uWhich Beauty Subscription Boxes Are Actually Worth The Monthly Fee?r

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Angie Six)

  Monthly subscription boxes are currently a hot category in retail: vendors exist that can send you curated selections of everything from pet treats to razors to healthy snacks to butt wipes. One popular subcategory of these boxes are beauty sample boxes, which send you trial-size versions of beauty products to enjoy, and perhaps buy full-sized versions later on. Beauty brands and consumers both love these boxes…but which ones offer the best value for your subscription fee?

  Our thoughtfully-curated colleagues down the hall at ShopSmart magazine ordered eight different boxes filled with beauty items for women for four months to compare and evaluate them. (Yes, subscription boxes with men’s grooming items also exist.) The advantage of having ShopSmart evaluate these products is that you won’t see ads for the products or their competitors next to the reviews, or affiliate links where the publication gets a cut of everything that you buy.

  Here are some highlights of their four-month test:

  Best box overall: The ShopSmart team was impressed with GlossyBox, which sent a very shiny box full of generously-sized items. One box included a full-sized but neutral-colored lipstick that would normally have cost $20.

  Best $10 box: At this price point, ShopSmart preferred BirchBox to $10 competitor Ipsy, and not just because Birchbox offers a discounted option if you sign up for a whole year. It included “nice products from fresh and familiar brands and no random stuff.” Some months Birchbox sent along surprise values, like a full-size makeup product, or $10 coupon to the Gap.

  Eco-friendly randomness: Goodebox markets itself as an eco-friendly box, with “healthy beauty and natural wellness products,” and has a neat gimmick: if you send back empty containers for recycling, you can earn points toward more free samples. It costs $19 month to month, and less if you buy a longer subscription.

  For nail polish fans: Julep Maven is a box from nail polish brand Julep, which mostly sends bottles of nail polish and some other items. The subscription costs $25 month to month or $60 for three months at a time, and every month there is at least one full-sized product. However, they found the nail polish colors to be unusual shades that may not be for everyone.

  Meh: Blissmo‘s beauty box sent more single-use items than others, yet was the most expensive of the bunch if you don’t commit to a longer subscription ($20, plus $5 shipping per month.) BeautyArmy was cheaper, at $12 plus $3 shipping mont-to-month, but the ShopSmart weren’t impressed. The items seemed more appropriate for a teen girl, and came in teeny sizes.

  Are beauty subscription boxes worth it? [ShopSmart]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

uWatch The Very First YouTube Video, Uploaded 10 Years Ago Todayr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (YouTube)

  It might be hard to remember a time when getting one’s mug on the Internet involved more than just point, shoot and upload, but it was only 10 years ago that we came stumbling out of the Dark Ages and into the light of web videos for all, where we promptly posted whatever the heck we wanted to YouTube for strangers to watch. To that end: The first video ever uploaded, 10 years ago today, features thrilling commentary on the nature of elephants.

  On April 23, 2005, YouTube cofounder Jawed Karim uploaded an 18-second video clip titled “Me at the zoo,” making it the site’s first video. It now has more than 19 million views which is respectable, to be sure, but it’s no “Gangnam Style,” which clocks in at more than 2.3 billion views.

  According to CNBC.com, it was shot at the San Diego Zoo by fellow co-founder Yakov Lapitsky.

  The year after that fateful upload, Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion, which was the company’s second largest acquisition at that time, making its founders multimillionaires.

  Spoiler alert: The “cool thing” about elephants will not blow your mind or change your life. But you do have endless hours of cat videos to watch so, it is what it is.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

uConsumer Groups Ask Congress To Ensure That For-Profit Schools Are Held Accountabler

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Ken Fager)

  When the new gainful employment rules take effect later this year, for-profit educators would need to demonstrate that their programs are actually training graduates to earn a living. But a pending piece of legislation seeks to give these schools a free pass to billions of dollars in federal student aid.

  In response, a coalition of 45 organizations – working on behalf of students, consumers, veterans, faculty and staff, civil rights, and college access – sent a letter [PDF] to legislators today expressing their strong opposition of the Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act.

  The bill, which was referred to the House Education and the Workforce Committee after being introduced in February, would essentially repeal the recently finalized gainful employment regulation that requires all career education programs receiving Title IV funding “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.”

  Under the new gainful employment rules [PDF], for-profit colleges will be at risk of losing their federal aid should a typical graduate’s annual loan repayments exceed 20% of their discretionary income, or 8% of their total earnings.

  Discretionary income is defined as above 150% of the poverty line and applies to what can be put towards non-necessities.

  So for example, say the typical recent graduate of a career education program earns $25,000. That student would need to average annual student loan payments less than $2,000, or the school would be at risk for losing federal financial aid.

