Apply with care

We’ve all noticed the small print that pops up at the bottom of the TV screen when advertisers are making claims about their products. For experienced research professionals, these disclaimers can raise more questions than they answer. The cosmetics industry is particularly prominent in its use of research to persuade us how products can make us younger, shinier and lusher. Let’s take a look at what they’re saying.

In advertising for its Grow Luscious mascara, Revlon declares that “96% saw instantly longer, lusher lashes”, while Rimmel proclaims that 93% agree “that lashes look remarkably long” after using something called Lash Accelerator. At first glance these seem to be pretty impressive claims (and may well have the desired effect of stimulating interest and perhaps trial), but we should look even closer.

For a start, both ads admit to using lash inserts and enhancing the image in post-production, which immediately creates a somewhat inflated impression of the product’s benefits. The male voiceover in Rimmel’s ad purrs that “lashes look up to 80% longer instantly”, a claim for which no evidence is offered other than the image on screen (which, as we know, they’ve had to enhance).

Secondly, how can the claims of “instantly longer, lusher lashes” and “remarkably long lashes” be substantiated, and what does this mean to the consumer? As was recently highlighted by the BBC’s Watchdog programme, the issue is not confined to mascara. Pantene Pro-V claims that its shampoo and conditioner give up to 60% more volume – but this is compared to unwashed hair rather than a competing product (or even ordinary soap). Rimmel claims that its Vinyl Gloss lipgloss makes lips “up to 80% shinier”, but shinier than what? The answer turns out to be bare lips – and there’s no indication of how they’re measuring shine.

Here comes the science bit
If we take these claims at face value, a percentage figure in the region of 80 or above seems rather good. However, it is clear to the more eagle-eyed researcher that these scores are far from impressive given the small sample sizes on which they are based. Rimmel claims that 79% of women agree that the “Smart-Tone technology” in its Match Perfection powder “mimics skin tone”. The small print (in accordance with Advertising Standards Authority guidelines stating that all claims have to be substantiated and the basis for them made clear) reveals this was taken from the opinions of just 52 women. Statistical analysis of this result uncovers a margin of error of +/–11, which means that this headline score of 79% could in fact be as low as 68% – far less inspiring than the original figure. This is also true of Clarins (which uses a sample of just 44 women for claims made about its Vital Light Day product) and Revlon (whose claims about Grow Luscious mascara, mentioned earlier, are based on only 53 women).

Another behemoth of the industry deserves a mention for a product in its male skin care range. A recent Gillette ad claims that 85% of 68 men agree that the Fusion razor “has five blades with an anti-friction coating that allows them to float comfortably”. Does this mean that 85% of the men agreed that the razor has five blades? Did the others think it had a different number of blades? Or does it mean that 85% of the men agreed that it has an anti-friction coating that allows the blades to float comfortably? One assumes the latter, although surely ‘comfort’ is a prerequisite for a sharp instrument designed to be drawn across the face every day. As tennis star Roger Federer strokes his face with pride, the voiceover concludes: “No wonder that Gillette Fusion research is recognised by the British Skin Foundation.” Indeed.

Questions and answers
None of the above fall foul of ad regulations – but others have. The Advertising Standards Authority reecently upheld a complaint about a TV ad for Nivea Visage Anti-Wrinkle Q10 Plus which stated that “37% of women feel more attractive now than they did 10 years ago” – a claim that had been taken from an unrelated attitudinal study and shoehorned into the creative for this product.

Research asked the other advertisers mentioned whether they thought their research was robust enough to support their claims. Revlon had not responded at the time of publication. Coty, which owns Rimmel, said its testing methods were “undertaken in line with regulatory, legal and industry requirements and that it is “committed to maintaining the highest standard of business practices”. Pantene said: “The claims made in our cosmetic advertising are legal, decent, honest and truthful, as required by the independent UK advertising regulator codes of practice. They are based on sound science and rigorous testing and are relevant and meaningful to consumers.” Clarins said: “Our Vital Light TV ad was approved by Clearcast to ensure that it is compliant with the BCAP TV advertising standard code. We supplied them with all the necessary documentary evidence to substantiate our claims.” The firm did not respond to a request to share the same information with Research. Gillette said its ad had been approved by Clearcast but provided no further information.

None of the brands volunteered any methodological details about how their studies were conducted.

A call to action
It is the research industry’s duty to tackle head-on the use of survey-based claims in ads. If not, we risk those in the public domain devaluing the research industry as a whole.

We need to work with the Advertising Standards Authority to create new guidelines regarding research-based advertising and to highlight the fact that stating what these claims are based on is not enough: consumers are simply not aware of what this means in reality and are immediately sceptical when presented with reams of small print. I believe that minimum sample sizes – 200 per cell would be a good start – for any claims-based research is one sure-fire way we can help to protect the integrity of our industry (Direct Line base their latest home insurance claim on a sample of 281 nationwide incidents). Not only would this reduce the margin of error to a more respectable maximum (+/–7 ), it would also standardise the claims of all brands so that consumers can make more accurate assessments and informed choices.

In the meantime we need to continue to ask tough questions about the research-based claims that advertisers use. We also need to continue to demonstrate our value as experts by providing robust research to substantiate all claims, while remaining as cost-effective and timely as possible. I’m aware that this is what all good researchers and research agencies continually strive to achieve, and that more often than not it is the client that dictates the quality of research that can be achieved within their budgets and timeframes. In the long run, strengthening these partnerships and upholding a sense of what is honest and fair will serve to benefit both clients and agencies.

This article was written by Adam Curtis with additional reporting by Research