14 ANALYSIS
24 year olds. The 25-34 and 35-44 age groups were also keen, with 58% and 57% respectively saying they would like this capability. However, the million-dollar question is how to achieve this in a scientifically valid manner that is acceptable to consumers. We found that 25% would be likely to use a device or smartphone app to assess skin or hair condition following use of a product in the next 12 months. This rose to 39% for 18-24 year olds. However, using technology to assess product effectiveness raises more challenges than it does for diagnostics and personalisation. It is not easy to find the right balance between technical complexity, accuracy and convenience to provide tangible evidence of product efficacy at an individual level. Visual analysis of skin condition can be hindered by factors such as lighting or makeup residue. A more scientifically robust measurement could be obtained if detailed before and after tests were conducted, covering factors such as a surface evaluation of living skin cells, transepidermal water loss and electroconductivity. Yet while these procedures would provide a more accurate assessment, they would need to be carried out by professionals in a laboratory context. Another important consideration is how candid consumers really want brands to be when assessing the condition of their skin and hair. In our focus groups, women responded emphatically when introduced to the concept of a smart mirror offering at- home skin analysis, with comments like: “how is that going to help a woman’s self- esteem?” and “I think I prefer my ignorance.”
So, care needs to be taken to ensure any personal feedback hits the right notes. In our quantitative survey, 55% of all women and 76% of women aged 18-24 agreed that they wanted ‘more products to be available that help me think about my hair and skin in a positive, non-judgemental way’.
Make tech the enabler, not the driver Brands are faced with a conundrum here, both in terms of diagnostics and post-treatment assessment. Consumers say they want an accurate appraisal of hair and skin condition before and after using a product. But it needs to be handled with sensitivity. An effective solution is to rationalise what people want, then align this with what can realistically be delivered without undue invasiveness, effort or distress for the consumer. Beauty tech product development often follows the line of ‘find some technology that measures x, y and z, then create a product around it’. At Sagentia, we believe it is better to invert this approach.
So, we might start by looking at the functional benefit a consumer is trying to achieve (e.g. healthier skin) then consider what that means at a physiological level (e.g. promotion of collagen growth). Once this has been established, we identify technologies that can help measure the desired physiological change. This approach works well when looking for ways to evidence the benefits of an existing formulation. Alternatively, product formulation and beauty tech specialists can innovate cohesively from the outset, focusing on aspects of beauty consumers want to measure, such as hair condition. From here, it is possible to identify which ingredients
might be added to formulations to enhance that, as well as which technologies can measure it. Either way, clarity of purpose and a collaborative, multidiscipline approach underpins development of progressive products that genuinely add value to the consumer experience. We believe that in the future, consumers will expect to be able to assess a product’s claims as a matter of course. It will not be enough to refer to evidence from beauty trials. People will want proof that ‘this is actually working for me’.
Where next? Personal care and beauty innovation will always rely on science as an enabler: chemistry formulations are at the heart of any product. But today, this is just one aspect of a much longer equation. Other factors, such as advanced consumer services driven by digital capabilities or a brand’s ethical and sustainability credentials, need to be considered alongside formulation. Modern personal care innovation demands an extension of the research and development agenda to encompass a broader range of scientific and technical expertise from multiple disciplines. So, dermatologists, chemists and biologists need to collaborate with experts in ethnology, sociology and market research as well as physics, optics, statistical analysis and digital architectures.
This is an exciting time to operate in personal care and beauty. But the pace and scale of change can be daunting. It is important to keep perspective, and this is where consumer insight becomes invaluable. At the end of the day, most people want to find products that work and make them feel good about themselves. Keeping these goals front of mind brings lucidity to the dynamic, complex and multifaceted world of personal care in the digital economy.
Note: The study cited here initially involved qualitative research with around 45 men and women self-defined as medium or heavy users of cosmetics and beauty products. This was followed up with a nationally representative online survey. All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2029 GB adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 9th - 10th September 2019. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+). For the purposes of the survey, ‘personal care and beauty products’ were classified as ‘any products used on the skin, hair or body (e.g. body wash, cleansers, moisturisers, shaving gels etc.) excluding cosmetics (e.g. makeup, fake tan, etc.)’.
PC PERSONAL CARE EUROPE April 2020
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
