Here comes another study saying one company’s products are better than someone else’s. Like most of these studies, it all sounds pretty darn convincing. But wait; let’s consider the fine print before we go shopping…

You may have seen recent media reports that a study in the very proper British Journal of Dermatology revealed that using Olay’s Pro-X products improves wrinkles just as well as prescription tretinoin (the active ingredient in the topical medications Renova, Retin-A, etc.). The big deal being made is that Olay Pro-X, a “non-prescription brand” that’s readily available, has come up with an anti-wrinkle skin-care routine that can be considered “as effective as the leading wrinkle brand regimen at half the price”. And they’re guaranteeing it, too, which only confirms how much faith they have in the results (but these days, who doesn’t guarantee their products?).

The study was the comparative type, and involved 196 women between the ages of 40–65. Half of the participants used Olay Pro-X products and the others used a cream containing 0.02% tretinoin. The majority of participants used the products for 8 weeks, at which time the results were tabulated. The headline conclusion was that in just 8 weeks, the Pro-X routine worked just as well as tretinoin. But wait, there’s more…

On the surface, the results sound very impressive, but before you speed to your local Walgreens or Rite Aid to fill your basket with all things Pro-X, consider this: the study, like so many things in life, has critical fine print that cannot be ignored.

Here’s what Olay states in their ads and on the company’s Olay Professional Web site, “The prescription [meaning tretinoin] takes 24 weeks to see full results and longer term comparative results may be different”. So after all the hype, Olay’s study really just showed that Pro-X isn’t as effective as tretinoin because, as it seems, they published results prematurely.

We know tretinoin can take 24 weeks (6 months) of consistent use for positive results, and that the results continue to improve the longer a person uses tretinoin. Olay must know this too, or they wouldn’t have the fine print disclaimer needed to meet the standards of the journal this study was published in.

Interestingly, they mention that a small number of women in the study continued their regimens for an additional 16 weeks, meaning they used either Pro-X or tretinoin for a total of six months. The results? Only that “both groups continued to improve” and that the overall wrinkle reduction was 20%, but they didn’t indicate if the women using tretinoin had even better results (I am betting they did). Wouldn’t it be great to speak to some of the women who participated in this study? I wonder how many of them are still using Pro-X?

I appreciate all your comments about my “How Do You Really Erase Wrinkles” blog . Thank you. They helped me frame my thoughts which were just all over the place. Mostly I just find this issue completely frustrating and I have for years.

I’ve been struggling against cosmetic advertising my entire career and I know this regulation from England is going to be completely worthless and ineffective. It can’t and won’t change a thing. It’s very much like all the other useless and meaningless cosmetic regulations Europe has been spewing about over the past several years (PAO symbols, anyone?) that hasn’t helped one consumer anywhere.

Here’s what it boils down to: every single beauty ad or infomercial we see is nothing more than mirages, but we willingly drink from the sand thinking it tastes like sweet wine. It is our own foolishness and gullibility that drives us to a trough filled with nothing more then lies and deceit. Even when we think we know better we just end up looking for a different mirage or a more enticing trough to drink from. If the lie is packaged to meet our sensibility and beliefs (think natural or organic products) then we believe it as a child believes in Santa Claus.

As maddening as our faith in cosmetic mirages is, where would we be without the smoke and mirrors the beauty industry crafts for us? Very few of us want to see the world as it really exists and most every woman wants to believe she can achieve some amount of the unachievable. Who wants that taken away?

When you think about it, we don’t even want to see ourselves as we really exist or why would we dye our hair, use nail polish, wear makeup, care about the clothes we put on, worry about breaking out, and on and on. If we can’t tolerate our own reality why would we want to see someone else’s?

Each of us, to one degree or another, has our own personal level of misrepresentation so why shouldn’t the cosmetic industry? (I certainly don’t leave the house looking like I do when I get out of bed, that’s for sure! And I wouldn’t want that flashed about on television or magazines). Most of us create a false facade of some kind and while it may not be Photoshop, it can often come damn close. (Do you want someone regulating how you show up looking on a date?)

