Manufacturing is where beauty dreams are either built or broken. In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, we go past the mood boards and into the factory with Andrea Cid—founder of Miami Growth Machine and owner of Concept II Cosmetics. With a global background spanning Chile, the U.S., the U.K., and Asia (Harvard Economics; Wharton MBA), Andrea breaks down what “small batch” really means—volumes, costs, and flexibility—and why it’s mission-critical for emerging brands. We dig into the realities operators face today: labor dynamics in immigrant-powered teams, inflation and supply-chain pressures, and how savvy founders adjust sourcing and process to stay profitable. We also explore trade policy and tariffs, where risk can flip into opportunity for U.S. manufacturers. Andrea closes with straight-talk advice for first-time founders: how to choose a manufacturing partner, set MOQs and timelines you can actually hit, and where she sees the biggest opportunities over the next few years for beauty and wellness makers.Takeaways:• Iteration Should Be Baked Into Product Launches: Even established brands with major retail distribution shouldn't launch new products with 30,000-50,000 units. Testing products with real consumers at smaller volumes (500-1,500 units initially) reduces risk and allows for necessary adjustments before scaling, because no matter how experienced you are, product development will always surprise you.• Manufacturing Minimums Are About Machine Economics, Not Difficulty: Traditional manufacturers require large MOQs because turning on machines requires staff, time, and changeover costs that only make financial sense at volume. Miami Growth Machine solves this by owning their facility and using extra capacity on their own production lines, allowing them to offer no minimums and scale clients gradually from 25-unit lab batches to full production runs.• Supply Chain Expertise Clusters Geographically by Material: Rather than countries having wholesale advantages, expertise develops around specific materials—China excels in tubes, Brazil offers certain closures, the US is competitive in paper/labels at 5,000+ units. Smart manufacturing means understanding which global vendors specialize in what and comparing quotes across regions for each component rather than sourcing everything domestically or internationally.• Formulate for Supply Chain Flexibility at Launch: When starting out, avoid proprietary ingredient blends with single suppliers that have 510kg minimums and 3-4 month lead times. Instead, formulate with readily available ingredients from multiple vendors to maintain flexibility and reduce risk. Make the conscious decision to lock into specialized ingredients only when differentiation justifies the supply chain complexity and cost.• The Real US Manufacturing Challenge Is Skilled Labor, Not Automation: While automation and robotics get attention, the critical bottleneck is finding competent machinists and mechanics who can maintain and repair equipment. Miami's historically strong immigrant workforce provided this expertise, but current immigration restrictions have significantly shrunk the talent pool, making it harder to scale even when you have the capital to invest in better machines.

What do your products look like to the world? Beyond INCI lists and claims, beauty brands are built—visually. In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, Jennifer Cookson is joined by Anderson, the creative mind behind A-Son Agency and By-Anderson, whose photography brings brand philosophies to life. We explore how product photography, creative direction, and brand identity intersect to tell a cohesive visual story. Whether you’re a founder, marketer, or formulator, this episode will make you think differently about the images you use to represent your work.Takeaways:• Social-First Strategy Delivers More Value for Indie Brands: Rather than spending a million dollars on a campaign and tacking on behind-the-scenes content for social as an afterthought, emerging brands should build from social up. Most sales for small brands come from social media and world-building on platforms, so investing in volume of nimble, repurposable content often outperforms one expensive hero campaign.• Authentic Representation Requires Intentional Casting and Self-Awareness: Brands don't need to check every diversity box—they need to authentically know their consumer and represent them well. Hiring a casting director who understands your specific audience, studying brands doing representation well (like MAC's VivaGlam or Fenty's shade inclusivity), and ensuring consumers see themselves in your imagery creates genuine connection rather than performative gestures.• Visual Storytelling Translates Technical Into Emotional: Communicating formulation sophistication for products that all look like white cream requires strategic choices in lighting, color palette, context, and where assets live. An SPF might use warmer, sunnier lighting within the same setup as other skincare products, while the combination of imagery, copy, and display context tells the complete story.• Budget Constraints Demand Smart Collaboration and Relationships: Working with limited budgets (realistically $10,000+ for quality results) requires finding photographers whose vision aligns with your brand rather than chasing big names. The creative industry runs on personal relationships where artists often offer favorable rates for brands they believe in, knowing the work will benefit their portfolio and lead to future opportunities.• Test Brand Recognition by Removing Product from Imagery: A strong visual brand identity means you'd recognize a Crème de la Mer ad even with the product covered. This test helps brands evaluate whether their visual language—lighting, color, mood, casting—truly communicates their brand DNA consistently across all assets rather than just relying on the product itself.

