I learned about the $100 Startup book while listening to some podcast.  I don’t recall which one, but the author made the book sound interesting and the book’s promise “Reinvent the Way You Make a Living, Do What You Love and Create a New Future” seemed like something that many people who frequent this blog would find interesting. 

Overall, the author, Chris Guillebeau, does a great job of presenting a blueprint that anyone can follow to get started with their own business.  Of course, he is talking about a specific type of business that you could start with $100, but the blueprint can be followed to start a cosmetic line (it will just cost more money).  The writing is light, easy to understand, and he fills it with anecdotes of real-life entrepreneurs who have managed to start successful businesses following the steps he suggests.  On some level, there are too many anecdotes and not enough substance but it makes for a more interesting read.

Book organization

The book is organized in three parts broken up into 14 chapters.  At the end of each chapter is a Key Points section which sums up the chapter in easy bullet points.  That is nice for when you want to review the information later.

Part I

Part I is about the type of people who are entrepreneurs and has chapters which are supposed to help you decide whether you are that type and what type of business you should run.  In the first chapter, you learn the three things needed to start a business:

• 1.  A product or service
• 2.  People who will pay for it
• 3.  A way to get paid

The second chapter talks about what type of product or service you should create.  Essentially the message is that you should figure out what people really want and sell that to them.  The third chapter delves into your passions and figuring out whether they are suitable for establishing a business around.  Some are and some aren’t.  The fourth chapter gets into the topic of the easiest type of business to start and this is probably most suited for the advice in this book.  It is the publishing business.  Essentially, if you have some expertise and can write about it, you can have your own, successful business.  Not exactly applicable to a cosmetic line, but pretty good for someone who wants to start a cosmetic formulation consulting business.  The fifth and final chapter of part I talks about who your consumers might be.  The days of separating people by traditional demographics is over.

Part II

Part II is focused on helping you turn your business idea into an actual business.  Chapter six talks about the all-important business plan and they show you how to do it in a single page.  Chapter seven delves into marketing showing you how to craft your sales message that will make people want to buy your product.  Chapter eight takes you through the process of launching your product and chapter nine focuses on advertising & whether it’s worth spending money on.  The tenth chapter tells you how to raise money.  For a person who wants to start a cosmetic line, this is critically important.  Remember unless you have money to get your formula made and produced, you won’t be able to start a cosmetic business.  It takes money.

Part III

Part III takes you through the final phase of your business…growth.  In Chapter eleven you’ll learn how to tweak your business to increase sales.  Chapter twelve describes the process of creating a franchise (not necessarily relevant to cosmetic businesses) and chapter thirteen gives advice on how to really make your business grow and be long lasting.  The final chapter talks about failure and why you shouldn’t be afraid of it.  He sums up all of the advice with the closing thought

Don’t waste your time living someone else’s life

It’s pretty good advice, although it doesn’t always pay the bills.

This is a very good book for someone who is dabbling with the idea of starting their own business and doesn’t know how to go about it.  It also is filled with anecdotes so it’s easy and interesting to read.  It’s even a little inspiring.  If you read it, let me know what you think.

Last week was the annual Suppliers Day for the New York chapter of the SCC. It’s always a huge event and you can find thousands of raw materials from hundreds of different suppliers. And to convince you to try out their materials, cosmetic raw material suppliers employ marketers. You’ll get all kinds of promises what an ingredient can do but as a skeptical cosmetic chemist you won’t know what to believe. Here are a few of tips on how to evaluate cosmetic raw material marketing. 

Are the claims supported with studies?

The first thing you should look for when presented with a new raw material is whether there have been any studies done at all. Is there any data for you to look at that supports the claims they are making about the new ingredient. Often, a raw material will be touted as better because of the source of its starting ingredients. Unless you are going for an all-natural or sustainability angle in your formulation, the source of the raw material shouldn’t matter much to you. But it’s crucial to know the claims made about the ingredient and the studies done to back them up.

Was the study size large enough?

Fortunately, most cosmetic raw material suppliers have done studies to support their claims. This is where you have to be a curious chemist. The first thing to ask about is the size of the study. Were there enough samples used? They often do not give this information to the sales person but it is always worth asking. A study in which one sample was compared to one other sample is much less impressive than one in which multiple samples were compared. Ideally, at least 30 runs or samples should be done to support a claim. For you to be interested in a raw material however, the study should have been run at least two or three times.

