how to overcome customer relations, how to hair color, how to haircutting, and often these individuals will set up a class telling you how to make a ‘Facebook page”. I see this alot at the beauty shows in my industry. But I never really see the hard facts being given to the professional. Its easy to skirt the issues of the beauty industry, “Keep the dumb”, I say. Which to me is so very sad. Many of my fellow professionals are given a line of BS, and are insulted by manufacturers and so-called beauty icons and magazine and websites. Not really taking the issues that are needed for change in my industry, Product knowledge is what they will get and only enough education to buy a product the manufacturers are pushing. Below is important information you should know about the FDA, and how it will help you within your profession. Never, never take the sales persons,distributors or manufactures word as law in the beauty/cosmetic industry, investigate on your own and come to your on conclusions. And if you see a so-called beauty industry “ICON’ pushing a product, WATCHOUT, they are basically being paid to SELL that product!
What does the law say about cosmetic safety and labeling?
The two most important laws pertaining to cosmetics marketed in the United States are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act1 (FD&C Act) and the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act2 (FPLA). The Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act prohibits the marketing of adulterated or misbranded cosmetics in interstate commerce. Violations of the Act involving product composition–whether they result from ingredients, contaminants, processing, packaging, or shipping and handling–cause cosmetics to be adulterated and subject to regulatory action.
 
Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is adulterated if–
“it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under conditions of use as are customary and usual” [with an exception made for hair dyes];
“it consists in whole or in part of any filthy putrid, or decomposed substance”;
“it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health”;
“its container is composed, in whole or in part, of any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the contents injurious to health”; or except for hair dyes, “it is, or it bears or contains, a color additive4 which is unsafe within the meaning of section 721(a)” of the FD&C Act. (FD&C Act, sec. 601).
 
Improperly labeled or deceptively packaged products are considered misbranded and subject to regulatory action. Under the FD&C Act, a cosmetic is considered misbranded if–
“its labeling is false or misleading in any particular”;
“its label does not include all required information;
“the required information is not adequately prominent and conspicuous;
“its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading”;
“it is a color additive, other than a hair dye, that does not conform to applicable regulations issued under section 721 of the FD&C Act; and
“its packaging or labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.” (FD&C Act, sec. 602)
In addition, under the authority of the FPLA, FDA requires an ingredient declaration to enable consumers to make informed purchasing decisions. Cosmetics that fail to comply with the FPLA are considered misbranded under the FD&C Act. It is important to understand that Congress passes the laws that govern the United States. To put those laws into effect, Congress authorizes certain government agencies, including FDA, to create and enforce regulations, but only as authorized under the law. A change in FDA’s statutory authority over cosmetics would require Congress to change the law.
Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?
FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologic, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.
Must cosmetic manufacturers register with FDA?
Manufacturers are not required to register their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries to FDA. However, companies are encouraged to register their establishments and file Cosmetic Product Ingredient Statements with FDA’s Voluntary Cosmetic Registration Program11 (VCRP).
Can FDA inspect cosmetic manufacturers?
FDA can and does inspect cosmetic manufacturing facilities10 to assure cosmetic product safety and determine whether cosmetics are adulterated or misbranded under the FD&C Act or FPLA.
What actions can FDA take against firms that market adulterated or misbranded cosmetics?
FDA may take regulatory action if it has information to support that a cosmetic is adulterated or misbranded. The agency can pursue action through the Department of Justice in the federal court system to remove adulterated and misbranded cosmetics from the market. To prevent further shipment of an adulterated or misbranded product, the agency may request a federal district court to issue a restraining order against the manufacturer or distributor of the violative cosmetic. Violative cosmetics may be subject to seizure. FDA also may initiate criminal action against a person violating the law. In addition, FDA works closely with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection8 to monitor imports. Under section 801(a) of the FD&C Act, imported cosmetics9 are subject to review by FDA at the time of entry through U.S. Customs. Products that do not comply with FDA laws and regulations are subject to refusal of admission into the United States. Violative products must be brought into compliance (if feasible), destroyed, or re-exported. FDA takes regulatory action based upon agency priorities, consistent with public health concerns and available resources.
 
