Tag: hairflix.com

The Real Hair Truth:Solving the Problem of Mislabeled Organic Personal Care Products

Every professional should know about the diction and definitions of organic products within our industry. The language of ingredients can be very vague at times and also very confusing. At no time would I personally take the information from a manufacturer and believe it. Go outside of your industry to chemists or your local state college to get the proper information on the ingredients listed in your salon products. If an individual sends you products without proper labeling and is just wrapped in tissue, BEWARE! How do you know if the product is “SAFE”. There are a lot of “MOM&POP” businesses who will start-up in their own homes and will visit a MICHAEL arts and craft store to purchase wax, scents, soaps and “WELLAH”, you have a supposedly ORGANIC PRODUCT”. Beware what you buy in the Beauty Industry and have it tested. You can go to your state college and the college will test the products you received for little to nothing. You can also hire a chemist and have a ingrediant  test done on the products. Below this is the official information from the USDA on Labeling of Organic Hair Care. You should know this take the time to educate yourself of the information the USDA offers us in the Beauty Industry. Look for the USDA organic seal on shampoos that claim to be organic. Although there are multiple “organic” and “natural” standards, each with its own varying criteria, the USDA Organic Standards are the “gold standard “for personal care products”.

The Certification, Accreditation, and Compliance Committee (CACC) recommends that organic personal care products be recognized explicitly by the National Organic Program (NOP) to ensure consumers and businesses alike that the products have an unquestioned home in the USDA National Organic Program.

Background: The policy statement of the USDA on August 23, 2005 extended the USDA regulations to cover the organic claims made by personal care products which meet the composition requirements for organic food. With this recognition has come the full force of certification and enforcement. While this is an improvement over what previously existed, an ever-increasing stream of personal care products making organic claims continues to flow in to the market place. In an April 2008 news bulletin, the NOP further explained USDA organic certification of cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products. Most recently, in July 2009, the NOP published a “DRAFT FOR COMMENT ONLY: Certification and Labeling of Soap Products Made From Agricultural Ingredients.” The Appendix contains these 3 NOP statements. None of these statements were developed through the Federal Rulemaking process, neither is it certain how durable these various statements will be at NOP.

Cosmetics, Body Care Products, and Personal Care Products

The Problem of Mislabeled Personal Care Products

The USDA is responsible for product organic claims but is not currently enforcing this in the area of personal care products. Consumers are not assured that organic claims are consistently reviewed and applied to the class of products known as personal care products. For instance, at a given retailer, one may find personal care products such as shampoos and lotions labeled as “organic” with no clear standards or regulatory underpinning for the organic claim–and unless the product is specifically labeled as “USDA Organic,” the word “organic” may be used with impunity. Manufacturers of personal care products that contain organic ingredients are hindered by a thicket of competing private standards and confusion regarding the applicability of the NOP to their products. Transactions lack the regulatory clarity that applies under the NOP to food products that contain organic ingredients.

Given the pace of development of this marketplace, and the important but uneven development of private standards, the NOP should take the necessary initial steps to bring this product class into a coordinated existence with organic food products under the regulation.

This recommendation takes the initial steps toward:

3) assuring consumers that the federal government is policing organic claims on personal care products

4) allowing for the development of a complete federal organic personal care product program


To facilitate the development of a single national standard for this product class, and to ensure consumers that organic personal care products meet a consistent standard, the CACC recommends that the following amendments be made to 7 CFR Part 205. Underlined text is to be added to the current rule.

1. §205.102. Add Definition of Personal Care Products:

(1) An article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance

2. §205.100(a) Add words “including personal care products”

Except for operations exempt or excluded in § 205.101, each production or handling operation or specified portion of a production or handling operation that produces or handles crops, livestock, livestock products, or other agricultural products including personal care

products that are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))” must be certified according to the provisions of subpart E of this part and must meet all other applicable requirements of this part.

3. §205.102 Use of the term “organic.”

Any agricultural product, including personal care products, that is sold, labeled or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))must be: * * *

4. §205.300 Use of the term, “organic.”