Was it compared to a control?

One of the most frequent problems I see with cosmetic raw material marketing is that they present data of a material compared to no control or to a water control. For example, they’ll claim the ingredient is moisturizing then show you data of the subject done with and without treatment. This might be fine for commercials and products directed towards consumers but for scientists this isn’t good enough. At the very least you should ask for data of the product compared to a placebo control. It’s great if you can get a formula compared with and without the raw material. But perhaps the best thing is when you can see a material as compared to the best material out there. Raw material suppliers love to compare their product to no control or a placebo control. However, what you really want to know is how does the raw material compare to the best technology out there for solving the problem you are trying to solve.

Was the study done by an independent lab?

While you should expect that all the data presented to you by a supplier is biased (they are trying to sell you something after all) some data is more biased than others. The best studies are the ones that are produced for the supplier by independent labs. Presumably, the independent lab will be paid no matter what the results of the study so they are not inclined to skew the data in a specific direction. When you see truly data produced by a truly independent lab, you should take more notice of that raw material. Although, it’s worth pointing out that just because you are seeing positive data and it came from an independent lab, that doesn’t mean it isn’t without bias. The raw material supplier wouldn’t show negative data if there was any, so always remember no matter what data you get from a supplier about their raw material, it is likely biased.

Will it make a meaningful impact on your formulation?

The most important thing to look for when trying to find new raw materials is whether something will have a significant impact on your formula or not. The best ingredient choices will have an impact that your consumer will notice. The second best ones are ingredients that can save you money. Finally, some ingredients can provide you a new story for your formula that can help boost sales. But if the new ingredient can’t do any of these or can’t be a reliable secondary supplier, then there is no need to look at the ingredient any further.

Although we are scientists, we are not immune to the power of marketing. If you maintain a healthy level of skepticism and objectivity, you’ll be able to avoid being fooled and still find the new raw materials that will help you make the best cosmetic products possible.

There haven’t been many new technologies introduced into sun care in the last few decades. There was the introduction of mexoryl sunscreen in the mid 2000′s, nanoparticle sized titanium dioxide / zinc oxide and maybe aerosol sunscreens. But otherwise, there hasn’t been much new. 

But this sun technology looks like it could be a neat new product for consumers who are concerned about staying in the sun too long.

Sun protection technology

Researchers at Michigan Technological University have created a sensor that tells you when it’s time to get out of the sun. The device is a nickel-sized patch that gradually darkens when exposed to UV light. When you can’t see the happy face that is on the graphic, you need to get out of the sun.

They’ve filed a patent on the technology so you won’t be able to make exactly the same type of patch but maybe you could liscence the technology. Or maybe it could be incorporated into a skin lotion that changes color.

What do you think?

I saw this interesting news story about a group of European researchers who say they have found a treatment that can eliminate gray hair. 

Two things strike me about this story.

First, the researchers say that hair turns gray because of a build-up of hydrogen peroxide in hair follicles. This isn’t my understanding of what causes gray hair at all. In fact, in the excellent book “Practical Modern Hair Science” the authors explain that hair turns gray because the melanocytes stop producing pigment. Perhaps my understanding of graying hair is wrong? Hmmm…

Second, they are making some pretty extraordinary claims. The end of gray hair? Come on. They’ll need more proof than this one study to support that claim.

Still, gray hair is an area of lots of basic research as scientists would be happy to find a treatment that stops it from happening. Until then, it will take we cosmetic chemists and our skills with hair dye to keep gray haired people looking young.

As a cosmetic chemist or cosmetic entrepreneur, you need to develop the power to influence other people to get the things done that you want to accomplish.  If you have a new project idea you want your company to initiate or you want customers to buy your cosmetic line, you have to know what motivates people to take action.

Interestingly enough scientists have been researching the question of what influences people for the last 60 years and they have developed some theories.  This video explains it pretty well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFdCzN7RYbw

The 6 principles of persuasion include…

1. Reciprocity – You give something to someone & they feel obligated to give something for you.
2. Scarcity – People want something more when there is a limited supply.
3. Authority - People follow the lead of credible experts
4. Consistency – People who purchased from you before are more likely to purchase again
5. Liking – People prefer to say yes to people that they like
6. Consensus – Most people do what other people are doing

How do you use these principles?

