In an interview last month with Beauty Independent, Oliver Nordlinger, co-founder and partner at Monogram Capital Partners, the private equity owner of manufacturer Prime Matter Labs, pointed out the path from beauty product concept to completion is mired in inefficiencies. He said, “There’s just more back and forth with iterations than should be the case. I think a really good way to measure how good a formulator is, how many reps does it take to get from initial brief to final approved formulation?”
Nordlinger’s characterization of the formulation process is the behind-the-scenes flip side of a story often told by indie beauty brand founders of their products going through umpteen iterations in development because they’re just so picky about them. The difference between the two got us thinking about what the process should look like under the best-case scenario and what should be done by brands and manufacturers to accomplish that best-case scenario.
So, for this edition of our ongoing series posing questions relevant to indie beauty, we asked 12 manufacturers the following questions: Ideally, how many iterations should it take for a brand to approve a product? If there are additional iterations, what are common problems leading to them, and how can they be addressed? Do you believe the efficiency of the formulation process could be improved?
-
EnJunaya Canton Founder and Project Lead, Zuhuri Beauty BIPOC Eco-Friendly Manufacturing Center In my experience, it takes between two and five iterations for a formulation prior to final approval, typically two for low viscosity products (water and/or oil-based) and up to five for high viscosity (butters, moisturizers and/or sunscreens) due to not only formulations, but textures.
Some common problems with formulations are brands who want to recreate another brands’ products, and they may not truly know all of the ingredients and don’t understand the variety of ingredients that could be used. They often want to sample various formulas without understanding cost of goods.
One way we use to mitigate this is with an online secure database where we communicate as well as share formulation details. All parties receive an urgent email notification and are required to respond within two to eight hours during normal business hours.
We also use green packaging to send samples and use companies that do shipping more eco-friendly, economically and efficiently, which may not always be quick.
- Jami Mitchell Director of Research and Development, Cohere Beauty
The number of iterations required for a brand to approve a product during formulation development can vary based on several factors, including the complexity of the product, the level of innovation involved, regulatory requirements, and the brand's internal testing and review processes. In an ideal scenario, the goal is to minimize the number of iterations to expedite the product development process while ensuring that the final product meets all quality, stability and performance criteria.
For example, let's consider the development of a new hair conditioner. The formulation team conducts thorough research on ingredients to conceptualize a product that offers hydration, manageability and shine. Through iterative formulation development, testing, refinement and consumer feedback, the team refines the conditioner's formula for optimal performance, scent, texture and stability.
By leveraging consumer insights and internal evaluations, the brand ensures that the final product meets quality standards, regulatory requirements and consumer preferences before approval for production and launch. This iterative approach to haircare product development allows brands to create high-quality formulations that resonate with consumers and stand out in the competitive market.
In this hypothetical scenario, aiming for one to three iterations may be reasonable to achieve product approval. By leveraging efficient formulation practices, clear communication and timely feedback incorporation, brands can strive to minimize the number of iterations needed while ensuring the final product meets quality standards and consumer expectations.
When formulating personal care products, there are several common challenges that can lead to the need for additional iterations before final approval. Performance concerns like texture, appearance or effectiveness can require adjustments through further refinement and testing to meet desired standards. Regulatory compliance is crucial, with formulas needing to adhere to safety regulations, labeling requirements and product claims guidelines.
Ingredient compatibility issues such as phase separation or instability may arise, necessitating reformulation and testing to find the right combination of ingredients. Stability challenges, cost considerations and consumer feedback play significant roles in the iterative process of formula approval.
Additionally, customers should have a good understanding of reference benchmark products within their price points and provide clear direction to the development lab on performance and appearance attributes. By addressing these issues early and proactively during formulation, developers can minimize the need for extra iterations and expedite the approval process during formula development.
Improving efficiency during the formulation process can be achieved through several key strategies. Utilizing formulation software can streamline ingredient selection, stability prediction and prototype generation, saving time and resources. Clear project goals and timelines help focus the formulation process, ensuring that decisions align with timelines, performance targets, regulatory requirements and cost constraints.
Collaborating closely with suppliers for new raw materials and technical expertise, conducting thorough pre-formulation research and adopting concurrent process engineering practices can further enhance efficiency in formulation development. By implementing these strategies, developers can optimize the formulation process, reduce time to market and enhance the overall quality of their formulations.
