It's just not fair. I find it terribly unjust that there is a conspiracy out there against those who don't fall into the 'normal' 32A-38D boobage range. For myself and other "weirdly-shaped" women who are small in the ribcage and gigantic in the bazongas, but also for women who have a larger band and smaller cup... it's as though we're not allowed to exist.
This weekend I even dragged myself into a mall specialty shop, whose motto was "we fit every body." I browsed for a moment, and seeing nothing larger than a DD, asked if they, perchance, carried a FF cup. Specifically in a 34. Apparently they don't teach the women at this store not to stare, because the woman's jaw dropped as she fumbled about for an excuse for how they of course don't carry anything like that, and was I sure that I was "that deep"? (Yes, I'm sure. I've tried on more bras than Imelda had shoes and the FFs are the only ones that work.)
She suggested I head to Nordstrom (coincidentally, in the same evil high-end mall where we were stuck killing time waiting for my teenager, but I digress!) . I'm not usually a department store kind of a girl, since (as mentioned), I'm wicked cheap, and kind of hate people who care about name brands (quality is important to care about; labels are not). But... what the hell, there it was.
The (very helpful) young lady in the lingerie department informed me that only 2 models come in a 34FF. Both ugly, naturally; one that horrible foam-padded crap that gets all bent out of shape, the other lace that shaped me into a couple of torpedoes. I like to look like I have boobs, not that I'm smuggling nuclear weapons.
I tried on everything in the nearest size. Nothing worked. Well, one of them sort of worked (an Elle McPherson 34G I believe), but was too similar to my one nice existing bra, and also $80. Yikes.
I guess I'm going to have to get over my sticker shock and head to Intimacy in Boston where hopefully they'll have at least heard of a size above DDD. Please make with the recommendations if you've suffered a similar predicament and found a proper solution.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Monday, February 28, 2011
In which I gain respect for cosmetics manufacturers
Since I've been having trouble finding a skin cream which meets my ethical preferences, I decided to DIY my own this weekend. I had previously given gifts of homemade lemon body butter, from a recipe in a cool '70s 'kitchen cosmetics' book I found somewhere, so I figured I had the basics down... a little beeswax, a little skin-friendly oil, and maybe a couple of other additives... melt, combine, shake until cooled. Since that was body BUTTER (read: impossibly thick), I made a few adjustments to obtain a slightly-less-spackle-like texture. (Don't get me wrong, the stuff was awesome for shins and elbows, but I would doubt its non-comedogenic properties.)
I started out by brewing a bit of green tea, figuring that it couldn't hurt, given its antioxidant content and the fact that caffeine, applied topically, actually tightens the skin (temporarily).
In a pot I thrifted just for the purpose of making beauty products, I heated the tea (about 1/4 cup, brewed very strong) with a few shavings of beeswax, and then stirred in some coconut oil and a few capsules of vitamin E liquid. This last was a mistake, evidently, because the glycerin or whatever binder they used got all mucked up and had to be strained out with cheesecloth. The whole situation actually had to be strained several times. And then, once it was strained into a container, shaken for like, an hour, so that it emulsified while cooling to room temp, instead of just separating. What a pain in the ass.
I ended up with a lovely ball of white goo which smells vaguely like tea (most of the tea didn't incorporate and had to be poured off, though). It feels like friggin' heaven going on (absolutely melts on your skin) but it's definitely still a very thick cream, probably better for nighttime use on crows' feet than daytime use on your T-zone, unless you're a fan of positively GLOWING. I'm not into that 'dewy' thing, personally.
I'll probably give making my own lotions another try, but I must say, I now have much more respect for the artisans and companies making consistently excellent products. It's way harder than it looks.
I started out by brewing a bit of green tea, figuring that it couldn't hurt, given its antioxidant content and the fact that caffeine, applied topically, actually tightens the skin (temporarily).
In a pot I thrifted just for the purpose of making beauty products, I heated the tea (about 1/4 cup, brewed very strong) with a few shavings of beeswax, and then stirred in some coconut oil and a few capsules of vitamin E liquid. This last was a mistake, evidently, because the glycerin or whatever binder they used got all mucked up and had to be strained out with cheesecloth. The whole situation actually had to be strained several times. And then, once it was strained into a container, shaken for like, an hour, so that it emulsified while cooling to room temp, instead of just separating. What a pain in the ass.