Don’t misunderstand, I am thrilled Olay got caught. Their flagrant, gross alteration of Twiggy’s face was almost a bad joke. But what about the other countless companies that didn’t get caught who are getting away with murdering reality? Olay is hardly the only one or even the worst offender. Twiggy’s smoothed-over, digitally induced face reconstruction does not take the prize, Olay is just the company that got caught and had to deal with unfavorable publicity.

As for the claims, don’t get me started. Digitally altered pictures pale in comparison to the lies about a products potential performance when it is actually being used by consumers swayed by such duplicitous advertising.

Now that this story has made headlines and a new European regulation is most likely going to be instituted, I’ve been asking myself, what happens next? Is England or other European countries going to stop all misleading cosmetic or fashion advertising pictures? Would fashion magazines be empty? Would we go back to 16-year-old girls appearing in ads for wrinkle creams as they did in the past or would Europe make that illegal too (an age appropriate law for ads)? What amount of lighting, makeup, or skilled photography is going to be controlled? Should Twiggy have just gotten up in the morning, not brushed her teeth or hair and had her picture taken?

What about the covers of magazines? Those images sell the magazines and they are Photoshopped to the hilt. Should that be illegal as well? I can’t imagine what model or celebrity could fit the expectation of a fashion magazine cover.

One comment to my blog post about the Twiggy fiasco mentioned using some sort of disclosure on the ads but who would notice the fine print that says this is merely an enhanced picture, the real Twiggy doesn’t look anything like this? We would still want the fantasy.

From my perspective, trying to regulate cosmetic advertising in this manner is just a waste of time. Cosmetic companies will simply find a way around it and the result in this regard will be a detriment to older (meaning over 40) actresses and models who will find themselves out of jobs. Trying to regulate images of beauty doesn’t get women what they need or what they want. What does? Ignoring the glossy photos and unsupported claims and learning what really works and what doesn’t when it comes to looking one’s best. That’s where I hope my work has made some small dent in the almost impenetrable shroud of lies most of the cosmetic industry feeds women month after month.

T he answer to that question certainly isn’t from any cosmetic you can buy. Skin care can do a lot, but eliminating wrinkles isn’t among the benefits of even the best skin-care routines available. What is the real answer besides cosmetic procedures? Photoshop! It will stun some women and come as no surprise to others that the cosmetic industry relies exclusively on Adobe Photoshop (or some other photo-retouching computer program) to demonstrate in ads how effective their products are. They would NEVER rely on their products to demonstrate the dramatic results they endlessly boast you will get if you use their products because they know damn well such miraculous results are impossible.

A clear example of this artifice has popped up in the U.K. and is making news headlines over there. Here’s the saga:

Remember who this is? It’s Twiggy, circa 1969, the iconic, waif model who made emaciation a fashion statement that won’t go away.

But it isn’t her body or the spidery false lashes she always wore that is getting attention today. Rather it is the false, photo-shopped pictures of her appearing in magazine ads for Olay that have appeared all over the U.K.

Here is how Twiggy really looks in person circa 2008 (the photo is from an Elle awards show):

And here is how Olay wants you to believe she looks in their 2009 ads for Definity as a result of using their Eye Illuminator product:

And as advertising would have it here is another example of Twiggy’s photo-shopped visage in 2007 (the one on the left is the picture that appeared in ads for Marks Spencer and the one on the right is the real Twiggy).

Why Did This Make Headlines?

Olay launched their Definity Eye Illuminator Eye Cream this past summer with ads in magazines showing Twiggy’s face smoothed over like spackle does over cracks in a wall. Due to new advertising regulations in the U.K. from the Advertising Standards Authority the entire ad campaign was banned as being misleading (as if the claims weren’t misleading on their own, but that’s another story) and was “socially irresponsible” and could have a “negative impact on people’s perceptions of their own body image.”

Although Olay admitted to “minor retouching” around Twiggy’s eyelid area, her before and after pictures depict what is really going on, and it is hardly minor retouching by anyone’s definition except Olay’s.

