Lisa Frank's Side of the Story - Glamour Dolls Makeup x Lisa Frank PART 2| Behind the Controversy
-
Not SyncedGlamour Dolls failed to comply with
-
Not Syncedthose obligations when it engaged in a
-
Not Syncedfailed online advertising campaign on
-
Not SyncedKickstarter, using LFI, Lisa Frank's brand
-
Not Syncedwithout LFI's approval and then refused to
-
Not Syncedpay royalties due when LFI properly
-
Not Syncedterminated the party's contracts as a
-
Not Syncedresult of Glamour Dolls' misconduct.
-
Not SyncedWait a minute. She didn't know about the
-
Not SyncedKickstarter? Hello my friend, I will
-
Not Syncedhonestly tell you that until late last
-
Not Syncednight, I did not think that I was filming
-
Not Synceda video about Lisa Frank and Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls today. I actually had a full video
-
Not Syncedplanned about preservative-free cosmetics
-
Not Syncedand how freaking ridiculous and dangerous
-
Not Syncedpreservative-free cosmetics are. But then
-
Not SyncedI got a very interesting comment from a
-
Not Syncedperson named "Fake Goth Girl." Okay. I get
-
Not Synceda link. The link is to a court document
-
Not Syncedthat I had not previously had access to.
-
Not SyncedThis document is Lisa Frank's point of
-
Not Syncedview. It is her counter suit. This is Lisa
-
Not SyncedFrank saying "Glamour Dolls is the bad
-
Not Syncedguy, not me. I didn't do anything wrong -
-
Not Syncedthey're the ones that did something
-
Not Syncedwrong." So in today's video, I want to go
-
Not Syncedover Lisa's side of things - what she says
-
Not Syncedin the court documents is the reason why
-
Not Syncedshe pulled out of her contract with
-
Not SyncedGlamour Dolls that left backers of the
-
Not SyncedKickstarter out all of their money - over
-
Not Synced$400,000 of their money, including my
-
Not Syncedmoney. My $75? Gone. If you have no idea
-
Not Syncedwhat I'm talking about, that's because
-
Not Syncedthis is Part 2. I strongly strongly
-
Not Syncedsuggest you please watch Part 1 of this.
-
Not SyncedIt will be linked below. It will be up in
-
Not Synceda card. It is the background for this
-
Not Syncedvideo - this video might not make sense
-
Not Syncedif you don't watch that one first. If you
-
Not Synceddon't feel like you have time for an hour
-
Not Syncedand a half long video, what you can do is
-
Not Syncedyou can scrub through the timestamps, kind
-
Not Syncedof get the idea of what it is. You can
-
Not Syncedalso play it on 1.5 speed if you want to.
-
Not SyncedAnd I will tell you that the average
-
Not Syncedamount of watch time on that video for a
-
Not Syncedsingle view is about 40 minutes. That has
-
Not Syncedliterally never happened on my channel.
-
Not SyncedThis is a story that I think you want to
-
Not Syncedhear and and that I think that you are
-
Not Syncedgoing to be engaged in if you choose to.
-
Not SyncedThat being said, we are starting at Part
-
Not Synced2. I'm assuming at this point that you
-
Not Syncedhave seen that video and that you have
-
Not Syncedthat background knowledge. And also,
-
Not Syncedside note, I mentioned this at the end of
-
Not Syncedthe video, but there's probably about 40
-
Not Syncedcomments mentioning Bailey Sarian's video
-
Not Syncedon Lisa Frank, based on the Jezebel
-
Not Syncedarticle that we talked about in the first
-
Not Syncedpart of this. Yes, I am fully aware of
-
Not SyncedBailey's video. I have met Bailey. I have
-
Not Syncedcollaborated with Bailey. Bailey did a
-
Not Syncedfantastic job on that video. That video is
-
Not Syncedmore about Lisa Frank as a person, so if
-
Not Syncedyou want even more context for the story,
-
Not SyncedI highly recommend you go watch Bailey's
-
Not Syncedvideo as well. What we're gonna do with
-
Not Syncedthis part is I'm actually gonna put Lisa
-
Not SyncedFrank's lawsuit on the side of me so if
-
Not Syncedyou are fluent in Legalese, you can follow
-
Not Syncedalong and see the match up of what I'm
-
Not Syncedsaying. Surprisingly, a lot of is is
-
Not Syncedpretty clear cut and there isn't a ton of
-
Not Syncedlawyer language in this that was difficult
-
Not Syncedto understand. So if you would like to
-
Not Syncedread along, it is going to be next to me
-
Not Syncedover here. Here we go. So this is what
-
Not SyncedLisa says. This is her side of things.
