Paula on cosmetics

What I don't agree with is mostly her opinions on cosmetics (vs her opinions on skincare).  Paula doesn't like eye shadows, lipsticks, or blushes (or really ANY makeup) with shimmer, and she only likes very neutral/natural colors.  She believes a dimensional matte finish is best.  So, she has a very obvious bias--but that bias IS stated in her "explanation of reviews," and it also explains how and why she rates certain products a certain way.  It's important to see what her criteria for a good product are.  She doesn't deny that her bias does influence her rating of a product, and it isn't as though she only gives good ratings to items that have ONLY neutral colors.  As long as the product has good application/quality, she still gives it a good rating unless she thinks there are absolutely no good colors; or will limit her criticism to noting that all the shades are shimmery or too "unnatural" looking.  The only thing to watch out for is that she may rate something GOOD (a very good rating, symbol:  a smiley face) but may not make it a "Paula's Pick" (best rating, symbol:  check mark + smiley face) if the shade range doesn't include ANY or very very few matte options, so if you don't mind, or WANT shimmer, then you need to make sure to also look at her "smiley face" ratings as well as the Paula's Picks.

She DOES have her own line of skincare products (which is somewhat a point against her) but she also highly recommends a ton of products from other brands, so she definitely doesn't exclusively promote her own line, which I think is a major point in her favor.  (And this is only anecdotal evidence, but I've tried a substantial amount of her products and have been very satisfied with the results.  Nothing too dramatic, since my skin is basically normal-to-moderately oily with occasional breakouts; my biggest concern is blackheads on my nose (so I don't have any serious conditions), but overall my skin has looked and felt better since I started using her line.)

She also doesn't believe that high-end cosmetics are in any way better than drugstore ones (or rather, that they're all basically the same and there are good products in both areas, so why spend more when you don't have to?). There, I think, she is somewhat wrong.   I compared a L'Oreal Infallible e/s with an Armani ETK one, and though the texture, quality, and application was the same, the color of the Armani had a lot more depth/complexity, and had more dimension (more unique, with some of that color-changing quality).  Oddly enough it wasn't really the quality of the powder itself though, just the color.  I found somewhat the same thing with lipsticks...color, more than application, was the difference.  Finding a the perfect shade, with the perfect amount of opaqueness or sheerness, with the right texture and application, and the best wear and feel, sometimes requires more options than are available in the drugstore (though I think the drugstore lines have been improving lately, and might soon be enough).  And in some cases, I've found that a high-end lipstick feels a bit more creamy/luxurious, and so has a better texture and feel. (Of course, high-end brands usually also look nicer and more luxurious packaging-wise; but that's not as important to me).  I am more willing to spend on makeup than on skincare.

The difference, for me, with skincare, is that I've also tried some high-end moisturizers (La Mer and Koh Gen Do, for example) and haven't found that the expensive ones are any better.  If anything, the fragrance in the La Mer ones just made my nose itch and my skin stayed basically the same.  I tried the La Mer ones before I even looked at Paula's reviews, and just wasn't impressed (and I really, REALLY wished/wanted to be impressed; I was kinda hoping these would be HG material)!  Again, only anecdotal evidence.

Skincare Myths and Gimmicks

I really, REALLY hate the myth that your skin can "get used to" a product.  I do believe that you may gradually build up a tolerance to certain ingredients (over years) but I don't think it's going to just stop working after a few months.  So maybe in a few years, you may want to find a product with a higher concentration of ingredients that work well for you.
What I really think is that somebody in marketing made this up to increase sales.  Or lots of people at the counters made it up to "explain" why a product "stopped" working, to make more sales.  It's just a selling ploy.

I don't believe a "BB cream" is really anything more than a new name for a tinted moisturizer (usually with SPF)?  All of the ones I’ve seen claim to brighten, hydrate, protect, prime, etc…all of which is what a tinted moisturizer does as well.  It isn't that I want companies to stop producing them, or creating new products or TMs (especially since the ones I've seen have been generally pretty good) it just generally bothers me that they felt the need to call them “BB creams” instead of tinted moisturizer, to capitalize on the craze.  It feels like another marketing gimmick.  I suppose as long as it's a good product, I shouldn't care.
This is a comment I made on John Su's blog, The Triple Helix Liasion, as LadyIsla.  Sidenote, John's blog is incredible! (edit: he's stopped posting...):
Calling these products “BB Creams” is just creating another needless category of products, like Eye creams, Neck creams, etc. Some Western companies are bringing out their own versions of BB Creams now, and if they manage to make another good tinted moisturizer, that’s great; but I am pretty much fed up with the endless marketing ploys, just slapping new names on a slightly different product. I do admit, it is nice that the items that are named “BB Creams” do tend to include an SPF and moisturizer, but it’s still annoying to me.

Link:  http://thetriplehelixliaison.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/do-you-think-asian-brands-or-products-marketed-toward-the-asian-community-are-better-than-their-western-counterparts-v-0-10/