Talk:Ephemeral (company)

Weak sources - Churnalism

Many of these sources are placed pieces. That is - a freelance writer paid by a company that wants to promote itself writes a favorable article about the company and submits it to publications like Forbes as a voluntary submission. If the publisher finds it remotely interesting, they'll publish it on their website as clickbait to increase their online advertising revenue. It's a time-tested marketing maneuver and results in a bunch of crap that this paid wiki writer is passing off as reliable sources.

If you have doubts, notice that the Forbes article features photos from Sarah Rocco who lists Ephemeral as one of her clients [1] The company gave the writer the photos, just like they did in the Bloomberg piece where the photos are credited to "ephemeral."

This draft article appears to be part of a PR campaign paid by the company and has no place on Wikipedia.

GMAB. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I've attempted to make the article somewhat balanced and moved it to mainspace. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Dissolving ink

Can we get a WP:RS backing the statement that the ink "dissolves" i.e. goes in to Solution (chemistry) in the blood? I'm not a chemist but it seems highly unlikely that any polymer would be in Solvation with blood (water) as a solvent. Quoting one of the principals is hardly an objective source. Toddst1 (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

@Toddst1 No problem. I'll submit a COI request. Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Chemistry Issues and Fade Time

Hi all, On behalf of Ephemeral, I’d like to submit two requests. The first responds to the chemistry issue raised by Toddst1; the second clarifies the “ephemerality” of Ephemeral ink, per a significant article in the New York Times. If you have any questions, please let me know. Many thanks for your consideration.

1. Chemistry Issues

The lead section (the second paragraph) currently says this:

Ephemeral’s ink is made of bioabsorbable polymer particles that are supposed to break down over time; they are designed to get smaller and smaller until they dissolve through the blood.

On 1/30/23, Toddst1 asked this:

Can we get a WP:RS backing the statement that the ink "dissolves" i.e. goes in to Solution (chemistry) in the blood? I'm not a chemist but it seems highly unlikely that any polymer would be in Solvation with blood (water) as a solvent. Quoting one of the principals is hardly an objective source.

Thanks for raising this, Toddst1. For the “dissolve” issue, how’s this excerpt from the scientific journal Chemistry World (“Fading Ambition,” 2022)? "Traditional tattoo inks usually have metal components, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and pigments. After the ink is placed in the dermis (the second from outermost layer of the skin) it aggregates into clusters of larger particles that are too big to be immediately removed by the immune system. Initially, Ephemeral’s ink behaves the same way, but because it is composed of bioabsorbable polymers, it breaks down over time into particles small enough to be eliminated by the body’s immune system."

Similarly, according to Bloomberg News (“‘Tattoo for a Year’ Startup Inks a $20 Million Funding Round,” 2021), Ephemeral’s ink is composed of “bio-absorbable polymers that are slowly dissolved and completely removed by the body’s immune system.”

For the “blood” issue (i.e., that the ink dissolves through the blood, which you rightly said needs a better source), to be precise, I recommend changing “blood” to “immune system.” The following excerpt from Fast Company (“How the cofounders of Ephemeral reinvented tattoos to make them last just a year,” 2021) confirms the “immune system”: "Ephemeral cofounders Brennal Pierre and Vandan Shah developed an ink that’s laced with the same FDA-approved plastics used in pills and medical implants, so it still clumps in the skin but biodegrades as the immune system breaks it down. Once the ink has been broken down, it can pass through the skin, gradually lifting."

2. Fade Time

The lead section (the second sentence) currently says this:

Their tattoos are supposed to fade in 9 to 15 months.

This used to be true, but as the New York Times has reported (“Ephemeral Tattoos Were ‘Made to Fade.’ Some Have a Ways to Go,” 2023), Ephemeral’s “public-facing descriptions of the tattoos’ fade times have shifted.” Here’s the key excerpt from the Times’s in-depth article:

"On Feb. 3, Jeff Liu, the chief executive of Ephemeral, emailed customers with an update of the company’s explanation of how long the tattoos would last ... The nine- to 15-month time frame was supplanted in Mr. Liu’s email by an expectation that '70 percent of all Ephemerals will disappear in under two years and others longer' ... Though the company’s original guidance aligned with the data it had at the time, Mr. Liu said, the data on fade times started to vary more once the studios opened, both at the higher and lower ends of the spectrum."

Would it therefore be appropriate to change the above sentence to one of the following?

The company says that 70% of its tattoos will fade within two years.

Originally, their tattoos were supposed to fade in 9 to 15 months. In February 2023, the company updated this guidance, saying that 70% of tattoos will fade within two years.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Also rearranged the section slightly. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

2 COI Requests (Founding and Guarantee)

Hello again, Might I ask you to consider two edits to Ephemeral's page? I've disclosed my COI both here and on my own page. Many thanks for your consideration.

