Monday, March 23, 2009

Deva addresses the 'cone


At Naturally Curly, a representative from Deva has disclosed that the reason Deva has used amodimethicone lo these many years is because it couldn't find "a botanical replacement." Effective 2009, however, all conditioning products put out by the company will be 'cone-free.

Nice. Good news. I'd like to be happy, but there's something just not right about this situation. I couldn't address my misgivings on the discussion boards because I don't want to be the voice of negativity there, but I don't mind telling you here, at my blog, that I am suspicious of this sudden visibility of Deva. They have been untouchable and rather uncommunicative for years. And now, without warning, they are chatting up the curly community. Call me a curmudgeon, but it feels disingenuous. (Yes, I know that sounds strange from me, given my plea to Lorraine to open up about why she puts silicones in her conditioners. But I don't know... I just find this unprecedented transparency uncharacteristic and therefore, odd.)

I mean, here's a company that sprung up shortly after Lorraine Massey published her book. With no explanation or apology, it sold conditioners containing the very same ingredient Curly Girl advised us to avoid. The company also made shampoos, and although Deva was very keen on shouting from the rooftops about the absence of sulfates in those shampoos, it was odd that they had shampoos at all, if the advice in the book was to hold true. (Well, I take that back. The book says wavy-haired people might need the occasional shampoo. Were the shampoos, then, directed at wavies? Doesn't seem that way.)

My next beef: Why put out a product in the first place that doesn't conform to your very public philosophy? Why not wait until you *can* find the "botanical replacement"? Could they not wait because maybe there was too much money to be made in the interim? I was among the people who bought a bunch of Deva products the moment I learned Massey had created a line of them. I assumed, as surely many other unsuspecting curlies did, that the conditioner would not have silicones, given who its inventor was. But alas, the 'cones were there -- and just happened to have needed the "low poo" to remove them. Convenient, no?

And lastly, why the extended silence? Did the questioning on the part of the curly community just finally become too loud to ignore? Perhaps it was our incessant haranguing that eventually made it impossible for Deva to keep selling us a product that contradicted its founder's beliefs about acceptable hair product ingredients. If so, good for the curly community! It pays to be tenacious.

I will try to take Deva at its word and accept this new, friendly, unsiliconed face it wants to present to the world. But I'm watching you, Deva. I'm watching you.

[Added one day later: Naturally Curly, adding to the suspicious nature of all of this, removed that post and instead quoted the representative in a different post. I have updated the link above -- look for Gretchen's post on page two of that thread.]

12 comments:

Jennifer said...

You're definitely not alone in your uneasiness. The whole thing is very strange and there was something about the tone of that message that bugged me. I guess we'll have to wait and see on this one!

Sage Vivant said...

Jennifer, thanks for your comment! I'm glad others share my reluctance to embrace Deva's sudden largesse and openness with unmitigated joy. We will indeed wait and see....

Sarah S said...

I haven't personally tried ALL of the products, mainly because I think I have siliconophobia. :)

It's nice that they're giving silicones the boot, but I do agree that they could have been a bit more open. :/

Also, I'm just wondering if the link in this blogpost is not working for everyone or just me?

Susan said...

All I can think of is Roz in Monsters Inc. "I'm watching you, Wazowski. Always watching. Always."

We just have to change it to Deva.

I am totally with you on this one.

Annice said...

It looks like the thread has been deleted from nc.com. I can't find it....???

Sage Vivant said...

Darn it! NC.com *did* remove the post! Grrr. But one of the moderator's quoted the Deva rep in another post, so I've now linked to that one. Thanks for letting me know the original link wasn't working.

Deena said...

This feels so Big Brother to me, NC.com removing that specific post...

And I agree! We are curly, Deva, not stupid!

Amy said...

Do you have any idea why nc removed the post? This seems like information they would want people to have even if it is a little too late.

Sage Vivant said...

Amy, I actually think it was a simple case of NC trying to put it where it should have been in the first place. The Deva rep posted in the "We'd like to get to know you" section for newbies and let's face it, that's a dumb place for the post. Rather than asking her to repost elsewhere, they just quoted the rep in the more visible (and appropriately placed) thread. Still, though, you'd think they'd know better than to delete a post so blithely, though.... Leaves us all scratching our heads and conjuring up conspiracy theories!

Alice said...

Not alone. I haven't tried all their products but I've been REALLY hesitant to buy another jar of Heaven in Hair because this just SMELLS fishy.

"My next beef: Why put out a product in the first place that doesn't conform to your very public philosophy? Why not wait until you *can* find the "botanical replacement"? Could they not wait because maybe there was too much money to be made in the interim?"
Add the fact that their products are RIDICULOUSLY expensive makes this MORE iffy. Ok, you're only REPLACING the cone because we COMPLAINED. What if everyone kept quiet? Would they have said anything? It seems like they just want a home in our wallet. :(

Sage Vivant said...

Yes, Alice, I share your views. Deva is very profit-driven (And why not? This is America, where we regard profit with awe and respect, no matter how it was generated) and knew there would be an eager market for its products.

But you know what else? I don't think Lorraine or anybody at the company knows enough about the science of hair products to defend what they've created! I mean, why be so silent all these years? If the company made a conscious decision to put amodimethicone in its products because it determined that it was actually an "okay" silicone, then TELL us why it's okay. To me, they never made this determination and so they can't defend themselves.

O Monstro do Pântano said...

It's great to see that I'm not alone about these thoughts (and products)!
I actually don't buy at all this "answer" - why would they bother finding a "botanical replacement" for the silicone when their conditioner is loaded with chemicals - lots of parabens?! Having read CG's book, I bought O.C. as soon as it was avaliable in my country, and what a dissapointment when I found the dreaded substance (as I've learned from ms. Massey)in the ingredients list... Talk about biased standards! I tried to complain, only to find out I had no one to complain. I felt such a fool! (Sorry for my english!)