The Top Tier Of Data

As you all know, over recent years there’s been an increase in consumer preferences for beauty products that are supported by scientific evidence, reflecting a desire for efficacy and transparency – as well as the convergence of cosmetics with health.

The importance of beauty being “backed by science” has been on my mind lately, and not only because I just finished reading the phenomenal Lessons in Chemistry (anyone else?).

Experts speaking on a recent virtual panel I attended – promoting a brand of collagen supplements – hammered home the truth about clinical trials in beauty. It compounded a lot of what I already understood while serving as a good reminder of what I do, and don’t, want to see from brands in terms of clinical data. I thought I’d share that here:

• A double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised study – ideally published in a peer-reviewed publication – is the top tier of data. Bring it on!
• That’s doesn’t mean we don’t welcome clinical data commissioned by a brand. A company putting its product into independent hands to prove it works speaks volumes.
• Consumer testing is not clinical data, so please don’t use phrases like “clinical studies show…” when sharing such information. Clinical data can be expensive to extract, and we don’t always expect to see it, but be honest with what you do have to share!
• Aligning a product with studies done on other products – because they share an ingredient, for example – is misleading. Ingredients in a formulation are only single parts of a product’s equation, and something that’s proven to perform well in one formula might not in another.

Obviously, I’m no scientist, but the beauty industry is packed with them – and I think it pays to work with such experts on launches with data stories. In this case – as Lessons in Chemistry’s lead, Elizabeth Zott, would say – “I believe the work will speak for itself”.