Artistry - True Science - True Beauty

In my previous post, I laid out my background in and respect for the world of advertising--as well as the irresponsible abuse and misuse of advertising that some engage in. My case in point was a L'Oreal ad and a Garnier Nutrlitioniste ad and website, touting "clinical studies" to make sketchy claims about their products.

Any company seeking to use science--legitimately and ethically--to help sell their product, I recommend they take a lesson from Artistry.

The company, one of the top five selling prestige brands in the world (according to Euromonitor), employs clinical studies in the right way.

This Artistry ad shows a silicone skin replica, which is thoughtfully explained as an actual impression of the skin used to measure improvement in the number and depth of fine lines. Based on that replica, the ad then lays out objective proof of this product's effectiveness:

Artistry Time Defiance Intensive Repair Serum, based on the measurements of this silicone skin replica, shows that in 14 days it:


Improves skin clarity by 261%
Reduces the appearance of fine lines by 99%
Improves the skin smoothness by 83%

The scientifically based data are more than a few cuts above the subjective opinions rendered by women in the L'Oreal ad and on the Garnier' Nutritioniste website.

In addition, companies would do well to stand behind their products as Artistry does.

The company backs every one of its products with a 180-day money-back satisfaction guarantee. That’s six whole months.

So even if after using an Artistry product, a customer finds it doesn’t meet her standards for whatever reason, she gets all her money back.

Ad Claims, Bad Claims

I grew up in the Ad World. My mom was a rep for photographers, illustrators, and commercial film directors. Her husband was a creative director for one of the top ad agencies in the world (Foote, Cone & Belding) before opening up his own shop along One Mag Mile in Chicago.

I did voiceovers, jingles, print ads, and commercials from the tender age of ten.

It’s a world that is fun, exciting, and highly creative.

The Oscars of the ad world are known as the Clio Awards and can be more entertaining than those who strut along The Red Carpet.

It’s a fascinating industry, watching how one builds a brand, crafts an image of a product or service or company, communicates their “story,” and provokes emotion from their audience.

Having said all that, it ticks me off when advertisers puke all over that world with misleading junk.

Case in point:

This L'Oreal ad uses graphs in order to paint a picture of their products' effectiveness.

And look! There’s a “clinical study” to back up their claims. Oh wait, what’s that little (*) mean? Hmm, let’s see…oh, here it is in tiny print, laid out vertically, to force you to turn the magazine sideways to make it out: “Based on consumer evaluations of 38 women using the lotion and 43 women using the serum and lotion.”

Since when did consumer evaluations become a clinical study? Were the forms presented on a clipboard from guys wearing lab coats?

What is this ad really saying? It’s saying that:

in their opinion, 28 of 43 women believed their skin looked younger,
in their opinion, 35 of 43 women believed their skin looked stronger (just what does "stronger-looking skin" look like?)
in their opinion, 26 of 43 women believed their skin looked brighter.

Here's another ad from Garnier Nutritioniste. Their fine print to back up their "clinically proven" claim just states "Based on a clinical study". If you go to their website, buried, is their study.

"Clinically tested and reviewed by dermatoligists and nutritionalists" (What does this mean?)

"In 3 weeks: Skin is radiant, fine lines are visibly reduced and women saw more even-toned skin." (How radiant? How much reduced? Women saw?)

In my next post: my advice to any company seeking to use science--legitimately and ethically--to help sell their product.