-
Are you a formula minimalist or maximalist?
-
@geekchic - you might try a cationic polymer like Polyquaternium 7 or a Guar.
Thanks!
-
I am both happy and sad to hear there are others struggling between the two..
I work as a chemist for a contract manufacturer and can 100% agree with what Microformulation said:
@GeorgeBenson I will give you an exercise to see. Have your overly complicated products priced out for commercial manufacturing. CM’s are not charities and these material costs as well as the impact of MOQ’s will be billed to you. There are valid supply chain issues as well as inflationary forces causing these materials to increase in cost. My inbox is filled with price updates from suppliers on a nearly weekly basis. So, when you sit down with a manufacturer and determine your costs to run a minimum piece count of 1,250, expect a big invoice for multiple overlapping materials. In most cases, this will be your moment of truth.Whatever you put in, you have to pay for. At some point, you will need to take Business Practices into account as well.It has become increasingly difficult to educate brands on why a minimalist approach to formulations is better. Everyone claims to be an expert and wants us formulate as per their understanding of materials…which sometimes is absolute nonsense! I have had people come to me with articles (Not scientific, mind you) with the expectation that we can replicate their idea of ‘Natura’ cosmetics with unrealistic formulas.
The ‘Ingredient list is too small thus must be inefficient’ is an argument I have had too many times. We usually end up having to procure large MOQs of unnecessary materials that do absolutely nothing in terms of product experience. It is painful sitting on 200kgs of inventory of a material that we only need to use 1kg of (that too an unnecessary addition).
One thing that has helped me close many of these problematic brands is by adding extract blends (usually 5-8 in one blend) at minimal concentrations just to make the ingredient deck more attractive. 4 out of 5 times that helps ease their mind.
Another thing that has helped is withholding the ingredient deck until they physically try the sample. This is also helpful because they test the product with an open mind. Previously we used to share it as soon as the sample was sent out but that always resulted in these conversations.
Once again, happy that I am not the only one suffering! Misery loves company!
-
A good way to resolve this problem is to charge the client upfront for the MOQ of a superfluous, non-stock, label ingredient … Say the ingredient supplier’s MOQ for an extract of dubious efficacy is 20KG, but you will only need to use 1KG in the production run. Charge the client upfront for the entire 20KG as a separate line item. Usually when you explain the cost/benefit of the inclusion of a particular ingredient, in particular label ingredients, the client having to pay for it upfront usually gives them a different perspective on the investment.
-
MarkBroussard said:@Cosmetic_Chemist:
A good way to resolve this problem is to charge the client upfront for the MOQ of a superfluous, non-stock, label ingredient … Say the ingredient supplier’s MOQ for an extract of dubious efficacy is 20KG, but you will only need to use 1KG in the production run. Charge the client upfront for the entire 20KG as a separate line item. Usually when you explain the cost/benefit of the inclusion of a particular ingredient, in particular label ingredients, the client having to pay for it upfront usually gives them a different perspective on the investment.
Thank you @MarkBroussard, we are trying to charge them upfront with the promise that material will be on hold for their products. The second you mention more money though, everyone’s guard goes up and sometimes this can be the reason we don’t close.
It is easier to convince new clients to abide by this but asking existing clients is like banging your head into a wall.
-
Perry said:I guess the point is not that extracts do nothing (although most don’t), it’s that there are superior, less expensive options.
I agree, the only exception for me are pore-shrinking extracts, I was not able to find a synthetic equivalent.
Cosmetic_Chemist said:Thank you @MarkBroussard, we are trying to charge them upfront with the promise that material will be on hold for their products. The second you mention more money though, everyone’s guard goes up and sometimes this can be the reason we don’t close.It is easier to convince new clients to abide by this but asking existing clients is like banging your head into a wall.
Extracts have usually only 1 year shelf life. They can be sent for re-testing, then this date will be extended, but you cannot be sure. At worst, they will buy 20 kg every year, pay for 20 kg, and throw away 19 kg.
-
I worked with a company where they billed the MOQ’s based on a scoring system of 1 to 3.Class 1 was a product that you would most likely use regardless. They may even already be in stock. (For example Glycerin).Class 2 was a product we didn’t carry usually but we could develop opportunities to use the material. Oftentimes we would use the remaining raw materials in our Private Label programs.Class 3 was something you knew was going to sit in Supply forever and unless they did subsequent runs, it was likely to be discarded. We would bill the full amount of the purchase to the client. -
Microformulation said:I worked with a company where they billed the MOQ’s based on a scoring system of 1 to 3.Class 1 was a product that you would most likely use regardless. They may even already be in stock. (For example Glycerin).Class 2 was a product we didn’t carry usually but we could develop opportunities to use the material. Oftentimes we would use the remaining raw materials in our Private Label programs.Class 3 was something you knew was going to sit in Supply forever and unless they did subsequent runs, it was likely to be discarded. We would bill the full amount of the purchase to the client.
I love this breakdown! Thank you @Microformulation, I think this will help explain the costs to the customer with utmost clarity!
-
When I started out I was a maximalist, but now I’m definetely a minimalist. Less ingredients = less interactions between them; less components to cause reactions on consumers’ skin and also potentially lower costs with raw materials!
-
minimalist for sure - I take an engineer’s approach to formulation, using the necessary tools to achieve the end result and no morethis also makes it a lot easier to troubleshoot if it goes tits up -
I spent a lot of time researching formulas before starting a new project, and I was happy with the outcome. But lately I am doing knock out experiments because, I suspect some expensive ingredients I am using in my formulas have no impact on the performance of my products.
-
From a consumer and self-study: this is the best about being here….what I learn from the industry, which is what prompted me to start this journey. I was a Dermalogica slave for about 15 years. And then Skinceuticals hit the market. And I had to make my own L-ascorbic serum as the prices were ludicrous. The Ordinary changed everything: Brandon (bless his cotton socks) was a groundbreaker to my mind. And here we have little dropper bottles of minimal materials. And it worked!
Listening to the chemists, realising that marketing drives the industry, all the BS on the labels and promo materials. And I felt deceived and cheated that I was a slave to this rubbish for so many years.I still go read labels at the stores and the ingredient lists are still long. And its tempting to fall trap to it.So my uneducated approach now is that I’ll add materials for stability & sensory, staples like glycerin and as for actives less is more. And I don’t waste money on mysterious extracts.Oh and I hate the word “soothing” now….the default claim for botanicals if all else fails….
Log in to reply.