- Tish Poling President and Chief Development Officer, International Products Group
This is such a great question! I believe the answer is in the preparation work prior to making samples in the lab. For both IPG and our customers, time is money. So, our collective goal is to create an innovative product quickly, commercialize it and get our customers into the marketplace ASAP.
Over time, IPG has learned to cut down on these back-and-forth changes in formulation by spending a lot of time upfront prior to getting into the lab to make samples of a new product. It’s paramount that you ask your customers to fill out an extremely detailed product development brief that asks every possible question imaginable (20 to 30) before we all spend the time and money in the lab. Our goal is to immerse our product development and R&D team into our customer’s vision and galvanize everyone so that our formulation efforts will capture that opportunity.
Sometimes a customer’s vision will evolve through these discussions, and our responsibility at IPG is to remain fluid and open-minded so that we can guide our customer through the product development journey. Our product development team will ask dozens of pointed questions which serves as a platform for our customers to reach an epiphany as to their exact positioning and key product features and benefits.
Once IPG has a clear direction on exactly what the customer wants, we are confident we will hit the bull's eye in the lab. Even the most buttoned-up customers will find opportunities to evolve their own product plan when it comes time to fill in the customized brief. Our ability to have thoughtful, open discussions with the customer prior to going into the lab is one of the key factors to project success.
A custom formula should ideally be perfected within two iterations or submissions. In reality, IPG averages between two to three revisions of formulas before we have an approved product. It's our collective responsibility to ensure we meet this target consistently as it reflects our commitment to efficient and effective formulation processes.
- Matt Stearn President, Innovative Cosmetic Labs
Ideally, we’re all trying to get approvals within one to three rounds. This only happens at the highest levels when experienced brand product development execs, chemists and a contract manufacturer are working in sync. You need fully conceived product development briefs, thorough conversations about benchmarks and experience in the lab to get approvals within three rounds.
In reality, most development projects go beyond three rounds. Brands certainly change their minds midstream and have outside influences, too. Contract manufacturers should have internal systems to reduce the number of iterations in the lab. The lab needs to clearly understand the direction of the project. Sometimes there are issues that are out of everyone’s control.
On the brand side, a few reasons for excess renditions:
Indecisiveness: Brand founder lacks confidence and experience to make a decision. Usually, this entrepreneur believes their formula will change the world, save humanity and establish world peace.
Too many cooks: Either product design by committee or outside groups. Sometimes it’s the retail buyer weighing in. Regardless, too much outside noise stalls the process.
Incomplete PD brief: The product development brief was not fully conceived and something important was missing. Ingredients, performance and costs need to be established prior to bench work.
Last-minute inspiration: Some magical ingredient is discovered, usually when a founder is on vacation, that will provide the marketing department with better storytelling and added differentiation.
On the manufacturing side, a lack of internal processes can increase the number of passes. The chemist didn’t not meet the desired specifications of the customers. Somehow the communication was not clear enough or completely understood at the lab.
Ingredients need to be swapped or removed for either performance and/or costs. PD executives may manage what is being sent out of the building. No formula should be allowed to go from the bench to the customer without a seasoned PD executive’s approval.
Some iterations are out of everyone’s control until the issues arise. There can be formulation failure in stability, and chemists will need to go back and make tweaks. And there can be packaging incompatibility with formulation. Whether it’s viscosity or a specific kind of chemical, this can happen if packaging has been selected prior to formula approval.
COGs: Something is driving up the costs of the formula at the manufacturer. Perhaps there is a better vendor with pricing and MOQs. Ingredient swaps can happen where a different vendor with similar materials is used for supply chain efficiency. Lastly, in a word, fragrance.
What can brands and manufacturers do to fix this?
Brands: Only have highly experienced (20-plus years) professionals handling the product development work. Use a tested system that has stage gates. Have a CFO questioning whether the project can deliver long term returns.
Manufacturers: To prevent excess time spent on the bench, manufacturers should wait until the brand has provided all important information required before the lab begins work. Implement higher fees for R&D services that forces brands to question moving forward with the project at all.
- Anthony Standifer Co-Founder and CMO, mSEED Group
Having worked inside large multinational companies for 14 years and now owning a manufacturing facility that formulates products for indie brand founders, I find this question super relevant.
