it is so weird, our willingness to be duped by these companies. Testament to our fear of ageing.
I say "our" but I'm actually fairly remote from this as I'm now 54 and less neurotic than younger women. I KNOW that slapping on moisturiser (anything and everything) does help. The principal thing you can do is stay out of the sun. That's about it. So I'm fairly relaxed about it because I've worn quite well on my personal regime.
All the studies show that women who use Vaseline or olive oil or any cheap emollient achieve the best results. As long as it's regular.
But the fragrance and the packaging aren't so nice. You pay a lot of money? You are conning yourself. But that's OK provided you know (and you DO know in your heart of hearts) what you're getting is luxe styling and a good feeling.
I remember working with a skin care specialist for a high profile make over show and she literally looked like she hadn't seen sunlight in decades. I'd never seen such sallow, sunken skin in my life. In the end we had to send her home - it just looked bizzare hearing her preach her wisdom when she looked like she hadn't slept since the dawn of the millennium. I can't understand why companies do it.
It works right down to counter level - I just wouldn't trust someone to sell me skincare who had bad skin. I remember when a particular Japanese skincare line launched about a decade ago, several of the counter assistants had terrible skin, and it turned me off completely. Perhaps that's unfair, but how can the line claim to be able to give me clear, radiant blemish-free skin if it can't do it for its representatives?
It's a harsh world the beauty industry but the public are not helping either. You want to see large people on the dove campaign and real inside non airbrushed beauty and all that, but at the same time, you expect spokespersons and beauty therapists to be absolutely perfect. Typical of women: never happy. Too perfect and it makes them feel shit, not perfect enough they're not inspired that the product will work for them. Women have been complaining about 'lashes inserts' aka blatant photoshopping for mascara, but you watch the day when this is removed: they'll be on the hunt for models with unordinarily long lashes, and people wont buy the product if it does not have long lashes enough. Use a cartoon and people wont feel it's real enough.
Here here! I totally agree, it's a bit silly from a marketing perspective isn't it? It just highlights how so much of what is said is spin. For example the cosmetics industry surely came up with the term 'purging' to describe bad reactions to a skin care product, if a product makes you break out in zits or a rash - it aint good and you should stop using it! What you said isn't really superficial at all, just a little spotlight on the hypocrisy of the industry (although I do admit I still love my skin care & cosmetics with a little 'luxe' factor)
I'm with lilloo on this one--I think it's fine for a company rep to be a 'real person' --after all, s/he is a person not a brand. Perhaps the promises are over-wrought, but that's an issue that can be dealt with in other ways. I'm concerned that people will begin to get hired based on their eyelash length rather than other, perhaps more desirable, qualities.
Like you, I wouldn't easily trust someone selling me a skincare product having bad skin themselves, but then again, I can't help but think how misleading a "perfect" looking woman is, since she's probably had the help of a trained aesthetician or plastic surgeon...
I think, with skincare, it's best for a campaign to be as neutral as possible, after all it's skincare, noone can guarantee that this product is gonna work for your skin anyways!
8 comments:
it is so weird, our willingness to be duped by these companies. Testament to our fear of ageing.
I say "our" but I'm actually fairly remote from this as I'm now 54 and less neurotic than younger women. I KNOW that slapping on moisturiser (anything and everything) does help. The principal thing you can do is stay out of the sun. That's about it. So I'm fairly relaxed about it because I've worn quite well on my personal regime.
All the studies show that women who use Vaseline or olive oil or any cheap emollient achieve the best results. As long as it's regular.
But the fragrance and the packaging aren't so nice. You pay a lot of money? You are conning yourself. But that's OK provided you know (and you DO know in your heart of hearts) what you're getting is luxe styling and a good feeling.
I remember working with a skin care specialist for a high profile make over show and she literally looked like she hadn't seen sunlight in decades. I'd never seen such sallow, sunken skin in my life. In the end we had to send her home - it just looked bizzare hearing her preach her wisdom when she looked like she hadn't slept since the dawn of the millennium. I can't understand why companies do it.
xx
www.thebeautybite.blogspot.com
It works right down to counter level - I just wouldn't trust someone to sell me skincare who had bad skin. I remember when a particular Japanese skincare line launched about a decade ago, several of the counter assistants had terrible skin, and it turned me off completely. Perhaps that's unfair, but how can the line claim to be able to give me clear, radiant blemish-free skin if it can't do it for its representatives?
It's a harsh world the beauty industry but the public are not helping either. You want to see large people on the dove campaign and real inside non airbrushed beauty and all that, but at the same time, you expect spokespersons and beauty therapists to be absolutely perfect. Typical of women: never happy. Too perfect and it makes them feel shit, not perfect enough they're not inspired that the product will work for them. Women have been complaining about 'lashes inserts' aka blatant photoshopping for mascara, but you watch the day when this is removed: they'll be on the hunt for models with unordinarily long lashes, and people wont buy the product if it does not have long lashes enough. Use a cartoon and people wont feel it's real enough.
liloo/tsunimee
Excellent post. Also most amazingly excellent reply from liloo xx
Here here! I totally agree, it's a bit silly from a marketing perspective isn't it? It just highlights how so much of what is said is spin. For example the cosmetics industry surely came up with the term 'purging' to describe bad reactions to a skin care product, if a product makes you break out in zits or a rash - it aint good and you should stop using it!
What you said isn't really superficial at all, just a little spotlight on the hypocrisy of the industry (although I do admit I still love my skin care & cosmetics with a little 'luxe' factor)
I'm with lilloo on this one--I think it's fine for a company rep to be a 'real person' --after all, s/he is a person not a brand. Perhaps the promises are over-wrought, but that's an issue that can be dealt with in other ways. I'm concerned that people will begin to get hired based on their eyelash length rather than other, perhaps more desirable, qualities.
I kinda have mixed feelings about this...
Like you, I wouldn't easily trust someone selling me a skincare product having bad skin themselves, but then again, I can't help but think how misleading a "perfect" looking woman is, since she's probably had the help of a trained aesthetician or plastic surgeon...
I think, with skincare, it's best for a campaign to be as neutral as possible, after all it's skincare, noone can guarantee that this product is gonna work for your skin anyways!
Post a Comment