1. Founding

The article seems incomplete without more about the company’s origins. Here are the key facts, each of which is supported by a reliable source, to consider for a possible “company,” “history,” or “founding” section:

Ephemeral was founded by five friends at New York University (NYU): Seung Shin, Vandan Shah, Joshua Sakhai, Brennal Pierre, and Anthony Lam. Their work began when Shin had a tattoo removed. That process is long and expensive, and so Pierre and Shah, chemical engineers who specialize in protein engineering, wondered if an alternative was possible. Over the next six years, they developed Ephemeral’s ink.

2. Guarantee

Is it worth adding a sentence about Ephemeral’s guarantee that its tattoos fade? This seems like something readers will want to know, especially since Agence France-Presse has reported that Ephemeral’s tattoos are the first of the so-called made-to-fade kind ("New York startup aims to leave a mark with ephemeral tattoos," 2021) and the New York Times wrote a whole article about the issue ("Ephemeral Tattoos Were ‘Made to Fade.’ Some Have a Ways to Go," 2023).

Here’s language to consider for the end of the “concerns” section:

In February 2023, the company began offering refunds to customers if their tattoos last longer than three years.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 02:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

References

The first request's tone is problematic, so I have declined it. Quetstar (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done The second request has been implemented.  Spintendo  19:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Spintendo! Signed, BlueRoses13 (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Ephemeral's History (COI Request)

Hello Wikipedia editors, Ephemeral's page seems incomplete with more info about the company's history — specifically, its origin story, which Wikipedia's readers would surely want to know about. Below, I've tried to present a just-the-facts "history," or "founding," section that's well-sourced and written in an encyclopedia tone. I welcome your thoughts. Thanks for your consideration.

Ephemeral was founded by Seung Shin, Vandan Shah, Joshua Sakhai, Brennal Pierre, and Anthony Lam, all of whom were associated with New York University. Their idea began when Shin underwent the traditional process to have a tattoo removed. Pierre and Shah, chemical engineers who specialize in protein, attempted to develop an alternative process that was less expensive and less painful.

References

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know that name-dropping the founders is appropriate. None of them are WP:NOTABLE. Why does anyone care other than them? Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:LEAD Contains a WP:WEIGHT Issue

Hello, The current lead section seems to be biased; it gives undue weight to Ephemeral’s funding, which the lead mentions twice in just 5 sentences:

Ephemeral is a corporate chain of tattoo studios that has raised millions from venture capital investors. Their tattoos were supposed to fade in 9 to 15 months.[1][2][3] In February 2023, the company updated the timeframe, saying that 70% of tattoos will fade within two years.[4] The company was founded by five students at New York University.[5][6] two of whom invented Ephemeral’s ink.[7] In 2021, the company raised 20 million of venture capital funding.[2]

Spintendo rectified this bias on their own by changing the first sentence as follows:

Ephemeral is a chain of tattoo studios based on fading ink, originally intended to fade in 9 to 15 months.

Toddst1, who wrote the original lead, which was heavy on the VC stuff, undid this change. Todd explained, “Better before rewritten.”

I disagree. Which is more important to Wikipedia’s readers: That a company received money from venture capitalists, or what the company does? I think the latter is preferable.

What’s more:

1. Mentioning funding twice in WP:LEAD triggers WP:UNDUE by giving funding undue weight.

2. Most of Ephemeral’s media coverage focuses on its tattoos, not its funding.

3. $20 million is a relative drop in the VC bucket.

I therefore request that Spintendo’s lead sentence be restored:

Ephemeral is a chain of tattoo studios based on fading ink, originally intended to fade in 9 to 15 months.

Thank you for your consideration.

Signed,
BlueRoses13 (talk) 22:45, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Reply 30-AUG-2023

There are several elements of information here; however, on a re-reading of this, I can see that the proposed re-statement from the COI editor only covers one element when the statement should cover more.

• The proposed re-statement states Ephemeral is a chain of tattoo studios based on fading ink, originally intended to fade in 9 to 15 months. That claim only contains one element - that the ink was originally intended to fade in 9 to 15 months.
• However, the sources in the article apparently reference 3 elements of information regarding this claim:

1. Their tattoos were supposed to fade in 9 to 15 months.
2. In February 2023, the company updated the timeframe
3. This new timeframe stated that 70% of tattoos will fade within two years.

• Thus, the proposed re-statement is insufficient in that it covers only 1 element of the information, rather than the three that Toddst1 included in their writing of it. Thus, I would agree that Toddst1's writing of it is much more clear and complete than the proposed re-statement of the issue from the COI editor is. Regards,  Spintendo  22:32, 30 August 2023 (UTC)