Talk:Laura Mercier Cosmetics/Archives/2014

New draft adding more information

Hello, I think this article could use some extra information and I've outlined my suggestions below. I have been working with and on behalf of Gurwitch Cosmetics, (the parent company of Laura Mercier Cosmetics) to write a new draft that includes these. As a result, I won't make any edits myself but I hope other editors will look over my draft and post it if they think it's ok.

Additional information the draft adds:

1. An infobox that lists Laura Mercier as the line's "ambassador," the line's tagline "flawless has many faces" and a link to its website.
2. The addition of information regarding Laura Mercier's role in founding the company in the introductory sentence.
3. Merging the "history" and "the company today" sections into a single "overview" section that covers the history of the line and its current operations, in addition to a mention of the Laura Mercier Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, founded in August of 2012.
4. An expanded external links section with links to the company's website and others.

It would be great if someone could look over the draft on my userspace and move it live if they think it's ok. Here's the link: LMC draft. Cheers. Minorvariation (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I would imagine most any cosmetics company would have a "philosophy" for creating a flawless face, but would suggest a more neutral alternative. Perhaps that they are "high-end" and focused on "natural looks." The term high end leads the reader to the natural assumption that the products are both high in quality and that the quality brings about a premium pricetag. Many women actively seek a more natural look and I believe a company's branding, differentiators, and market position are of encyclopedic value, when properly balanced with history, corporate culture and other aspects, however Wikipedia does not duplicate the sensational or excited tone found in the media. My two cents. With the exception of those two points, I think the rest is fairly straightforward. A good cleanup of a derelict article. User:Corporate Minion 16:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the sourcing, and have added a request for additional sources on the draft's talk page. If these were added, and User:King4057's suggestions above were followed, i would be inclined to make the requested edit. Oh, is "Ambassador" really a standard position in this industry? DES ^(talk) 06:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to look over the draft. Do you think that the entire sentence beginning with "Laura Mercier Products' goal..." be rewritten? I'll look for those additional sources as advised. Also: about the question re: "ambassador." That's the name of the parameter in the "brand" infobox template I used. Here's the link to the page for that template: Template:Infobox brand" Minorvariation (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would add a statement of attribution, such as "According to Tina Gaudoin writing in the Wall Street Journal, Laura Mercier Products's mission is..." (since the wsj article calls it a misison and not a goal).

Since that is a parameter of that infobox I have no problem with it. I haven't dealt with that infobox much in the past. DES ^(talk) 01:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, DES. I've moved a couple of existing citations around and I've added a new one to address the concerns you outlined in the draft's talk page. In addition to the Guardian piece, cited in the intro, I've added a new one: Gurwitch Products. I've also used the WSJ citation already in the draft for the first sentence in "Overview" to back up the Gurwitch connection. Meanwhile, I also added the Guardian citation to the end of "Overview" as additional support for "flawless face."

I've also added your suggested wording ("According to Tina Gaudoin writing..."). In regards to "flawless face," this is a particular philosophy of the brand, a guiding principle, if you will, and has been mentioned by multiple publications so I feel that it should be included in the article. If you have any other questions/concerns, please let me know. Minorvariation (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support with modification: I see the sentence with quotes as problematic and feel it will continue to be so as long as it still uses quotes. I support a merge to article-space, so long as the editor doing so is willing to re-write the sentence. Corporate Minion 23:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Corporate Minion. Thanks for the statement of support, but I'm not sure I follow why the sentence with quotes needs to be rewritten. Which part specifically is the issue? Is it the quote from the WSJ? If you can explain a bit more, I'd be grateful. Minorvariation (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

"According to... the Wall Street Journal."

Although we sometimes use this format when sources conflict, the citation is an adequate format for attribution in this case.

"Laura Mercier Products' mission"

We don't normally cover a company's "mission" unless it is distinguishable or notable in some way.

"all skin tones and types"

It is not informative to the reader to say that "we serve everybody." It's similar to how many companies may wish to include a list of industries they serve, but the list includes all major industries.

"its focus is creating the flawless face"

Clearly promotional and not informative.