The launch process inside large companies is no less than 18 months from ideation to launch. A significant amount of time is spent on product development and ensuring corporate compliance regulations are met. It's a long, slow process. Always has been.
Working with indie brand founders now for the past nine years, I see a ton of back and forth between my team of chemists and clients wanting effective formulations that meet a need. At the onset of any development project, we ask clients explicitly what problems are you seeking to address, and who is the primary core consumer? Knowing this info sets the foundation.
We do experience founders who think that development should be a fast two- to three-week timeline with three iterations before we nail it but that just does not happen as a norm. Instead, I encourage folks to consider four to six rounds of work to get formulations to place where they meet most of the required needs. I've long given up on the "perfect" formula because in 24 years of doing this work I have yet to get unanimous consensus on which formula hits that target.
Formulators are asked to be both artists and scientists to completely subjective standards.
Bottom line: Use stock private-label formulas if you want to go fast. If you want custom product development, allot four to eight months for development when working with contract manufacturers. If you're working on never-before-seen technology inside a formulation, add an additional six months to the above-mentioned timeline.
I've seen firsthand the results of rushing the process for big companies and indie brands. It is not pretty and costs more than the timeline.
- Megan Cox Founder, Genie Supply
You do often hear about how many rounds of sampling it took to get the formula "just right.” It's almost as if founders wear this as a badge of honor. I will admit that color cosmetics can take a few more rounds to tackle than skin, body or haircare, so it is a category of its own (aided greatly by a spectrophotometer).
However, realizing the inefficiency in the process, we began really honing in on this process about four years ago, treating it like both a social and hard science. We are now able to formulate 100% of our projects to specification within four rounds, with over 90% of projects completed within three rounds or less.
The main issues we identified that founders experienced in their failed projects before coming to us were: misalignment in values, formula end goals or timelines or misalignment in pricing. An aligned process from day zero ensures that there are no hiccups in the formulating journey, and that everyone is informed and aware of expected costs and timelines.
Here 's how we tackled the two biggest issues that were described to us:
Intake process: The intake process has to be immaculate. There are so many known and unknown questions that should be asked to a founder to understand the holistic view of what they want to create, the benchmarks for each individual aspect of the product, what they want the "wow" factor to be, the standards of the vendors and countries they'll distribute into.
It's important to understand what the founder wants in a deep way, not just one paper. From there, this idea has to be adequately explained behind the scenes to the chemists that will work on the project so that a few ideas can be pitched.
No project should be undertaken without fully understanding the breadth and needs of the founder—spoken and unspoken—and aligning that with the capabilities of the team and physical possibility of the ideas' creation. This process can happen quickly or can take several back-and-forth calls to truly get to the bottom of the founders' needs, especially when they want to push the boundaries of what's possible.
Holistic formulating view: When discussing previous project failures or tech transfer failures with clients from other labs or CMs, the main issue was that, when formulating was undertaken, it was not presented or treated holistically, causing issues down the line that brought them back to square one. The intake process is extremely important, but so is aligning on full expectations. This means understanding how testing and its costs fit into the timeline and understanding end product pricing from day one.
During intake, we also discuss pricing and end goals with the clients for the products. Because we are a CM with our own in-house pricing algorithms, we can give estimates on pricing from day zero before we ever undertake the project to ensure alignment from top to bottom. We assign pricing categories per formula, and clients can see other projects costs in our pricing catalog, aligning with their pricing category, product type, size and/or packaging to estimate cost of turnkey manufacturing, batch plus fill only or bulk only.
The cosmetic industry is full of inefficiencies, but it doesn't have to be! Each process needs a scientist's attention to detail, but it's solvable. (Of course, this is coming from someone with an MIT degree in operations.) How do I know? Our reformulate rate is zero. We never have to go back to the drawing board on formula in the later stages. It's four rounds or less, every time.
- Fred Khoury President, Above Rinaldi Labs
It all starts with a perfect brief. That takes a skilled person to draft the brief on the brand side and an equally skilled person to receive and digest the brief on the development side. At ARL, our motto is, “Ask and you shall receive.” The more detailed the brief the better, and the more questions the developer asks the better.
The skill is learning how to ask the correct questions to extract the information needed to match the brief in the least amount of time. Time is money for all parties involved. In a perfect world and if all the stars aligned, it should take about three to five iterations (or rounds, similar to boxing) for a brand to approve a product.
