-
What do you think of “free from” claims in cosmetics?
I was in a Twitter conversation with an organization that is hosting their annual “free from” cosmetic awards. They have taken some criticism that the awards propagate chemophobia and mislead consumers into believing these products are somehow more safe than standard cosmetics. What do you think?What message does ‘free from’ claims send when used for marketing cosmetics?Here is their response to critics. -
19 Replies
-
“Free From” can be just as useful to a certain consumer demographic as what is included in a product … No problem, certain consumers are looking for products that are “free from” certain ingredients that they find objectionable for whatever reason.
This is nothing more than marketing communication to a targeted set of consumers. -
I think there’s no issue IF you’re claiming a proven allergen or irritant is not in the product. I see it as being an issue if you’re creating senseless hysteria. We have this problem all of the time. One of our competitors has false free from claims on the label for their #1 product that our product is #2. The kicker is last time we tried to take action against it is they returned serve and we got slapped with an injunction. Unfortunately we don’t have the bankroll to compete with it.
-
I believe that there is a germane issue in the US. If you look at the FTC Green guides; (https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-green-guides/greenguides.pdf), they place limits on the use of Free from Claims (Section 260.9). It is not directly spelled out but I have been told that you must support the claim with testing.
Secondly, I have seen these “Free From” claims in use. I believe it is disingenuous to ascribe a totally altruistic mission to their use. In fact I can say that this is hardly the case. These free from claims are hijacked by marketing to highlight the absence of certain raw materials (sulfates, parabens, “formaldehyde donors”) as a way to pander to the chemophobia. Again I think it is dishonest to blithely infer that they are using these claims to highlight allergens as the article cited claims. In my experience this is hardly the case.
-
It’s possible that “free from” claims perpetuate chemophobia but I’m not sure they’re any more morally reprehensible than fantasy-based marketing schemes for fairy dust ingredients.If I may paraphrase you Perry; every product needs a story.
-
“Free From” is a simple statement of fact … “This product does not contain these particular ingredients.”
There is nothing deceptive or “chemophobic” about that at all. Certain consumers have an aversion to certain ingredients and the marketing message is that the product meets those criteria. “Free From” is not making any other claim other than what it is … these ingredients are not in this product.Everyone best remember … without marketing … you got no sales and you got no work. Consumer demand and preferences properly drive product development. You can develop the best product in the world and without the proper marketing, it will fail if it does not meet with consumer desires and expectations. That is not to say you should develop inferior products just to meet a market demand, but creatively develop a product that provides benefits and meets consumer demands/needs and “Free From” can be a significant market driver.This is the most basic fundamental of business, marketing and product development. Or, let me put it this way … make the dog food that the dogs want to eat. -
You make good points @MarkBroussard. The cosmetic industry is ultimately about selling products and “free from” claims certainly appeal to some segments of consumers.
I respectfully disagree that “free from” claims are simply statements of fact with no connection to chemophobia. There are any number of ingredients that cosmetic marketers could say they are “free from” but they don’t.For example, no cosmetic advertiser says “free from radon” or “free from DDT”. They also don’t make claims about ignored cosmetic ingredients like “free from glyceryl stearate” or “free from sucrose laurate.”So, there is some specific reason that marketers call out “free from” ingredients that has more to do with just what the product is free from.I think you’re right @MarkBroussard, marketers choose to call out ingredients that resonate with consumers. Why something resonates with consumers is where the chemophobia comes in.Marketers say “paraben free” because they know some segment of consumers are afraid that parabens cause breast cancer. They also know that the claim won’t have much negative impact on consumers who don’t care about parabens so there is no downside to using it.Marketers claim “sulfate free” because they know some segment of consumers are under the false impression that sodium lauryl sulfate causes cancer.And all these other vilified compounds are called out as “free from” because marketers know some segment of consumers are afraid of the ingredients.If consumers had never heard the scare stories about these cosmetic ingredients, marketers would not be calling out these ingredients in their marketing.@EliseCortes - you make a good point that on a morally reprehensible scale “free from” claims are similar to “feature ingredient” claims. They are both misleading. But I do see them as slightly different in the following way.1. Feature ingredient claims say “buy my product because this ingredient makes my product special.”2. Free from claims say “buy my product because it doesn’t have a scary ingredient that my competitors who don’t care about your safety put in their product.” -
@Perry … I understand your position and do not disagree that the “Free From” claims can in some instance be driven by consumers being afraid of an ingredient or in some instances by an ingredient being more biodegradable, for instance. Although the bulk are driven by the consumer not wanting to be exposed to certain ingredients.