Can FDA order the recall of a hazardous cosmetic from the market?
Recalls of cosmetics are voluntary actions taken by manufacturers or distributors to remove from the marketplace products that represent a hazard or gross deception, or that are somehow defective. FDA categorizes a firms action as a recall (as opposed to a market withdrawal) when it determines that the product hazard or defect represents a violation of the FD&C Act. FDA is not authorized to require recalls of cosmetics but does monitor companies that conduct a product recall and may request a product recall if the firm is not willing to remove dangerous products from the market without FDA’s written request. Recalls are addressed in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), sections 7.40 through 7.59.
Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of cosmetics?
Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing. Failure to adequately substantiate the safety of a cosmetic product or its ingredients prior to marketing causes the product to be misbranded unless the following warning statement appears conspicuously on the principal display panel of the product’s label:
“Warning–The safety of this product has not been determined.” (21 CFR 740.10)
In addition, regulations prohibit or restrict the use of several ingredients5 in cosmetic products and require warning statements6 on the labels of certain types of cosmetics. In general, except for color additives and those ingredients which are prohibited or restricted from use in cosmetics by regulation, a manufacturer may use any ingredient in the formulation of a cosmetic provided that the ingredient and the finished cosmetic are safe, the product is properly , and the use of the ingredients does not otherwise cause the cosmetic to be adulterated or  under the laws that FDA enforces.
 
Joseph Kellner Hairdresser/Mua/Film Producer

Real Hair Truth – L’Oreal Paris’s Pervasive and Misleading National Marketing Campaign

The search for the elusive waters of the “Fountain of Youth” has tempted those seeking to restore youth and beauty for ages. Indeed, as the story goes, in 1513, the great explorer Juan Ponce De Leon searched high and low for the “Fountain of Youth” – only to find Florida instead. In the 1800s, “snake oil” salesmen infamously ranged the West selling tonics that claimed to cure every ill, including signs of aging. Today, the search for a youth potion continues and, like modern-day snake oil salesmen. .

L’Oreal USA, Inc. and or and also including L’Oreal Paris Brand Division,  consumers’ fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging and effectively turn back time. In fact, L’Oreal profits handsomely by making misleading claims that the L’Oreal Paris Youth Code line of wrinkle creams, specifically Youth Code Serum Intense, Youth Code Eye Cream, and Youth Code Day/Night Cream, (collectively “Youth Code” or “Youth Code Products”) have age-negating effects on human skin.

For example, among other affirmations, L’Oreal Paris specifically promises the following age-negating benefits of using Youth Code: Immediate wrinkle reduction, Skin’s natural regeneration powers are boosted, Breakthrough GenActiv Technology helps stimulate recovery, Boosts skin’s natural powers of regeneration, Skin regains the qualities of young skin, Lines and wrinkles are visibly reduced, Boosts cell turnover. 

 And L’Oreal promises consumers that Youth Code is able to provide such age-negating benefits because of L’Oreal’s claimed scientific breakthroughs and discovery including, but not limited to, the following:

After 10 years of research L’Oreal scientists unlock the code of skin’s youth by discovering a specific set of genes¹ that are responsible for skin’s natural powers of regeneration.

¹in-vivo study

An innovation derived from gene science

L’Oreal’s breakthrough GenActiv Technology™

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code.

9. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, International Patent²

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class,purchased skin-care products for higher prices that do not provide the results promised.

10. Moreover, because the Youth Code Products do not provide the promised results, Plaintiffs and the proposed Class did not receive what they paid for.

11. L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive statements about the efficacy of Youth Code are equally applicable to each of the Youth Code Products because those deceptive and misleading statements appear uniformly on all Youth Code product advertisements and packaging.

12. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers in the United States of at least one of the Youth Code Products (“the Class”) at any time from the date of product launch to the present (the “Class Period”) for violation of consumer protections laws including Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Laws and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 58:8-1.

So basically they are suing Loreal for Deception. L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive false and misleading national marketing campaign includes the dissemination of deceptive advertising through a variety of mediums including, but not limited to, internet, television, and print media. Many of the same deceptive and misleading statements are also printed on the Youth Code product boxes. A central theme of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading national marketing campaign, which permeates throughout its print, television and web-based advertisements and product literature, is that Youth Code, and the results promised by L’Oreal Paris, are the result of vigorous scientific research. In fact, while such claims of scientific research and discovery provide L’Oreal Paris with an increased level of credibility among unsuspecting consumers, and therefore increased sales, the scientific “discoveries” are simply part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading advertising campaign. Despite L’Oreal’s admission in its Code of Business Ethics (2007) that “overselling our products by making inflated or exaggerated claims for them is dishonest,” L’Oreal nonetheless turns a blind eye to its own policy for the sake of increased profits. By making specific promises regarding the efficacy of Youth Code, L’Oreal Paris’s advertising transcends the realm of mere puffery and becomes actionable as deceptive and misleading.