Now that you know these 6 persuasion principles think of some ways that you might employ them to convince people to do what you want them to do. If you start your own cosmetic line and you want people to try your product, what do these principles suggest you should do? (Give away free samples, make a limited supply, get people to like you, etc.)

If you are a cosmetic formulator and you have an idea for a new product or cost savings project think of how you might use these techniques to get these things done at your company.

These are the types of subjects that chemists and other natural scientists do not study in college. But they are exactly the types of things that will lead to a more successful career or business. That makes them well worth learning and implementing.

Scare stories about the dangers of cosmetics always grab headlines. Whether they are put out by fearmongering groups, politicians or even researchers, these stories are gobbled up by a less-than-scientifically-literate public. Or at least by a media that seems keen to propagate them. 

One of the most recent examples that I saw was this story about Gold nanoparticles and wrinkles. According to researchers at Stony Brook University, NY, gold nanoparticles may accelerate aging, increase wrinkling and slow the wound-healing process. They base this on an interaction that they noticed between gold nanoparticles and human cells in the laboratory.

Giant leap to wrinkles

The research is interesting enough and raises a number of follow-up questions like
1. What is it about the nanoparticles that is interfering with cells?
2. Does it matter if they are gold nanoparticles or is it any nanoparticle?
3. How long does the effect last?
4. Do gold nanoparticles penetrate skin deep enough to see this effect in real life?

The last question is the most relevant to me. Remember this study was conducted on human skin cell lines in a laboratory. There are lots of substances that can have an in-vitro effect that does not show up when tested on actual people. Making the logical leap that gold nanoparticles will cause wrinkling is equivalent to making the logical leap that any number of anti-aging compounds will decrease wrinkling. Just because it works in the lab doesn’t mean that’s what happens in real life. If the nanoparticles do not penetrate to the level of living cells, they will have no negative effect on skin.

Who uses gold nanoparticles?

There is one more fundamental problem with this study. One of the researchers claim that

“Gold nanoparticles are in cosmetics because they have such interesting colors. You can get yellows and browns, all the way down to blues and purples…”

This is wrong!

Gold is not an approved colorant for cosmetics.

As far as I know, gold nanoparticles are not regularly used in cosmetic or personal care products. Where did these researchers get the idea that they were?

This seems to happen frequently with academic researchers. They know a lot about a focused area of research, but they completely miss the big picture.

As a beginning chemist, one of the most frustrating things for me as I started my career was the product ingredient lists. While all the products had cosmetic ingredient listings, the ingredient were rarely things that I learned about in college. The cosmetics industry just does not use the same naming system for ingredients as the one you learned in college. 

The college system of naming is the IUPAC system. The great thing about this system is that it allows you to figure out the chemical structure of any material from its name alone. Unfortunately, it also leads to incredibly long names for the ingredients so it isn’t practical to use it for naming cosmetics.

The cosmetic system is the one created by the PCPC and listed in the INCI Dictionary. They use a whole different set of naming conventions which lead to shorter names but also make it impossible to ascertain most ingredients structures from the name. Oh well, you don’t really need to know the molecular structure to be a good cosmetic chemist.

Ingredients are not the same

One of the things I wanted to point out in this post is that not all ingredients are the same even if they have the same name. To understand why, let’s look at an ingredient like Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS).

SLS is a pretty straightforward molecule. It is a surfactant with a 12-carbon chain backbone attached to a SO4 group and ionically bonded with a sodium ion.

But when you buy Sodium Lauryl Sulfate from one supplier, you might not be getting the same chemical as when you buy your ingredients from another supplier. Why?

It turns out that this is because of the way sodium lauryl sulfate is produced. To create SLS, you react Lauryl Alcohol with Sulfur Trioxide gas. This is further neutralized with Sodium Hydroxide to produce SLS. The key part of this reaction is the “Lauryl Alcohol” and the way that it gets produced.

Lauryl Alcohol

Lauryl alcohol can be obtained from a number of sources including from the fatty acids of plant oils and crude oil. Unfortunately, these sources are a mixture of fatty acids and it is incredibly difficult to isolate only the C12 molecules. So, instead of starting the production of SLS with pure Lauryl Alcohol, most companies start with a mixture that is mostly Lauryl Alcohol but contains a number of other residual fatty alcohols.