(a) The term, “organic” may only be used on labels and in labeling of raw or processed agricultural products, including ingredients of any product, without regard to the end use of the product, that is sold, labeled or represented as “100 percent organic,” “organic,” or “made with organic (specified ingredients or food group(s))must be: * * *

5. §205.311 USDA Seal

(a) The USDA seal described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section may be used only for farm or processed agricultural products, including personal care products, described in paragraphs * * *

The National Organic Program (NOP) has received numerous inquiries regarding its current thinking on the issue of products that meet the NOP program standards for organic products based on content, irrespective of the end use of the product. This statement is intended to clarify the NOP’s position with respect to this issue, and will be provided to all of our accredited certifying agents.

Agricultural commodities or products that meet the NOP standards for certification under the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501- 6522, can be certified under the NOP and be labeled as “organic” or “made with organic” pursuant to the NOP regulations, 7 C.F.R. part 205.300 et seq. To qualify for certification, the producer or handler must comply with all applicable NOP production, handling, and labeling regulations.

Operations currently certified under the NOP that produce agricultural products that meet the NOP standards to be labeled as “organic” and to carry the USDA organic seal, or which meet NOP standards to be labeled as “made with organic,” may continue to be so labeled as long as they continue to meet the NOP standards. Such certification may only be suspended or revoked after notice and opportunity for hearing.

There are agricultural products, including personal care products, that, by virtue of their organic agricultural product content, may meet the NOP standards and be labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic” or “made with organic” pursuant to the NOP regulations. Businesses that manufacture and distribute such products may be certified under the NOP, and such products may be labeled as “100 percent organic,” “organic” or “made with organic” so long as they meet NOP requirements. Additionally, products that may be labeled “100 percent organic” or “organic” may also carry the USDA organic seal. If additional rule making is required for such products to address additional labeling issues or the use of synthetics in such products, the NOP will pursue such rule making as expeditiously as possible.

2) Cosmetics, Body Care Products, and Personal Care Products, April 2008

● FDA does not define or regulate the term “organic,” as it applies to cosmetics, body care, or personal care products.

● USDA regulates the term “organic” as it applies to agricultural products through its National Organic Program (NOP) regulation, 7 CFR Part 205.

● If a cosmetic, body care product, or personal care product contains or is made up of agricultural ingredients, and can meet the USDA/NOP organic production, handling, processing and labeling standards, it may be eligible to be certified under the NOP regulations.

● The operations which produce the organic agricultural ingredients, the handlers of these agricultural ingredients, and the manufacturer of the final product must all be certified by a USDA-accredited organic certifying agent.

● Once certified, cosmetics, personal care products, and body care products are eligible for the same 4 organic labeling categories as all other agricultural products, based on their organic content and other factors:

 “100 percent organic”–Product must contain (excluding water and salt) only organically produced ingredients. Products may display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

 “Organic”–Product must contain at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). Remaining product ingredients must consist of nonagricultural substances approved on the National List or nonorganically produced agricultural products that are not commercially available in organic form, also on the National List. Products may display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

“Made with organic ingredients”– Products contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients and product label can list up to three of the organic ingredients or “food” groups on the principal display panel. For example, body lotion made with at least 70 percent organic ingredients (excluding water and salt) and only organic herbs may be labeled either “body lotion made with organic lavender, rosemary, and chamomile,” or “body lotion made with organic herbs.” Products may not display the USDA Organic Seal and must display the certifying agent’s name and address.

Less than 70 percent organic ingredients–Products cannot use the term “organic” anywhere on the principal display panel. However, they may identify the specific ingredients that are USDA-certified as being organically produced on the ingredients statement on the information panel. Products may

not display the USDA Organic Seal and may not display a certifying agent’s name and address. (Water and salt are also excluded here.)

● Any cosmetic, body care product, or personal care product that does not meet the production, handling, processing, labeling, and certification standards described above, may not state, imply, or convey in any way that the product is USDA-certified organic or meets the USDA organic standards.

● USDA has no authority over the production and labeling of cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products that are not made up of agricultural ingredients, or do not make any claims to meeting USDA organic standards.