Regardless of where Plaintiffs and the Class purchased the Youth Code products (i.e., on-line, in a drugstore, or from third-party retailers), they were exposed to L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive, deceptive and misleading advertising messages and material omissions regarding the efficacy promises of Youth Code. Indeed, no reasonable consumer would purchase a $24.99 jar of wrinkle cream without some “knowledge” of what the product claims to do.

 L’Oreal Paris’s advertising and marketing for Youth Code is misleading in several ways. L’Oreal Paris claims that the Youth Code products are protected by an “INTERNATIONAL PATENT.” This patent claim is found on the product boxes themselves and is printed directly below the claim “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY – Innovation derived from GENE Science.” The proximity of the patent claim to the “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY” claim misleadingly conveys to consumers that the patent somehow involves the purported “10 years of research” leading to the “discover[y]” of a “specific set of genes.” However, upon information and belief, none of the actual patents listed on any of the Youth Code products relate to any such gene innovation or the discovery of a “specific set of genes that are responsible for the skin’s natural powers of regeneration.” Instead, upon information and belief, the patents identified on the Youth Code packaging relate to: “novel compounds having an improved power to moisturize skin and/or hair”; “a new family of thickening or gelling polymers making it possible to obtain stable thickened cosmetic and dermatological formulations”; “a novel family of thickening and/or gelling polymers which makes it possible to obtain a very large number of cosmetic and dermatological formulations which may contain supports of different nature”; and a “photostable cosmetic composition intended for protecting the skin against UV-radiation.” Falsely touting that its research has led to a discovery of a specific set of genes that is protected by patents is part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive scheme to convince consumers that its products will provide unique skin regeneration benefits based on the promised and patented “gene science” discovery and are therefore worth their price tag. L’Oreal Paris heavily markets its Youth Code in print media, including the placing of advertisements in such widely circulated magazines as Glamour, Vogue, and Vanity Fair, among others. L’Oreal Paris’s print media advertising contains the same false and deceptive claims as its other forms of advertising detailed herein. L’Oreal Paris touts the benefits of its skin-care products using models and celebrity spokespersons who claim to exemplify the results of the products. What L’Oreal Paris fails to disclose is that the images of the celebrities it uses are airbrushed, digitized, embellished, “Photo-shopped” or otherwise altered and, therefore, contrary to the claims made by Lancôme, cannot and do not illustrate the effectiveness of its products. In sum, the images used by L’Oreal Paris to sell Youth Code have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the products themselves.

 julia roberts lancome Fake images banned for misleading consumers.

Most recently, the National Advertising Division in the United States has taken a stance against the use of Photoshop in cosmetics advertising, noting that “advertising self-regulatory authorities recognize the need to avoid photoshopping in cosmetics advertisements where there is a clear exaggeration of potential product benefits.”

L’Oreal Paris uses statistics to mislead consumers into believing that the promised results are virtually guaranteed. For example, in the above print advertisement, L’Oreal Paris claims that “95% of women saw results.**” Any reasonable consumer would associate that claim with the foregoing specific efficacy promises that “One Drop instantly improves skin quality; One Week skin looks visibly younger; and One Month skin acts dramatically younger.*” However, in virtually unreadable, microscopically small print at the very bottom of the advertisement, L’Oreal Paris clarifies the results and promises. The single asterisk indicates that after use of the product for one month, “*Skin is firmer and cell renewal increases.” However, underneath that, L’Oreal Paris attempts to clarify that the results that 95% of women saw were not for firmer skin, cell renewal or visibly younger skin – but rather for “One or more of these benefits: feels restored, rested, smoothness.” This nonsensical (and nearly invisible) disclaimer has nothing to do with the claims that Youth Code makes as to its gene science, gene research and skin regenerating powers in the primary marketing message. Thus, the attempted disclaimer does nothing to cure the misleading nature of the use of the statistical “95%” claim. L’Oreal Paris’s false and misleading claims are the crux of its marketing campaign for Youth Code, therefore leading to increased sales and profits for L’Oreal Paris that it otherwise would not have enjoyed without resorting to such deception. L’Oreal Paris’s promises of specific results and scientific discoveries that enable such results cannot be defended as mere puffery. Indeed, L’Oreal admits in its 2011 annual report that the “close interaction between science and marketing . . . is a key advantage to L’Oreal’s innovation approach.” L’Oreal Paris relies on such a “close interaction” because it knows that consumers are more likely to believe its empty promises, and therefore more likely to purchase it products, when indicia of scientific research are present. To perpetuate its deceptive scheme, L’Oreal Paris has a short product cycle, releasing new products every couple of years based upon some new “research” or purported “scientific discovery.” L’Oreal Paris does so in order to falsely tout its new products via a re-imagined marketing campaign in order to keep driving sales and profits that would otherwise stagnate once consumers used the products and realized that they do not perform as promised. This scheme is evident by the fact that L’Oreal Paris discontinues sales and production of its older products once new products are introduced to the market, despite the fact that the claims made on the discontinued products are purportedly designed based on amazing scientific breakthroughs. For example, L’Oreal Paris discontinued its Wrinkle Defense product, for which it made the following promises: combats the emergence of new lines and surface wrinkles, reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, skin-resiliency booster, L’Oreal Paris discontinued this product from the market despite its promised efficacy. L’Oreal Paris’s removal of the purportedly effective product, Wrinkle Defense, from the market demonstrates that L’Oreal Paris’s promised discoveries and benefits are illusory and nothing more than clever marketing. Basically they are always in court. Remember read the labels on your products everyone. If you cannot pronounce it don’t use it!

