Le Metier De Beaute Beauty Vault VIP - Spoilers
- Thread starter Jflopez
- Start date
Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2012
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 13
Quote: Originally Posted by meaganola /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I noticed that they are available in just these two shades at only Saks as a limited edition. I can't help but wonder if we were maybe a sort of soft launch that resulted in an instantly discontinued product once subscribers complained about performance that they're just trying to sell through.
I have to confess that I do love the pink one. It works great on my browbone as an all-over wash, although it doesn't work anywhere else. I haven't tried the black one yet because I'm just not seeing where it would work for me, at least right now.
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
Quote: Introducing True Colour Crème Eye Shadows in Champagne Shimmer and Starry Night. Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases, this hydrating, smooth-as-silk formula is incredibly easy to apply and even easier to admire.
DUE TO HIGH DEMAND, A CUSTOMER MAY ORDER NO MORE THAN 6 UNITS OF THIS ITEM EVERY THIRTY DAYS.
Resistant to settling into creases, eh? this really goes against the blurb they mailed to those of us who wrote them. They explicitly said they were not meant to be long-wearing either. I'm puzzled as to why they have conflicting descriptions of the product.
I noticed that they are available in just these two shades at only Saks as a limited edition. I can't help but wonder if we were maybe a sort of soft launch that resulted in an instantly discontinued product once subscribers complained about performance that they're just trying to sell through.
I have to confess that I do love the pink one. It works great on my browbone as an all-over wash, although it doesn't work anywhere else. I haven't tried the black one yet because I'm just not seeing where it would work for me, at least right now.
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
Quote: Introducing True Colour Crème Eye Shadows in Champagne Shimmer and Starry Night. Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases, this hydrating, smooth-as-silk formula is incredibly easy to apply and even easier to admire.
DUE TO HIGH DEMAND, A CUSTOMER MAY ORDER NO MORE THAN 6 UNITS OF THIS ITEM EVERY THIRTY DAYS.
Resistant to settling into creases, eh? this really goes against the blurb they mailed to those of us who wrote them. They explicitly said they were not meant to be long-wearing either. I'm puzzled as to why they have conflicting descriptions of the product.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 219
Quote: Originally Posted by mermuse /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
Resistant to settling into creases, eh? this really goes against the blurb they mailed to those of us who wrote them. They explicitly said they were not meant to be long-wearing either. I'm puzzled as to why they have conflicting descriptions of the product.
The cards they sent us in our boxes also conflicted with what they said in the email response. I'm curious as to the disconnect as well.
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
Resistant to settling into creases, eh? this really goes against the blurb they mailed to those of us who wrote them. They explicitly said they were not meant to be long-wearing either. I'm puzzled as to why they have conflicting descriptions of the product.
The cards they sent us in our boxes also conflicted with what they said in the email response. I'm curious as to the disconnect as well.
meaganola
Uh Huh Her
Quote: Originally Posted by mermuse /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
I didn't think of it as "testing" but rather "hey, gang, try this new thing out and tell all your friends about it!" word-of-mouth advertising. Unfortunately for them, the word of mouth was very, very bad on this one.
I would like to think if we were "testing" in a way, that the would give us avenues for feedback instead of having us find them, but I do think that we are their soft launch. Anyway, I looked it up on Saks and was not really into their product description.
I didn't think of it as "testing" but rather "hey, gang, try this new thing out and tell all your friends about it!" word-of-mouth advertising. Unfortunately for them, the word of mouth was very, very bad on this one.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 127
I guess they decided that the messy / morning after look does not sell well with consumers that are willing to spend that much money on quality makeup? The only thing "resistant" is our willingness to try to make this greasy shadow stay in place! Boo!
meaganola
Uh Huh Her
Quote: Originally Posted by jesemiaud /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If they want me to test a product, fine... send it. But not as the items I paid for.
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about. I do think they made a big mistake sending this out as their second installment simply because it's boxed fail very soon after the resounding success of the first box. If they had sent out a few months of solid products before this one, it might have been dismissed as a one-time fumble, but since it was just their second box, they're going to have to really come back in a big way for people to forgive them.
(But I still like the pink shimmer. I wouldn't pay money for it, mainly because I have a lot of other products along this same line, but I will use it at least once a week, which is extremely frequently for me.)
If they want me to test a product, fine... send it. But not as the items I paid for.
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about. I do think they made a big mistake sending this out as their second installment simply because it's boxed fail very soon after the resounding success of the first box. If they had sent out a few months of solid products before this one, it might have been dismissed as a one-time fumble, but since it was just their second box, they're going to have to really come back in a big way for people to forgive them.
(But I still like the pink shimmer. I wouldn't pay money for it, mainly because I have a lot of other products along this same line, but I will use it at least once a week, which is extremely frequently for me.)
jesemiaud
Loving Life!