I ended up with a lovely ball of white goo which smells vaguely like tea (most of the tea didn't incorporate and had to be poured off, though). It feels like friggin' heaven going on (absolutely melts on your skin) but it's definitely still a very thick cream, probably better for nighttime use on crows' feet than daytime use on your T-zone, unless you're a fan of positively GLOWING. I'm not into that 'dewy' thing, personally.
I'll probably give making my own lotions another try, but I must say, I now have much more respect for the artisans and companies making consistently excellent products. It's way harder than it looks.
Friday, February 18, 2011
I like 'em cheap and pink... at Goodwill
Shopping is therapy for me just as much as any other girl, but I'm seriously cheap. So thrifting is really the only answer for me (well, that, and clearance racks). Buying used (ew, hate that word, though) is also subversively crunchy, since it is not supporting the corporate machine that encourages constant waste and over-consumption. (Remember: they can't sell you what you already have, of course. So 'fashion' has to change.) And, contrary to many a hoity-toity opinion, thrift stores are not just filled with gigantic and stained "Annual Podunkville Chili-Cook-Off!" T-shirts. There's a fair amount of that, though, so you do need patience and a good eye.
If you took a glance at my wardrobe, it would be disastrously evident that I have kind of a print-o-phobia. Far too many solid colors. In the past year or so I have branched out a bit and am now the proud owner of a couple of animal-print cardigans and a few floral dresses. However, it's still very difficult for me to find a patterned garment that doesn't scream "ugly" to me. (So ugly!) I was thus ecstatic to come upon this psychedelic little chiffon baby in the Goodwill dress rack. Pink is my relatively new obsession-- hot pink, that is-- which is a divergence from my long-standing insanity for purple. (Have you noticed that when people like purple, they really like purple?) So while it's not the absolutely most flattering thing (it's a medium; it goes on, but there should be some sit-ups and such done before sundress weather, for sure), and even though it's made of some horrible sort of polyester, I couldn't pass it up.
Look how cute! It even has that little ruffled thing going on at the neckline. I lurve ruffles. Spaghetti straps may not be the greatest thinking for a busty lass like me, but I may end up re-purposing the fabric somehow, anyway, if my lofty goals of not being so fat don't work out anytime soon ;)
Have you had any Goodwill or other thrifting scores lately? Do tell in the comments!
If you took a glance at my wardrobe, it would be disastrously evident that I have kind of a print-o-phobia. Far too many solid colors. In the past year or so I have branched out a bit and am now the proud owner of a couple of animal-print cardigans and a few floral dresses. However, it's still very difficult for me to find a patterned garment that doesn't scream "ugly" to me. (So ugly!) I was thus ecstatic to come upon this psychedelic little chiffon baby in the Goodwill dress rack. Pink is my relatively new obsession-- hot pink, that is-- which is a divergence from my long-standing insanity for purple. (Have you noticed that when people like purple, they really like purple?) So while it's not the absolutely most flattering thing (it's a medium; it goes on, but there should be some sit-ups and such done before sundress weather, for sure), and even though it's made of some horrible sort of polyester, I couldn't pass it up.
Look how cute! It even has that little ruffled thing going on at the neckline. I lurve ruffles. Spaghetti straps may not be the greatest thinking for a busty lass like me, but I may end up re-purposing the fabric somehow, anyway, if my lofty goals of not being so fat don't work out anytime soon ;)
Have you had any Goodwill or other thrifting scores lately? Do tell in the comments!
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
How did I miss this? Burts Bees owned by Clorox
I seriously did not know that Burt's Bees sold out to Clorox in 2008. I had wondered why my local hippie co-op refused to carry their products! Clearly, I live under a rock.