For example, let's consider developing a new dewy finish gel to oil moisturizer. The developer would draft a paper formula that will align with the brands wish list, which includes desired ingredients, skin benefits, texture preferences, loves, hates, pipedreams plus any other specific requirements. This prototype is sent to the brand for initial feedback, and upon receiving feedback, adjustments that need to be made to the formula are addressed.
By the third round, if concept/product positioning has not evolved beyond what has been captured in the brief, the product should closely align with the brand’s expectations. If needed, fourth and fifth rounds adjustments are made based on broader testing groups feedback but generally should be ready for final approval at this stage.
This iterative process ensures that the product meets all the brand’s specifications while allowing for fine-tuning based on real-time feedback. The more rounds that are requested, the more punches the developer takes. The key is to get a TKO in the first few rounds.
If there are additional iterations beyond the ideal three to five, common hiccups often arise from unexpected concept changes or inconsistent feedback due to the late involvement of key decision-makers. Streamlined development can be achieved by engaging the key decision-makers earlier in the process to align with their vision and expectations.
Another common problem is the mismatch of marketing requests versus cost constraints on development. Multitudes of iterations can be avoided by the brands collaborating closely with all their internal departments to marry their marketing strategy, consumer demographic and budget targets at the product brief stage. This synergy helps ensure that the development process stays on track and within budget.
I wouldn’t be lying to say we have had projects that have been through 27 rounds, plus 14 fragrance variations on top of that. This mainly takes place with brands that are not pressed to hit a ship-to-trade date, have too many cooks in the kitchen or if a retailer is running the innovation. On the flip side, the developer could be at fault if they are not asking the right questions or they are trying to transform a square peg to fit into a round hole.
- Paul Marotta Senior Director of Research & Development, FP Labs
Cosmetic chemistry and the art of formulation design are intricate and often underappreciated branches of science. They demand a unique blend of technical expertise, artistic flair and business acumen coupled with a deep understanding of true consumer preferences. In the words of Walt Disney, "You don’t build it for yourself. You know what the people want and need, and you build it for them."
A proficient cosmetic chemist and laboratory, well-versed in the technical and consumer aspects mentioned above, strives to create formulations efficiently and execute the last experiment first. Ideally, the development process should unfold in under three submissions. However, the exact timing can vary based on the complexity of the original product request and the intricacies involved in meeting consumer expectations and technical requirements.
Understanding the project scope is crucial before embarking on any formulation work. A detailed project concept brief should encompass various facets, including target consumers and demographics, desired price points, functional package design, product performance claims, safety and ingredient-related claims, and a comprehensive list of prohibited chemistries. Any ambiguity or changes in scope within the project brief can result in additional time spent on formulation or a higher number of iterations.
It should be the responsibility of the technical community to thoroughly grasp these requirements to ensure alignment and efficiency in the formulation process. Additionally, strong texture descriptors play a key role in detailing how the product should smell, look, feel, perform and interact with users, contributing to a successful formulation outcome.
A proficient cosmetic chemistry formulation laboratory should excel in various aspects, including the design of experiments and expertise in TRY-chemistry. Continuous exploration and experimentation with new chemistries are essential for developing innovation and institutional knowledge. The utilization of a range of measurement science tools and techniques like rheometery, viscosity and texture analyzers are crucial. When employed effectively, these tools can translate sensory perceptions (as formulators TRY on the products) into quantifiable data sets, enhancing and speeding up the formulation process.
Chemists in the laboratory must not only rely on raw materials, but also understand how the manufacturing process can be leveraged to manipulate texture and enhance product performance. By utilizing manufacturing processes to adjust texture, cosmetic chemists can further drive product excellence and differentiation in the market.
The final piece is the synergy between formulation and packaging. It is a crucial aspect often underestimated in overall product creation. A harmonious alignment between the formulation and packaging is essential to create a delightful consumer experience. Any misalignment between formulation and package design can lead to reduced product performance or potential delays in the innovation process.
It is vital to ensure that all three elements—formula, process and package design—complement each other seamlessly to deliver a product that meets consumer expectations effectively and efficiently.
- Ellen Lennon SVP Brand Partnerships, Goodkind Co.
The time it takes to perfect a formula varies based on the product type and complexity of its formulation. If the project aligns well with the core capabilities of the contract manufacturing partner, it should typically take no more than two submissions.