Find Anderson's photography work and get in touch through:Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/byandersonx/Website: https://by-anderson.com/Agency website: https://www.a-son.agency/

In this 30-minute conversation, Becki pulls back the curtain on what it really takes to write responsibly in beauty media. We talk about the pressures of maintaining editorial independence in a world of brand partnerships, and the blurred lines between transparency, trust, and truth.From navigating terms like “clean” and “non-toxic,” to resisting the urge to oversimplify complex science for the sake of a headline, Becki shares how she treads the gray areas with care. We also dive into how her voice shifts when ghostwriting versus bylining, what it means to write for both experts and everyday readers, and which trends she believes deserve more scrutiny.Takeaways:• Payment Never Equals Praise in Editorial Integrity: While commercial relationships keep media organizations afloat and money does change hands, payment cannot guarantee positive coverage. Journalists and PR teams are getting better at understanding that even long-term relationships guarantee tougher questions and pushing for clarity rather than automatic praise. Trust takes years to build and one compromised article to destroy.• Scientific Training Opens Doors Beyond Accuracy: Getting a diploma in cosmetic science during lockdown allowed Becky to move beyond the "game of whispers" where information passes from formulators to R&D to marketers to PR to journalists. The formal training opened doors to speak directly with suppliers, ingredient experts, and attend industry conferences, enriching her network and allowing her to stand on the shoulders of cosmetic science giants.• Living in the Gray Area Is Where Good Journalism Happens: Science isn't a string of absolutes—most ingredients aren't inherently good or bad, and scientific findings are called theories because there's always more evidence to come. The gray area is uncomfortable because people want clean narratives, but uncertainty helps avoid oversimplifying. The best experts say "these are the answers we have right now" rather than claiming absolute conclusions.• Simplify the Pathway, Not the Conclusion: When communicating science, don't reduce the number of sources or depth of research just because information is more accessible through AI. Instead, simplify how you structure and present information—use the sandwich technique with an exciting benefit, bread of science to contain it, and a juicy takeaway that connects to reader experience. Multiple sources remain essential; AI is just a summarization tool, not a conclusion.• Assume Curiosity, Not Expertise from Readers: Rather than ranking readers by knowledge level and "catering to the lowest," start with the assumption that all readers are curious. This is more universal and hooks both scientists who want to avoid eye-rolling oversimplification and beginners who don't want to feel overwhelmed. Write like you're explaining to a friend, building up progressively rather than segregating content by expertise level.

The beauty industry is buzzing with terms like “lab-grown,” “bioengineered,” and “nature-identical”—but what do these really mean, and how much of it is science versus storytelling? In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, we’re joined by David Breslauer, a synthetic biologist and the co-founder and CTO of Bolt Threads, a pioneering biomaterials company known for innovations like lab-grown spider silk and mycelium-based leather.David brings deep expertise in synthetic biology and materials science—and a refreshingly grounded take on how biotechnology is being positioned in beauty and fashion. We explore what’s real, what’s overstated, and what it takes to move from breakthrough to brand adoption without falling into the greenwashing trap.From ingredient sourcing to consumer trust, this conversation peels back the layers of innovation to reveal what biotech can actually deliver—and what still needs to evolve.Takeaways:• Biotech Means Engineering Living Systems, Not Just Natural Extracts: True biotech involves engineering microbes, plant cells, or enzymes to manufacture molecules or materials unavailable or unaffordable from nature at industrial scale. Standard plant extracts, purified crop ingredients, or cold-pressed botanicals being rebranded as "biotech" dilute the term's meaning, even though they may be valuable ingredients in their own right.• The Path to Market Is Longer and More Expensive Than Most Realize: Taking a biotech ingredient from proof of concept to market-ready requires 5-10 years and $10-150 million before reaching breakeven volumes. This includes years of lab R&D, clinical trials for efficacy claims, pilot scale manufacturing, downstream purification, quality control, and three years alone just for global regulatory approval.• Scale-Up and Cost Effectiveness Are the Highest Risk Points: While scientific discovery is challenging, the compounded risk comes after finding a functional molecule. The highest failure rate occurs when trying to achieve cost-effective, routine manufacturing at scale. Many promising ingredients die because they're stuck in non-scalable discovery systems, can't secure investment for scale-up, or never achieve competitive pricing.• Independent Brands Are Essential First Movers: Big CPG brands require extremely compelling reasons (10,000x better performance) to switch global supply chains. Independent beauty brands willing to pay more and take risks serve as crucial first movers, helping biotech companies navigate regulatory filings, build supply chain diversity, and prove market viability before transitioning to larger customers.• GMO Attitudes Are Shifting, But Education Remains Critical: The majority of brands have moved past GMO concerns, especially with certifications like "from GMO, but not GMO" that clarify the ingredient itself contains no genetic modification. However, a few large CPG players are still figuring out their policies as they risk being left behind when the next billion-dollar brand is built on recombinant ingredients like growth factors.