Now, as for those maligned ingredients … the manufacturers and marketers of those ingredients lost control of the messaging regarding the safety of their ingredients and were put in a position of having to spend significant sums of money in a PR effort to counter the tarnished image of their ingredients just to maintain market share, or put their money into new R&D to develop replacements and build for the future while harvesting their existing product portfolio. The consumers did not create those perceptions nor did the companies that use “Free From” as marketing guidance in new their product development efforts.Formulating “Free From” is simply smart business in most instances as you are filling a consumer demand … the consumer perception is already there … they don’t want these ingredients in their products. Someone posted earlier about Marketing “hijacking” … If Marketing isn’t driving your product development efforts you will soon enough be driven out of business.“Chemophobia,” if that’s what you want to call it, has lead to the creation of many new ingredients, many new products and many new jobs. People are always going to be afraid of something … If the world were based solely on scientific fact and rational consumer behavior, we would live in a very, very different world that might be better, or might be worse, than the one in which we now live. And, let’s not forget that many things that were initially thought to be based on “fear” have eventually be proven to be true and just as many have proven to be false. And, who knows, maybe that chemophobia can push ingredients suppliers to develop and/or find something that is superior to the benchmark that has been maligned. -
@MarkBroussard, I’m going to have to disagree with you a bit. “Free from x” or “x-free” claims carry the clear implication that something is wrong with “x”. I agree with the way Perry put it “Free from claims say “buy my product because it doesn’t have a scary ingredient that my competitors who don’t care about your safety put in their product.””
The piece of the picture I think you’re missing is that we know that there have been “free from x” marketing/pr campaigns against ingredients that are perfectly safe, even beneficial, (PABA, for example, or red 3) that were deliberately false/misleading solely to get a competitive advantage.We also know that this continues today, albeit in subtler form. It’s insidious, and difficult to counter. -
No problem there. This is a friendly discussion, so disagreeing is nothing more than having a different opinion or perspective.Yes, when an ingredient gets tagged with questions regarding its safety, that is very difficult and expensive to counter, particularly when there is a substantial amount of “junk science” for hire and/or bloggers who don’t know what they’re talking about perpetuating the myth.Now, in the case of something that is false/misleading, certainly there are options for legal challenges, but that is also expensive. It can be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. In cases where it is deliberately false, that’s what we have a government for … to protect consumers and take action against false advertising.I look at it this way … If a perception exists in the market, rightly or wrongly, the simple fact of the matter is that it exists and it is not worth your effort to try to convince consumers otherwise unless you are the manufacturer of the ingredient in question. As a formulator who has multiple options of substitute ingredients, I simply use a substitute and use the marketing message that I don’t use the “questionable” ingredient. As long as my product contains beneficial ingredients and I am not being deceptive, I have no problem using a marketing message that my product does not contain X if that’s part of what consumers are looking for.Shame on the people who use deceptive claims against certain ingredients … they should be prosecuted. But, as a businessman, I am certainly more than willing to fill that consumer demand.Good example: Texas, of all states, just filed criminal charges against the “activists” who shot the deceptive videos claiming that Planned Parenthood was harvesting fetal body parts for sale. In the end, the truth “won”Good example: Donald Trump has Ted Cruz on the ropes with questions regarding Cruz’s eligibility to hold the Presidency. Maybe, just maybe, Cruz is not eligible. The doubt is enough to sway voters away from Cruz.The Moral Of The Story: Numbers don’t lie, but liars can count.
-
It is certainly an interesting topic.
I have had many a discussion with our marketing team about moving away from “free from” and “x-free” claims but as it has been pointed out in this discussion is that unfortunately this type of marketing works and marketing teams love it. I would prefer to tell the customer what is great about our product rather than what it doesn’t contain. It is easy to claim my shampoo is better than all of the other shampoos because it doesn’t contain any of the “bad” ingredients that the other shampoos do. It is much harder to sell a shampoo by claiming that it cleans your hair and smells great.
I believe that this type of free-from marketing does lead to chemophobia and plays upon peoples limited understanding of chemicals. People will refuse to use cosmetic products that contain parabens but will quite happily eat blueberries.
The problem with a lot of this chemophobia is that it often comes about from a scientific study that has either been poorly conducted or misinterpreted and then propagated until it is no longer recognizable as the original study. It is then very hard to change peoples minds even with further studies that prove that the original study was incorrect or incorrectly interpreted.
The biggest problem I have is with “chemical-free” claims because this is definitely leading to chemophobia. In these instances “chemical” is meant to represent toxic chemicals and/or synthetic chemicals. As we all know synthetic does not necessarily mean bad and natural does not necessarily mean good and nobody would purposely want to poison their customers with toxic chemicals as it doesn’t result in repeat business.
