ELBLOGDEFORMACION

The 10-Year-Old Girl Inside All Of Us Is Weeping At Sale Of Bonne Bell’s Lip Smacker

There are few things that scream mid-90s pre-teen more than the sugary taste of Dr. Pepper Lip Smacker lip gloss. Future generations may not have the chance to experience the rush of shiny sweetness as iconic youth cosmetic brand Bonne Bell is closing up shop and selling itself to a California company.

The Plain Dealer reports that Bonne Bell Co. is closing all manufacturing and distribution operations at a facility in Ohio after the company sold a significant portion of its business.

While the death of Bonne Bell no doubt makes the 10-year-old in all of us weep, the company isn’t exactly going away forever.

Aspire Brands, which owns the youth-based brands, has entered into an agreement in which California-based Markwins International – the owner of brands Wet ‘n Wild and Physicians Formula – will acquire the Bonne Bell and Lip Smacker brands.

It’s unclear just what Markwins plans to do with the celebrated Bonne Bell brands, but officials with the shuttering company appear to have high hopes.

“Markwins has a proven track record of creating excitement and bringing innovation to the cosmetic category,” Jess “Buddy” Bell, Jr., founder of Aspire Brands says in a statement. “They will bring the same excitement and innovation to the Lip Smacker and Bonne Bell brands. I am excited about the future of the Lip Smacker and Bonne Bell brands under Markwins ownership.”

For the sake of our future children and theirs, here’s to hoping that we’ll continue to see flavors like Red Raspberry, Candy Cane, Strawberry, Root Beer Float, Birthday Cake, and Dr. Pepper gracing the cosmetic shelves of the local drug store for years to come.

The Bonne Bell Co. is closing and employees will be laid off [The Plain Dealer]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Hotel Rates Predicted To Go Up Again This Year After A Pricy 2014

(Bill Binns)

That sting you felt in your wallet after staying at a hotel wasn’t a phantom pain: Room rates at hotels in the United States were at their highest level in 2014, with experts predicting that the price surge isn’t going to settle down this year.

Hotel rates were up 4.6% to $115 on average in 2014, according to a new report by hospitality research firm STR Inc. (via the Chicago Tribune). And hotels are raking it in because of it, with the average revenue collected by hotels per room jumped 8.3% to a high of $74.

Despite the prices, we’re still willing to get a room at the inn, with average occupancy rising 3.6% to 64.4%.

The priciest place to stay was — no shocker, here — New York City, where guests shelled out an average of $263 per night. San Francisco and Miami came next at $207 and $185 per night, respectively.

The fun doesn’t stop there, folks — while you’re down, hotels figure they might as well kick you, as industry experts say they expect hotels to add some more extra fees and surcharges. And we’ll have to just deal with it, because hotels can always find someone else willing to pay.

“Hotels have pricing power now and they will exercise that,” said Bjorn Hanson, dean of New York University’s Preston Robert Tisch Center for Hospitality, Tourism and Sports Management.

And start saving those pennies for vacation: By the end of this year, industry analysts say we’ll be facing a 5.2% increase on room rates.

Hotel rates reach new record; more guest fees to come [Chicago Tribune]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

GM Compensation Fund: Approved Death, Injury Claims Likely To Rise Following Onslaught Of New Submissions

(Louis Abate)

Although the deadline for submissions to the General Motors ignition switch victims’ compensation fund has come and gone, officials with the program say the number of approved death and injury claims will likely rise for several more months.

Reuters reports that the number of deaths deemed eligible for composition under the fund increased by one to 51 from last week, while the number of approved injury claims increased by two to a total of 77.

Camille Biros, deputy administrator for the fund, tells Reuters that the number of approved claims will “absolutely” rise as claims are processed in the coming weeks.

As of Sunday, the fund had received 4,180 claims, up from the 3,068 that had been received by January 32.

Additionally, Biros anticipates the number of received claims to rise, as the program will accept any submissions that have a time stamp before the January 31 deadline, but have not yet been received by the fund.

Biros says the fund will likely be processing claims until the end of spring.

Officials with GM previously said they expect to spend $400 million on claims, but that the figure could rise as high as $600 million.

The claimants are not obligated to accept the compensation, but if they do take the money they give up their rights to pursue legal action against GM with regard to the ignition defect.