What makes a beauty brand truly memorable? In this 40-minute episode, verbal identity strategist Taylor de Diego shares how she helps brands uncover their whitespace and build a voice that’s unmistakably theirs.Taylor shares her journey from working at L'Oréal and MAC Cosmetics to launching her own company after experiencing firsthand the frustration of finding the right foundation shade.The conversation explores how AI and computer vision are transforming the beauty industry, the challenges of building accurate shade-matching technology that works across diverse skin tones, and the complex relationship between online and in-store beauty shopping. Taylor discusses the technical hurdles of training AI models with limited diverse data, why personalization in beauty goes far beyond just matching your skin tone, and her vision for using technology to make beauty more accessible and inclusive while maintaining the joy and discovery that makes cosmetics shopping special.Takeaways:• AI Shade Matching Requires Diverse, Quality Training Data: Building accurate shade-matching technology is challenging because historical beauty datasets lack diversity in skin tones and undertones. Training AI models requires extensive data collection across different lighting conditions, skin types, and product formulations, with particular attention to ensuring accuracy for deeper skin tones that have been historically underserved by the beauty industry.• True Personalization Goes Beyond Skin Tone: Effective beauty recommendations require understanding multiple factors including skin type, concerns, preferences, budget, and values like clean beauty or sustainability. Just matching foundation shade isn't enough - the technology must consider finish preferences, coverage needs, ingredient sensitivities, and even shopping behaviors to create truly personalized experiences.• Online Beauty Shopping Presents Unique Challenges: The biggest barrier to online cosmetics purchasing is confidence in shade matching and product suitability. While technology can help bridge this gap, the sensory experience of testing textures, seeing shimmer, and discovering products in-store remains valuable. The future likely involves hybrid experiences that combine digital convenience with tactile discovery.• Computer Vision Technology Must Adapt to Real-World Conditions: Developing shade-matching technology that works accurately across different lighting conditions, phone cameras, and environments is extremely complex. Variables like natural versus artificial light, camera quality, and even how users position their phones all impact accuracy, requiring sophisticated algorithms that can normalize and adjust for these factors.• Building for Inclusion Requires Intentional Design from Day One: Creating technology that works equitably for all skin tones can't be an afterthought. It requires intentionally seeking out diverse perspectives, testing extensively with underrepresented groups, and making conscious decisions about data collection and algorithm training that prioritize accuracy across the full spectrum of skin tones rather than optimizing for the majority.

Fragrance has the power to spark memories, define brands, and create lasting emotional connections—but how can it also do good? In this 30-minute conversation, Cassandra Browning, founder of Fragrances for Good, shares her vision for a more conscious and innovative fragrance industry.With a degree in aroma and formulation science from the UK and experience spanning global fragrance houses including L'Oréal and as EU fragrance head for Ecover and Method, Cassandra brings rare expertise bridging creative and technical aspects of fragrance.Takeaways:Context Makes a Fragrance Brief Effective: A good fragrance brief goes far beyond describing how something should smell. Include target demographic, brand positioning goals, whether you're trying to disrupt or align with category norms, and how the launch fits your overall brand strategy. This context allows fragrance houses to make strategic recommendations, like suggesting vanilla over apple for disrupting a 50-year-old woman's dishwashing habits.No Universal Standards for Fragrance Sustainability: Each fragrance contains at least 30 ingredients, each with its own complex supply chain, making sustainability assessment extremely difficult. Fragrance houses are creating internal scorecards measuring renewability and naturality, but metrics like water use, land impact, and carbon footprint are nearly impossible to standardize. Even getting competing fragrance houses to agree on basic definitions is extraordinarily challenging.Natural Doesn't Equal Sustainable or Safe: The assumption that natural ingredients are automatically better is flawed. It takes 10,000 pounds of rose petals to make one pound of rose oil, creating massive water, land, and energy impacts. Natural ingredients also contain more allergens. Meanwhile, some eco-labels like Nordic Swan advocate for 100% synthetic ingredients as better for skin and environment, while others like Ecosurf require 100% essential oils.Build Olfactory Brand Identity Before Individual Products: Successful multi-category brands establish a clear fragrance strategy defining what their brand stands for olfactively, like "fragrances found in nature" or specific adjectives and performance levels. This framework then guides all product development across categories, ensuring consistency while meeting individual category norms, rather than treating each fragrance as a standalone decision.Innovation Requires Balancing Disruption with Consumer Comfort: In established categories like toothpaste or laundry where consumers associate specific scents with efficacy (mint equals clean teeth, certain notes equal clean laundry), innovation must find ways to differentiate through ingredient stories, sourcing narratives, or technical approaches while maintaining the non-negotiable comfort signals consumers expect.

