If you spent any time on the web this week, it would have been difficult for you to avoid the news of the impending Internet censorship legislation called SOPA and PIPA. Some major websites went dark and thousands of others modified their websites, facebook pages and twitter feeds in protest. You can read more about the issue here.

SOPA PIPA and Cosmetics

While looking at the list of companies that support this awful legislation, I noticed a number of companies from the cosmetic industry. They include…

3M
Chanel
Coty
Dow Chemical Company
Estee Lauder
Johnson & Johnson
Dolce & Gabbana
L’Oreal USA
Personal Care Products Council
Pfizer
Revlon

I don’t get it. Why would these cosmetic companies support censorship of the Internet? What is the benefit to them?

Chemcial companies like 3M & Dow Chemical? How does online piracy affect them?

The only thing that I can think of is that these companies are worried about pirated copies of their make-up or brands being made available on the Internet.

The PCPC is on the list of supporters!!! What the hell!!? A majority of their member companies don’t even support it. Very troubling PCPC.

Seriously, what are these organizations thinking?

There was a recent study on parabens that made the news. It was research published in the Journal of Applied Toxicology conducted by Dr. Philippa Darbre and Mr Lester Barr.

The key findings of the research includes

1. Parabens were detected in 99% of all breast tissue samples

2. An average of 85.5 ng/g was found. Four times higher than work done in 2004.

3. Propylparaben and methylparaben had the highest levels detected

The researchers conclude…

Mr Lester Barr – “Our study appears to confirm the view that there is no simple cause and effect relationship between parabens in underarm products and breast cancer”

Dr Darbre – “The fact that parabens were detected in the majority of the breast tissue samples cannot be taken to imply that they actually caused breast cancer in the 40 women studied”

Darbre further concludes that the fact that parabens are found in breast tissue justifies further investigation.

What’s the story?

The study is interesting and presents a bit of a mystery. Why are parabens being found in breast tissue? Where are they coming from? As Darbre says, more research is needed.

But the story I most want to write about is the way that this story is being reported.

Take a look at these different headlines about the same press release.

From Science Daily…

Parabens in Breast Tissue Not Limited to Women Who Have Used Underarm Products

From Cosmetics Design…

Study finds no link between deodorant use and breast cancer

Then from Red Orbit…

Possible Link Between Personal Care Products, Breast Cancer Studied

And NHS…

Deodorant chemical ‘found in breast tumours’

And finally Healthcareglobal.com

Popular cosmetic chemical found in breast cancer tissue

Viva la difference

How is it that all of these media outlets got the same press release and came up with completely different headlines?

None of these headlines are lies per se. But they all communicate a different message.

The Science Daily headline (which I view as the least biased source) captures what I see as the main point of the study. Parabens are found in breast tissue whether people have used deodorants or not.

The Cosmetic Design headline is clearly biased to tell the story in a way that exonerates the cosmetic industry. They don’t lie but they do miss the point of the research.

The next few headlines are much more sensational however, and communicate the message that the study somehow links parabens, cancer and the use of cosmetics.

The study does the exact opposite!!

I guess it just goes to show that way you tell a story is just as important as the facts that go into creating it.

In my view, this research provides no new information to the debate. Unfortunately, chemophobes will look at this research as a new reason to ban parabens from cosmetic products.

Sigh

This video is funny…and a little sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOYCkHFMnVc

Thankfully, this isn’t how it really is for cosmetic chemists but there is certainly a tinge of truth here.

Early years

In my younger years I often fretted about taking a job as a cosmetic chemist. One recurring thought was that it wasn’t “important” enough. In fact, I remember driving home after my interview at the shampoo factory thinking that there is no way that I would want this job.  I took it with the intention of making some money then quitting after a few years and going to get a PHD in something “important”.

After a few years, I found I really enjoyed my job. I liked the projects.  I liked the challenges.  I liked the people.  And overall, it was fun.  Being a cosmetic chemist is a great job.  If you have an interest in inventing things, learning about chemicals and human biology, being creative and seeing your work directly impact people’s lives, then you’ll love a career in cosmetic chemistry.

But is it important enough?

Is cosmetic science important?

You really have to decide for yourself if cosmetic science is important enough.  Consider the pros and cons.

