| Overall Rating | No Ratings |
In an article dated April 23, 2009, Chicago Sun-Times writer Amanda Barrett suggests to readers to use an eye cream or an eye serum to turn back time, instead of using Botox. However, in her list of “tried and tested” eye creams, she only seems to mention the overpriced items that are made by large, affluent brands. In an article that drew comments (which I will post later) from readers who argue the writer should do her homework, she seemed to favor only high-ticket eye creams. I am a firm believe that you get what you pay for in many aspects of life, but in this scenario, I am on the side of the readers who dissent her opinions as to which eye creams are best.
Here is a comment submitted by one reader:
If you read the article, you read that the author expected some “howls” after readers saw the prices of the products she mentioned, which included a $400 jar of wrinkle cream that “lasts for a year.” In a world of tricky marketing tactics that can mislead consumers, it’s hard to agree with the author, who obviously didn’t do much research in her report. She doesn’t say anything about ingredients, clinical studies, or where the products are made, either. She simply says “Here are some products that I’ve liked and are effective.” My question, which hopefully she answers in part two (coming soon) is - How did she try so many products for the recommended application time of one month? I find it hard to believe she has tried all of those products.
At any rate, it’s easy to figure out Amanda has very expensive taste. There was an eye cream made with caviar, an eye cream made by Givenchy, and a product that cost $400.