Connect with Cassandra and learn more about strategic fragrance development at: https://www.fragrancesforgood.com/

In this candid 30-minute conversation, James Dillard shares what he wishes he had known before launching a new cosmetic ingredient—and what every formulator, brand founder, and raw material supplier should understand about the realities of innovation in beauty. We explore: Why scientific elegance isn’t enough—and what actually moves decision-makers, the invisible gatekeepers that stall ingredient adoption, how messaging, not just molecule design, shapes commercial success, why the industry’s narrow lens can block cross-industry innovation and the importance of storytelling, positioning, and relentless clarity.Takeaways:• The Unconventional Entry Point: James entered cosmetics through kelp as a zero-input crop, choosing beauty over nutraceuticals due to small-scale manufacturing requirements and high-value products. The beauty industry operates as a warm, tight-knit community that takes care of its own once you earn trust.• Scientific Elegance Isn't Enough: Ingredient developers must translate technical performance into consumer benefits. Buyers want uniqueness that creates lasting customer relationships, not just novel chemistry. Understanding that "unique" might mean a plant-based pump spray mineral sunscreen, not impressive lab results.• Focus on One Use Case, Not Everything: Claiming your ingredient works for everything reads as "good for nothing." Focus on being 10 out of 10 in one specific application to overcome the risk hurdle. Customers will naturally experiment with other uses over time and feed back into your innovation loop.• Expect Long Sales Cycles and Build Trust Slowly: Plan for 12-18 month sales cycles with the first six months just building trust. The industry won't trust you until they see you at conferences twice. This creates challenges for startups needing to show investors concrete commitments beyond handshake deals.• Contract Manufacturers Can Enable Innovation: CMs are uniquely positioned to offer conditional contracts to ingredient startups, solving the chicken-and-egg problem of scaling. This would allow startups to show investor traction while giving CMs exclusive access to novel ingredients that differentiate their offerings.

Whether you're a startup trying to break into the ingredient space or a brand overwhelmed by the influx of “next-gen” actives, this episode offers an unfiltered look at the grind behind the gloss.

Today’s episode dives into the fragrant but often foggy world of fragrance in cosmetics. Joining us is Ashlee Posner, co-founder of Lucent Labs, a fragrance and formulation partner helping brands navigate the space between creativity, compliance, and consumer trust.Together, we explore the tension between artistry and regulation in scent:Why fragrance is often called a “black box” on ingredient labelsWhat brands don’t have to tell you—and whyWhat’s really hiding under the word “fragrance”Whether “cleanwashing” is the new greenwashingWho’s actually responsible for fragrance safety—and what can fall through the cracksAnd what Ashlee thinks of IFRA standards and how they shape the industryWhether you’re a brand founder, product formulator, or just a curious consumer who wants more transparency, this episode will open your eyes—and your nose—to what’s really going on behind the scent.Takeaways:• Fragrance Ingredients Are Completely Hidden from Everyone: The word "fragrance" on any product label can represent 50-300 ingredients that remain undisclosed not just to consumers, but also to the brands using them and even chemists working on projects. This information never leaves the fragrance house, creating zero accountability in a system protected by trade secret laws that made sense 100 years ago but are completely outdated today.• The Fragrance Industry Operates as a Controlled Monopoly: Only 4-6 very large businesses control the entire fragrance supply chain, owning both the formulations and the raw materials. This creates a system where these companies have minimal regulation, can lock in customers without transparency, and have no incentive to change because the current model benefits them financially while leaving brands and consumers in the dark.• Natural Doesn't Equal Safe in Fragrance: Many consumers and brands assume natural fragrance ingredients are automatically safer than synthetic ones, but this isn't necessarily true. Natural essential oils can contain carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and allergens. The key is evaluating each ingredient based on scientific safety data rather than making assumptions based on whether it's natural or synthetic.• Traditional Fragrance Development Is Inefficient and Wasteful: The lack of transparency creates massive inefficiencies where chemists spend months developing formulations only to discover compatibility issues when fragrance is added last. Without knowing what's in the fragrance, they're forced to solve "algebra problems" or use less fragrance, ultimately making inferior products rather than addressing the root compatibility issues.• Transparency Enables Better Products and Faster Development: When fragrance partners share ingredient information upfront, brands can make informed decisions, avoid compatibility issues, get third-party certifications, and develop products faster. Partnership and early collaboration between fragrance developers and formulators leads to better outcomes than the traditional secretive approach.