The compensation program covers approximately 1.6 million model-year 2003-2007 recalled vehicles manufactured with an ignition switch defect and approximately 1 million model year 2008-2011 recalled vehicles that may have been repaired with a recalled ignition switch.

Deaths linked to defective GM switch expected to rise-fund official [Reuters]

by Ashlee Kieler via Consumerist

Sam’s Club Put Money-Back Guarantee On Booze Labels, Wouldn’t Honor It

(Ryan)

When a product says “Money-Back Guarantee” on the label, it’s not out of line to assume that you’ll get your money back if you don’t like it, right? That’s what one Sam’s Club customer thought when he bought some seriously subpar house-brand vodka at the liquor store at his local Sam’s Club. The problem: the store, corporate, and the distillery disagreed about who should honor that guarantee.

The vodka was Member’s Mark brand, the brand for generic products at Sam’s Club stores. You would think that before putting a money-back satisfaction guarantee on the label, the company would figure out who’s responsible for honoring it. Apparently, no one has ever complained about this vodka, which is difficult to believe. The customer, who eventually contacted CBS Sacramento’s Kurtis Ming, said that he found the drink “sour” and flavorless, which is a bad combination.

He brought it back to the store, which is how such a guarantee from a store brand should work. Sam’s Club employees told him that it’s illegal to accept returns of alcoholic beverages. (It isn’t.) The store sent him to corporate, and company representatives said that they would put him in touch with the distillery. They didn’t.

It took contacting the local CBS affiliate to force Sam’s Club to actually do anything about the subpar bottle. They accepted it back and gave the customer an extra $25 gift card, which was very nice.

He took his refund over to Costco’s liquor store to buy some vodka from their house brand, Kirkland.

Call Kurtis: Sam’s Club Wouldn’t Stand By Vodka Money-Back Guarantee [CBS Sacramento]

by Laura Northrup via Consumerist

You’re Just Going To Have To Guess The Phone Number Of This Hooters If You Want To Order Wings

Just start trying any numbers you can think of. (@Cbuehrle on Instagram with permission)

It doesn’t matter whether Consumerist friend Chris was hungry for some Hooters wings last night or not. Because the thing is, Chris isn’t a mind reader, which is apparently what whoever composed the restaurant’s sign must think.

Passing by the Chicago Hooters last night on a snowy Super Bowl evening with his girlfriend, Chris found himself confounded by the sign’s puzzling layout and absence of information.

Super Order? Bowl Wings? Phone Number. Yes, Phone Number. Those are useful.

“Business Lesson 101: On the biggest day of the year for chicken wings, make it easy for people. Maybe…” the observant and discerning Chris writes in the caption.

But isn’t guessing random telephone numbers and asking for some wings just more fun?

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist

Girl Scouts Charging More Per Box Of Cookies In Some Areas Because They Know You Can’t Resist

(Chris Rief aka Spodie Odie)

Let’s face it: You want those Girl Scout cookies. Those Girl Scout cookies are going to be yours, and there’s nothing anyone can do to keep you from them. That’s why some cities might be seeing price hikes on Thin Mints and Samoas this year, as certain local councils adjust their prices for inflation. Because they can.

Secure in the knowledge that the general public is always jonesing for cookies and their position as purveyors of said revered items, Girl Scout councils in some cities are charging more for their cookies this year, reports the Wall Street Journal.

Because it’s up to each local council to decide how much to charge per box, prices could vary depending on how far you’re willing to drive: Cookie inflation is coming to Southern California, for example, where councils in San Diego, Orange County and Greater Los Angeles have hiked the price from $4 to $5, after San Francisco’s council did so.

It’s the first time prices have gone up in those areas in a decade, with councils citing operating costs and other expenses going up each year. But hey, say the Girl Scouts of Orange County, $5 a box is still a bargain, especially compared to the $5.84 they could be charging if cookie prices had advanced apace with inflation.

In the South, some councils are now moving from $3.50 to $4 per box, while Girl Scouts of Greater New York are staying firm at $4 per box.

But let’s face it — any grumbling and groaning you might be doing will soon be replaced by the rumbling in your stomach that means it’s cookie time. And the Girl Scouts know you’ll pay it anyway because you don’t know any better.

“Our research shows that many customers don’t know what they pay per box now,” the Los Angeles council’s website says. “People understand that costs go up over time.”

$5 Thin Mints? The Changing Economics of Girl Scout Cookies [Wall Street Journal]

by Mary Beth Quirk via Consumerist