Skincare claims that are marketing bollocks
Don't believe the hype, tempting as it may be. Read this before you buy yet another serum...
“Botox in a bottle”
I’ve already written about why this one boils my piss, but NEVER FORGET that nothing except Botox works like Botox1.
If it sounds scientific but means nothing: it’s bullshit
“Clinically proven*”
There is ALWAYS an asterisk that reveals how limited the scope of this is.
I originally intended to talk more about this here, but realised when writing it that it needs a whole post to itself. Watch this space.
“Dermatologist approved”
Cosmetics company: “Random Doctor Dermatologist Person, if we pay you $$$, do you mind going on record to blandly state that this product is ‘approved’. That should be a vague enough claim for us all to feel good about this, right?”
Random Doctor Dermatologist Person: “Fuck yes! Approved!”
“Patented formulation”
What this means: this product likely contains inexpensive, out-of-patent active ingredients that a cosmetics company has combined in a ‘unique’ (and therefore patentable) way.
This can be as straightforward as a very cheap product with the addition of:
A patented preservative
A patented ingredient to improve the fragrance or ‘slip’ of a product
A patented ingredient that regulates the release/delivery of the active ingredients
Make sure that the patented ingredient is specifically beneficial to your skincare concerns before you buy. Especially if its inclusion is inflating the price.
“Targets the signs of ageing”
You’ll see this ALL THE TIME. And it is ERRANT NONSENSE.
”Targets” - the intent is great, but ‘targeting’ is not the same as ‘doing’.
If you’d asked her, I’m pretty sure Raygun would have cheerfully told you that she was ‘targeting’ a gold medal at the Olympics, and I’m sure we’ll all remember how that turned out for the rest of our lives.
”The signs of ageing" - how deliciously vague. An intolerance to Radio One? The terror of realising that if Back to the Future were made today and Marty went 30 years into the past, he’d land in 1995? A sudden appreciation for stewed prunes? I could go on2. But this phrase is meaningless.
Targets + signs of ageing = meaningless squared.
Natural ≠ good. Chemical ≠ bad.
Any of these terms are just trying to sell you something:
Chemical-free
Absolute nonsense. WATER is a chemical. Your body contains over 100,000 chemicals. DON’T FALL FOR THIS SHIT.
Detoxifies the skin
Nope. Skin is a barrier, not a filter. Pores don’t store toxins. You can detoxify your body, but your liver and kidneys already do a fine job of that for you. Maybe take a minute now to thank them?
‘Clean’ beauty
Eeeurgh. This one is second only to “Botox in a bottle”. There is no regulatory definition of ‘clean’ (or ‘dirty’) cosmetic/skincare products. It’s deliberately vague and designed to sound healthy whilst meaning fuck all.
Toxin-free
Similarly, there’s no standard definition of “toxin” in cosmetics. Literally everything is toxic in a high enough dose. Water can kill you if you drink enough of it.
All-natural ingredients (also ‘organic’)
Many synthetics are safer and more stable than their natural counterparts. Natural actually often means irritating, unstable or poorly preserved3. It doesn’t equal non-toxic. Mercury is ‘natural’ and that shit will absolutely fucking kill you.
Money for old soap
Every few months, someone reinvents moisturising and gives it a new name.
Skin cycling = using your products on different days
Glass skin = hydration and light-reflective makeup
Cloud skin = matte primer
Skin flooding = applying a humectant to damp skin
Skin streaming = deciding to use fewer skincare products5
Cryo-sculpting/ice rolling = rubbing cold things on your face
Jello/honey/dolphin/yoghurt skin = glowing skin
These aren’t inherently bad. But they are a marketing tactic to confuse you into buying some more shit you already own 5 bottles of.
BONUS SECTION: The Marketing Bollocks Checklist
Ask yourself:
Do I understand what these ingredients are?
Will the ingredients do anything a decent £8 moisturiser won’t?
Does the claim come with actual data that I understand?
If this weren’t ‘luxe’ branded, would I still want it?
Do I only want it because I hope it’ll make me look like the photoshopped woman in the ad?
Am I considering buying it because the advert made me feel insecure?
Is the ‘hero’ ingredient listed near the bottom of the ingredients list6?
Is this product solving a real problem that I objectively have and have genuine concerns about?
Could I explain to a dermatologist7 why I bought this?
Until the next time! x
Pedants’ corner: I’m including Azzalure and Dysport under my Botox umbrella here
I won’t. You’re welcome.
Like Johnny Depp. BOOM BOOM.
Or similar
I’m not kidding. This is an actual thing. There are over 36,000 Google results for it.
These are listed in descending order of concentration in the product
Probably not the one who’s been paid to advertise it