ANALYSIS 13
it is our belief that the rise of beauty tech will provide valuable assistance here. Technology gives us the freedom to reimagine interactions between brands and consumers, addressing multifaceted issues while making it easier for people to get exactly what they want.
Which product works best for me? Our focus group discussions revealed that many people want to find a product that ‘just works’. This can represent a real challenge and is predominantly achieved through trial and error. Participants voiced frustration at this, and the fact that it resulted in a lot of waste – if a product was not liked, it was not used.
Several of the women in our focus groups clearly aligned the effectiveness of personal care and beauty products with a broader sense of wellbeing. They talked about wanting products that made them ‘feel fabulous’. Comments like “It did make me feel good. So, it was never about what it actually did” were voiced frequently. This was mirrored by the quantitative study,
where 62% of women agreed that ‘brands should focus more on how products make you feel, not only how they make you look’. The male focus group also put a lot of emphasis on product effectiveness. However, they generally viewed it in a more practical, functional way. As one participant said: “I spend more money on moisturiser rather than anything else, just because it actually does work.”
Combined with the quantitative stats pertaining to value, functional benefits and pre-purchase trials, this points towards a central consumer desire to find what is ‘right for me’. It’s a continuation of the personalisation movement which has defined much personal care innovation in recent years. Digital age consumers increasingly expect ready access to products tailored to their specific needs and desires, without necessarily expecting to pay more for them.
The personalisation question We see two key innovation areas that could enhance personalisation for individual consumers at scale: diagnostic devices and sophisticated ‘pick and mix’ product formulations.
Our findings indicate that 38% of adults would be ‘comfortable’ using a device or smartphone app to determine which product is best suited to their needs (e.g. by assessing skin tone or hair texture). There was a greater appetite for this amongst younger consumers, and it decreased sequentially with age: 56% of 18-24 years olds would be comfortable, but only 23% of over 55s. This demographic difference is important to note as it could inform the
April 2020
direction of device development and marketing. If propensity for uptake is likely to be higher among younger (typically cash- strapped, time-poor) age groups than older (potentially more affluent) segments, innovations need to reflect this. Initiating free smartphone apps or rapid profiling of skin or hair condition in salons or high street venues could be a better investment than a luxury at-home device or a time-consuming, private diagnostic process. However, as millennials and post-millennials hit their 30s, 40s and 50s, there will be a gradual shift and longer-term innovation should take that into account. Companies also need to consider how the consumer mood or zeitgeist around consumption is changing – consumers may be willing to pay more for a single product which is right for them if it means they do not end up spending smaller amounts on multiple products which fail to deliver.
When we raised personalised product
formulations with our focus group participants, there was an assumption that these would come with a price tag beyond most people’s means. According to one female participant personal care brands are: “targeting the higher income revenue streams here.” However, they liked the idea of a middle
ground, for instance allowing consumers to tailor a product to their personal needs via a blended solution using various ingredients in different quantities to offer a more tailored approach at an affordable price. In 2016, Sagentia assisted NuSkin in its delivery of a breakthrough personalised anti-ageing product, ageLOC Me. After an online skin assessment, the consumer is prescribed customised serums drawn from
2,000 possible combinations. They are dispensed via a touchless device providing the individual’s optimum dosage. Developments in this vein are likely to become more mainstream as people look for hair, body and skin care products that deliver the ultimate in value and effectiveness. According to our quantitative research, 24% of all people (31% of women and 36% of 18- 24s) would be ‘likely’ to use a device enabling them to make products more personalised to their skin or hair needs in the next 12 months. Brands that can combine the development of such devices with bespoke formulations which consumers value at an appropriate price point will be onto a winner with this segment.
Does it really work?
The top two factors highlighted by our quantitative survey were value for money and functional benefits. But how do people tell if a product has delivered on its promises?
Our focus group participants indicated that this is a subjective area, with comments like: “It’s about how we feel it’s working, and so it’s always going to be quite individual.”
This was backed up by the quantitative
study, which showed that the highest proportion of respondents (43%) assess product effectiveness in terms of the way their skin or hair looks and feels after the product has been used for a period of time. Nevertheless, there is an appetite for
more objective assessment of product efficacy. We found that 49% would like an accurate measure of how their skin or hair has changed after using a product. This figure rose to 56% for women and 65% for 18-
PERSONAL CARE EUROPE
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196