● Cosmetics, body care products, and personal care products may be certified to other, private standards and be marketed to those private standards in the United States. These standards might include foreign organic standards, eco-labels, earth friendly, etc. USDA’s NOP does not regulate these labels at this time.

Certification and Labeling of Soap Products Made From Agricultural Ingredients

The Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 (OFPA), 7 U.S.C. Section 6501, et. seq ., as amended, and implemented in 7 CFR Part 205, National Organic Program (NOP) Final Rule, regulates the production, handling, processing, and labeling of all raw or processed agricultural products to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic in the United States. In an August 23, 2005 policy statement issued by the NOP, the Program clarified that agricultural products may be certified and labeled in accordance with the Act and its implementing regulations regardless of end use. The statement allows for certain products, such as soaps, to be certified under the NOP, providing they comply with 7 CFR 205.

This document describes the interim procedures to be used by certified operations and certifying agents accredited by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to certify and label soap products as “organic” or “made with organic [specified ingredients]”, referred to throughout this document as “made with” products.

Soap is produced by a process called saponification, whereby oils are hydrolyzed by the addition of an alkali, yielding soap, glycerin, water and other byproducts. Glycerin is produced by this process and has been determined by the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB) to be a synthetic and appears on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as such. (Insecticidal soaps are permitted under 205.601 for crop production.)

The NOP has been asked to provide guidance on the labeling of soap that has been formulated and produced in accordance with the NOP regulations.

Some in the industry have expressed concern that allowing certification and labeling of soap as organic is a violation of OFPA. We disagree. The processing of agricultural products in accordance with NOP regulations often results in chemical or physical changes, many of which may involve the synthesis of new compounds. For example, the processes of baking bread or cooking meat create changes in the products that may involve the creation of new compounds. However, neither of these common products are viewed as synthetic under the regulations. Our interest is to create a consistent, fair policy that can be applied uniformly in a variety of situations. Therefore, we base our analysis of the process on the NOP regulations. The NOP regulations describe the inputs and processing which take place in the formulation and

manufacturing of a finished product; they do not prescribe the nature of the finished product itself. This allows agricultural products and allowed synthetics to be used to create a wide variety of products which may be eligible for certification, regardless of end use. Further, identification of products produced in compliance with the NOP regulations, and the percentage of organic products that they contain, allows for subsequent formulation into products which retain their eligibility for labeling as organic or “made with” organic products, depending upon the percentage of organic ingredients used to create the product. This allows producers to retain the added value of organic products throughout the production process and provides consumers with a choice when searching for products that contain organically produced ingredients.

In general, products that have been formulated in compliance with the NOP regulations may be eligible for certification as “organic” or “made with” products. Further, products produced in compliance with the regulations should be eligible for further processing and certification based on their true organic component content. Thus, a formulated product produced using 75% organic ingredients and 25% allowed synthetics is eligible for certification as a “made with” product. In addition, the “made with” products should carry a certified organic content of 75% when used in subsequent down-stream processing, under the condition that full disclosure of its organic content and other ingredients is provided by the manufacture. If a soap is produced using 80% certified organic oil and 20% sodium hydroxide, the soap would be eligible for certification as a soap “made with organic oils.” Further, the soap “made with organic oils” may be processed downstream into other products using 80% as the organic content for those calculations.

Labeling of these products should be consistent with labeling done for any other certified organic processed product, with full disclosure of the ingredients in the ingredient statement on the information panel. This should include all certified organic ingredients and any synthetics used to produce the product. Although Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations allow downstream processors to list “saponified organic oils” in the ingredient statement, FDA does not prohibit full disclosure of the organic and synthetic ingredients, consistent with NOP regulations. Therefore, ingredient statements for products containing saponified oils must include the name of the actual organic ingredient and the synthetic ingredients used to create the soap. If the saponified oils are produced as a part of a separate process, they may be listed as a parenthetical statement, such as “saponified organic oils (organic coconut oil, potassium hydroxide), water, glycerin, beet juice color.”

Guidance: Soap products formulated using certified organic oils and materials included on the National List may be certified and labeled as “organic” or “made with organic [specified ingredients].” Further, when manufacturers of saponified organic oils produce such products in compliance with the regulations and provide certified formulations to downstream processors, they may be further processed into “organic” or “made with” products.