Prior to this revelation, I headed to CVS to find a good moisturizer (if you know me, you know I don't set foot in Sephora, or even consider department store makeup counters. I'm waaaay too cheap). While I'm diligent about sunscreen now, unfortunately I ill-spent my youth worshipping the sun with what is just shy of an albino complexion (thanks, redheaded Irish daddy). So I'm starting to see a fair amount of sun damage (along with, probably, inscrutable evidence of much debauchery) and, like all women I'm desperate and willing to believe that something could help.
I took a look at some Oil of Olay, some Aveeno, and the CVS brand of a few creams. All chock-full of parabens and other scaries. So I moved on to the Burt's Bees. The ingredients in the Radiance Night Cream were only moderately frightening relative to all other options (although my vegetarian son protested about the thieving of the royal jelly from the bees) so I shelled out the just-under-$20 for the 2-oz jar (much to the horror of both men in my life-- "How much??").
I'd just read about the website GoodGuide, which-- much like the EWG site I mentioned last post--provides ratings based on a product's healthfulness, but also on its parent company's social responsibility and environmental impact. The cream gets a decent rating of 7.7 overall, but the fine print below revealed the relationship with Clorox. I was pleasantly surprised (but somewhat skeptical) to see that Clorox receives a 7.0 overall as a company.Skeptical partly because they're a huge company and therefore, in my opinion, prone to or used to taking shortcuts to maximize profits, and partly because of an experience I had years ago managing a science lab's office:
Maintenance came screaming up to our offices, reporting that the wastewater analysis from our lab was showing far too many parts per million of mercury (aka thimerosal) and we were going to be shut down if we did not take immediate action. They brought a flier detailing possible sources of the poisonous compound... and what do you know, Clorox bleach was on the list. Just Clorox. Not all bleaches. Not any other brand. Surely it's not necessary if others are making bleach without it, right? We immediately switched to a different brand and our parts-per-million fell back into the 'acceptable to environmental health' range. Yet Clorox is now trying to position themselves as a responsible and "green" company, simply because they've introduced a new line of cleaning products which are not petroleum-based like all of their others. (Yes, you're probably washing your clothes and dishes with oil. Mmmmm.) Unfortunately they're still packed with ingredients like sodium laurel sulfates and food-based ethanol which are controversial at best.
I'm torn. On the one hand, such a big company being involved at all in the movement toward healthier products for the planet is positive. On the other hand, they have enormous marketing machines behind them which can ensure that their profits are maximized even if no important changes are being made. All they need to do is convince people they're doing good; not actually try that hard. And then consumers are falsely lulled into a sense that they're doing what they can since they're using the new "green" products. But they're being lied to. Educate yourself! "100% Natural" does not mean shit! Natural is a totally unregulated word. Be careful out there... and please, please, if you know of a paraben-free, scary-chemical-free, not-astronomically-priced anti-aging cream that actually works (especially if it's a small company's), tell us about it in the comments!
Prior to this revelation, I headed to CVS to find a good moisturizer (if you know me, you know I don't set foot in Sephora, or even consider department store makeup counters. I'm waaaay too cheap). While I'm diligent about sunscreen now, unfortunately I ill-spent my youth worshipping the sun with what is just shy of an albino complexion (thanks, redheaded Irish daddy). So I'm starting to see a fair amount of sun damage (along with, probably, inscrutable evidence of much debauchery) and, like all women I'm desperate and willing to believe that something could help.
I took a look at some Oil of Olay, some Aveeno, and the CVS brand of a few creams. All chock-full of parabens and other scaries. So I moved on to the Burt's Bees. The ingredients in the Radiance Night Cream were only moderately frightening relative to all other options (although my vegetarian son protested about the thieving of the royal jelly from the bees) so I shelled out the just-under-$20 for the 2-oz jar (much to the horror of both men in my life-- "How much??").
