October 5, 2009

Is Neutrogena as Confused as We Are?

Author: Daynah Burnett, Cosmetics Cop Team Contributor

Is Neutrogena as Confused as We Are? 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.

2 CommentsCategories: Daynah Burnett, Industry Buzz, Skin Care, Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,
August 24, 2009

Forgive Me for Gushing: Thank You Trish McEvoy!

Author: Paula Begoun

Trish McEvoyAs many of you know, the cosmetics industry doesn’t love me and most companies treat me and my team like pariahs. While they send most beauty reporters gifts along with products it is a rare occasion that they even return my team’s phone calls. Given our work that‘s completely understandable and we rarely take offense (okay, sometimes we take offense, especially when the attacks are personal but that is the exception, not the rule).

Occasionally, there have been cosmetic companies that have not only been cordial and helpful but have gone out of their way to provide us with an abundance of information and access to their chemists, research, or product development managers. Olay, Neutrogena, once in awhile L’Oreal and a few others have been terrific. But now I want to add Trish McEvoy Ltd. to the list for going above and beyond to help us with the upcoming edition of Don’t Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me!

McEvoy’s company has been nothing less then respectful and patient with my team. Their responses are epic in scope, forthcoming, thorough, and on every level cooperative and generous. Wow!

Geri Emmett, Vice President of Marketing and Product Development, sent us this email message along with an extensive update of their products: “We are so lucky that we’re a small company, and that Trish is still our owner. Everything we create is with Trish’s direction and touch, and we are incredibly lucky that Trish’s husband is a dermatologist and that we have a Skincare Center here in New York City, from where our skincare collection is developed. As you know, we continue to come out with new, exciting, innovative launches season after season, and we look forward to sharing them with you!”

This from a company higher up that knows we don’t like all of their products. Trish McEvoy Ltd. is a company that believes in what they are doing and is beyond reproach for transparency. So from our hearts and work schedule, we thank you Trish McEvoy Ltd. more then we can say!

12 CommentsCategories: Behind the Scenes at PC, Paula Begoun, Personally Paula, Products, Skin Care Tags: , , , , ,
April 7, 2009

Mineral Makeup B.S.

Author: Bryan Barron, Cosmetics Cop Team Contributor

Mineral MakeupI know “mineral” makeup remains a popular choice for many women. There are some great mineral makeup options available for those who are fans of this type of product. But without question this is one cosmetic product where the claims has spiraled out of control and taken on a fairytale life of their own (and I don’t mean Aesop’s Fables, because at least those have a good homily at the end, the story behind mineral makeup is all lies and puffery to the max!).

I read an article about mineral makeup in the April issue of Day Spa magazine. This is a publication that is tailored for estheticians and other spa professionals (the ones that are going to be selling you the myth). There were so much false, ridiculous information I lost count. In fact, I couldn’t even finish the article; it was that bogus. Here are a few of the big lies the article intended to position as key selling points and benefits of using mineral makeup, followed by my response.