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2012
- Messages
- 2,590
- Reaction score
- 1,018
Quote: Originally Posted by meaganola /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Quote: Originally Posted by jesemiaud /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If they want me to test a product, fine... send it. But not as the items I paid for.
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about.
Yeah, yeah...I "get" how subs work. Been doing it for a long time. And sure I didn't pay for these items...I paid for a service. And for what it's worth, I'm not furious about what I received. However,if a product is labeled as eye shadow, it should work as an eye shadow. I love the colors and great the pink can be used as a highlighter. But I don't need anymore highlighters...I would have loved eyeshadows in these colors. But does receiving such a bad product tarnish LMDB's reputation? Yeah, for me it does a little bit. I paid a whole bunch of money for this sub, I'd like to think I'm going to get some usable product out of it. JMO
Quote: Originally Posted by jesemiaud /img/forum/go_quote.gif
If they want me to test a product, fine... send it. But not as the items I paid for.
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about.
Yeah, yeah...I "get" how subs work. Been doing it for a long time. And sure I didn't pay for these items...I paid for a service. And for what it's worth, I'm not furious about what I received. However,if a product is labeled as eye shadow, it should work as an eye shadow. I love the colors and great the pink can be used as a highlighter. But I don't need anymore highlighters...I would have loved eyeshadows in these colors. But does receiving such a bad product tarnish LMDB's reputation? Yeah, for me it does a little bit. I paid a whole bunch of money for this sub, I'd like to think I'm going to get some usable product out of it. JMO
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 127
Quote: Originally Posted by meaganola /img/forum/go_quote.gif
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about. I do think they made a big mistake sending this out as their second installment simply because it's boxed fail very soon after the resounding success of the first box. If they had sent out a few months of solid products before this one, it might have been dismissed as a one-time fumble, but since it was just their second box, they're going to have to really come back in a big way for people to forgive them.
(But I still like the pink shimmer. I wouldn't pay money for it, mainly because I have a lot of other products along this same line, but I will use it at least once a week, which is extremely frequently for me.)
All true, however, feedback is expected with Social Marketing, specially when there is upfront payment in exchange for the "experiment".
I signed up at my own risk - but it was in good faith based on the reputation and the quality of the brand.
So...this walking billboard will call BS if an item is sent to me as:
"fashion items, and they're meant to be a little slick to give the eyes a dewy, sexy, and imperfect appearance. The product should be used very lightly, only in tiny amounts. The softest touch over or under powder shadows add mystery to the eye. They are not meant to be used in the crease of the eye(where oil penetrates too quickly), or in the inner membrane, or in substantial amounts. However, the look is meant to be slightly undone"
...and being sold as:
"Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases"
Hoping for a fabu October, though!
You didn't pay for *these items*. You paid for a surprise product that might be a brand new unreleased product with no track record. They were very up front about that on the signup page for the subscription. And I think we have different definitions of testing. I don't think they are actually looking for feedback. I haven't seen anything that has asked for us to tell them what we think of these things. My interpretation of this program is that they are looking for regular people to try it and act as walking advertisements for these products. I am convinced this is precisely why we are getting this stuff at a radically reduced rate: Social marketing, pure and simple. To me, this is the entire reason companies participate in subscription services, whether as a mere participant (benefit products in Birchboxes, for example) or as the subscription itself (as is the case here). I don't recall seeing anything anywhere that asked for our feedback on anything -- and, remember, that lipstick from August was also a new formula that has still not been released. We were specifically told up front that we would be receiving new and unreleased products (and a variety of other things, but this is the relevant promise here). As far as I'm concerned, they delivered on that. End of story. They may have delivered a crappy product that doesn't live up to its claims, but they did deliver a new product that hadn't been released at the time we received it. What it boils down to for me is this: The very nature of subscription services means that you *will* be trying unknown quantities from time to time. That's just how these things work. Sometimes they're roaring successes, and sometimes they're horrific failures that are basically immediately pulled (or at least do not have a second manufacturing run) once word about them gets around (see: Julep's DD cream). If you expect fully reviewed released products with a strong consumer history every time, subscription boxes are a bad move for you. If you like surprises and experiments even if those experiments are failures (and that's part of what makes something an experiment: It could fail), they are *made* for you. In addition to the social marketing aspect, we are also getting a *huge* discount in exchange for being willing to try the unknown and potentially disastrous here. I think people who are furious about getting a product that doesn't work in this subscription don't really understand what subscription boxes are all about. I do think they made a big mistake sending this out as their second installment simply because it's boxed fail very soon after the resounding success of the first box. If they had sent out a few months of solid products before this one, it might have been dismissed as a one-time fumble, but since it was just their second box, they're going to have to really come back in a big way for people to forgive them.