Pros

• Your work leads directly to products that people use
• Your products make people happy
• There is a lot to learn & the subject is interesting
• It’s economically important
• It is a low stress job, good salary
• It can pose challenging problems

These are just off the top of my head but I’m sure there are other things that cosmetic chemists would add to the list.  (feel free to do so in the comments)

Since I’ve spent nearly 20 years in the industry it seems that my answer to the question is…

Yes, cosmetic science is important enough.

When I thought about it I decided that no one is really curing cancer because cancer is still around.  And people may be making progress on Big Problems but there are still plenty of Big Problems that are unsolved.  And they’ll remained unsolved whether I work on them or not.

The other thing is that as a scientist you are free to keep tabs on other areas of research.  If you ever have an idea that you think will cure cancer or Alzheimer’s disease or solve some other world problem, go work on it.  But if you don’t have any ideas about those subjects, a cosmetic science career is a great place to keep your brain fresh and work on interesting problems (that can be solved).

Epilogue

Incidentally, I did go back to school and pursue a Masters degree in biochemistry but I never left the cosmetic industry. Biochemistry just didn’t seem like it would be an interesting job.  For me being interesting is more important than being “important”.

If you work in the cosmetic industry, then you should know about the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and their off-shoot group the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. The EWG focuses on providing information while the CFSC attempts to get legislation passed. Ostensibly, they are consumer advocacy groups who endeavor to ensure that cosmetic manufacturers produce only safe products.

A laudable goal and one that all cosmetic chemists can get behind.

However, cosmetic chemists, formulators and the cosmetic industry already support this goal so the cosmetic products we produce are already safe. The EWG & CFSC are unnecessary.

But I’m certain that the good folks at these groups would disagree. From their perspective cosmetics are not safe. And cosmetic chemists can not be trusted to create safe formulas. They seem to believe that there are cosmetic chemists who want to create formulas that will poison their families and cause widespread cases of cancer. They don’t think very much of cosmetic chemists or formulators.

Problems with these groups

The primary place that consumers (and beauty bloggers) find out about the EWG is through their online ingredient resource called the Skin Deep database. It’s an interesting concept and they’ve clearly put a lot of work into it. Unfortunately, it is full of misleading information & many things that are just wrong.

Skin Deep database Flaws

There are a few obvious flaws in the database that have been pointed out to the EWG but they don’t seem interested in changing them. Here is what I mean.

False information

There is false information in the database but they don’t seem interested in fixing it. For example, they have a listing for Polyparaben. They even give it a chemical rating and call it an endocrine disruptor. Unfortunately, there is no chemical called polyparaben. It doesn’t exist. How they managed to come up with a toxicity score and links to studies about a non-existent chemical is baffling and it certainly doesn’t build faith in the reliability of their data. If they had a cosmetic chemist review the information they were putting up before entering it into the database, perhaps this wouldn’t be a problem. Clearly, they don’t. And they don’t care to fix it because this has been pointed out to them directly.

Nonsense ratings

Creating a hazard score is a dubious activity anyway (since it is the dose that makes the poison) but they aren’t even consistent within their own scoring system. For example, they have listings for both Sodium Coceth Sulfate and Sodium Laureth Sulfate. Cosmetic chemists know that these compounds are essentially identical with minimal differences. But somehow the Sodium Coceth Sulfate gets a 0 hazard score, while Sodium Laureth Sulfate gets a 4 hazard. This makes no sense.

Belief not science

Perhaps the worst thing about the EWG Skin Deep database is that they are unwilling to modify their conclusions when new evidence comes to light. They base their actions on a belief and use science only when it supports what they want to believe. Since they are a politically motivated group, they are unable to accept new science which might indicate an ingredient is more safe than previously thought. There is not a single instance of them changing their stance on any cosmetic ingredient.

No courage of their convictions

But the most galling thing about the EWG is that they are hypocrites who either don’t believe what they say or are more interested in making money off people than protecting them from “dangerous” products. For example, they list a Hall of Shame for sunscreens. In it they list specific products that are typical of “…what’s wrong with the sun protection business.” Of course, this does not stop them from making money through their Amazon Affiliate program by selling those same products. For example, they list Aveeno Baby Protection Sunblock as a Hall of Shame sunscreen because it is dangerous for babies but they’ll happily take your money if you want to buy the product.