When saponified oils are produced by a certified organic handler and are to be sold as “made with organic oils” for further processing into certified “organic” or “made with” products, they must be accompanied by a complete ingredient statement which gives the actual percentage of the organic ingredients contained in the “made with” product. When labeling products produced with saponified oil, the ingredient statement of the further processed product must include the ingredients used to produce the saponified oil. As an option, the saponified organic oil may be stated on the ingredient statement followed by a parenthetical statement. Listing the saponified oils without listing the ingredients used to produce the saponified oils is not sufficient.

Procedures: As always, certifiers must review and approve all organic handling plans for products produced with saponified oils, including the ingredient statements for the saponified oils themselves, prior to issuing certification for handling operations producing these products. Producers of saponified oils to be further processed into other personal care products must provide statements of the type and percent of all ingredients used to produce the saponified oils so that this information may be included in the ingredient statement of the finished product. All labels for certified organic soaps and products containing saponified oils must be reviewed and approved by the certifying agent prior to printing and labeling.

Brazilian Blowout You Really Screwed Up! Hair treatment ruled carcinogenic!

The makers of the popular Brazilian Blowout line of hair-straightening products — which can cost up to $500 per salon treatment — have agreed to change their labeling to warn consumers that the treatments can release formaldehyde gas, which is considered a carcinogen and can cause irritation of the eyes and skin, according to a report from USA Today.
The move by GIB LLC comes following a lawsuit from the California state attorney general’s office. The products are labeled as formaldehyde-free, but last September the FDA warned that Brazilian Blowout contains “dangerously high levels” of the gas. According to a report from WebMD, the FDA found that Brazilian Blowout products contained between 8.7 percent and 10.4 percent formaldehyde. Levels about 0.1 percent required an occupational hazard alert under guidelines from the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

At the time, GIB CEO Mike Brady denied that his company’s products contained formaldehyde.
The FDA and OSHA issued their first health hazard about Brazilian Blowout in April 2011 to let salon workers and owners know about the potential for formaldehyde exposure from these products.
The FDA issued a warning letter to GIB on Aug. 22, 2011, saying “Brazilian Blowout contains methylene glycol, the liquid form of formaldehyde, which, under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling, releases formaldehyde when hair treated with the product is heated with a blow dryer and then with a hot flat iron.” The agency reported a wide range of health problems that had been reported by users of the products: “Adverse events have reported the following injuries associated with Brazilian Blowout: eye disorders (irritation, increased lacrimation, blurred vision, hyperaemia); nervous system disorders (headache, burning sensation, dizziness, syncope), and respiratory tract (dyspnea, cough, nasal discomfort, epistaxis, wheezing, rhinorrhea, throat irritation, nasopharyngitis). Other reported symptoms included nausea hypotrichosis, chest pain, chest discomfort, vomiting, and rash.”
The FDA has authority over product packaging, but has none over the operation of salons. OSHA, on the other hand, governs workplace safety, including air conditions.
The FDA’s warning letter presented CEO Brady with an ultimatum: “You should take prompt action to correct the violations cited in this letter. Failure to do so may result in enforcement action without further notice, including, but not limited to, seizure and/or injunction.”
The state of California, where GIB is located, followed the FDA’s letter with its lawsuit, charging deceptive practices.
Health concerns over Brazilian Blowout had been voiced for some time before the FDA letter was sent. Oregon Health & Science University issued a report about the products in September 2010 after complaints from stylists at one of that state’s salons.
 According to a March 2011 report from Fox News, Brazilian Blowout treatments can cost between $200 and $500 and last several months. Despite the growing health concerns, the products have been popular in Hollywood, where celebrities such as Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry have used the treatment.
GIB has agreed to pay $600,000 in penalties and fines and provide salons with a product safety brochure. The company has already changed the labeling of its products. The saddest thing about this whole situation it took a organization outside of our industry to do something about the proble. Way to go pba.org it’s all about manufacturer dollars in my industry. You all suck!

