A ccording to Webster’s Dictionary the adjective “original” means, “not secondary, derivative, or imitative; or, being the first instance or source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is or can be made.” As far as I can tell, someone needs to get this definition to Neutrogena pronto! The liberties that they are taking with the word “original,” are creating confusion for us and consumers!

This first inkling of what was going on came to our attention when a subscriber wrote in asking about the availability of Neutrogena’s Healthy Skin products, several of which Paula recommends. In order to answer her question, I had to sort through a dizzying array of products, most of which had been repackaged and some reformulated, all to become part of Neutrogena’s new Ageless Essentials line. As I worked through the line, I realized that what they called their Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream had actually been reformulated to include SPF 15, but it was still called Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream, only now it had an SPF 15 noted on the box, yet the former Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream had no SPF at all.

I even checked this with the company, and they confirmed that indeed they were no longer making this product without the SPF 15, and yet it would still be called Original Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream, even though it’s not the actual original formula. As it happens, this reformulation caused the product to lose its Paula’s Pick rating because the sunscreen included does not provide sufficient UVA protection. Poor rating aside, to me this begged a larger question: Can a product still be called Original if it has been reformulated?

This is not the only instance of Neutrogena playing fast and loose with the word “original.” Their transparent orange Facial Cleansing Bar comes in Original and Fragrance-Free versions, which is spelled out clearly enough on their site and on the packaging, but another of their classic products is Liquid Neutrogena—you know, the orange face soap in a square-shaped pump bottle—is now exclusively made in a fragrance-free formula and no longer with its original scent. No doubt, that’s a formulary improvement, but it’s not explained for consumers, who might, as I did, assume that the “original” product is discontinued and not that the fragrance-free version is a permanent replacement, especially since original Liquid Neutrogena and Fragrance-Free Liquid Neutrogena used to sit side-by-side on shelves, clearly marketed as separate products.

When I called Neutrogena to get the scoop on this change, the rep told me “It’s still the original formula, only now it’s fragrance-free.” Since I’m not looking to nit-pick, omitting only fragrance could still grant the formula “original” status (especially since it’s ultimately better for skin), but it doesn’t make this ever-changing brand any less confusing to figure out!

Honestly, if anyone from Neutrogena reads this blog, please submit my plea to stop the insanity! It’s a disservice to your best products and is bound to alienate customers.

One more thing about my trip to Los Angeles to meet with some of the labs that help us formulate our products, almost without exception the most common comment I get is how different it is when my team and I meet with them. Why different? Because we talk ingredients, we ask for studies, we want products with no fragrance and no coloring agents, we provide air tight containers, we ask for plant extracts and vitamins with proven benefits, we only want “natural” or “organic” ingredients that can make a difference for skin, we want effective exfoliants, effective anti-bacterial agents for acne, effective antioxidants, cell communicating ingredients, and skin identical ingredients, and we want an honest discussion about how to make a product stable. Primarily what we don’t want is the hype. It usually takes awhile to wade through all but eventually we do get to the other side.

Eternally perplexing to the cosmetic chemists we work with is the need to see in an ingredients deck (the proposed formula as it would appear on the ingredient label) before we see the product. I’ve been formulating products for more then 15 years and it is the rare lab that does this. Their system is to send the product because no one is all that curious about what the product contains (they only want the “special” ingredient they can showcase to the consumer); they want to know how it feels and smell. Feel and smell is important but if the ingredients aren’t healthy for skin why bother. From my perspective it is a waste of time and money, show me the ingredients.

At some point I’m always expecting this to change, that at some point there will be a learning curve and our account representative and chemist will cut back on the salespitch but that has yet to happen. They see dozens of companies a month and we appear to be the only one asking for formulation details. I shouldn’t be that shocked, that’s my learning curve, I never get used to the way my industry works.