But why pick on Olay? This kind of retouching shows up on hundreds of other models in most every single ad in a magazine that exists regardless if it’s cosmetics (false eyelashes pretending to be created by mascara) or clothing, or jewelry. Women and men are doctored up to look perfect. Is there anything wrong with that?

Your Thoughts?

Before I write about my feelings concerning this new development in fashion photography I would love to hear from you. I’m curious to know what you think about all this. Please comment and then I’ll let share my thoughts.

R eaders of this blog know that I spend a lot of time in stores with sales people or on the phone talking to Customer Service representatives. And even though I regularly write about my bizarre (and sometimes infuriating) experiences out there in the beauty trenches, I still find myself amazed at the strange things—lack of knowledge, inconsistencies, rudeness—that transpire on a regular basis. In the spirit of the Best of 2009 lists peppering blogs everywhere, here’s my top 5 head-scratching moments of the year:

5. Elizabeth Arden:
When I contacted Elizabeth Arden directly to find out if their 2-in-1 Cleanser had been discontinued, they told me that it had been renamed “3-in1 Daily Cleanser Exfoliator.” I asked them if they could tell me how the formula had changed, and they said it hadn’t. “No change at all?” I asked. “None,” they confirmed. Now, I’ve double checked the math, and still don’t understand how a product can go from being 2-in-1 to 3-in-1 with out adding anything else to it! I suppose the folks at Arden simply decided they’d sell more of this cleanser if they added another benefit to the name, even though it was there all along.

4. A Downtown Seattle Luxury Spa:
While making a sunscreen purchase in a spa, I asked about their return policy, not that I intended on returning anything, but out of professional curiosity. The girl at the counter said “It shouldn’t be a problem as long as you have your receipt.” Fair enough. However, after I’d made my purchase, a manager came over and proceeded to explain that there are no returns allowed whatsoever, for any reason. When I told her that the cashier, who was still in front of us, said that it wouldn’t be a problem, the manager balked at me, saying, “Oh, come on, we aren’t Nordstrom!” The salesperson didn’t say a word. I have news for that manager, not only aren’t they Nordstrom, they are an embarrassment from start to finish.

3. Ulta:
Researching some Lorac products, I asked the salesperson if she could tell me which active sunscreens Lorac uses their lipstick, since I couldn’t find it on the packaging and was concerned about broad spectrum protection. She said she didn’t have that information, but assured me that if I didn’t like the sunscreen protection, I could return it. How does that make any sense? Whether or not a lipstick includes sufficient UVA protection isn’t something that’s determined by preference! And if this salesperson had been better trained, she might have known that.

2. SK-II:
With full page ads in multiple high-distribution fashion magazines, I was eager to get a hold of SK-II’s new Skin Signature Cream, which the ads claim can be purchased at Saks, Bloomingdales and on their own website. After contacting these stores to no avail, I did a live chat with a representative at SK-II.com only to learn that they have no idea when Skin Signature Cream will be on the market. When I remarked to the Customer Service rep “I must say, it’s weird to run ads for a product that’s not available anywhere,” the rep replied, “I know!” Her candor was refreshing, but those ads continue to run, with no product launch date in site. So weird and so expensive!

1. Olay:
An attentive reader alerted us to the fact that Olay had reformulated and repackaged some products in their Regenerist line. Sure enough, I looked it up on their website and the formulas had changed. So, after purchasing the products and confirming that the new ingredients were indeed on the labels, I called Olay’s Customer Service to get more info, yet they denied that there had been any formulary change to the Regenerist line, claiming that those products hadn’t changed since 2006. When I directed the CS rep to look at her own website, she saw the different ingredient lists and said, “I have no explanation for that.” I really felt bad for the awkward spot she was in, but given Olay is owned by Procter & Gamble, a giant in the consumer products industry, there really is no excuse for them to leave their Customer Service reps in the dark about their products.

Who knows what double-talk and outright misinformation I’ll hear in 2010, but rest assured the best of them will make their way to this blog!

As 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!

A reader recently wrote an email taking Paula to task for reviewing products favorably when the company or brand behind them is known to conduct animal testing. This reader didn’t appreciate Paula praising a product when the very product in question may have been used for animal testing purposes, resulting in needless cruelty and death.

