Grey market and allergy testing - hairdressing's ongoing issues

In an industry that always looks on the positive side and likes to see the best in every situation; hairdressing has a couple of ongoing issues that are its thorns in the side.

Both the grey market and the grey area over allergy testing are the problems that won't go away as HJ news editor Matthew Batham explains.

Grey Market

There are certain issues that will never go away in this industry - and one of these is the grey market.

Boots, it seems, is still resolute in its decision not to take professional lines, including Paul Mitchell, off the selves of their flagship stores.

What you don't often get where this issue is concerned, is the general public - ie clients - responding with outrage to the sight of professional products on the shelves of a high street retailer.

But Boots has received at least one strident call for them to be removed from a Norwich customer.

The lady concerned was kind enough to copy us in on the letter in which she tells Boots' executive chairman:

"As a customer of Paul Mitchell products and, indeed Boots, I am writing to express my contempt at boots.com and a number of Boots outlets selling Paul Mitchell haircare products".

"I wonder what the feeling would be at Boots if a retailers was acquiring products under the Boots brand through unauthorised channels for retail sale?" asked the irate customer.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Skin Testing

Another issue that won't go away in a hurry is that of skin sensitivity testing prior to applying colour.

The danger of not doing so was brought to light recently with the publicised case of a young woman who suffered an allergic reaction to a home dye kit.

The manufacturer concerned claimed there were clear instructions on the packet which included the need for an allergy test.

While there were no hairdressers involved in this situation, there is a lesson to be learned in terms of reading the small print.

A salon owner called me recently to warn other hairdressers to ensure their insurance policies still covered them for legal action taken against them if they hadn't followed manufacturer instructions when dealing with a colour client.

The hairdresser concerned claimed to have almost been caught out back in the early 1990s when a client asked for colour on the basis that she had had it many times before with no adverse reaction - only to suffer a sever reaction when colour was applied.

Because the hairdresser had applied the colour with no sensitivity test, he wasn't covered by his insurance.

Fortunately for the hairdresser concerned, the client's claim against the salon was proved to be unfounded - but it could have proved disastrous.