I'd just read about the website GoodGuide, which-- much like the EWG site I mentioned last post--provides ratings based on a product's healthfulness, but also on its parent company's social responsibility and environmental impact. The cream gets a decent rating of 7.7 overall, but the fine print below revealed the relationship with Clorox. I was pleasantly surprised (but somewhat skeptical) to see that Clorox receives a 7.0 overall as a company.Skeptical partly because they're a huge company and therefore, in my opinion, prone to or used to taking shortcuts to maximize profits, and partly because of an experience I had years ago managing a science lab's office:
Maintenance came screaming up to our offices, reporting that the wastewater analysis from our lab was showing far too many parts per million of mercury (aka thimerosal) and we were going to be shut down if we did not take immediate action. They brought a flier detailing possible sources of the poisonous compound... and what do you know, Clorox bleach was on the list. Just Clorox. Not all bleaches. Not any other brand. Surely it's not necessary if others are making bleach without it, right? We immediately switched to a different brand and our parts-per-million fell back into the 'acceptable to environmental health' range. Yet Clorox is now trying to position themselves as a responsible and "green" company, simply because they've introduced a new line of cleaning products which are not petroleum-based like all of their others. (Yes, you're probably washing your clothes and dishes with oil. Mmmmm.) Unfortunately they're still packed with ingredients like sodium laurel sulfates and food-based ethanol which are controversial at best.
I'm torn. On the one hand, such a big company being involved at all in the movement toward healthier products for the planet is positive. On the other hand, they have enormous marketing machines behind them which can ensure that their profits are maximized even if no important changes are being made. All they need to do is convince people they're doing good; not actually try that hard. And then consumers are falsely lulled into a sense that they're doing what they can since they're using the new "green" products. But they're being lied to. Educate yourself! "100% Natural" does not mean shit! Natural is a totally unregulated word. Be careful out there... and please, please, if you know of a paraben-free, scary-chemical-free, not-astronomically-priced anti-aging cream that actually works (especially if it's a small company's), tell us about it in the comments!
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Major Skepticism toward "Greenwashing" in Cosmetics
The internet is all a-twitter (pun intended) over Cover Girl's new line of makeup, "NatureLuxe," which you can currently get a free sample of on Wal-Hell's website. Curious about their ingredients and whether this would represent a real foray into paraben-free and non-carcinogenic makeup, I went to the aforementioned evil empire's site to see if they had an "ingredients" tab. Big surprise... nope. But of course, the manufacturer would have such things listed, right? Especially since they're trying to convince people they're all eco-friendly? Negative. There's some nice marketing spin on how it has jojoba oil in it, but... what about the rest?
Well, many thanks to BeautyJunkiesUnite for posting this review, which reveals that at least the formula is supposedly paraben-free, and the sugar-cane-derived packaging is an attempt at environmental friendliness (but-- sorry-- making non-food stuff from food isn't sustainable. It drives the prices of the food up and unfortunately contributes to destruction of varied native flora (and thus fauna) to make room for massive-scale monoculture, as is also the case with bamboo, which is nowhere near as green as the proponents would have us believe).
Unfortunately, the products are too new for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to have put them through testing or list them on the Skin Deep database (if you don't know about it, a fantastic, public donation-supported effort to recognize the toxic chemicals in our everyday products and allow consumers to make informed decisions about their health! Check it out!) However, the above review's author did post the full ingredient list in her comments. Of the 35 listed, here's what EWG has to say about a few (note that EWG tends toward conservative rather than sensationalist ratings... if something is an "emerging concern" but not quite proven they may list it lower than it ought to be, given the risks they list!). (Summaries and quotes are from the EWG site, cosmeticsdatabase.com.) Not to be a Chicken Little or anything, but THIS SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! As it should you!
Phenoxyethanol: Known risks include organ toxicity, mutating cells (i.e. cancer), neurotoxicity. Restricted in cosmetic use in Japan.
Bisabolol: According to the International Journal of Toxicity "One or more animal studies show endocrine system disruption at high doses."
Sodium Benzoate: Again, "One or more animal studies show brain, nervous system, or behavioral effects at moderate doses/ One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results [cancer] / One or more animal studies show broad systemic effects at low doses/ One or more animal studies show biochemical changes at high doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood."
Potassium Sorbate: In addition to helping to promote cancer and showing signs of neurotoxicity, "One or more animal studies show broad systemic effects at moderate doses (low dose studies may be unavailable for this ingredient)." Um, if a lot is bad for you, a little is still bad for you.