 

Manufacturer Loyality Is Gone!

 

I think you people are seeing the way it is. These companys do NOT CARE about brand loyality to the salon industry. Is what they are doing illegal? No. You can do anything you want with a product once you buy it. O.K! And this is there products, they can sell it anywhere. What is WRONG is the manufacturers and also Distributorships are selling out your retail space in the salon. THERE is no brand loyality ANYMORE. But YOU will sign a CONTRACT with PAUL MITCHELL so you wont divert there products! BUT they will have there products on a consistent basis to all of these store, which is not wrong at all. BUT you WILL let THEM make YOU abide by a contract, you basically wave you 1977 Free Fair Trade Right the goverment gave you! Look it up everyone. Diversion was made by the manufacturers by having you sign a CONTRACT. you sell the product you will take the blame for it being in the stores. They have created Camoflage for themselves by blaming YOU for the shelves being stocked in all the commercial sectors!

Kristin Edens It eats at me every time I walk into a drug or grocery store. Not to mention I sell it for cheaper than they do!
Roxanne Longstone  This is why us stylist need to sTick together and do something about. Send the product back and start searching for product’s developed by local stylist.
I finally smartened up and developed my own and just launched it in Oct. Our clients lov…e it ! We sell it like mad in our salon and more salon’s are starting to jump aboard.
Turn your head into another direction, CHANGE IS GOOD!
Katherine Batzlaff I have changed color and product lines. I won’t use any of these sleezebags products. We all need to take a stand together and not support these companies.
Roxanne Longstone I’m glad your with me on this 🙂 We don’t need their product’s. Not to tute my own horn, but i worked on developing my product for 2 years and with the perfect chemist i must say my treatment is outstanding!
Trenton Clark ASLO WHAT WE NEED TO DO AS STYLISTS IS TO NOT USE PROUCTS THAT YOYU CAN FIND IN LOCAL STORES LIKE WALMART AND TARGET HOW CAN YOU SELL A PRODUCT AT SALON PRICES TOA CLENT WHEN THEY CAN FIND IT IN A STORE AND PEOPLE ARE REAL FUNNY THEY WANT TO SAVE MONEY,BUT WHT THEY DON’T KNOW IS WHEN YOU BUY PRODUCTS OUT OF THESE PLACES THERE NOT THE REAL PRODUCTS,I AGREE WITH YOU DON’T BE A SLAVE TO ANYONE!
Roxanne Longstone All they did was use us! All of us stylist built these companies and made them the millions. If it wasn’t for us who would they be? No one!
I say invest in the little guy 🙂
Subrina Farmer This sounds like estee lauder’s Aveda! You’ll end up being a franchise owned by a Fat Cat Corp. And they will suck up your slim profits any way they can get it, and tell ya your hands are committed to them!

Roxanne Longstone Check out HSN in the search box type Bed Head and look at all the TIGI Products

Phil Stone yes. but then i start laughing at all the hairdressers who still rally behind the TIGI banner at hairshows and claim the company can do no wrong. then i get sad, and die a little inside. The only thing I can control 100% is what is carried in my salon. I make my own products and sell a high end italian line that uses no distributors.