-
Not SyncedThis is all about the deal in 2016, the
-
Not Syncedoriginal deal that she had. Lisa says they
-
Not Syncedstruck the deal in June of 2016 that would
-
Not Syncedend on December 31st of 2017 - that
-
Not Syncedmatches up with Glamour Dolls' side, so
-
Not SyncedI'm assuming there's legal contracts, so
-
Not Syncedthere's evidence of this. So Glamour Dolls
-
Not Syncedin that original contract, agreed to pay
-
Not SyncedLisa Frank 15% royalty on the net sales
-
Not Syncedof the products made under the deal, with
-
Not Synceda minimum payment of $100,000 for the
-
Not Syncedduration of the agreement, including a
-
Not Synced$25,000 advance. Glamour Dolls promised to
-
Not Synceddo their best, to make, sell, promote, and
-
Not Syncedmarket the products to get as many sales
-
Not Syncedas possible, always focusing on high
-
Not Syncedquality. Now this part is very very
-
Not Syncedimportant because this is really the root
-
Not Syncedof why everything went wrong. They had to
-
Not Syncedget Lisa Frank's approval on literally
-
Not Syncedeverything, from the design concepts to
-
Not Syncedthe artwork, to the molds for production,
-
Not Syncedto the final product samples before going
-
Not Syncedinto production. Lisa Frank had the right
-
Not Syncedto approve or reject the elements and
-
Not SyncedGlamour Dolls had to follow Lisa Frank's
-
Not Synceddirections on quality standards. Now
-
Not Syncedlisten to this because this is part of the
-
Not Syncedreason why things were taking so long. So,
-
Not Syncedfor designs, Glamour Dolls had to wait up
-
Not Syncedto 10 business days - that's about two
-
Not Syncedweeks or so - for Lisa Frank to approve
-
Not Syncedor reject anything that they submitted to
-
Not Syncedher. If Lisa didn't respond in time,
-
Not SyncedGlamour Dolls was allowed to ask after
-
Not Syncedthose 10 business days, "Hey, what's going
-
Not Syncedon? I need a full description of why you
-
Not Syncedreject this or I need an approval." But
-
Not Syncedthis is the kicker! Because even after
-
Not Syncedapproval, and remember, this is according
-
Not Syncedto Lisa herself, Lisa could stop the
-
Not Syncedproduction and distribution of the
-
Not Syncedproducts if they didn't meet her quality
-
Not Syncedstandards. That's a subjective thing -
-
Not Syncedthat is not something that can be
-
Not Syncedmeasured. Lisa can just for any reason,
-
Not Syncedjust say "This doesn't meet my quality
-
Not Syncedstandards" and stop production at any
-
Not Syncedpoint. And it wasn't just for production
-
Not Syncedof product. It also had to do with
-
Not Syncedadvertising, packaging, display methods,
-
Not Syncedpress releases - anything using Lisa Frank
-
Not Syncedartwork - Glamour Dolls had to run this by
-
Not SyncedLisa. They had to wait for those 10
-
Not Syncedbusiness days and then if she didn't
-
Not Syncedrespond in 10 business days, then they had
-
Not Syncedto poke her about it and be like "Dude,
-
Not Syncedwhat's going on?" They had to keep poking
-
Not Syncedher if she didn't respond after those 10
-
Not Syncedbusiness days. So remember this original
-
Not Syncedcontract that I personally believe was to
-
Not Syncedcreate the blush, the highlighter, and the
-
Not Syncedtwo brushes - that contract was ending
-
Not Syncedin December. But remember the Kickstarter
-
Not Syncedhad started in February. We're now in
-
Not SyncedDecember. February - they promised backers
-
Not Synced10 additional products beyond these four
-
Not Syncedthat had already been funded. Lisa's
-
Not Syncedcontract is about to end, so they need to
-
Not Syncedstart a new contract. This is what Lisa
-
Not Syncedsays was in the new contract: same 15%
-
Not Syncedroyalty on the net sales of the products
-
Not Syncedplus 20% royalty on sales made directly to
-
Not Syncedretail customers. So this would be if
-
Not Syncedpeople bought it off of Ipsy's marketplace
-
Not Syncedor if people bought it from Hot Topic,
-
Not Syncedor at one point they were talking to
-
Not SyncedWalmart - any of those, Lisa would get a
-
Not Synced20% royalty off of. Beyond that, in the
-
Not Syncedfirst contract, Lisa asked for at least
-
Not Synced$100,000 for her fees. In the new
-
Not Syncedcontract, Lisa upped that to $500,000.