This means they either do not care that they are making money off of products that they believe are dangerous…or…they don’t believe the products are really dangerous.

Either way, it’s shifty.

EWG and cosmetic chemists

If the EWG & the CFSC is to be believed, cosmetic chemists are evil people who do not care about the safety of the formulas they create. I think this is BS.

One of the best books on marketing by Seth Godin is his book The Purple Cow. It’s an easy read and I recommend it to anyone who is interested in launching their own cosmetic line. It’s also great for cosmetic chemists who just want to get a better understanding on how you might help improve the marketing of your own formulas.

Being different

The basic thesis of The Purple Cow is that to succeed in business, you have to stand out. And figuring out how to make your brand, your product or even yourself stand out from the crowd is the way to success.

In the cosmetic business, standing out can be difficult. There are thousands of brands and tens of thousands of products. Just getting your product in a store to compete with others is going to be tough. Worse, consumers are not very good at picking up actual product performance differences. So, even if your formulas work better than someone else’s, you’ll have a hard time getting consumers to understand it.

How big brands stand out

The big mass market companies are always looking for ways to differentiate themselves from their competition. Their biggest weapon is money spent on advertising. This allows them to “tell their story” to hundreds of millions of people. The simple exposure of their story to this many people is going to result in sales. It’s no coincidence that the biggest selling cosmetic brands also spend the most on advertising.

Some big brands that don’t compete with advertising try a different tact. They compete on price. White Rain, VO5 and Suave all shoot for the least expensive products they can create while still getting a decent profit. The profit margin isn’t great but when you are selling 100 million bottles a year, you can still make a lot of money.

How small brands can stand out

For the most part, small brands and independent cosmetic makers can not copy the tactics of big brands. They will not be able to out spend big companies in advertising and also can’t win a price competition.

However, there are still a number of ways that a small cosmetic product / brand can stand out.

1. Unique story. The best way to create a stand out brand is to come up with a unique story. Burts Bees did an excellent job of this and built their brand so large that it got bought for a huge amount by a large company. It should be noted that Burts Bees didn’t simply go for an “all natural, organic, chemical free” marketing position. They had a compelling origin story, a likeable character, some savvy marketing, and fortuitous timing. Beeswax lip balm wasn’t unique at the time but Burts Bees made it unique.

Here’s a company that is trying to stand out. They’ve created a line of nail polish inspired by things like menstrual blood, bruises and famous painters. The kicker is that they sell the polish for $80 a bottle and they are sold out (at least they claim to be). That is impressive marketing.

Action – Find your unique story.

2. Niche consumer group. While it’s critical to have a unique story, it may be easier to stand out by starting with a niche consumer group and creating products specifically for them. The age of the Internet makes it much easier to identify niche groups. These groups are still going to be too small for the big corporations to go after but for small brands, you can make a great living catering to a smaller group.

So, what would be an example of a niche consumer group? Groups like

a. People allergic to Gluten containing products
b. People with psoriasis
c. People who are religious
d. People with a political ideology
e. People who ride motorcycles

Action – Find your nich consumer group.

3. Noticeable differences. The most satisfying way to stand out is to create a cosmetic formula that is noticeably different from all other ones out there. This is exceedingly difficult to do as the cosmetic field is “mature” science and there aren’t a lot of breakthru technologies. But don’t stop looking because you may find something. To create a product that performs better than all others you need to first identify the market leaders. Do some research to find out who actually has the best performing technology. And test it yourself. Then start creating formulas that work better.

Action – Figure out what the current best technology is and work to best it.

4. Novel marketing. The final way to stand out is to come up with some novel marketing methods. Big brands do things like create viral commercials, do public stunts, or wine and dine magazine editors & bloggers. You can do some of those things but don’t stop there. Brainstorm some ideas how you can get people talking about your brand. Then try them out. An excellent book on this subejct is Guerrilla Marketing.

Action – Determine a novel marketing strategy for your product.

Remember, you don’t have to be the biggest brand in the cosmetic business to be successful and make a good living. You just need to be unique. Figure out how you can stand out from the crowd of competitors and you will be able to earn a living from your cosmetic brand for life.

