OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
When selling on Amazon, I’ve seen the number 30 units a day to create a sustainable business. But I’d suggest you make your first production run minimums (2500 units) and see how good you are at sales.
-
No, allantoin is not a gelling agent.
-
When trying to learn about formulas, the first thing to do is to find a benchmark product on the market and look at the ingredient list. For shampoos, the formula that is most appealing to the most number of people is Pantene.
Write down the ingredient list and see if you can first figure out what all the ingredients do in the formula.
For shampoo it will be something like…
Water - diluent
Detergent - cleans hair, makes foam
Secondary surfactant - improves foam
Conditioning agent - makes hair feel better
Opacifying agent - makes product pearled / opaque
Preservative
FragranceSee if you can identify all the ingredients in the formula.
Then make a starting formula. There are other discussions in this forum that give simple shampoo formulas.
-
Yes, you can through in your answer.
I would say that the amount of oil that an emulsifier can emulsify depends on not only the chemical properties of the emulsifier/oil but also on the manufacturing procedure.
The way to predict emulsion duration/time is through stability testing.
-
Ouch, a $1.76 million fine.
Who says cosmetics are not regulated?
-
What do you mean by emulsification strength?
What characteristic would you measure that would show one emulsifier is “stronger” than another?
-
@ngarayeva001 - I disagree about the honesty of the Sanex ad. I’m sure they have claims substantiation for all the claims they make so from their perspective they aren’t lying. But I think that ad is dishonest. First, they may not actually be using fewer chemicals. From my perspective, the number of chemicals in a product is the number of molecules used. And reducing the number of ingredients used won’t have much impact on that. The claim should be “choose fewer different chemicals in your shower gel.” I would also ad that choosing fewer different chemicals does nothing to ‘free your skin” at least as to how I would define that phrase.
I’d also say that the Zero% claim is dishonest. They have written in a way to give the impression that their product has Zero % chemicals. I know they haven’t said that but if you polled consumers after reading this ad, it wouldn’t be surprising if they thought it had zero chemicals in it.
In my view, this ad is dishonest even though it might not have a single lie in it.
-
Interesting discussion. I agree and disagree with a variety of things that have been posted here.
@smok - I agree that cosmetic marketers do push misconceptions. Some of these are worse than others. But they are not alone. The NGOs like the EWG push misconceptions about product safety, the media also does in an attempt to write more interesting stories, and of course, consumers (you tubers, bloggers etc.) also do. I think you are mistaken because Raw material suppliers definitely push misinformation. I just saw marketing material for an ingredient that claimed to “stimulate collagen production.” This isn’t something that a cosmetic ingredient should do.
I also disagree with you that you are forced to lie to sell products. I understand how you might feel that way and there are definitely competitor’s out there who stretch the truth for sales, but blatant lying is rarely done.
However, I agree with you that the claim “natural” is inherently dishonest. Cosmetics are not natural. People who claim 100% natural may not be lying from their perspective, but I consider it a lie. There are no shampoo bushes or lipstick trees. Natural cosmetics do not exist which makes the claim dishonest, to me. I understand organizations have come up with standards and their own definitions of “natural” but that doesn’t make it any less dishonest to me.
The difference is that I wouldn’t lie about products just to sell them. Therefore, you won’t see me selling a 100% natural product.
I will add that this reminds me of Professional Bike Racing. Lance Armstrong won all his races because he was cheating. Nearly everyone else (who finished near the top) was also cheating. When your competitor’s cheat and are successful, it’s understandable to want to follow the same strategy.
-
You don’t need palmitic acid, myristic acid, or glycerin.
-
@MarkBroussard - you’re right the raw material suppliers might be the best hope for research, but even they use motivated research to get formulators to believe their latest ingredient is the greatest thing on the market.
-
@mikethair - Great point! It’s hard to earn a living and still maintain scientific purity. If you aren’t producing something that can be sold, no one wants to pay you.
@Pharma - I was already super skeptical of claims about extracts. You’ve added to my skepticism.
@smok - Hopefully, you don’t have to blatantly lie to sell your products. Some people consider most marketing lying but there is a fine line where you’re not necessarily lying. It certainly isn’t the same standards as science should have though.
@Sibech - I agree that there are problems in both academia & industry. You’re right, negative results are rarely published. This is a problem in science as is the problem of journals not being publicly available. Publishing companies are looking to get paid so they don’t want to publish negative or replication studies.
What this all really means to me is that we need to be hesitant to say anything is “true” or some treatment is what people should do based on minimal research. Of course, the beauty industry & consumers don’t like that at all.
-
It’s difficult to advise you further as there is nothing in your description that makes me think the product is any different. For example, how is your product different than these 100% natural soaps? https://www.chagrinvalleysoapandsalve.com/products/natural-bathbody/natural-soap/
And you will have to be able to demonstrate a difference to consumers. Consumers can already get exfoliating soap bars. The fact that the soap won’t have triethanolamine, or potassium hydroxide doesn’t matter to consumers. Consumers will want to know…what benefit is this product giving that I can’t get with something else?