Without question, the issue of animal testing is complex and fraught with moral ambiguity. That is why Paula and her team made the decision years ago to not let a company’s animal testing status affect how products are reviewed. Instead, we chose to let consumers decide whether they want to support a company that engages in this practice or not. As fewer and fewer cosmetic companies continue to rely on animal testing, the neutral stance we’ve chosen has become less of an issue.

Despite this, the reader’s email nagged at me. She specified that we review many Olay products positively yet she won’t use this brand or any other owned by Olay’s parent company, Procter & Gamble. I have some friends who feel the same way, too. I decided to contact a P&G employee we’ve developed a professional relationship with. I wanted to hear firsthand what the company would say about this issue. Here is the response I received:

“P&G Beauty & Grooming’s position is we do not test our products on animals; nor do we ask suppliers to test them on our behalf. We do not test ingredients on animals, except in very rare cases when needed to meet government-mandated or safety obligations. Today, the vast majority of P&G’s cosmetic and grooming safety assessments (i.e., >99%) are conducted by using non-animal alternative methods. This is a direct result of our leadership efforts in developing alternative methods [to animal testing]. As a company, P&G has invested more than $250 million to date in helping to develop more than 50 proven alternative methods. And, we are committed to continuing our leadership in research to develop non-animal alternative methods which will ultimately result in the elimination of all animal testing.”

Given the breadth of P&G’s brand portfolio and the worldwide regulations they must abide by, it isn’t surprising that they may need to conduct a small amount of animal testing to meet regulatory, toxicology, or safety requirements. However, it seems they have abandoned animal testing as it relates to personal care products, which is great news.

I was surprised at how much money the company has invested in developing alternatives to animal testing. $250 million is an incredible sum! It’s clearly not one a corporation would offer if they weren’t interested in putting an end to animal suffering in the name of human beauty. My hat is off to them for their ongoing efforts, which no doubt will result in better products with stronger pre-market safety records.

As for consumers, including the woman whose email inspired this blog, the ball remains in your court. Are P&G’s efforts to phase out animal testing enough to convince you to shop their brands—or would you prefer to take an all-or-nothing approach and steer clear until they go on record stating that all company-sponsored animal testing has ceased? The choice is yours but it must be said that avoiding P&G products means you will not be using some of the best the cosmetics industry has to offer. Clearly, for many this issue isn’t as black and white as it once was.

A Beautypedia subscriber contacted me recently to inform me that the ingredient list we had on the site for N.V. Perricone’s Neuropeptide Eye Area Contour was incorrect. Such communication is always appreciated, and sure enough, she was correct and we updated the information on www.beautypedia.com Don’t Go The Cosmetics Counter Without Me—one of the best features of Beautypedia: real time updates!). whole year! Can you imagine? Perricone has never been a doctor prone to providing accurate, substantiated information about his products, but knowingly keeping an incorrect ingredient list on his site for so long, I mean really, isn’t that inexcusable?

As you might have suspected, the plot thickens: although the company didn’t say this directly, it appears the reason the incorrect ingredient list stayed on the site was that it was much more impressive than the real one, at least if you bought (literally and figuratively) into Perricone’s claims about neuropeptides as today’s hottest youth elixir. The outdated ingredient statement listed “neuropeptides” as the main ingredient, a seemingly impressive point and one that helps justify this product’s hefty price tag ($195 for 0.5 ounce). But the new ingredient list has his overly hyped peptides in a very different place: almost dead last. So it turns out for nearly $200 you’re getting less peptides than in $20 bottle of Olay Regenerist Daily Regenerating Serum.

Another revelation: the original ingredient list for this product listed the peptides as “CLB-253 Neuropeptide” and “CLS-72 Neuropeptide”, while the current (correct) ingredient list more accurately identifies these as form of the commonly used pentapeptides, which hardly justifies the price or gives credence to the age-reducing claims. If I had purchased this product I’d be extremely disappointed in the bait-and-switch tactics employed, not to mention the meager amount of bells and whistles this eye-area anti-wrinkle moisturizer actually has. Chutzpah, thy name is Perricone!