Gillette Odor Shield: Science and Technology!

This is a magazine ad for Gillette Odor Shield deodorant and body wash for men.

The text reads:

Help eliminate odor: don’t just cover it up.

10X more odor protection coverage when used together

Introducing Gillette’s line of odor shield products.

Odor Shield Anti-Perspirant and Body Wash help eliminate body odor instead of just covering it up.  Odor shield technology targets and neutralizes body odor at the source.  And when used together, you get 10X more odor protection coverage.  So you can perform under pressure.

Targets: Shield zeroes in on odor

Neutralizes: Odor counteracted at the source

Protects: Helps eliminate body odor

This ad uses all of the hard-hitting “we use science!” cues that I’m used to seeing in ads for anti-aging makeup.  It’s primarily black and red (what is it about black and red that suggests serious science to advertising designers?), uses lots of outlines to direct your eye and suggest steps the product is going through in some sort of high-tech process, shows geometric shapes to suggest molecules or other “sciency” things, and gives completely unexplained numbers with no backing data (in this case – “10X more effective”).

Does this promise of serious science and high technology give me any more faith in the product?  Not really.  If you actually read what it says, it’s basically saying what every single product that promises to reduce or prevent body odor says.  This ad seems to be relying almost entirely on the “science” gimmick to sell it’s product.  The problem is that science means data and data is one thing that is conspicuously absent from this ad.  And that’s the problem.

In this day and age I expect that every product I buy had science involved in its creation somewhere along the line, whether it was in the initial development, practical creation or testing for safety and effectiveness.  Science isn’t a novelty – it’s the norm.  So why is your science special?  What does it tell us?  If it shows that your product is more effective, then tell us how much more, how it’s more effective and why it’s more effective.  And don’t forget that “more” is a relative term, so it’s vital that you tell us what it’s more effective than.

Basically, if you’re selling me something on the basis of science, you’d better either be showing me science or data of some kind to explain why that’s such a selling point or I’m going to assume that “science” is a selling point because you never used it before, which makes me doubt both your credibility and reliability.  Like I said – science is used in everything.  Every food you buy at the grocery store (even the vegetables in the produce department that are marked “organic”) have science and technology behind their being there.  So if you haven’t been using science until now to create a beauty product, I’m going to question the safety and validity of your products.

So I think that this ad needs some major rethinking.  Where did that “10X more effective” number come from?  How is this any different from any other anti-perspirant?  If you want to use data – use data.  But stop with the red/black shorthand for science.  Consumers are pretty savvy and can handle a few numbers.  It might even impress some of them.  But this technique is getting old.

Prevage: So Much is Wrong with You

This is an ad for Prevage, an anti-aging product, and it was found in a magazine.

The text reads:

Elizabeth Arden: DermaTechnology Devision

“I want firmer, smoother looking skin with no sign of stretch marks or age spots.”

Decolletage: Maximum exposure means dreaded age spots, fine lines and crepiness.  Freckles are definitely not cute anymore.

Arms: Dryness, sun damage, rough, bumpy skin.  Loss of firmness and elasticity.  To check, do the wave test.

Stomach: Weight gain and loss.  Childbirth.  Need we say more?

Hands: Age spots, dry, thin skin.  Exposure to sun and environmental irritants.  Hands reveal it all.

The Bottom Line: Loss of firmness and tone.  Stretch marks and sagging.  It’s time to take a firm position.

Legs: Roughness and sun damage, dryness and dimpled skin.  Only one other thing makes them look better – beautiful shoes.

Prevage body

total transforming anti-aging moisturizer

New Prevage with Idebenone, clinically proven as the most powerful antioxident, and Tripeptide Complex zeros in your body’s anti-aging skincare needs.

- Over 85% of consumers tested observed a reduction in the look of minor scars, stretch marks and dimpled skin and 67% of consumers also saw a reduction in the appearance of age spots and discolorations.

It’s definitely not just another moisturizer – you’ll see a difference in just six weeks: Skin looks smoother, firmer, totally transformed.  Proof… not promises.

OMG!  I’m being crushed by science-speak!  Ok, so this ad says a lot.  But what does it really say?