Here is an interesting video explaining how P&G shifted their focus from merely creating excellent formulations to making products that make women feel better about themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJzeGL_5V5k

I’m not really sure how well they succeeded but they certainly changed the way products were advertised. They also had a huge impact on the role of consumer research in the development of cosmetic products.

If you have your own line, creating the best performing products is not good enough. You’ve got to create a compelling story too. P&G is a big reason why the industry has embraced this philosophy.

Is that good for cosmetic formulators? hmmmm

Searching around the Internet, you can find lots of examples of people selling products online.  You can also find wild claims that as a cosmetic chemist you know are probably false.  Unfortunately, your marketing groups won’t always know that they are false and will frequently approach you and ask why they can’t make claims like the ones they are reading.  After you explain to them that the claims are probably unsupported & illegal some will walk away unsatisfied and begin to see R&D as obstructionists.  Thus is the life of a cosmetic chemist.

But it is a good question.

How do some companies get away with making wild claims or downright “lying” in their advertising?

Regulation of advertising

In the United States there are two main regulatory bodies that deal with the advertising of cosmetics.  First, there is the FDA which disallows any specific drug claims for cosmetics.  They also have specific requirements of what is included on the cosmetic product label.  Second, there is the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) which requires that you  cannot make false claims in your advertising.  In the UK there is the Advertising Standards Authority which has the power to remove ads from the airways.  In fact, they’ve recently done a lot of that in the cosmetic industry.

Are cosmetic companies going too far in their advertising?

So how then do cosmetic companies get away with some of their outrageous claims?  Here are a couple of ways.

They are too small

Government agencies are not large enough to keep track of everything going on in the cosmetic industry.  Often they have to cover multiple agencies and they are not provided enough money to properly do the job.  This is why the cosmetic industry is largely self regulated.  And fortunately, this system has worked well for many years.  But this means that there is limited tracking of what is going on in the cosmetic industry.  If a company is small enough, they can sell pretty much anything they want and the government has no way of knowing what’s happening.  It’s only when (or if) they are discovered that the government can step in and tell them to stop.

Made to look big

A compounding fact is that the Internet makes it simple to distribute your product all over the world.  In the pre-Internet days, people had to go to farmer’s markets or other non-traditional outlets to distribute their products.  But no more.  The Internet lets you be everywhere.  On the Internet, you really have no way of telling how big a company is.  If someone creates a slick looking packing and a beautiful website, it gives the impression that there is a huge support system behind the brand.  This could be true but it could just as easily be one person in their kitchen creating the products.  This makes it easy for your marketing people to find outrageous claims but doesn’t do much for helping the government stop the claims from being made.

No one complains

Ultimately, the way that people are made to stop making claims is that someone complains.  The government relies on being told that a product is a problem or an advertising claim is false.  If no one ever complains, a company can get away with making any outrageous claim they want.  And even if someone complains, it could take months or years for the government to do anything.  By that time the company could’ve made millions, shut down and the government has no one to go after.

They eventually get stopped

I should note that companies who make false claims eventually get stopped.  The big guys get made to stop due to rulings like that of the ASA and the little guys are often sued until they declare bankruptcy or disappear.  It doesn’t matter much as they can just start up another company with a new name, but that can take some time and effort.

Cosmetic Chemist and claims

So, that’s how companies get away with making what seems like false advertising.  Hopefully, you can use this information to explain to your marketers why one company can make some outrageous claim while you are not able to.

Here’s an interesting trend that will affect cosmetic chemists and formulators in the future. More and more, natural ingredients are replacing standard cosmetic raw materials. What will this mean?

Cosmetic reformulation

Cosmetic chemists will no doubt have to reformulate almost all the products that they have. Anything that contains a petroleum derivative will have to be re-worked to contain only plant and sustainable ingredients. This might seem like a lot of trouble but it is good news for formulators because it gives you some new opportunities to create new formulations.

One of the most frustrating aspects of being a cosmetic chemist is that you make very few changes to formulas. In truth, a company doesn’t want to stray too far from their existing formulations because using new raw materials requires more warehouse storage, raw material ingredient costs will increase because you are not buying in bulk as much and the stability and performance is less well known.

There are forces that work against creating truly new and innovative formulations.