Therefore, the chemical properties and quality of the SLS will vary from raw material supplier to raw material supplier depending on the quality and type of starting material for their SLS. The more pure the starting Lauryl Alcohol source, the better controlled the SLS end properties will be.

This same thing applies to most any other cosmetics ingredients that you might use. It’s pretty rare that a cosmetic ingredient is pure. It is nearly always a mixture of the main ingredient you want and some residual ingredients that you might not.

I saw a story indicating that the shareholders at Avon were going to vote on whether to remove “dangerous chemicals used in their beauty products that have been linked to cancer, reproductive harm, and other serious diseases.” It made me consider the impact of things like these on cosmetic chemists. 

Non-science manipulating science

First, I find it silly that a topic like this would even be voted on by shareholders. It is illegal for a company to sell an unsafe product so unless Avon is breaking the law, they are already selling safe products. Why would the shareholders be involved in the decision of whether something is a safe product or not? This is just another attempt by fearmongers who lack the scientific evidence to support their irrational fears to manipulate people. I hope Avon doesn’t capitulate to such nonsense but if they did, they wouldn’t be alone. Johnson and Johnson is reformulating their products due to pressure from chemical fearmongers.

It really is troubling to me that an issue as important as product safety is going to be decided by a democratic vote. In a world where PR agents and people with degrees in English and Communication have as much say in product safety as scientists with PHDs in Toxicology, product safety will undoubtedly suffer.

But I digress.

Benefits to cosmetic formulators

while stories like these are troubling to the scientist in me, for cosmetic chemists, it’s probably a good thing.

How can this be you ask?

Consider the following.

Requires reformulation

When someone arbitrarily rules that a chemical in your formula can no longer be used, you will be required to reformulate. And from a job security standpoint, reformulating products is a benefit to cosmetic chemists. If your company didn’t have to respond to silly reformulation efforts like this, there would be much less need for the number of cosmetic chemists that are in the industry today.

Spur innovation

While reformulation efforts like this are mostly a waste of time, they also force you to consider new ideas that you might have rejected in the past. These new ideas may lead to innovative products that perform as well or better than the current formulations. Sometimes, change can be good even if it is driven by irrationality and unscientific silliness.

Creating standards

Another positive thing about stories like these is that they help to define exactly what constitues safety. In the cosmetic industry, each company gets to decide what they believe is a safe product or not. This can make it difficult for a consumer to know what level of safety that they feel comfortable with. Perhaps if enough companies start doing things like these, the FDA will develop standard test methods that companies have to meet in order to call their products safe. Maybe then fearmongering groups like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics will disband as they will be unable to use the uncertainty as a fear generating tactic. Unlikely, but possible.

Bringing down big companies

Since reformulation efforts almost always result in a change in performance (typically negative) a decision like this by Avon could open up the market for a smaller company who decides on such matters using science rather than democracy. That would allow them to create superior performing products and may result in them taking a significant share of the market. If you are a cosmetic chemist who wants to start a cosmetic line, a decision like this could allow you to create the superior products which will differentiate you from the larger, more skittish, competition.

While these fearmongering groups continue to annoy me they are not exactly bad for cosmetic formulators. Just remember, don’t fall into the trap of believing the nonsense they spout no matter how much benefit you as a formulator derive. Determinations of product safety should be made by SCIENTISTS not PR groups. And companies that given in to these groups deserve everything that happens to them in the marketplace.

The future of cosmetic chemistry may be changing. While being able to mix surfactants, emollients, occlusive agents, and other cosmetic raw materials in the proper ratio to get excellently performing products is important now, it just might give way to products like this anti-cellulite invention.

The makers of Flexees have introduced a pair of slimming shorts / tights that are infused with anti-cellulite ingredients including Caffeine, Ceramides and Retinol. Theoretically, the product immediately slims the wearer but also helps to reduce cellulite over time.

You can see their video here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMVXw2A0f2s

Of course, the model they use sure doesn’t look like she needs an anti-cellulite product!