(But I still like the pink shimmer. I wouldn't pay money for it, mainly because I have a lot of other products along this same line, but I will use it at least once a week, which is extremely frequently for me.)
All true, however, feedback is expected with Social Marketing, specially when there is upfront payment in exchange for the "experiment".
I signed up at my own risk - but it was in good faith based on the reputation and the quality of the brand.
So...this walking billboard will call BS if an item is sent to me as:
"fashion items, and they're meant to be a little slick to give the eyes a dewy, sexy, and imperfect appearance. The product should be used very lightly, only in tiny amounts. The softest touch over or under powder shadows add mystery to the eye. They are not meant to be used in the crease of the eye(where oil penetrates too quickly), or in the inner membrane, or in substantial amounts. However, the look is meant to be slightly undone"
...and being sold as:
"Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases"
Hoping for a fabu October, though!
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 219
I do wonder why makeup companies release products that are pretty much guarenteed to frustrate the consumer, but I've yet to find a single line that hasn't produced an epic failure. The weird thing (to me) is, invariably epic failures work like a charm for some people. There were even a few people here who indicated they got good wear from the LMdB cream shadows.
The NARS Soft Touch shadow pencils comes to mind. Temptalia gives them an F every single time, yet someone always pipes up with "I love them and they never crease on me! Did you try this, or that, or this?" NARS continues to release new colors, so there you go, they must have a fan base and sell just fine.
The NARS Soft Touch shadow pencils comes to mind. Temptalia gives them an F every single time, yet someone always pipes up with "I love them and they never crease on me! Did you try this, or that, or this?" NARS continues to release new colors, so there you go, they must have a fan base and sell just fine.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 6,107
- Reaction score
- 101
Quote: Originally Posted by Lulubelle107 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I do wonder why makeup companies release products that are pretty much guarenteed to frustrate the consumer, but I've yet to find a single line that hasn't produced an epic failure. The weird thing (to me) is, invariably epic failures work like a charm for some people. There were even a few people here who indicated they got good wear from the LMdB cream shadows.
The NARS Soft Touch shadow pencils comes to mind. Temptalia gives them an F every single time, yet someone always pipes up with "I love them and they never crease on me! Did you try this, or that, or this?" NARS continues to release new colors, so there you go, they must have a fan base and sell just fine.
I agree, you hear it a lot with nail polishes too. "oh zoya wears forever their the best. I hate zoya, it doesn't even last one minute on me". etc, I think it all boils down to some things work for some people, but not others. If you have dry skin, you aren't going to buy a mattifying foundation, etc. These shadows did work for me, and I realize I'm the exception. Maybe there was slight creasing but not enough to completely write them off, as an all over color, an easy look, and I've done it a few times now. I don't walk around with my eye closed either so I'm pretty sure if they do crease slightly, no one can tell anyway (except me, and days when I do a lazy one color swipe on quick eyeshadow are days I do not care). I also don't have oily eyelids, or oily skin at all, and I know that has something to do with it.
That doesn't change that they prob shouldn't market them as resistant to creasing, though, lol.
I do wonder why makeup companies release products that are pretty much guarenteed to frustrate the consumer, but I've yet to find a single line that hasn't produced an epic failure. The weird thing (to me) is, invariably epic failures work like a charm for some people. There were even a few people here who indicated they got good wear from the LMdB cream shadows.
The NARS Soft Touch shadow pencils comes to mind. Temptalia gives them an F every single time, yet someone always pipes up with "I love them and they never crease on me! Did you try this, or that, or this?" NARS continues to release new colors, so there you go, they must have a fan base and sell just fine.
I agree, you hear it a lot with nail polishes too. "oh zoya wears forever their the best. I hate zoya, it doesn't even last one minute on me". etc, I think it all boils down to some things work for some people, but not others. If you have dry skin, you aren't going to buy a mattifying foundation, etc. These shadows did work for me, and I realize I'm the exception. Maybe there was slight creasing but not enough to completely write them off, as an all over color, an easy look, and I've done it a few times now. I don't walk around with my eye closed either so I'm pretty sure if they do crease slightly, no one can tell anyway (except me, and days when I do a lazy one color swipe on quick eyeshadow are days I do not care). I also don't have oily eyelids, or oily skin at all, and I know that has something to do with it.
That doesn't change that they prob shouldn't market them as resistant to creasing, though, lol.
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
!
I agree! They should make up to us next month! And I wouldn't mind a skincare product wink wink
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2013
- Messages
- 448
- Reaction score
- 18
Quote: Originally Posted by IffB /img/forum/go_quote.gif
All true, however, feedback is expected with Social Marketing, specially when there is upfront payment in exchange for the "experiment".
I signed up at my own risk - but it was in good faith based on the reputation and the quality of the brand.