In my view “free from”, “natural”, “organic”, etc. are product features not benefits. People buy products for the benefit they get, not for the feature.
-
Sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, etc.
-
@Aanchal - that depends on what detergent you are using. If you were using a detergent like Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, it is rather soluble in water and you wouldn’t need a hydrotrope to make a clear, homogenous, product.
-
There are already Syndet bars on the market that sound like what you are describing. How is your idea different?
How also, is the end product going to be perceived as different by the consumer? Ultimately, if this is a product you want people to buy there has to be some compelling reason to buy it.
-
MCT - Medium-chain triglycerides - composed of C6 to C12 chain lengths
CCT - Caprylic Capric Triglycerides - composed of C8 to C10 chain lengthsI doubt you would see much difference.
-
Sodium Laureth Sulfate
See our list of cosmetic industry acronyms.
-
If you are formulating in the United States, you can use almost any ingredient that you want in cosmetics. There are some banned ingredients and there are rigid restrictions on the colorants allowed, but otherwise you can use what you want.
However, you have to be able to prove your products are safe.
If you are buying from a company that has already done safety testing or using ingredients that are listed in the CIR, then you may not need to do additional testing.
If you are using ingredients for which you do not have safety testing (they are not listed in CIR or the supplier hasn’t done in) then you have to do the safety testing yourself. This may include toxicology tests, irritation tests, and even animal testing.
See this from the FDA.
https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetics-science-research/product-testing-cosmetics -
@margi - Thanks for your response.
Big companies put oils in shampoos strictly for marketing purposes and to tell a story. The level that is in there is typically 0.1% or lower and it will have minimal impact on the performance. These are “claims” ingredients and it’s very common in the cosmetic industry to include these. The reality is that consumers don’t want to buy products they are told work because of chemically sounding things like Sodium Lauryl Sulfate or Cocamidopropyl Betaine. They want buy products made from Coconut oil and Jojoba oil. These ingredients do not provide any real benefit but consumers think they do. So companies put a tiny splash of an ingredient in the formula, then focus their marketing message on it.
On this forum, I try to cut through the marketing hype and focus on reality & what is provably true.
Lots of people call themselves formulators these days and it’s true anyone can go out, buy chemicals, mix them together and come to believe they are competent formulators. That doesn’t mean they are.
You will get different advice from people who have worked in the cosmetic industry on brands that you can buy from your local grocery store, Target or Walmart.
Back to your specific question…
1. If you like how that surfactant blend works, then that’s great. I’m sure it will be fine. There is no harm in trying. I personally don’t like how they perform and I don’t think they would be generally accepted. The fact that none of the 10 best selling shampoos are based on those surfactants should tell you something.
2. Find a benchmark product already on the market and use it as a starting place. You should have a target product you are trying to emulate. It is much better than starting from scratch.
But this is just my opinion. The only way you’ll know if you’ve made a good formula is to mix it together and see what you think. And if you like it, other people might like it. Many people won’t like it but unless those people were your target customer, that doesn’t matter.
hope that helps
-
@JonahRay - and the list was put together by someone who clearly doesn’t know much about chemistry! Cetrimonium chloride is out but you can use Cocotrimonium Chloride.
-
If you used sulfates, you could make a great shampoo with 2 surfactants.
With the surfactants you’re using, it would probably work, but I don’t think it would make a good shampoo. You probably don’t need more than 2 surfactants to make a good shampoo.
-
This looks like a pretty ineffective shampoo that would be dissatisfying to use.
Just a few comments.
1. Putting oils in a shampoo is not wise. The point of a shampoo is to remove oils from hair. By including oils in your shampoo you are essentially just making your shampoo work worse. Oils belong in conditioners, not shampoos. And Vitamin E oil has no proven effectiveness in hair.
2. Lemon essential oil is an allergen which can negatively effect many consumers. Probably should be avoided.
3. Zinc PCA is not effective and especially not effective from a shampoo where it would just be rinsed away.
4. Unless you want to include a cationic polymer or a dispersed silicone, you can’t get good conditioning from a shampoo.
As for personal tastes, I find Glucoside shampoos to be terrible but maybe your consumer might like the low foam & draggy feel of the formula.
Ultimately though, your consumer will tell you whether you have a useful formula or not.
-
How do you blend all the ingredients together?
-
@Microformulation - and if you don’t follow the USDA guidelines, your company can (probably will) get sued.
-
There isn’t a simple answer to the question. Parabens, Formaldehyde donors, Kathon, Phenoxyethanol, Organic acids, can all be suitable preservatives.
It depends on…
1. The exact formula
2. The quality of raw materials
3. The conditions of production
4. The marketing position of the brand
5. The consumer’s desires
6. The cost, the availability