More innovative claims [and] intensive skincare or body care products may take up to three or four submissions. This largely depends on the quality of the information provided to the contract manufacturers R&D team during the briefing stage.
Many contract manufacturers offer a library of base formulas, which are an excellent starting point. Utilizing these base formulas can significantly reduce the number of submissions needed throughout the development process.
Typically, if a project requires more than three it's because the objectives of the end product have evolved. For instance, the brand might receive feedback from a retail partner or their executive team, prompting a shift in priorities or areas of focus. Other challenges that may arise include fragrance compatibility with the base formula, necessitating additional submissions or a new formula direction.
To mitigate these issues, it is critical for brands to submit detailed briefs, including their goals with the formula along with their ingredient restrictions and target markets. Brands should also request a kickoff call with the R&D team to discuss the project thoroughly and align on end goals before any formula work begins. Maintaining regular and timely communication throughout the project is vital for efficient formula development, benefiting both the brand and their contract manufacturing partner.
Having clear goals and detailed product briefs significantly reduces the need for redirects. More importantly, contract manufacturers should foster strong relationships with our brand partners through transparent and regular live communication (as opposed to email), which helps resolve many potential formulation issues. As a best practice, set up bi-weekly calls to ensure the project is moving along as planned and feedback is shared in a timely manner.
Ahead of kicking off any formula development, brands should understand the core capabilities of each of their manufacturing partners. While a brand may prefer to work with only one or two contract manufacturers, this could slow down their speed to market. It is difficult to be everything to everyone, and all contract manufacturers know where their sweet spot is. Be sure to understand that early on.
Working with the right contract manufacturer whose core capabilities align perfectly with your particular project will greatly improve the efficiency of the formulation process. This will also ensure you are getting a product that is highly competitive in terms of price, quality and production efficiency.
- Maria OsorioDirector of Marketing and Product Development, Cosmetica
The ideal number of iterations for approving a cosmetic product can vary depending on several factors, including the complexity of the product, the experience of the development team, and the specific goals and standards of the brand. However, a typical range would be between three to seven iterations to make sure all stages are covered.
Let’s take a basic lip gloss as an example. After receiving the brief, the lab would work on a first prototype based on the initial concept. This prototype would showcase the basic formulation, preliminary stability tests, and internal testing for texture, application, finish and wear.
The second stage of iteration would be refinement. Taking into consideration the brand’s feedback, the formulation would be adjusted and submitted one second time. If the brief was properly followed, and a lip gloss is usually not a complex formula, this should almost be the last iteration before pre-launch validation.
Once the formula is approved it would go through final tweaks to address any last-minute issues and confirmatory stability/compatibility testing. The product should align with the sensory, stability and performance criteria by now. Furthermore, regulatory compliance checks and consumer tests would be a part of this stage.
The last step would include pre-launch validation. The activities performed would include, but not be limited to packaging assessment, QA tests, pilot production runs and detailed compliance checks.
The problems leading to additional iterations are usually similar, so it’s easy to identify ways to address those issues and streamline the process:
Formula/ingredient complexity:
Products that have more complex formulas or ingredients usually take more time to develop as the chemist will need space to experiment and test further. This issue can be addressed by performing comprehensive initial research to define the formulation and ingredient strategy.
Regulatory requirements:
Depending on the ingredients of the formula and the product distribution, additional iterations may be needed to ensure compliance. To avoid last-minute compliance issues, R&D needs to involve regulatory at an early stage of the process.
Brand/consumer expectations:
High expectations from the brand and its consumers may require additional refinement cycles to achieve the desired product attributes. Briefs coming from a brand should be as detailed as possible to make sure the lab can execute those expectations. Cross-functional collaboration between departments throughout the process may facilitate addressing any potential issues. R&D, marketing, regulatory, packaging, procurement and production play important roles in the development of the product.
Chemist experience:
An experienced formulation team may achieve the desired outcome faster. Proper onboarding and practice in interpreting briefs will help the more junior chemists formulate with fewer iterations. Moreover, an agile approach to development with real-time brand feedback can considerably shorten the timeline.
I believe the key to improving the overall process is alignment. It starts with a detailed brief from the brand where the essence of the product is entirely captured. Secondly, robust internal processes on the manufacturer’s side to ensure cross-functional teams are involved from the beginning. Last but foremost, external partnerships with raw material and component suppliers to ensure consistency and quality of the product.