-
Not SyncedThat included an up front payment of
-
Not Synced$125,000 that needed to be paid when the
-
Not Syncedcontract was signed. Three more payments
-
Not Syncedwould be paid throughout the year to total
-
Not Syncedthat $500,000. The rules for making the
-
Not Syncedproducts were pretty much the same as the
-
Not Syncedfirst contract. All of the levels of "you
-
Not Syncedneed to send it to Lisa and she needs to
-
Not Syncedapprove it" and then the 10 business days
-
Not Synced- all of that was pretty much the same.
-
Not SyncedThe only thing that changed, which we'll
-
Not Syncedfind out more about in just a minute, is
-
Not Syncedthat they did not have to get pre-shipment
-
Not Syncedapproval. So Lisa has already approved
-
Not Syncedthe final draft of the product, they have
-
Not Syncedput that into production, they now have
-
Not Syncedthe products - they've got thousands and
-
Not Syncedthousands of these products - they don't
-
Not Syncedhave to send those products to Lisa for
-
Not Syncedapproval anymore. But there is a clause -
-
Not Syncedbecause of course there is - if there were
-
Not Syncedany production problems, if after all of
-
Not Syncedthese things were sent out and Lisa
-
Not Synceddecided that there was a production
-
Not Syncedproblem, there was something she didn't
-
Not Syncedlike, Glamour Dolls would have to pay
-
Not Synceddamages for that. What would those
-
Not Synceddamages be? I have no idea, it's not in
-
Not Syncedhere. Another thing that's very important
-
Not Syncedin Lisa's side of the story is that they
-
Not Syncedsaid that Lisa could end the deal
-
Not Syncedimmediately if Glamour Dolls broke certain
-
Not Syncedrules, like not following the approval
-
Not Syncedprocess or having production issues 3
-
Not Syncedtimes. If Lisa decided that she was
-
Not Syncedgoing to terminate the agreement, Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls had to not only stop making
-
Not Syncedproducts, they had to stop selling their
-
Not Syncedexisting products. Then they had to turn
-
Not Syncedover the rights to the artwork. Anything
-
Not Syncedthat Lisa had created for Glamour Dolls
-
Not Syncedwould now be owned by Lisa. And you might
-
Not Syncedbe seeing where this might be going -
-
Not Syncedmaybe if you watched part 1. Because she
-
Not Synceddid that. That happened. In context. you
-
Not Syncedhave to remember that this is 3 months
-
Not Syncedpast the date that Glamour Dolls had
-
Not Syncedpromised products would be done and
-
Not Syncedshipped to backers. So they are deep deep
-
Not Syncedin it now. They are sending out that
-
Not Synceddigital Christmas card, where people can
-
Not Syncedsend it to their families, saying "Hey,
-
Not Syncedyou know, you might be getting some Lisa
-
Not SyncedFrank products that I bought for you at
-
Not Syncedsome point. This is what's coming." That's
-
Not Syncedwhere we're at. A lot of the backers are
-
Not Syncedalready irritated by this point. From
-
Not SyncedLisa's side, she says in her court
-
Not Synceddocuments that LFI, or Lisa Frank
-
Not SyncedIncorporated, fully performed its
-
Not Syncedobligations under the license agreements -
-
Not SyncedI do believe Glamour Dolls would argue
-
Not Syncedagainst that. They say specifically
-
Not SyncedGlamour Dolls repeatedly failed to meet
-
Not Syncedtheir responsibilities under the agreemnts
-
Not Syncedthey had with Lisa Frank. This is how Lisa
-
Not Syncedsays Glamour Dolls messed up. And
-
Not Syncedremember, she's going to have to prove
-
Not Syncedthis for her counter suit. This is what
-
Not Syncedshe says - she says they didn't put in
-
Not Syncedenough effort to produce, distribute,
-
Not Syncedpromote, and sell the products that they
-
Not Syncedwere supposed to. She says that they
-