Aluminum Hydroxide: Wow. "Strong evidence of human neurotoxicity/ Not assessed for safety in cosmetics by industry panel/ Classified as expected to be toxic or harmful." Yummy!
Cyclopentasiloxane: "Persistent, bioaccumulative in wildlife/ One or more animal studies show endocrine disruption at moderate doses/ One or more animal studies show tumor formation at moderate doses/ One or more animal studies show biochemical changes at high doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood/ Suspected to be an environmental toxin and be persistent or bioaccumulative." Wheee, it gets even better-- we're killing the earth in addition to ourselves!
Benzyl Alcohol: "Strong evidence of human neurotoxicity/ One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results/ One or more animal studies show reproductive effects at high doses."
...and then of course, the sneaky "fragrance." This usually means parabens... which comes with "Known human immune system toxicant" and "Moderate evidence of human neurotoxicity" and rates an 8/10 (HIGH) on the hazard scale. So if they're claiming the formula is paraben-free, why not say "paraben-free fragrance"? Well... I don't believe it is.
I noticed that Gisele just launched a "natural" skin care line, as well, and she actually has ingredient transparency on her website. Niiiice. However, since it's ~$70 per pop (for a measly 2 oz.), clearly Gisele is of the opinion that only rich women deserve cosmetics that aren't killing them. (I'm pretty sure Sephora feels the same way). Batches!
Have you either of these new lines? Or another "natural" makeup line that's popped up recently? Please let us all know what you think! I'm currently using Neutrogena products because they seemed the least horrific (mostly mineral ingredients), but I'm always on the lookout for a foundation that works and isn't leaching horrible chemicals into my largest organ (yep, that's your skin!). I tried buying some primer on etsy, and I was reasonably happy with the product itself, but majorly turned off that the packaging included bible scripture. (Oh, hai, not going to repeat purchase. Shot yourself in the foot there...) I don't like to be preached or proselytized at, not one iota. Next! ...But what I really hate is being lied to. I know most marketing is just lies, but I'm incredibly irked at Cover Girl for passing of this poison as a "happy" product.
Well, many thanks to BeautyJunkiesUnite for posting this review, which reveals that at least the formula is supposedly paraben-free, and the sugar-cane-derived packaging is an attempt at environmental friendliness (but-- sorry-- making non-food stuff from food isn't sustainable. It drives the prices of the food up and unfortunately contributes to destruction of varied native flora (and thus fauna) to make room for massive-scale monoculture, as is also the case with bamboo, which is nowhere near as green as the proponents would have us believe).
Unfortunately, the products are too new for the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to have put them through testing or list them on the Skin Deep database (if you don't know about it, a fantastic, public donation-supported effort to recognize the toxic chemicals in our everyday products and allow consumers to make informed decisions about their health! Check it out!) However, the above review's author did post the full ingredient list in her comments. Of the 35 listed, here's what EWG has to say about a few (note that EWG tends toward conservative rather than sensationalist ratings... if something is an "emerging concern" but not quite proven they may list it lower than it ought to be, given the risks they list!). (Summaries and quotes are from the EWG site, cosmeticsdatabase.com.) Not to be a Chicken Little or anything, but THIS SCARES THE HELL OUT OF ME!!! As it should you!
Phenoxyethanol: Known risks include organ toxicity, mutating cells (i.e. cancer), neurotoxicity. Restricted in cosmetic use in Japan.
Bisabolol: According to the International Journal of Toxicity "One or more animal studies show endocrine system disruption at high doses."
Sodium Benzoate: Again, "One or more animal studies show brain, nervous system, or behavioral effects at moderate doses/ One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results [cancer] / One or more animal studies show broad systemic effects at low doses/ One or more animal studies show biochemical changes at high doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood."
Potassium Sorbate: In addition to helping to promote cancer and showing signs of neurotoxicity, "One or more animal studies show broad systemic effects at moderate doses (low dose studies may be unavailable for this ingredient)." Um, if a lot is bad for you, a little is still bad for you.
Aluminum Hydroxide: Wow. "Strong evidence of human neurotoxicity/ Not assessed for safety in cosmetics by industry panel/ Classified as expected to be toxic or harmful." Yummy!