Good for raw material suppliers

Raw material suppliers will also like this trend because they can more easily get chemists to start using new raw materials. One of the biggest challenges raw material suppliers face is that chemists do not like to use new raw materials. The reason is that they are unproven and almost always more expensive. Now, raw material companies will be able to sell new raw materials that are more profitable.
On the other hand, there are some problems with this new trend.

Not all positive

The biggest problem is that substitution of raw materials with new ones will not likely lead to improved products. In fact, it will probably lead to products that don’t work as well. It used to be that a cosmetic chemist would switch out a raw material for some performance reason. They discover that some raw material works better than their current so they make the switch. But with this trend, cosmetic chemists are switching out raw materials for a non-performance based reason. Naturally, performance will likely suffer.

But perhaps the worst aspect of this trend is that consumers will have to pay more money for formulations that do not work as well. They are the losers in this trend.

Although, one could argue that consumers are not paying enough for their cosmetics right now. They are not covering the cost that cosmetic use has on the environment and they should. So, perhaps the fact that consumers pay more for better sustainable products is overall a good thing. I’m just not sure consumers will agree with it.

Do you?

This article about Procter & Gamble’s sustainability efforts suggests that they are on pace for achieving their 5 and 10 year sustainability goals.

They’ve reduced their energy usage by 16% since 2007, reduced CO2 emissions by 12%, reduced water usage by 22% and reduced waste by 57%.

All seems very impressive, although since they set their own targets and report their own numbers, I’m certain they present the data in the most positive light. And I wonder if they count the energy that their suppliers put into making raw materials. For example, you could easily reduce your water usage if you required your supplier to dilute their raw materials with water before selling it to you. hmmm

It is great that they are following a program like this but it makes me wonder, is the notion of sustainability and the goals of a corporation compatible?

Conflicting goals

Consider this. The primary goal of a corporation like P&G is to grow. Grow profits, grow sales, grow customer base.

In order to grow, they have to get more consumers to use more products. They could also do it by increasing the prices of their current products but that is a limited strategy. Making more products is ultimately going to lead to more resources usage which is ultimately not sustainable.

Reduce usage

If a company was really committed to sustainability, they would have to focus on reducing the number of products they make. Or course, this directly conflicts with the corporation’s primary goal. And I have to wonder, can a sustainable driven company really be in the consumable business at all?

Perhaps I’m missing something here but the notion of sustainability and corporate growth seems ultimately at odds.

On another post about wrinkle treatment breakthrus, Louise asked this excellent question which I thought would make a good post because people just starting out in the cosmetic industry might wonder the same thing.

Why aren’t cosmetic chemists doing research?

The basic premise of this question is that cosmetic products haven’t really changed much over the years. Cosmetic marketers seem to just take the same old formulas, change them a little and call them a new product.

This is a fair observation (although incomplete). But there are two main reasons cosmetic chemists spend more time on developing products than they do on researching new technologies.

1. Success

Cosmetic companies are in the business of selling products. When you try to research a technology you are not actually creating a new product. Certainly, you might find something that could some day be turned into a market changing product, but the reality is most technologies that you investigate will not turn into products. This is true in the cosmetic business as well as almost every other market. Research has a low level of success.

Product development, on the other hand, has a high degree of success. At least when it comes to whether or not you have a product to sell. When your company has to go to Walmart or Target and tell them the latest product they are launching, they have to have some tangible, new product that can go on store shelves. Product development will almost certainly create that. Basic research will not. Thus if a company has to decide where to focus it’s efforts, they will invariably choose the short term product development strategy over the long-term research one.

2. Money

While success is not guaranteed in research, the fact that it costs money is guaranteed. It’s a relatively small amount of money in the cosmetic industry but it is money nonetheless. When a company pays for something they want to see results. Unfortunately, research does not work that way. Finding technological breakthrus is not something that can be easily planned, budgeted, or guaranteed. Most times it can’t even be explained to marketing and sales people. Therefore, people who are in research have a tough time justifying their work because they can’t show an obvious result.

While basic research is the most promising area to create truly breakthru technologies, most companies do not have the risk tolerance, time, or money to invest significantly in it. And that is why most of the jobs in the cosmetic industry focus on “new” product development rather than new technology discovery.