Not Synceddidn't aim to sell as many high quality
-
Not Syncedproducts as they could, that they had
-
Not Syncedsigned off in their contract. She says
that -
Not Syncedthey use Lisa Frank artwork in ads and
-
Not Syncedpackaging without getting approval first,
-
Not Syncedwhich was against their rules of the
-
Not Syncedcontract. She says Glamour Dolls was late
-
Not Syncedin making and delivering the products,
-
Not Syncedwhich they were. She says that Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls didn't follow the agreed upon
-
Not Syncedprocess for getting products inspected
-
Not Syncedand approved, that they didn't pay the
-
Not Syncedroyalties and the minimum amounts that
-
Not Syncedthey were supposed to, and that they used
-
Not Syncedthe Kickstarter to sell products without
-
Not Syncedgetting the okay from Lisa Frank
-
Not SyncedIncorporated, which was of course not
-
Not Syncedallowed. Finally, they say that Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls promised products to backers and
-
Not Syncedthen never shipped them out, which is
-
Not Syncedtrue. But the question is: why didn't they
-
Not Syncedship them out? What was stopping them
-
Not Syncedfrom doing it? Was it a fault of Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls or was it a fault of Lisa? We're
-
Not Syncedstill in Lisa's perspective, so let's
-
Not Syncedfollow that. Lisa says that even through
-
Not Syncedall of the things that I just listed - the
-
Not Syncedthings that are in Lisa's filing - she
-
Not Syncedcontinued to try to work with Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls to make things work. She says she
-
Not Synceddid this only because she felt like, if
-
Not Syncedshe didn't continue with Glamour Dolls and
-
Not Syncedsee this through and get the backers what
-
Not Syncedthey ordered, that it would damage Lisa
-
Not SyncedFrank. It would damage her and her brand.
-
Not SyncedIt wasn't about making sure that people
-
Not Syncedgot what they paid for, it was about the
-
Not Synceddamage it would cause to her reputation
-
Not Syncedand her brand's reputation. She says in
-
Not Syncedher statement that, you know, that Glamour
-
Not SyncedDolls had made all these promises and
-
Not Syncedthey failed to go through on them, that
-
Not Syncedthey even said that they were shipping
-
Not Syncedthings to people that they never shipped
-
Not Syncedto them, which I don't know if it's
-
Not Syncedactually true. Because from what I've
-
Not Syncedseen, anybody that was supposed to get
-
Not Syncedthe eyeshadow and the bronzer and the
-
Not Syncedpostcard did get those things. There is
-
Not Syncedsome question, at least in the comments
-
Not Syncedunderneath my last video of whether people
-
Not Syncedwho ordered the brush separately, whether
-
Not Syncedthey actually got their brush. So maybe
-
Not Syncedthat's what Lisa is talking about. Lisa
-
Not Syncedsays that Glamour Dolls ignored rules
-
Not Syncedthat they had to follow to get Lisa's
-
Not Syncedapproval before making anything. She says
-
Not Syncedthat they attempted to make or change
-
Not Syncedproducts without talking to her first.
-
Not SyncedAnd also that they didn't give her the
-
Not Syncedsamples required that she needed to
-
Not Syncedreview. The perspective here is that
-
Not Syncedbecause of those failures, people started
-
Not Syncedblaming Lisa Frank and not Glamour Dolls,
-
Not Syncedwhere she's saying it wasn't her fault,
-
Not Syncedit was Glamour Dolls' fault. She said that
-
Not Syncedpeople began to think that Lisa Frank was
-
Not Syncedscamming
- Title:
- Lisa Frank's Side of the Story - Glamour Dolls Makeup x Lisa Frank PART 2| Behind the Controversy
- Description:
-
- Video Language:
- English
- Team:
- Captions Requested
- Duration:
- 29:58
Show all