  The Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act would repeal those standards and prohibit the Secretary of Education from engaging in regulatory outreach with regard to educational institutions eligibility under title iV of the Higher Education Act.

  Among other things the bill aims to ban the “Education Department from carrying out, developing, refining, promulgating, publishing, implementing, administering, or enforcing a postsecondary institution ratings system or any other performance system to rate institutions of higher education.

  The coalition groups – which include The Institute for College Access & Success, National Consumer League, and our colleagues at Consumers Union – say that if the bill passes, it would harm both students and taxpayers.

  “Congress should be increasing student and taxpayer protections, not scaling them back,” the letter states. “Numerous investigations have revealed widespread waste, fraud and abuse in the for-profit college industry in particular, including deceptive and aggressive recruiting of students; false or inflated job placement rates; and dismal completion rates.”

  The group says that the gainful employment regulation, which takes effect July 1, has already had a positive impact, such as propelling many career education programs to disclose e basic information regarding their cost, debt levels, and completion or job placement rates.

  “The threat of sanctions under the regulation has already prompted many of the biggest for-profit colleges to eliminate some of their worst programs, freeze tuition, and implement other reforms, such as giving students trial periods before banking their tuition checks,” the group’s letter states.

  In addition to repealing protections that would that makes sure students receive the education they pay for, the coalition says the proposed bill would undermine the ban on incentive compensation in higher education.

  According to the organizations, the Act would open the possibility that schools could use lies, deception, and other deplorable tactics to pressure students to enroll.

  “This legislation would create three statutory loopholes similar to three of the regulatory ones that were just closed,” the letter states. “The last thing Congress should be doing is putting students and taxpayers at greater risk of harm from high-pressure tactics and fraud.”

  While the bill still has a long way to go until it is enacted, GovTrack puts the likelihood that the bill will pass at 31%, enough to worry consumer groups.

  “Congress should not be repealing rules designed to ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely or creating new loopholes for aggressive and misleading recruitment tactics.” the group says. “We need to be cutting wasteful spending, not subsidizing programs that routinely leave students and families buried in debts they cannot repay—and leave taxpayers holding the bag.”

  The Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act isn’t the first attempt to undermine the gainful employment rules.

  In 2011, Dept. of Education issued a similar rule that required colleges to show they actually prepares students for gainful employment or risk losing money. However, just a year later, a federal judge blocked major provisions of that rule, forcing the department to start over.

  Shortly after the rules were proposed again in 2014, a for-profit college group sued to stop the regulations from being implemented. In November 2014, the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities filed a 77-page lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down the gainful employment rule.

  Coalition Letter Opposing the “Supporting Academic Freedom through Regulatory Relief Act” [TICAS]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

uComcast Reportedly Planning To Bail On Time Warner Cable Mergerr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Mike Mozart)

  Following reports that both the Dept. of Justice and the FCC could use their authority to throw up roadblocks to the long-delayed $45 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable, Comcast is now reportedly planning to give up on the deal.

  This is according to a very brief story on Bloomberg, which cites anonymous sources as saying the announcement of the pullout could happen as early as tomorrow.

  Consumerist has reached out to both Comcast and the FCC. A spokesperson for the Commission declined to comment and we’ve yet to hear back from Comcast. We will update if we get anything further.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uDisney Pulls Ads For Verizon’s ESPN-Less Cable Packager

4 4 4 9

• 

  (Alec Taback)

  Earlier this week, Verizon FiOS began offering customers a new way to choose which cable channels they pay for, by allowing them to pay for a small base package of core channels and then pay to add on niche-targeted bundles of 10-17 channels each. This didn’t sit well with ESPN, the most expensive channel on just about everyone’s pay-TV lineup, and ESPN’s corporate overlords at Disney are reportedly refusing to air ads for FiOS’s new offering.

  As we mentioned earlier this week, ESPN maintains that its contract with Verizon prohibits the pay-TV provider from putting ESPN and ESPN on a premium sports tier. Instead, the channels must be included in the general basic cable package.

  ESPN is by far the most expensive single piece of any basic cable bill, accounting for for upwards of $6/month. That’s several times more than the cost of most other cable offerings. Even some avid sports fans believe that it belongs on a separate tier.

  An informal survey Consumerist readers found that more than 83% of them believe ESPN should no longer be part of the basic cable package.

  Regardless, Disney maintains that Verizon is violating their agreement and has, according to Bloomberg, pulled FiOS ads from ESPN, ABC and A&E.

  A rep for Verizon tells Consumerist that it looks like the FiOS Custom TV ads will also not run on Disney-owned WABC-TV in New York City, nor on at least one radio station owned by the company.

  Verizon is also facing opposition from Fox and NBC, who are also not pleased with several of their basic cable offerings being parceled out into add-on bundles.