First, it tells us all the things that are wrong with us point by point.  Great.  Clearly any sign of having, you know, lived a life is very bad, so it’s a good thing the next thing the ad does is tell us how to erase all evidence of it!  Oh, and notice the seams on the body?  It’s a mannequin.  Because not even Photoshopped models have the perfect body this ad is telling us we should have.

So what exactly does this product promise?  Not actually a whole lot.  Despite coming from the “DermaTechnology Devision” of Elizabeth Arden, which is a make-up company and not in any way on the forefront of heath or technology, the science-speak here is pretty meaningless.

The part about “Idebenone” being “the most powerful antioxident” is only true when it’s compared with a very limited list of other things (“alpha-lipoic acid, kinetin, vitamin C, vitamin E and coenzyme Q10″).  There’s lots of other options out there, so why such a limited list?

The statistics (which, sadly, aren’t even that impressive) came from a sample size of 60 women.  That’s it.  60 women aged 25-65 over six weeks.  I can’t think of any field of study where 60 is really a sample size from which you can draw even slightly meaningful conclusions for a population of millions (the women being advertised to).

This is hardly reassuring as “proof… not promises”.  It sounds like a lot of empty promises to me.  And worse, it sounds like the worst kind of advertising – create a problem and then sell people the solution.  I’m sorry, but this one is really awful.  Try again, Elizabeth Arden, because this ad pretty much just showed me why not to buy your products, which I’m guessing was not the aim.

Clarins: Life is Better with Youth

This ad was found in a fashion magazine and is for Clarins “Younger Longer” Balm.

The text reads:

Looking younger longer is no longer a dream…

New

Younger Longer

Clarins Age Control Secret

A new vision in age control: Younger Longer’s patented formula goes to the very source of aging to improve the circulatory and nerve networks responsible for younger-looking skin.

With advanced neuro-cosmetic technology and rare concentrated botanicals, skin is revitalized and the fresh, toned, radiance of youth is regained.

It’s a fact.  With Clarins, life’s more beautiful.

Dermatologist tested.  Non-comedogenic.

Clarins Paris

The European leader in luxury skin care.

There are so many weird things about this ad.  First of all, it seems to be trying to sound scientific, but it’s not really telling us anything.  What does this magic cream actually do?  No idea.  I did some basic internet research on the terms “neuro-cosmetic” and “non-comedogenic” since they were new to me.  “Neuro-cosmetic” seems to be a term thrown around by the cosmetics industry a lot, especially in relation to products that are supposed to make you look younger or more healthy, and seems to imply that the product in some way affects the nerves near the surface of the skin (how it does that, or why, in this case is incredibly unclear).  “Non-comedogenic” simply means the cream doesn’t block pores, which theoretically reduces the likelihood of pimples.  I can think of lots of ways they could have said both of those things much more clearly, but I don’t think they wanted to.  I think the intention of this ad is to make the cream sound mysterious and “sciencey”.  Science is the new magic, especially when it comes to looking younger.

This ad also explicitly equates looking younger with having a better life and being happier.  The ad states “It’s a fact.  With Clarins, life is more beautiful.”  Well, it’s actually not a fact.  Perhaps they have factual studies that their cream can make your skin smoother or clearer or whatever, but not only is that not proof that it makes you more beautiful (something you can’t prove anyway because it’s a value judgment), but they also have absolutely no way of proving that their cream would make your life any better.  Even if it does make you more “beautiful”, that doesn’t guarantee that your life will be better or that you will be happier.  In fact, you might be more miserable.  No one can ever achieve perfect beauty, as defined by the all-knowing magazine industry, and so for some women getting one step closer only makes them more unhappy because it further illustrates how unattainable the actual goal is.  Youth and beauty are a messy, messy quagmire and facts rarely play much of a role there.

As is probably clear by now, I really don’t like this ad.  I think it’s incredibly deceitful and particularly reprehensible in the way it treats it’s audience.  It’s assuming a level of trust in science, but that the reader won’t bother to actually check anything before buying their miracle cream.  It promises to make your life better by making you look younger, which is really just a snake-oil sales trick.  It’s this kind of ad that really makes me hate the beauty industry and not just want to laugh at it.