We once had a lecture about how companies use numbers WRONGLY, so 'prove' something, that is in fact statistically insignificant and therefore does not hold true.
The example that our lecturer (who in fact is very important in the field of public health) gave us was about the garnier anti-fatigue or whatever it was eye roll-on gel. He picked it apart to show us that it was absolute nonsense, and even it's claim to be recommended by the dermatologist association or whatever it was (I forget the exact claim, it was about 3 years ago), with a little investigation it turned out Garnier is one of the biggest sponsors of that dermatologist association, therefore that was probably untrue too.
I agree. Part of the reason that I have tuned out is that I have been so disappointed with products in the past and now view most skincare companies as no better than snake oil salesmen. Also the information I want about the product just isn't available on company websites eg ingredient lists.
I am more likely to buy if there is consensus on a blog about a product or if I trust the blogger. I also have a weakness for QVC because they explain the product clearly and I can send it back if it's not right for me.
Well said. I also agree with other commenters that if ingredient lists were more readily available, I'd be more inclined to buy something. I like to know what I'm putting on my skin or in my hair.
Agreed and it's a complicated kind of argument. As a brand (Jonathan Ward London) we receive pressure via our public relations team to come up with new items almost before the "new collection" has been fully promoted. One magazine has been quoted to say to us "we know his collection, we only want to see new items". Which translates to it doesn't matter if an existing product is right for the story if it's not new it won't get coverage. The pressure as a brand is definitely upon us if we want to stay fresh. I like to think I don't rush products out there to please anyone other than my own product development plan to be honest, which compared to skin care brands is incredibly slow.
Your post is spot on Jane, if the latest miracle cream is really going to turn back time and fix life's problems, then why are we looking at a new miracle fix 5 months later. Didn't the first miracle work after all ?
I love the fact you've brought this up! I find so many skincare adverts frustrating due to the ridiculous claims (there are a few out at the moment that are basically saying they cause cancer - you want to change my DNA too make my cells multiply faster???) Boots seem to have taken this on board with their new paired down 'Beautiful Skin' range, but I always loved Eve Lom for just recommending 2 products and keeping it simple.
7 comments:
I stick with what works - for me, that's Perricone MD!
What you all need to hire is a statistician.
We once had a lecture about how companies use numbers WRONGLY, so 'prove' something, that is in fact statistically insignificant and therefore does not hold true.
The example that our lecturer (who in fact is very important in the field of public health) gave us was about the garnier anti-fatigue or whatever it was eye roll-on gel. He picked it apart to show us that it was absolute nonsense, and even it's claim to be recommended by the dermatologist association or whatever it was (I forget the exact claim, it was about 3 years ago), with a little investigation it turned out Garnier is one of the biggest sponsors of that dermatologist association, therefore that was probably untrue too.
Very interesting read!
I agree. Part of the reason that I have tuned out is that I have been so disappointed with products in the past and now view most skincare companies as no better than snake oil salesmen. Also the information I want about the product just isn't available on company websites eg ingredient lists.
I am more likely to buy if there is consensus on a blog about a product or if I trust the blogger. I also have a weakness for QVC because they explain the product clearly and I can send it back if it's not right for me.
Well said. I also agree with other commenters that if ingredient lists were more readily available, I'd be more inclined to buy something. I like to know what I'm putting on my skin or in my hair.
Agreed and it's a complicated kind of argument. As a brand (Jonathan Ward London) we receive pressure via our public relations team to come up with new items almost before the "new collection" has been fully promoted. One magazine has been quoted to say to us "we know his collection, we only want to see new items". Which translates to it doesn't matter if an existing product is right for the story if it's not new it won't get coverage. The pressure as a brand is definitely upon us if we want to stay fresh. I like to think I don't rush products out there to please anyone other than my own product development plan to be honest, which compared to skin care brands is incredibly slow.
Your post is spot on Jane, if the latest miracle cream is really going to turn back time and fix life's problems, then why are we looking at a new miracle fix 5 months later. Didn't the first miracle work after all ?
I love the fact you've brought this up! I find so many skincare adverts frustrating due to the ridiculous claims (there are a few out at the moment that are basically saying they cause cancer - you want to change my DNA too make my cells multiply faster???)
Boots seem to have taken this on board with their new paired down 'Beautiful Skin' range, but I always loved Eve Lom for just recommending 2 products and keeping it simple.
Post a Comment