-
I am inclined to agree with @MarkBroussard that changing consumer preferences are the mother of invention and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
If (and it’s a big ‘if’), we as consumers can focus our attention long enough to stop buying into the ignorance and evolve past simplistic “natural=good/synthetic=bad” thinking, perhaps we will be able to use this all-natural movement to value and sustain bio-diversity.I find these stories heartening:On another note, I wonder if the “this synthetic ingredient protects against unnecessary monoculture and rainforest deforestation when compared to more natural vegetable based sources” is a marketing message that eco-conscious consumers will ever get behind. -
@EliseCortes:
I have a couple of clients that are sustainably and organically farming native crops in developing countries for use as cosmetics ingredients and extracting those ingredients in accordance with sustainable practices … this is creating jobs, economic value and vastly improving the lives of people who are learning to harvest their natural resources, yet sustain bio-diversity.Yes, in the long run … this is a good thing. Humans surviving off of the natural chemicals that the Earth and Nature provides … Yes, there are millions of consumers who think exactly this way. “Free From” claims support that you develop products with these principles in mind. -
Speaking purely from the consumer side: My “education” about ingredients initially came from other consumers, specifically beauty bloggers and places like reddit. The misinformed masses told me that -cones in hair products, sulfates, parabens — well, all preservatives, let’s just paint those with one big brush — are “bad”, or else I would have never even noticed those terms on a label. I held the standard consumer presumption that we can’t trust companies to be honest with us, and I came into it with the additional bias that my fellow consumer is automatically more trustworthy, and the assumption that the bloggers speaking so authoritatively were doing so because they knew the issues. Took awhile for me to wake up on that. Now after much dedicated effort on my part - way too many hours researching and re-educating myself - I am starting to understand how to interpret an ingredients label. Unfortunately I believe that the “free from” marketing is going to continue being effective in this environment.
-
One point that no one has yet to touch on regarding “chemophobia” is that few of these “chemophobic, synthetic” ingredients have actually been banned or restricted for use. If they truly presented a dire health hazard to humans, their use would be restricted. So, this really comes down to consumer perception and preference driving demand away from certain synthetics. Likewise, natural chemicals that present a use hazard would also be banned. So, this really comes down to a growing consumer preference for naturally-derived and processed ingredients that have not been synthetically modified …
-
@empowered and @ozgirl:
“Free From” is only the first cut that discerning consumers make in choosing a product. For consumers who desire “Free From” … that marketing message allows them to quickly determine if it is a product they will consider.Beyond that, your “Free From” product must compete on all the other product attributes that are germaine to that product category. Consumer don’t just choose a product simply because it is “Free From” … the choose it because it is “Free From” AND because it performs to their expectations on every other performance benchmark.Yes, the “Free From” marketing message is important and effective because it conveys valuable information to the consumer, but that is not only reason a consumer will purchase a product. The expect the same performance from that product as they do from any other product. -
I tend to side with perry. There is a lot here I won’t bother to repeat, but, I love how “sulfate free” is only extended to SLS and SLEs. Apparently BTMS isn’t a sulfate — or maybe it’s a sulfate which is OK for your hair. Words like “sulfate” mean nothing to consumers — they buy a scare story. The allergen argument is compelling, but that is totally different than saying something is “dioxane” free (obviously) is completely different
-
one instance in which “free from” claims have real potential to be misleading / confusing is where hair colorants claim to be PPD free
oxidative (permanent / demi-permanent) colorants with this claim usually use toluene-2,5-diamine, a close but less allergenic relative of PPD, which is fair enough
however, I’ve also seen this claim on many direct colorants, which would never have used PPD in the first place - because PPD is colourless until it undergoes oxidative polymerisation
in this case the claim is factually accurate but nonsensical in the context of the product; in terms of food, it’s like salt that claims to be gluten-free
-
@Bill_Toge I think a consumer has no idea that PPD needs to undergo an oxidative polymerization - only that it is associated with hair color.(at best). Therefore it is a reasonable claim I think. Same goes for ammonia free - peroxide free etc.
-
I think that for the most part, “free from” claims perpetuate the fear of ALL chemicals because I have yet to see a “free from” label that is actually discussing something that is harmful. And the “gluten free'”of course only applies to the unfortunate Coeliac stricken, and is legitimate TO THEM.
I recently spoke to the local bison farmer who told me their products are “gluten free”. Golly.They also stock soap that is:A well balanced, natural and gentle soap. Free from the harsh chemicals and additives commonly found in commercial soaps that can clog pores and damage skin.A few years ago, I saw a woman selling soap, and while I was sniffing them, she told me “They’re chemical free!” I responded, “Well…no harmful chemicals were used.” She was VERY adamant & repeated, loudly, “No chemicals!” I left her stand, didn’t buy her soap (because I make my own PLUS I would not buy anything from someone who says such silly things. And to think, she uses sodium hydroxide to make her soap!!!)I have had someone tell me she didn’t want to try my lotions/creams because I use preservatives, and why don’t I use vitamin E to preserve them? Sigh…I am quite sure she is scared of preservatives thanks to something she read on-line. I told her the difference, but once an idea is in some peoples’ heads, it is very hard to get it out. They have their own truth and that’s that.Would a “Free from B.S.!” label work, I wonder? This is a joke, just a joke.Log in to reply.