Guest Name: Coleen KelleyWebpage: https://lucentlaboratories.com/Likedin: (https://www.linkedin.com/company/lucent-laboratories/)

In this episode, we're exploring the rising trend of skinminimalism: the art and science of streamlining your skincare without sacrificing performance. To help break it down, we're joined by Mark Broussard, founder of Desert in Bloom Lab—a formulation and manufacturing expert who's built a career helping brands create high-performing, science-forward products with purpose.Together, we explore:What skinminimalism really means for consumers and brandsThe difference between functional ingredients and "label decoration"Why multi-functional actives and purified plant extracts are keyHow minimalist routines are reshaping product portfoliosAnd what it takes to approach formulation with a "less is more" mindsetKey Takeaways:• Skin Minimalism = Smarter Skincare: It's about fewer ingredients, fewer products, and fewer steps—without sacrificing performance.• The 1% Line Trick: Learning to read ingredient lists helps spot label decoration and identify what's actually doing the work.• Functional vs. Fluff: Functional ingredients like niacinamide and retinol alternatives should be used at optimal concentrations—not just for marketing.• Keep It Simple: A basic, effective routine includes a cleanser, moisturizer, and SPF. That’s it for most skin types.• Layering Caution: Using too many products from different brands can lead to sensitivity and ingredient conflicts.• Product Portfolios Need Streamlining: Brands should evaluate performance and cut portfolio bloat before launching more products.• Formulators Need Restraint: Focus on gold-standard ingredients and avoid ingredient overload.• Less Can Be More Effective: Overuse of actives (e.g. 12% niacinamide) may cause irritation or harm skin instead of helping it.

From "low-impact formulas" to "carbon-neutral packaging," beauty brands love a sustainability claim—but what are those claims really based on?

In this episode of Demystifying Cosmetics, we sit down with Evan Peters, founder of Fairglo, to unpack the promise and pitfalls of Life Cycle Assessments (LCAs) in the cosmetics industry. We go beyond the buzzwords to explore how system boundaries, data gaps, and marketing spin can shape—and sometimes distort—what LCAs actually reveal about a product's environmental footprint.

Evan shares his insights on cradle-to-gate vs. cradle-to-grave approaches, why end-of-life impacts are often left out, and how LCAs can be used to legitimize greenwashing when taken out of context. We also zoom out to consider what LCAs miss entirely—like biodiversity loss, microplastic pollution, and social equity—and why a more holistic toolkit is needed to evaluate sustainability in beauty and personal care.

Takeaways:

LCAs Are Only as Good as Their Boundaries: Deciding how far back (and forward) to track product impact is crucial—and highly variable.

Cradle-to-Gate vs. Cradle-to-Grave: Many brands stop tracking environmental impact once the product leaves the factory, missing key downstream data.

Fairglow’s Value Proposition: The platform democratizes LCAs by reducing cost, increasing transparency, and enabling quick scenario testing.

Green Claims Need Rigor: Publishing LCA data should include third-party verification, especially for comparative or marketing claims.

What LCAs Miss: Emerging sustainability issues—like biodiversity, microplastics, and forced labor—are often outside LCA scope.

Natural ≠ Sustainable: Synthetic ingredients can often have lower carbon footprints than “natural” ones like rose oil.

Data Is Power—If Organized: Brands must digitize operations to track formulations, packaging, and logistics to get an accurate environmental picture.

If you work in product development, sustainability, or just want to understand what’s behind the claims, this 30-minute episode will give you the clarity (and caution) you need to read between the carbon lines.