While I don’t believe the product will work any better than an ordinary pair of shape wear, it does point to a new skill that cosmetic chemists should develop. That is the skill of working with fibers. Someone had to figure out how to infuse the fibers with those raw materials.

Someone also had to figure out for the marketing people what ingredients consumers believe are active against cellulite.

Anti-cellulite ingredients

Here is what the product makers believe has an effect on cellulite.

Caffeine
Ceramides
Retinol
Vitamin E
Fatty Acids
Aloe Vera

Here is what the science says. According to a review article published in Dermatologic Surgery

” At present, it can be safely stated that there is no topical medication or manipulative process to which advanced cellulite visibly responds in a treatment period of less than 2 months.”

And a more recent review published in the Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery.

“There are many cosmetic and medical treatments for cellulite. However, there is little clinical evidence of an improvement in cellulite, and none have been shown to lead to its resolution. ”

So, while this company might sell an anti-cellulite product and it certainly has an immediate effect like all other nylon fiber products like this, it’s highly unlikely that the infused raw materials will have any extra benefit for the consumer.

I will be curious to see how well this product sells.

Cosmetic innovation

While this product is most likely just puffery, the idea of infusing a fiber with some active ingredient to deliver it to the skin is an interesting one.

Can you think of a new product idea in which your cosmetic ingredient or active is infused in a fiber that the consumer wears over night. Perhaps something to treat dark circles under the eye. Or maybe even a long lasting sunscreen or moisturizing product.

By Bob Wilcox

In an earlier article on cosmetic mixing with overhead stirrers I outlined how these lab tools are used to provide a fast way to develop formulations and processing parameters ranging from benchtop to pilot scale production. The article also touched on the variety of impeller configurations available – each one designed to perform a specific mixing operation.

Impeller configurations – A.K.A overhead stirrer mixing tools – deserve more attention because of their impact on stirring efficiencies and the capability of the overhead stirrer drive motor to deal with sample viscosity while delivering the required mixing speed. Please refer to the earlier article for a refresher on variables relating primarily to the properties of the samples being mixed and the desired results. These include sample size, viscosity, stirring speed, stirring time, overhead stirrer control options, and record- keeping capabilities.

In a nutshell: Before we get into the nitty-gritty of impeller design overhead stirrer mixing tools must accommodate sample volume and viscosity to provide satisfactory mixing action taking into account the tools’ surface areas. Stirrer motors should deliver the power needed to drive mixing tools at the set speed without overheating.

Overhead Stirrer Mixing Tool Configurations

This equipment has several names including impellers, paddles and blades. Whatever moniker you assign they are fabricated and welded or otherwise attached to a stainless steel rod. The rod must be long enough to immerse the tool into the sample. Somewhat like an electric drill bit the rod is inserted into and tightened in the mixer motor chuck.

Rod diameter and length should be considered when selecting mixing tools. Wider diameters are able to accommodate higher viscosity samples and are offered in 6, 8 and 10mm in size. Rod lengths are selected to place the mixing tool at the correct level in the beaker. Lengths, including the blade, range from 300 to 600 mm. Note that the stirrer drive motors are equipped with a support rod that can be clamped to a mounting stand to permit adjusting the depth of the mixing tool in the sample container.

Here’s a brief explanation of common mixing tool configurations:

• Samples with light or average viscosities can be processed by X-shaped configurations when viewed on end.
• Select a manifold shaped configuration to dissolve or disperse samples in the beaker. These are also produced in a round configuration with alternating up and down tabs.
• Medium and high viscosity samples requiring higher mixing speeds call for propeller-type mixing tools that resemble 4-bladed fans or 3-bladed motorboat propellers.
• Spatula-shaped blade mixers are characterized by a large surface area, often with holes, and are more influenced by viscosity.
• Use a centrifugal mixing tool for processing samples at an average speed. They are also called straight blade mixers and have two flat vertical blades.

As you work with an increasing number of cosmetic formulations you may accumulate a variety of overhead stirrer mixing tools. Protect your investment by cleaning them thoroughly after each use so samples do not harden in cracks and crevices.

Bob Wilcox has represented CAT Scientific’s family of overhead stirrers, homogenizers, magnetic stirrers,
liquid metering and related laboratory equipment since 2002. In addition to heading the sales function in
the US he is chief technician for the CAT equipment service organization.