Deception, Greed, Lies Pure Traits of My Profession

In my industry trying to give the professional who works behind a chair daily as an employee, booth renter, salon owner the real story of what they are using pertaining to products, and advertising is a very easy job. I take high regard for my fellow professionals, and give them a full amount of respect. Beauty Industry Reports, Manufacturers, And also Magazines in this industry take pride on receiving a pat on the back from fellow members who do not want to break the lines of greed and deception they consistently promote from within my industry.

If you take the time to look at this Professional Keratin Smoothing Council they claim that they are the Committed to the safety of salon professionals and consumers and the growth of the professional beauty industry, advocacy for the Keratin/Smoothing hair category and the principles of professionalism, transparency and accountability. The members are as follows Marcia Teixeira, Keratin Complex , Cadiveu were all cited for mis-labeling, improper  MSDS Sheets.

During Federal OSHA investigations, air tests showed formaldehyde at levels above OSHA’s limits in salons using Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution, labeled “formaldehyde free,” and Brasil Cacau Cadiveu. Both Federal and State OSHA have found violations at several manufacturers, importers, and distributors (GIB LLC dba Brazilian Blowout, Keratronics Inc., Pro Skin Solutions, M&M International Inc., Copomon, INOVA Professional). The violations include failing to list formaldehyde as a hazardous ingredient on the MSDS (the hazard warning sheet) provided to downstream users (e.g., salon owners, stylists), failing to include proper hazard warnings on product labels, and failing to list the health effects of formaldehyde exposure on the MSDS. Labels must include ingredient and hazard warning information and the MSDS must provide users with information about the chemicals in a product, the hazards to workers, and how to use a product safely.

But these company’s have banded to provide you with false information, leading you to believe their company’s as honest, depending so-called organization in our industry. Again I quote them “Committed to the safety of salon professionals and consumers and the growth of the professional beauty industry, advocacy for the Keratin/Smoothing hair category and the principles of professionalism, transparency and accountability”. They were cited by OSHA in 2011, their website started in 2011. They were interviewed by the BIR (Beauty Industry Report?) in 2011. The BIR’S Written interview with the (PKSC) in 2011 states ” As reported by Beauty Industry Report (BIR) in March, a number of the top companies in the category, such as Cadiveu, Keratin Complex, Marcia Teixeira, SalonTech and Aerovex Systems have joined forces to form the Professional Keratin Smoothing Council (PKSC) to advocate for this continually expanding segment of the industry. BIR recently had the opportunity to chat with the founding members to learn about their plans to safeguard one of the most lucrative opportunities to hit the professional beauty industry in decades. Knowing full well they were cited by OSHA for violations. Do you think they would come back after seeing these entity’s claiming honesty, and commitment to the industry as a falsehood. No that would not be good business. Business is the big word here everyone.  In the interview a question was asked and I quote, BIR: What would BIR’s readers be surprised to learn about the controversy surrounding this category of products? Claudia Ancantara, Cadiveu Brazil, President; Founding Member PKSC:

“Regulatory agencies in the US and around the world continue to use antiquated and highly inaccurate methods to measure the level of formaldehyde in not only cosmetics, but in other areas, including scientific research. The lack of standardization has contributed to a wide scale skewing of reported results. As a result, salon professionals and consumers are receiving information that is inaccurate, inflammatory and destructive to our industry and economy. The vast majority of manufacturers marketing products in this category are committed to providing safe products. The PKSC was formed primarily to ensure full disclosure of ingredients, MSDS compliance and the education of salon professionals on safe and proper use of these products. While consumer watch groups and the press often make claims of irresponsible and unsafe practices by manufacturers in the personal care products industry, this Council is calling for regulations and standards that surpass government requirements. We believe it is time to be sure that accurate information is being gathered, evaluated and communicated in order for salon professionals and consumers to make informed decisions about safety”.

 You can read the violations these company’s have sustained from OSHA so who is Bullshitting Who!