  For its part, Verizon has maintained that Custom TV is not violating any of these contracts and that they are only trying to give customers more choices.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uFDA Warns Makers Of Diet Supplements Containing Speed-Like Ingredientr

4 4 4 9

• 

  These are four of the eight products cited in the FDA warning letters.

  Following calls for action from scientists and consumer health advocates, the FDA has sent warning letters to a handful of diet supplement makers demanding that they cease selling products that contain a speed-like ingredient.

  In 2013, FDA testing of diet supplements found that 43% of herbal supplements purporting to use the plant Acacia rigidula actually contained beta-Methylphenethylamine (BMPEA) — a chemical that has similarities to amphetamine, has never been tested for human safety, and which does not naturally occur in the plants used for these supplements.

  A more recent study in the journal Drug Testing and Analysis confirmed the presence of BMPEA in these supplements even after the FDA’s initial tests.

  The study notes that BMPEA was synthesized in the 1930s as a potential replacement for amphetamine, but that the chemical was never subsequently tested for human safety or efficacy, nor was it ever introduced as a pharmaceutical. And yet if users of these supplements take the maximum daily dosage, they could be “exposed to pharmacological dosages of an amphetamine isomer that lacks evidence of safety in humans.”

  “The FDA should immediately warn consumers about BMPEA and take aggressive enforcement action to eliminate BMPEA in dietary supplements,” concluded the researchers.

  And this week, the FDA did get around to throwing down the gauntlet over the BMPEA issue.

  The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [FFDCA] limits “dietary ingredients” found in supplements to vitamins; minerals; herbs or other botanicals; amino acids; concentrates, metabolites, constituents, extracts, or combinations of any of these; and dietary substances “for use by man to supplement the diet by increasing the total dietary intake.”

  Since BMPEA does not fall under any of these categories and its safety is undetermined, declaring it as a dietary ingredient on the product’s label would violate the FFDCA’s prohibition against false and misleading labels.

  “Failure to immediately cease distribution [of the offending products] and any other products you market that contain BMPEA, could result in enforcement action by FDA without further notice,” read the letters. The law gives the FDA the authority to seize products that violate the rules and to enjoin the manufacturers from continuing to make and sell them.

  The only argument the supplement makers could try to use is to claim that BPMEA is generally recognized as safe in food products. But since the FDA has no research showing this, the supplement companies would need to provide evidence of the chemical’s safety.

  In total, the FDA has sent out five warning letters that cover eight different supplements: Fastin-XR (extended release); Fastin-RR (rapid release); Lipodrene (Ephedra Free); Conquer (Fruit Punch Slam & Raspberry Lemonade flavors); Critical FX; Sudden Impact; Phoenix Extreme; and Core Burner.

  The makers of these supplements have 15 days to let the FDA know what they are doing to comply with the law.

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Chris Morran via Consumerist

uPopeyes Offers To Re-Hire Manager Fired After Armed Robberyr

4 4 4 9

• 

  (KHOU 11)

  A former Popeyes manager who claims she was fired after refusing to repay the restaurant back after an armed robber stole $400 from the cash registers has been offered her job back. The owners of the location said in a statement that they “deeply regret the way this matter was handled.”

  According to KHOU-11, the ex-worker had a meeting with the owner of the company that operates the location.

  “He just apologized and pretty much offered me if I wanted to go back to his business and work there again,” she said.

  She’d maintained that she was fired for not reimbursing the restaurant the $400 that was stolen during a robbery on March 31, but the company said she was fired for breaking policy and having too much money in the register.

  “I told them I’m not paying nothing,” she told KHOU. “I just had a gun to me. I’m not paying the money.”

  The company issued a statement apologizing over how it handled things:

  “We deeply regret the way this matter was handled. We are committed to continuing to work with [the worker], and we apologize to her, our employees, the public and other franchise operators of the Popeyes system. We have let them down and are committed to do better.”

  CEO Cheryl Bachelder out of the Popeyes corporate office in Georgia also weighed in on the incident, saying Wednesday night:

  “We recently became aware of a story in Houston involving a Popeyes restaurant and employee. The restaurant is operated by an independent franchisee of the Popeyes brand. We have spoken to the local franchise owner of the restaurant, and he has taken immediate action to reach out to the employee to apologize and rectify the situation. While the facts are gathered, we will closely monitor this until it is appropriately resolved. We deeply regret the distress this situation has caused.”

  Along with her old job, the former manager has been offered $2,000 in back pay. She’s unsure if she’ll go back to work or not, despite having three children to support and another on the way.

  “I do need a way to support my kids,” she tells KHOU. “I don’t want to go back to a business where I’m treated the same and I just get pushed back out if something else happened.”

  Popeyes attempting to rectify pregnant manager’s firing [KHOU-11]

  
• 
  

ribbi

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist