-
Big company vs Small company - Who’s more evil?
Here are my thoughts on some misconceptions about the beauty industry, especially related to big and small companies.
I don’t think anyone is really “evil” but when it comes to safety, performance, and value, products produced by big corporations are generally the better choice for consumers.
That’s not to say small companies can’t produce great products. Or that small companies shouldn’t be supported. I fully support beauty product entrepreneurs!
But all things being equal, if a consumer were to ask me to choose between a product made by a big guy or some small startup, I’d tell them to choose the big guy.
-
35 Replies
-
I’d say the same Perry.
-
I’m on the side of the little guys…… at least you can communicate with the guys who make the stuff…..
-
I think it’s the smaller companies who should be blamed for paraben-free insanity. They started greenwashing and chemophobia to distinguish themselves as they cannot compete with the big guys due to economy of scale. Now when the consumer is brainwashed even large companies have to put ‘natural’ options on the shelves which promotes unscientific narrative further. I don’t buy many personal care products (to encourage myself to make it) but when I do, it’s L’Oreal, J&J and alike.
-
@mikethair - I understand this position and agree that it is nice to be able to communicate with who makes the product. It’s just very easy for an unscrupulous individual to start a beauty product line, cut corners, and produce something that might harm consumers.
I have no great love for the big guys. But when it comes to safety, I think they are the better bet for consumers.
-
I agree with this. Too often do I see small companies mislabel their ingredients or make dubious claims. It’s also hard to know what kind of conditions their products are being made in (depending on the brand). At least with big companies, you know what you are getting.
-
The small companies are less likely to have a chemist on staff. As I have learned in my journey, there are so many pitfalls on the way to success, one either needs access to a chemist, or a chemist on staff.
We left out the mid-size brands….I have seen more sketchy labels at that level…than anywhere else. (non viable preservative systems….yet their products seem to last and last???)
-
When compared to billion dollars corporations most of the companies are small. :*
Indeed mass products from big companies are safe but not all small companies use evil tactics and produce unsafe products - well of cause some does.
Another problem I saw in the past years is most entrepreneurs with only micro or nano budget jumped into beauty market dreaming of big profit but faced with the harsh reality and didn’t survive.
-
To Pattsi’s good point. In 2017, FDA reported the >70 cosmetic sku’s recalled for micro issues - all from smaller companies most pursuing natural formulation/alternative preservation. Previous years showed increases to this peak. Following years saw consistent decline - <20 in 2020.
Also this - https://sfamjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/lam.12995 -
I think a little bit different from this opinion. To me
“ The man behind the formulation will decide the product quality. It depends on his experience, study, innovative idea, his will to present good things.
If he has sound knowledge about microbiology and contamination, dermatology and skin physiology,
chemistry and chemical products and above all his experience and expertise skill will decide the product quality.
Not big or small company but ,
the man behind the formulation will decide that a product is the worst or the best. -
@Aziz - thanks for that perspective. I do agree that having a sincere, high quality individual is important for producing safe & effective products. And certainly small companies can have those as can big companies.
But I also believe that the damage caused by one bad actor can be better minimized in a big company vs a small company. This is why it’s a probability thing with me. When making recommendations to consumers, unless I know the people behind a small company, I’d recommend the big guys.
-
Aziz’s a “man behind” effectively does not exist, esp. as adequate satisfaction of the parameters of stability, safety, microiology may require data not just judgement.
A large company will have “men” behind each discipline with data and data-based judgement. A small company will deal with greater risk - fewer men behind and lesser testing capabilities. -
Article on the same topic opens up when any link related to chemist corner discussion forum is opened for viewing. Sorry for posting here. But I hope Admins take note of the site issue.
https://chemistscorner.com/misunderstood-motivations-of-big-cosmetic-companies/ -
@Learntounlearn - Thanks for the heads up. Yes, we are making some updates on the website and there is a link issue that is redirecting to that page. Bottom line…we’re working on getting that fixed.
If only we were a big company. They’d have dozens of people working on the problem
-
Speaking from my experience of working in a large international company (in professional services not personal care) there is no “man” behind a product. The larger the company the more replaceable people are and the operation is designed this way intentionally. I assume that the same happenes within large players in personal care industry, such as L’Oreal, Unilever, J&J etc. It’s not a one talented formulator who put together a particular product. It’s probably several departments working together on each formula where every individual is extremely specialised. I would never want to make formulation a career, as I love it too much to be limited to a narrow area the same way I am limited at my job.
-
Speaking of links and the site, @Perry, just throwing this out there….but on the forum whenever you click on a link…it takes you off the site. Is there anyway you can make them open in a new window? Just a thought.
-
@Graillotion - I will look into that. I thought it opened up a new window but I guess sometimes it doesn’t.