An article on BEHIND THE CHAR.COM in this article the PKSC claims they are “Consistent with the organization’s principles, the PKSC has undertaken an extensive scientific research and testing program to positively demonstrate that the products of its members meet or exceed the safety requirements established by regulatory agencies. This Program accurately measured the safety levels of PKSC member products by using advanced and state-of-the-art product testing methods, as opposed to the antiquated testing methods traditionally used for several decades. The results clearly document the safety of PKSC members’ products when used under normal conditions (as per manufacturers’ directions).” Please read the violations by the  ACTIVE MEMBERS OF THE PROFESSIONAL SMOOTHING COUNCEL From OSHA SUBMITTED TO THEM IN 2011.


During Federal OSHA investigations, air tests showed formaldehyde at levels above OSHA’s limits in salons using Brazilian Blowout Acai Professional Smoothing Solution, labeled “formaldehyde free,” and Brasil Cacau Cadiveu. Both Federal and State OSHA have found violations at several manufacturers, importers, and distributors (GIB LLC dba Brazilian Blowout, Keratronics Inc., Pro Skin Solutions, M&M International Inc., Copomon, INOVA Professional). The violations include failing to list formaldehyde as a hazardous ingredient on the MSDS (the hazard warning sheet) provided to downstream users (e.g., salon owners, stylists), failing to include proper hazard warnings on product labels, and failing to list the health effects of formaldehyde exposure on the MSDS. Labels must include ingredient and hazard warning information and the MSDS must provide users with information about the chemicals in a product, the hazards to workers, and how to use a product safely. And by the way the CIR is not a governmental agency they are a Non Profit Organization that has nothing to do with what the FDA, or OSHA.

No go to the PKSC ACTIVE MEMBERS LIST Now you will see what I am saying to you, this is a band of brothers who will deceive you with a coalition of so-called professional industry reports, industry websites, and manufacturers who will band together to sell, sell, sell. Saying they are for your well-being when they are NOT! It is all about helping one another get to the next level in the Beauty Industry, wether it be for financial, ego, etc the harm and deception is being done everyday within your industry. Proper ventilation should be a requirement in every salon, MSDS Sheets should be provided by every manufacturer but they are not. Sitting in a classroom and listening to the manufacturer saying their product is SAFE. Is not good wisdom takin by the stylist, or salon owner. Do your own chemical investigations with a chemist OUTSIDE OF THE INDUSTRY. Go to your local state college they will do all forms of test to let you know what ingredients are in your products. And most of the state colleges will do it for free for you. In this industry they are not concerned about your health, nor are they concerned about the consumer thats a whole story in itself. Manufacturers are only interested in the health of the bank accounts and there labels. This is a kiss of death to our industry!




Become a Entrepreneur!

In a profession that is product driven, a lot of Entrepreneurs are being driven to promote their product within the beauty industry by themselves. I have an Organization for Entrepreneurs of the Professional Beauty industry I see a lot of Ambitious, Persistent Professionals who are trying to promote themselves and there ideas and products. But they fall on the wayside by not having the business knowledge needed to succeed in a Manufacturer driven and controlled industry.  The entrepreneur has to learn to do it all by themselves with little or now help or financial funding for staff.

If you look  the Beauty industry magazines and websites it a catalog of the same manufacturers who are at the Premiere Beauty Shows, NAHA, Behindthechair.com, Hairbrained, etc. And supporting these company’s are a major waste within the industry. Salons carry products from manufacturers that are sold over the counter, and also on the internet. SUPPORT THE ENTREPRENEUR OF THE Industry!

I have a section in my next documentary called Health/Welfare and I found Five company’s selling their Smoothing Treatments that you do and sell as a service in the salon to the consumer. Check out STYLEBELL.COM

And isn’t that offered as a SALON SERVICE given by a professional. Manufacturers want to cover any and all ends of sales for just financial achievement in the industry. While the Entrepreneur has the hardest time trying to pay for Hair Show space, Booths, Magazine advertisements and the list goes on and on. These price ranges in Beauty Industry Magazines, Hair Shows, Websites are set up for the Manufacturer Dollar, that is what sustains these entity’s, while in the long run all you will see is the advertising of hair care lines that are sold in the commercial sector. Which is causing the most harm to the salon owner, and booth renter. Supporting a company that is independent, or an Entrepreneur is the most important decision a professional can do NOW in my Beauty Industry.