Cyclopentasiloxane: "Persistent, bioaccumulative in wildlife/ One or more animal studies show endocrine disruption at moderate doses/ One or more animal studies show tumor formation at moderate doses/ One or more animal studies show biochemical changes at high doses where the human health implications are not yet well understood/ Suspected to be an environmental toxin and be persistent or bioaccumulative." Wheee, it gets even better-- we're killing the earth in addition to ourselves!
Benzyl Alcohol: "Strong evidence of human neurotoxicity/ One or more in vitro tests on mammalian cells show positive mutation results/ One or more animal studies show reproductive effects at high doses."
...and then of course, the sneaky "fragrance." This usually means parabens... which comes with "Known human immune system toxicant" and "Moderate evidence of human neurotoxicity" and rates an 8/10 (HIGH) on the hazard scale. So if they're claiming the formula is paraben-free, why not say "paraben-free fragrance"? Well... I don't believe it is.
I noticed that Gisele just launched a "natural" skin care line, as well, and she actually has ingredient transparency on her website. Niiiice. However, since it's ~$70 per pop (for a measly 2 oz.), clearly Gisele is of the opinion that only rich women deserve cosmetics that aren't killing them. (I'm pretty sure Sephora feels the same way). Batches!
Have you either of these new lines? Or another "natural" makeup line that's popped up recently? Please let us all know what you think! I'm currently using Neutrogena products because they seemed the least horrific (mostly mineral ingredients), but I'm always on the lookout for a foundation that works and isn't leaching horrible chemicals into my largest organ (yep, that's your skin!). I tried buying some primer on etsy, and I was reasonably happy with the product itself, but majorly turned off that the packaging included bible scripture. (Oh, hai, not going to repeat purchase. Shot yourself in the foot there...) I don't like to be preached or proselytized at, not one iota. Next! ...But what I really hate is being lied to. I know most marketing is just lies, but I'm incredibly irked at Cover Girl for passing of this poison as a "happy" product.
Monday, February 7, 2011
ArtFire Collection & Featured Seller: Mermaid's Treasure
Have you done any searching over on ArtFire yet, if you're not already an experienced user? I used the "shop by color" tool to curate a collection (whoops, not treasury... have to get used to non-etsy speak). It's in my signature colors (it being unusual for me to be without some combination of hot pink, turquoise, or purple-- with black). I chose to search in both vintage and handmade. I was pleasantly surprised with the accuracy and not-too-horrendously-broad return pool (although I'd love them to indicate whether I could use "NOT SEWING" or something, to eliminate the huge number of vintage patterns listed...).
One of my comments was from Mermaid's Treasure, featured in the collection (the green and silver pendant), and she mentioned something I'd missed in my search-- that that 100% of her net proceeds go to charity. A little deeper delving into her bio reveals she supports charities near and dear to my own heart, including animal and environmental causes. Sweet. (Who needs another Catholics Feeding Babies They Insist Be Born charity, honestly?)
She's got some marvelous prices on stand-out vintage jewelry of every type. In addition to the $23 sterling/gemstone pendant I featured...
...I'm absolutely drooling over this cocktail ring, $22:
Would love to see a few more pictures, but it's so sparkly and shiny and colorful... damn, I wish it were in my budget right now. If it weren't so wee (size 4!) I would have to do a little bit of secret shopping that the Mr. wasn't aware of, methinks....
This $24 sterling cross pendant appeals to my dark side and my hippie side with its gothic termination points combined with the iridescence of abalone:
(And my mother would claim it's sacrilegious for a non-Christian to co-opt this symbol, so BONUS!).
Please check out this socially conscious seller-- remember, you don't even need to sign up to buy at ArtFire so if you see something you like here please support her!
One of my comments was from Mermaid's Treasure, featured in the collection (the green and silver pendant), and she mentioned something I'd missed in my search-- that that 100% of her net proceeds go to charity. A little deeper delving into her bio reveals she supports charities near and dear to my own heart, including animal and environmental causes. Sweet. (Who needs another Catholics Feeding Babies They Insist Be Born charity, honestly?)