On the other hand, I think there is an encyclopedic alternative to this sentence - that they target the high-end market and focus on natural looks. Additionally, other editors are welcome to disagree with my assessment. Corporate Minion 14:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Corporate Minion. Thanks for the breakdown. It'll work best if I address each of the issues you identify in turn:

1. "According to" and "mission": all of this wording was suggested by DES. It makes sense to me to attribute the statement to show this was written about the brand, not something that the brand said about itself. If "mission" isn't right, then maybe it's better to think of this as "business model"?
2. "all skin tones and types": giving the benefit of doubt, it's possible you're not aware that there are brands who focus specifically on particular skin tones or types. In business-oriented terms, this wording is needed to explain the market sector that Laura Mercier Cosmetics operates within, compared to brands whose products are aimed at a narrower market, such as those for mature women or women with particular skin issues. It's similar to saying a company serves "all major industries," as it doesn't list the skin types and tones, just summarizes the types the brand offers products for.
3. "its focus is creating the "flawless face": the "flawless face" is a major part of the brand identity, as it's Mercier's "trademark". The exact phrase is quoted in coverage of Mercier and the brand, such as in this Straits Times piece, this recent piece in The Independent, this article in the Phillipine Star and this column in the Cincinnati Enquirer, to name just a few. Rewriting this would actually make it less clear and would lose the sense of what the brand is focused on.

Bottom line here is that I do not think these quotes have a "sensationalist" tone and I don't see that changing the wording to "high end products focusing on natural looks" is better, just a different wording that removes some of the specificity of the existing quotes. I don't want to come across as unwilling to make changes here, but I don't see how what you suggest is better. DES, if you are still following this thread, can you comment further here? Minorvariation (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

These sources are helpful. In my opinion, many of them have better language like "naturalistic style" or "a classic... look she calls the 'flawless face' and "its flawless face mantra." These aren't two English words put together as I originally believed, but a branded phrase used to describe the look the makeup is intended for. I also noticed the phrase is all over the company website. I think the phrase "flawless face" should be kept, if we can make the context more clear, that this is a phrase the company uses to describe a look the makeup is intended for, rather than a description of the look. Corporate Minion 02:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Quick Take

My quick take at adding the citations provided below. I'm going to jump on some other projects now. Corporate Minion 15:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

In the 1980s blues, pinks and heavy blush were popular, but Laura Mercier was a proponent of a more natural look, drawing upon her European background. She had two unsuccessful attempts to start a cosmetics company, before the naturalistic style became more popular in the '90s. Laura Mercier Cosmetics was founded in 1995 and Mercier "forged a cosmetic empire on the foundations of 'the natural look.'" Laura Mercier Cosmetics became known for what it calls the "flawless face," which is intended to articulate its naturalistic style??? The brand is most popular for its primers and foundations, which are formulated to look natural.

Hi, Corporate Minion. I appreciate your work here on creating this new wording. Like you, I have other obligations that require my attention, so if the following wording works, do you think you could make the edits? Then later you could add in the other details that you've found, once the article is in a more decent shape to work on.

According to Tina Gaudoin writing in the Wall Street Journal, Laura Mercier Products' aim was to create "high-quality, natural-looking makeup products for all skin tones and types" and the brand became known for its focus on products to create what it calls the "flawless face".

Does that sound ok to you? I'll see if I can find others to give some input here, too. Minorvariation (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Many of us in the Wikipedia community are still figuring out how to handle these request edits, now that more PR professionals are using them. Because there is no agreement on the process, or our expectations for contributed content, it is not a convenient endeavor for you. This is a matter that needs fixing, since the difficulty with this process makes direct editing more favorable.

In my opinion, we should not puppetmaster a PR person into creating content approved by them nor should we hand over ownership of the article to the company. This is a draining process on our resources and an inappropriate relationship - akin to journalists only publishing corporate-approved stories.

I don't feel you should be required to provide this sentence in a matter I approve of nor should we debate the exact wording of individual sentences or go back and forth on matters of quality like citation templates. Rather you have already provided valuable context and research, as well as a good cleanup of a derelict article. We should accept your role in the process and acknowledge it as valuable, while leaving the final cut in the hands of an impartial editor. You have provided valuable content and research to us, and we should be willing to get our skin in the game to a certain extent.

You should wait for DES, as my purpose here is largely to study and improve the request edit system and improve my own contributions by critiquing others. Corporate Minion 15:04, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to leave a short note here to explain that I'll be taking over this project from User:Minorvariation. There's a longer explanation at the Paid Editor Help page. Meanwhile, if anyone has any feedback on this article draft, it would be very much appreciated. The draft is now in my user space:

• User:16912 Rhiannon/Laura Mercier Cosmetics

Corporate Minion, I'm a bit confused by your reply here, but I think I've got the gist of it, which is that your interest here is just to provide feedback but not to make any edits. If so, thanks for your involvement thus far, and I'll see if some other editors can help take this forward. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:10, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

• New draft is now live, so any further changes should be made direct on the article page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Ownership?

Their Toronto sales folks have been having trouble getting shipments, and say it is because "the company has been bought by Amway"? This seems to support that, although it dates to 2006. [1] Any information on this? Bellagio99 (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)