You have spent the time building up these manufacturers and now their loyalty is not longer there for you. But you will still find a way to support the hairshows, magazines, websites that will advertise them and the entrepreneur goes to the wayside. Hairshows used to be a venue for all NEW in the industry to show off their products, books, etc but now they are just FLEA MARKETS, But you will still go to these shows. And you buy there WARES. Knowing full well you are losing on the Salon Retail space you may have set up in your salon. And that is true but you don’t want to face the facts. And Where does the Entrepreneur come in, with those type of prices in an industry magazine or website an only a major manufacturer can pay. But you will still support them!

I carry a hair care line in my salon, it is from an Entrepreneur, and I also featured him and his line in my next documentary. He promotes the line on the Internet, Magazines (Outside the Industry) and a few more advertising avenues. But talking to him he has the funds to sustain the company but not for the unfair prices that only a manufacturer can pay for advertising in this industry. Can a entrepreneur in the industry call a local beauty supply and have there product sold to the professional/ NO Loreal owns the Salon Centrics and Salon Alliance distributorships and if you called these supply chains do you think Loreal will place your product in the stores? Or how about Malys?

Manufacturers will buy Private label products created by a entrepreneur within the industry to keep competition away. I have also interviewed professionals in the industry to tell me Manufacturers have stolen there formulations of their product or paid off chemists for the formula’s. That is a big business in my industry. The beauty industry professional has to see the light of day and support the entrepreneur within the industry, Beauty schools that are manufacturer supported such as Paul Mitchell, Redken, Loreal , Toni&Guy are merely putting free salesmen and saleswoman to keep up the sales for themselves. You are giving you sponsorship to the wrong entity’s.  I have received thousands of emails from people in my industry saying enough is enough, but when does you’re talking end and action start. You see in america now the people are talking out now, Occupy groups, Tea Party organizations etc, showing up all over the United States. But as time goes along the professional in my industry would probably gain enough strength to just click on the “Like” button on Facebook to show there support. And not take the initiative to start their own campaigns of change in their industry. Well life goes on and sooner or latter you will come to realize that when you go to Salon Alliance or Salon Centrex you are merely buying LOREAL products that are sold over the counter. And in time that niche in the market will be totally bought out. THEN WHAT ARE YOUR GOING TO DO?????

Become a Entrepreneur!!!

Ultimate Skincare & Beaute Report on the Documentary!

The last two weeks for me have been a re-education in the hair industry.  I received a copy of Joseph Kellner’s The Real Hair Truth and immediately, I was taken to a place where I was forced to think about everyone who had ever touched my hair.  Remembering back to age 10, I could recall just about everyone who made my locks lovely to the one who butchered my long fab coiff a few years ago.  My mind stayed in one very happy place, remembering the incredible talent I had promoted and marketed in the Chicago market.  I was proud to represent the talent who worked as hard as I did to maintain that artistic and technical edge.  At times, I would even attend the education sessions to better understand what the stylists and colorists went through to meet requirements and maintain client trust.  Everyone seemed to take such pride in what they did and knew where they wanted to go and what they needed to do to get there.  From this vantage point, I was shocked to see the variable of responses collected by Joseph Kellner and fully understood the reasons behind the answers.  Based on one of the last experiences I had, I fully see the need for continuing education and accountability for higher educational standards in the salon industry.  It has been best said…you don’t know what you’ve got until it’s gone.

While watching The Real Hair Truth for the second time, I stopped the video to collect my thoughts and write…the first time I Tweeted throughout the film and wanted to capture pertinent details.  A rush of thoughts came forth.  The first, all the wonderful professionals I have had the honor to interact with in the industry.  These professionals get it.  They have single-handedly been able to create a name for themselves in this industry and in a very powerful way.  Expressing my gratitude to them in this post is the humblest homage I can offer.  J. G. – A consultation with this man is worth its weight in gold.  When I met him, I represented a salon on Oak Street in Chicago.  An hour with him is like saving yourself 20 years in growing pains.  To have him as a mentor for only an hour made my career.  His contributions?  I now know about Luiz Alvearez and Aquage hair care (and the continuing education surrounding the brand).  I know about better, more streamlined ways to effectively market a salon/spa business (I amazed myself by incorporating his words and generating 10K a month in sales volume).  Of course, much more was learned, but these two stand out most.  Martin Rodriguez.  Phil Stone.  Maurice Tidy.  Shane Talbott.   There are many, many others.  Two of the common threads that brings them together is their passion for the industry and maintaining high standards across the board!

If you were asked to cite the qualifications of anyone who has touched, cut or colored your hair, what would you answer? When I lived in Germany, answering this was a no-brainer.  Everyone who touched hair, unless they were actually participating in an apprenticeship, was required to go through a rigorous four year apprenticeship where the master stylist would stand over the student instructing and ready to step in if needed.  My hair dresser, Lilo, was incredible.  When I promoted salons in Chicago, I could confidently answer this question with impressive answers…more like bragging about the credentials of the talent I helped.

How much continuing education does your hair dresser participate in annually?   #TheRealHairTruth When asked in an open interview, one hair dresser admitted to the required six hours and attending two shows.  The salons I worked with in Chicago participated in regular if not weekly education classes.   Are you aware of the qualifications for beauty students to be able to graduate? Some states require 1200 hours while others only require 1000 hours.  What kind of testing is required for beauty students to receive their license? Written or computerized theory. There are no standard practical requirements in finalized testing.


Diversion and No-Diversion


Another real hair truth that was once again brought to my attention…product diversion.   For those who are not aware of the definition behind the word…basically it boils down to a company who sells their products to one type of business or many types of businesses.   For example, a product company who only sells their products to only salons can say their brand is a no-diversion brand.  There are companies who claim their products are sold only in salons when they are sold in discount and other retailers outside the salon industry.  This is an example of diversion.


Keeping this in mind, I watched as Joseph Kellner approached countless retailers in an attempt to find out the reason why products that were labeled ‘sold only in salons’ were brightly displayed on the long side counters of discount retailers.  No one seemed to be able to provide an answer with a closed ending. Do you know if the beauty products you use that are suppose to be sold in salons and spas are pure to their commitment to remaining sold only in these professionally serviced/licensed businesses?  This has been a question asked by many over the years.  I never really gave it much thought until I started working in the salon and spa industry and was held accountable for selecting unique brands not found in chain businesses or mass and discount markets.

What would you think if you found your favorite hair care product at a major retail chain, on sale only to turn over the bottle to see the words “Only Sold In Professional Salons” in bold lettering?  Would you be so inclined to hold off buying or take the deal?  IF you were salon owner who signed a contract with a major hair product company and found the products you sell in your salon at a discounted price at a major retailer, what would you think?  What would you do?  Would you hold the hair care company accountable or would you keep quiet?  Would you trust a product line that sells under these conditions?  Would the sinking sensation in your gut and disappointment of a first-time offense finding,  make you want to change directions?  How can something designed to finish and make pretty become such an ugly situation?

The Reason Behind The Truth

One salon owner and ‘industry watch dog’, Joseph Kellner, saw a need to bring this and other topics to the fore front and educate those in the industry about these not-so-best practices and other ‘hot’ issues.  His movement is called The Real Hair TruthThe Real Hair Truth is a collection of interviews conducted by Joseph and his team to find the answers to these and other hard-hitting questions surrounding the glamorous world of hair.  In this documentary, long term industry veterans tackle mainly the don’ts and should nots in the industry.

In summary, I fully understand and support how educational standards need to be increased and maintained.  Students need to be taught theory, practical and marketing skills that will set them up for future success.  They need to work with a master within an apprenticeship program to enhance and encourage skills.  Practical skills should be required to graduate as well as a higher number of hours.  Students need to be made aware of what they want to do when they graduate and be educated as to what is out there in the industry for them.  Making educated choices yields better results.  Continuing education standards need to be raised and maintained.  Where as it concerns diversion, I applaud those companies who have the control over their business that results in them being able to say they are a no-diversion product company.  Joseph Kellner, thank you for bringing these and other issues in the industry to the fore front.

Have a good week.