She's got some marvelous prices on stand-out vintage jewelry of every type. In addition to the $23 sterling/gemstone pendant I featured...
...I'm absolutely drooling over this cocktail ring, $22:
Would love to see a few more pictures, but it's so sparkly and shiny and colorful... damn, I wish it were in my budget right now. If it weren't so wee (size 4!) I would have to do a little bit of secret shopping that the Mr. wasn't aware of, methinks....
This $24 sterling cross pendant appeals to my dark side and my hippie side with its gothic termination points combined with the iridescence of abalone:
(And my mother would claim it's sacrilegious for a non-Christian to co-opt this symbol, so BONUS!).
Please check out this socially conscious seller-- remember, you don't even need to sign up to buy at ArtFire so if you see something you like here please support her!
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Is "Mass Exodus" Redundant?
Etsy sellers are an unhappy bunch at present, with changes on the site most of us don't agree with, among other ongoing issues such as customer service (no phone number? Really? You might respond to my email... someday?) ...So there's been a lot of talk about migrating over to ArtFire. Artfire recently ranked first in three of five categories (second in two) in a survey of ~3,000 independent artisans who sell online, compared to EBay, etsy, etc.
Artfire has two options for sellers: a basic (free!) account with limited listings which expire, and a "pro" account, currently a $9.95/month subscription, with unlimited listings, priority in searches (over basic members) and a host of other tools. For some of us who didn't spend much on renewing or listing new items on etsy, $10/month is a bit difficult to justify when we have no idea if we're going to make a profit... Still, since you can cancel the subscription anytime and ArtFire provides a plethora of marketing tools to let you get your items out into the whole of the internets (rather than just promoted by re-listing on etsy itself), and according to many of the testimonials I've been reading from former etsy sellers, it sounds well worth trying out.
Do you have an ArtFire shop? An etsy shop? What's your stance on the situation? (Please leave a comment!) I think I'll probably keep my etsy shop vaguely open, but I'm excited for the buy-direct-on-Facebook option for ArtFire, among other things, so I'm following my friends (follower!) and upgrading my account to pro shortly.
I do have some concerns with pervasive typos on the site (which I've "tweeted" them about, of course, being me...), and the name also concerns me; I mean, if something was called "BookFire" it would conjure images of book burnings, right? Are we advocating destroying the art? Oh well, though; what's done is done, and regardless of the connotations, hopefully ArtFire will become a household name. Get the word out if you're a part of the exodus and maybe it will be picked up by some major media outlets. If you are a buyer of awesome handmade goods but aren't a seller yourself, check out ArtFire as an alternative to etsy (you don't even need an account to buy!)
Support independent artisans, not corporations!
Artfire has two options for sellers: a basic (free!) account with limited listings which expire, and a "pro" account, currently a $9.95/month subscription, with unlimited listings, priority in searches (over basic members) and a host of other tools. For some of us who didn't spend much on renewing or listing new items on etsy, $10/month is a bit difficult to justify when we have no idea if we're going to make a profit... Still, since you can cancel the subscription anytime and ArtFire provides a plethora of marketing tools to let you get your items out into the whole of the internets (rather than just promoted by re-listing on etsy itself), and according to many of the testimonials I've been reading from former etsy sellers, it sounds well worth trying out.
Do you have an ArtFire shop? An etsy shop? What's your stance on the situation? (Please leave a comment!) I think I'll probably keep my etsy shop vaguely open, but I'm excited for the buy-direct-on-Facebook option for ArtFire, among other things, so I'm following my friends (follower!) and upgrading my account to pro shortly.
I do have some concerns with pervasive typos on the site (which I've "tweeted" them about, of course, being me...), and the name also concerns me; I mean, if something was called "BookFire" it would conjure images of book burnings, right? Are we advocating destroying the art? Oh well, though; what's done is done, and regardless of the connotations, hopefully ArtFire will become a household name. Get the word out if you're a part of the exodus and maybe it will be picked up by some major media outlets. If you are a buyer of awesome handmade goods but aren't a seller yourself, check out ArtFire as an alternative to etsy (you don't even need an account to buy!)
Support independent artisans, not corporations!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)