Indie beauty has a claims problem. As discussed in the first part of this series (see sidebar), indie beauty brands are disrupting the cosmetic industry. These brands are less than five years old with limited product offerings, typically in one category, and are founded by both industry insiders and outsiders. For the most part, the products being offered are not innovative but rather twists on existing products based on global wellness trends driven by ethical consumers and retailers’ “clean” lists. Unfortunately, the unintended consequence is massive industry competition and consumer confusion, particularly around claims.
Anatomy of a Claim
Claims are a vital way in which brands communicate the benefits of a product to the consumer. Cosmetic claims, in general, can be divided into six categories: obvious, puffery, emotive, formulation, sensory and performance/efficacy (T-1 see April Digital Magazine).
Claims can be supported in five basic ways, subjective (consumer perception), pseudo-subjective (professional grading), objective (bioinstrumentation), in-vitro (literally “in glass”) modeling and the formula itself. Each type of claim requires a different level of substantiation or none at all.
Obvious, puffery and emotive claims generally do not require support. Clearly, “contains honey” can be supported by the formula if it actually contains honey. Sensory claims like “skin feels refreshed” or “skin feels moisturized” can be supported by consumer perception because it is based on the individual. Claims like “24-hour moisturization” require objective support measured by bioinstrumentation. In vitro support is most often used for proof of concept testing or when it would be unethical to test on human subjects.
Published by Global Cosmetic Industry, April 2, 2020
Follow us on Linkedin!