- Mark Wuttke Chief Growth Officer, Cosmetic Solutions
The new product development (NPD) journey in the beauty industry is indeed riddled with inefficiencies, as recently highlighted by Oliver Nordlinger. We often encounter the same challenges at Cosmetic Solutions, primarily due to the lack of detailed briefs.
Our product development teams endeavor to drive clarity, but we find that client teams or founders often struggle to articulate what they want. This ambiguity is compounded when decisions are made by committee, resulting in conflicting opinions and extended timelines.
Another key factor is the insufficient investment in initial discovery. Teams often rush through the early stages, prioritizing speed over thorough understanding. This transactional approach overlooks the strategic need to define success in granular detail.
Moreover, lack of accountability for iteration costs removes economic pressure to make decisive, well-informed choices. The absence of thorough de-briefs after each sample iteration further exacerbates this. I often say, "Time is the enemy of quality and efficiency." With a comprehensive understanding of what aspects are liked or disliked, the cycle of trial and error can be broken.
To enhance efficiency in the formulation process, Cosmetic Solutions advocates that brands must invest time upfront to define clear, detailed briefs and establish realistic target prices. Understanding that quality requires appropriate investment is crucial. Expecting champagne on a sparkling water budget is unrealistic.
Emphasizing thorough discovery, strategic planning and detailed feedback mechanisms can significantly reduce the number of iterations needed. By prioritizing these elements, the industry can move towards a more streamlined and effective product development process, ensuring pricing targets are met and quality and efficiency are achieved based on the investment.
After all, we often never have time to do it properly the first time, but we always have time to fix it up, multiple times.
- Prakash Purohit Founder and President, Naturich Labs
The time required to develop a new formula and navigate multiple iterations depends on various factors, making it essential to adhere to best practices for an efficient timeline.
Here’s a refined approach to ensure a streamlined and effective product development process:
- Detailed product brief: Before commencing any product development work, it’s crucial to receive a comprehensive product positioning/brief from the brand in writing. Equally important is reviewing this product brief with the client to ensure mutual clarity and eliminate potential misunderstandings. Key features to outline upfront include:
- Product benefits and marketing claims
- Hero ingredients and restricted/prohibited ingredients
- Packaging specifications and dispensing mode
- Target pricing and fragrance profile
- Market scope (e.g., U.S.-only or global)
- A benchmark product sample from the client as a target
- Structured iteration process: If executed correctly, the formula should be approved within three to four iterations:
- First submission: Focuses on product feel, appearance, thickness, and color (often without fragrance)
- Second submission: Incorporates revisions from the first submission and includes fragrance for evaluation
- Third submission: Fine-tunes overall product performance, including fragrance levels
- Fourth submission: Final adjustments to the formula, if needed
- Addressing additional iterations: While three to four iterations are ideal, additional submissions may be necessary due to various reasons:
- Client-side challenges:
- Disagreements among multiple testers on product performance
- Continuous requests for new submissions by the decision-maker
- Mid-process changes to the product profile, such as appearance, feel or fragrance profile
- Expanding market requirements (e.g., adding EU or Asia after initially targeting the U.S.)
- Lab-side challenges:
- Deviations from the agreed product profile
- Lack of a robust formula library, requiring extra time for formulation from scratch
- Inadequate screening of raw materials for contamination and incidental components
- Exceeding target pricing, necessitating reformulation
- Sourcing or creating a fragrance, adding R&D time
- Overlooking regulatory requirements for each market, leading to formula revisions
Improving formulation efficiency:
- Enhanced communication: Utilize digital platforms for real-time collaboration and feedback to reduce back-and-forth and accelerate decision-making.
- Early regulatory involvement: Engage regulatory experts at the outset to ensure compliance and avoid surprises later in the process.
- Data-driven insights: Leverage data from previous formulations for predictive analytics, reducing trial-and-error.
- Standardized processes: Implement standardized workflows and best practices to streamline operations and minimize inefficiencies.
By following these best practices and addressing potential challenges proactively, brands and manufacturers together can significantly enhance the efficiency of the formulation process, resulting in faster time to market and higher quality products.
If you have a question you’d like Beauty Independent to ask manufacturers, please send it to editor@beautyindependent.com.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.