-
Perry said:@Graillotion - I will look into that. I thought it opened up a new window but I guess sometimes it doesn’t.
At least with the browsers I use… 100% of the time, it opens in the currant page, so the forum is gone, whenever I click on a posted link.
I’m one of those nut jobs that reads all the links.
🙂 -
Define big. If by big we are talking about companies that will have over 5% market share, then yes, they do everything by the book. Specially because most of them are multinationals that could be a country on their own. Although is not a rule. I’d say it depends on how well defined is the structure and business plan, what internal protocols they follow, and how those protocols are enforced. For what I’ve seen, the small companies that will follow a strict methodology and high quality standards are those that start as pharmaceuticals and for some reason end up making cosmetics.
That being said, it’s not about the company size, it’s about how many marketers they have. I’ve heard evilness spreads exponentially every time a marketer is hired, like a coliform on agar.
-
@DAS - lol. And I thought I was cynical about marketing.
-
Well … “Evil” is an unfortunate term in this regard.
Cosmetic regulations are not terribly difficult to comply with to ensure product safety. In fact, I’ll make the premise that you almost have to actually intend, on purpose, to develop an unsafe cosmetic product. Granted, that is much easier to do if you are developing Chemical Peels as opposed to a Moisturizing Cream. Or, you simply don’t know what you are doing.
I think the Big Company/Small Company more comes down to a couple of key issues:
(1) Cosmetic Regulations In the US Are Lax … FDA does not require a product registration, product safety assessment, etc. before launching a product on the market.
(2) LAX regulations allow virtually anyone to put a cosmetic product on the market whether they know what they are doing or not and in many cases they don’t even understand the regulations. You see so many products that are mislabelled or don’t comply with labelling regulations.
So, I think the relatively low barriers to entry with lax regulations allow a lot of products onto the market that may not have been properly vetted, mostly by smaller companies. But, you have to factor in that many of these small companies may use a contract manufacturer who will better force compliance with regulations and testing before they will agree to manufacture the product.
-
MarkBroussard said:Well … “Evil” is an unfortunate term in this regard.
Cosmetic regulations are not terribly difficult to comply with to ensure product safety. In fact, I’ll make the premise that you almost have to actually intend, on purpose, to develop an unsafe cosmetic product. Granted, that is much easier to do if you are developing Chemical Peels as opposed to a Moisturizing Cream. Or, you simply don’t know what you are doing.
I think the Big Company/Small Company more comes down to a couple of key issues:
(1) Cosmetic Regulations In the US Are Lax … FDA does not require a product registration, product safety assessment, etc. before launching a product on the market.
(2) LAX regulations allow virtually anyone to put a cosmetic product on the market whether they know what they are doing or not and in many cases they don’t even understand the regulations. You see so many products that are mislabelled or don’t comply with labelling regulations.
So, I think the relatively low barriers to entry with lax regulations allow a lot of products onto the market that may not have been properly vetted, mostly by smaller companies. But, you have to factor in that many of these small companies may use a contract manufacturer who will better force compliance with regulations and testing before they will agree to manufacture the product.
It’s frustrating to me as a marketer.
In US the leading country in the business, FDA does not require a product registration, product safety assessment, etc. before launching a product on the market.
Many products were spun out of reality, this should be a federal crime.
Whereas - say Japan, the product and its claim is heavily regulated, even LOIs have to use their Japanese codes. -
The absolutely worst ones are the small companies that manufacture on their own who try to develop “self-preserving” products … essentially, the anti-vaxers of cosmetic product development who are opposed to using preservatives.
-
Despite it’s obvious flaws, the regulatory in the US doesn’t seem to lead to significantly more harm than the more controlled system in the EU.
Our system also makes it much more risky for big companies to cut corners than small companies. If a large multi-national puts a product out on the market that harms people, they will get sued to the tune of millions of dollars.
If a small company does the same, they just go bankrupt, shutter the business and start a new one. This encourages more risky behavior.
But I agree with @MarkBroussard that for the most part, small companies will be kept honest because they work with contract manufacturers who are generally going to force compliance.
-
Understand marketer frsutration, but a lot of what is claimed as benefit is pretty subjective if not silly. Mark’s point is much more compelling - the risk better be very small. By ignorance or worse, smaller companies are often guilty of driving failed risk assessment.
-
Perry said:@mikethair - I understand this position and agree that it is nice to be able to communicate with who makes the product. It’s just very easy for an unscrupulous individual to start a beauty product line, cut corners, and produce something that might harm consumers.
I have no great love for the big guys. But when it comes to safety, I think they are the better bet for consumers.
I think that the key is to look at the credentials of the “little guys.” Are they GMP Certified and regularly audited by the cosmetics compliance authorities? The qualifications and experience of the formulators? etc etc.
Log in to reply.