So...this walking billboard will call BS if an item is sent to me as:
"fashion items, and they're meant to be a little slick to give the eyes a dewy, sexy, and imperfect appearance. The product should be used very lightly, only in tiny amounts. The softest touch over or under powder shadows add mystery to the eye. They are not meant to be used in the crease of the eye(where oil penetrates too quickly), or in the inner membrane, or in substantial amounts. However, the look is meant to be slightly undone"
...and being sold as:
"Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases"
Hoping for a fabu October, though!
Even big dept store brands have had some major fail products.
I can def remember quite a few I bought as I used to get amazing store bonuses (from store special events).
Dior used to have a "teen blemish line" that was really gimicky and crap....prob why it was only around one season or 2? lol.
Same for biotherm nail polish and makeup....theirs was only ok....and overpriced.
or what about the Dior body spray that was supposed to "make you thinner"??? LOL.
I bought that as it smelled really nice- like citrus/lemon kind of.......but it did not make me thinner
/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />
Still have a bottle of it here...it was called Eau Svelte
Could you use the gold shimmer in your hair to make it shimmery? would that work?
or maybe as a arm/leg highlighter??
All true, however, feedback is expected with Social Marketing, specially when there is upfront payment in exchange for the "experiment".
I signed up at my own risk - but it was in good faith based on the reputation and the quality of the brand.
So...this walking billboard will call BS if an item is sent to me as:
"fashion items, and they're meant to be a little slick to give the eyes a dewy, sexy, and imperfect appearance. The product should be used very lightly, only in tiny amounts. The softest touch over or under powder shadows add mystery to the eye. They are not meant to be used in the crease of the eye(where oil penetrates too quickly), or in the inner membrane, or in substantial amounts. However, the look is meant to be slightly undone"
...and being sold as:
"Long-wearing, waterproof and resistant to settling into creases"
Hoping for a fabu October, though!
Even big dept store brands have had some major fail products.
I can def remember quite a few I bought as I used to get amazing store bonuses (from store special events).
Dior used to have a "teen blemish line" that was really gimicky and crap....prob why it was only around one season or 2? lol.
Same for biotherm nail polish and makeup....theirs was only ok....and overpriced.
or what about the Dior body spray that was supposed to "make you thinner"??? LOL.
I bought that as it smelled really nice- like citrus/lemon kind of.......but it did not make me thinner
/emoticons/[email protected] 2x" width="20" height="20" />Still have a bottle of it here...it was called Eau Svelte
Could you use the gold shimmer in your hair to make it shimmery? would that work?
or maybe as a arm/leg highlighter??
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2013
- Messages
- 227
- Reaction score
- 8
I liked the black one, I used a little primer then applied the black shadow as a base and used some dark brown & copper for some highlighting and overall color. It ended up working well and I got a ton of compliments so I think it really does just depend on the person.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 476
- Reaction score
- 127
Epic failures.....I am old enough to remember the "New Coke". The Coca Cola Company, with all their Marketing resources, decided to completely change the taste of Coca Cola to something rotten tasting that everyone hated! I am actually wearing the champagne now, over primer and under Stila powder shadow. I will continue to reach for it once in a while, but I am ready to move on to the next, hopefully fabulous, little black package. Really looking forward to the intro box, too.
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2012
- Messages
- 1,620
- Reaction score
- 219
Quote: Originally Posted by IffB /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Epic failures.....I am old enough to remember the "New Coke". The Coca Cola Company, with all their Marketing resources, decided to completely change the taste of Coca Cola to something rotten tasting that everyone hated!
I am actually wearing the champagne now, over primer and under Stila powder shadow. I will continue to reach for it once in a while, but I am ready to move on to the next, hopefully fabulous, little black package. Really looking forward to the intro box, too.
The intro box was epic, IMO!
I remember the New Coke debacle as well. I also remember when clothes with the Coca Cola logo were all the rage, I had a sweat shirt that was probably ridiculously expensive. Gotta love the 1980's
.
Epic failures.....I am old enough to remember the "New Coke". The Coca Cola Company, with all their Marketing resources, decided to completely change the taste of Coca Cola to something rotten tasting that everyone hated!
I am actually wearing the champagne now, over primer and under Stila powder shadow. I will continue to reach for it once in a while, but I am ready to move on to the next, hopefully fabulous, little black package. Really looking forward to the intro box, too.
The intro box was epic, IMO!
I remember the New Coke debacle as well. I also remember when clothes with the Coca Cola logo were all the rage, I had a sweat shirt that was probably ridiculously expensive. Gotta love the 1980's
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2013
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
Finally, it's now in transit. Per UPS notification it says delivery will be this Monday, Sept. 30... Weight is only a pound! Now I'm wondering if its my much awaited August box or October box? Hmmmm
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2012
- Messages
- 182
- Reaction score
- 6
I'm pretty sure it's the oct box... Please let us know what you get on Monday...so excited for oct spoilers!