  • Cleopatra started the mineral makeup trend centuries ago, so once again modern-day women can learn from the ancient wisdom of this Egyptian ruler.
    Does anyone still believe that Cleopatra had such forward-thinking knowledge of beauty? The woman lived at a time when products resembling what we refer to as mineral makeup were impossible to make. And if they dug up iron oxides, titanium, and other earth minerals they had no idea these were contaminated with toxic minerals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium. Cosmetic-grade ingredients are what are allowed today, and they’re purified to remove contaminants. And ancient wisdom? The Egyptians sacrificed human beings to their gods, buried family members alive with the king, and had hordes of slaves. Clearly an advance civilization we should learn from! Puhlease!!!
  • The spa industry likes mineral makeup as something that sets them apart from the cosmetics industry at large.
    Perhaps that was true several years ago, when the only place to find mineral makeup was in small salons and spas carrying such lines as Youngblood or Jane Iredale. That’s definitely not the case anymore—mineral makeup is everywhere, from small cosmetic lines sold at Ulta to brands known worldwide such as Estee Lauder and Lancôme and Neutrogena and Maybelline. If anything, these non-spa cosmetic lines have improved mineral makeup considerably while many spa brands seem to be resting on their laurels and have not kept up with new technology.
  • “Mineral makeup is all-natural and there are no by-products created during their production.”
    This one is patently false. Although the minerals in mineral makeup may have begun as a natural source, the process that turns titanium into titanium dioxide or bismuth into bismuth oxychloride is anything but natural—and it certainly produces by-products as they are chemically manipulated and manufactured to be suitable as cosmetic pigments and binding agents. Remember, in most cases these naturally-occurring minerals must be purified to remove harmful elements that, while also natural, aren’t what you’d ever want to put on your face.
  • Mineral makeup is a green alternative to chemical-based cosmetics.
    This is a big selling point used by many lines selling mineral makeup exclusively. They attempt to scare consumers into believing that mineral makeup is the only safe, pure option and everything else is laden with “chemicals”. The word “chemicals” is used to inspire fear (and it works remarkably well, at least based on the emails we get) even though the basic truth is…..EVERYTHING is made up of chemicals! Yes, even natural ingredients are composed of chemicals (so many, in fact, that in some instances a synthetic version of a natural ingredient is actually safer and more beneficial because the potentially harmful chemicals are not included). Please don’t fall for the “chemical-free” claim many mineral makeup brands promote. It’s a lie, and the consumer is being duped big time.
  • Bismuth oxychloride is “one of the best ingredients because it helps clear bacteria and heal skin”.
    The quote above is from the owner of a small mineral makeup company, and she is soooo wrong! Bismuth oxychloride is a synthetic ingredient that has no substantiated research anywhere proving it has antibacterial properties or has any healing effect on skin. It is used in mineral makeup due to its opacity and pearlescent finish, plus it adheres well to skin. In contrast, zinc oxide (another ingredient in some mineral makeups) has healing properties for wounds and there is documented evidence to support this (Sources: Wound Repair and Regeneration, January-February 2007, pages 2-16; and September-October 2006, pages 526-535) but lots of cosmetic companies use zinc oxide, this is hardly unique to mineral makeup!
  • Mineral makeup helps keep skin hydrated.
    Anyone with dry skin who has tried mineral makeup without the benefit of a moisturizer underneath knows what a bunch of bunk that statement is! Traditional loose powder mineral makeup is composed of absorbent materials that are incapable of hydrating skin. Some of the ingredients may have natural water content, but their absorbent nature won’t transfer that water to your thirsty skin. Even it did, skin needs more than water to rebuild its barrier and reduce dryness. Believing that mineral makeup is the least bit hydrating is akin to thinking you can scrub away acne and blackheads. In both cases, it just isn’t going to happen.

There’s more, but I am sure by now you’re getting what a puff piece of reporting this story is—and this is the type of garbage well-meaning estheticians read, believe, and then pass on to their clients. Misinformation begetting misinformation, but hey, it’s selling product so why not? I’m not out to bad-mouth any esthetician. Even with their skills and experience, they can be just as prone to hyperbole as the rest of us. But if you are an esthetician and you read this blog, please think twice before jumping on the mineral makeup bandwagon for the reasons listed above. Mineral makeup has its place and certainly its proponents, but it doesn’t deserve its prefabricated status as the safe and natural.

33 CommentsCategories: Bryan Barron, Industry Buzz, Makeup, Products Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
February 2, 2009

Sensitive Skin Success Letter!

Author: Bryan Barron, Cosmetics Cop Team Contributor

Dear PaulaHi Paula!

I’ve never written to a company before regarding their products, but I feel compelled to do so with Paula’s Choice! Throughout my life, I’ve struggled with mild acne and oily skin that can be super-dry in certain areas. I’ve tried it all – Proactiv, Murad, Clinique, Philosophy, prescription topicals, antibiotics, Eucerin, Neutrogena; you name it. I decided to try Paula’s Choice on a whim, ordered a bunch of samples, and am loving it. Your products are state-of-the-art, made with some of the finest ingredients out there, including antioxidants, and non-irritating. I no longer feel like I need to dry out my skin with harsh products to get it to clear up; with your products, my skin is the healthiest, most hydrated and most balanced it has ever, ever been. THANK YOU SO MUCH! You also operate on a wonderful business model. I love the fact that you sell samples and provide honest reviews of products other than your own. My favorite products of yours are: any of your cleansers, Healthy Skin Refreshing Toner, Skin Balancing Moisture Gel, and 2% BHA Lotion. I’m so glad I’ve found your products; no more searching, no more wasting money on awful products–just clear, soft, healthy skin! I actually look forward to my skin care regime every AM and PM! You are the best.

Thanks again so very much,
Jodi

Dear Jodi,
What a great letter to start the week with! Thank you very much for taking the time to share your Paula’s Choice experience with us. Paula is thrilled to know your skin is in such great shape now. Testimonials like yours are a key reason Paula and her Product Development team strive to offer our customers the best products possible. It is incredibly gratifying to know that we’re succeeding and making people excited about skin care without false claims.

Thanks again for your comments,
Bryan Barron

2 CommentsCategories: Bryan Barron, Industry Buzz, Other, Skin Care Tags: , , , ,