SKIN MICROBIOME
Second product launch In 2013, when we launched a prebiotic-based acne treatment, Eu-Seb, we were better prepared for this kind of communication challenge. Comparing trends in Google search for skin microbiome, any interest in this topic was literally non-existent in 2009 but became noticeable in 2013, predominantly in South Korea, the USA, Australia, the UK and Canada. This was a foundation to create a discussion upon, but the key problem was a total absence of mentions of microbiomes in official educational materials for skin therapists all over the world. The situation was made worse by the sensationalist publications about the “unwashed creators of cosmetics with bacteria”, which created some buzz around the concept but focused on the unsavoury and inaccurate aspect of neglecting hygiene as necessary for skin health. Both the mainstream concept of cosmetic acne treatment and dermatological guidelines recommended using disinfecting and antibacterial topical products to eliminate acne-related bacteria Propionibacterium acnes as a recognised pathogen, which was literally the opposite of the new ideas. Fortunately, Solabia’s communication was strong enough and it was a great help in preparing educational and marketing materials based on the properties of a new prebiotic ingredient Bioecolia (a-Glucan oligosaccharide). ‘Bioselective substrate for microbial beneficial flora – Ecoflora – to the detriment of pathogen and undesirable flora.’ A metabolisation study showed the
evidence of beneficial microbiome change and selective inhibition of pathogen growth as well as the promotion of saprophytic flora growth. Most dermatologists were familiar with the role of P. acnes in acne pathogenesis, so we could use this argument directly. Unfortunately, it sounded too complicated for skin therapists and especially for beauticians, managers and business owners with no medical background. Even though a good graph always has convincing potential, we needed more comprehensible wording and vivid association to explain how the new product worked.
81
The market for topical prebiotics was
not very active in 2013. Even now if you try to Google ‘prebiotic skincare’ you may be surprised at how few sources mention it, but eight years ago there were none. Skin therapists simply were not familiar with this terminology and did not understand the meaning of the word ‘prebiotic’. Knowing this, we started talking about ‘good’ and ‘bad’ bacteria and the ‘good food’ and ‘toxic food’ for them. Obviously, it was a gross simplification but successful enough to achieve results and re-direct the interest of skin professionals to this new approach. We concentrated on adult customers with
chronic acne, which is known to be a difficult problem for guideline-based therapy. Most adult acne patients were desperate by then, having a long story of unsuccessful acne treatments and the use of all recommended topical products based on retinol and derivatives, AHA, salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide. Skin sensitivity and dehydration were common issues, so a no-acid treatment presented a desirable alternative. Science- based messaging was strong for the people with medical backgrounds, but meaningless for beauty therapists and most customers, and therefore all communication about prebiotic- based products and treatment was based on anthropomorphic association to help people understand an unusual mechanism of action.
Another communication problem was
in the ‘alternative’ image of prebiotics and microbiome-friendly ingredients and products. A sensationalist press tone made an impression of a non-scientific approach, which placed microbiome-friendly skin care in the same realm as magic crystals and aromatherapy. Despite all our efforts to aim the journalists’ focus on the scientific findings, the complicated ecology of microorganisms and characteristics of microflora in healthy and unhealthy skin, microbiome-friendly ideology was met with much scepticism. It was very difficult to explain the key role of microbiome in the integrity of skin barrier and general skin health. Today we can still see the use of this
‘hippie’ message largely by personalised or so-called natural brands. The idea of good and bad bacteria as well as prebiotic as food is fairly popular and apparently works as a simplified, but efficient message.
Growing understanding In recent years, microbiome-oriented skin care has been slowly becoming a trend, forming specific communication style. Journalists writing about microbiome use such expressions as ‘probiotics or prebiotics infused products’, ‘nasty germs’ or ‘biotics in bottle’. You can also see the wording centred on ‘bugs’ and playing on the controversial connotation and contrast. Prebiotics are presented as ‘compounds that feed existing skin bugs, helping them thrive’, probiotics as a ‘live culture capable to buoy skin’s innate supply of bacteria’. The hardest to grasp is the idea of postbiotic, which ends up being presented as a ‘beneficial extract that living bacteria give off when put through a fermentations process that revs up their metabolism’ – sounds like poetry, doesn’t it? Lysates get a mention too in the postbiotic context as ‘non-living’ pieces of bacteria and all the useful staff they secrete’.1 This unusual vocabulary used by beauty
editors clearly spells a complicated message sent by brands and manufacturers. New scientific concepts are changing the approach to skin care itself and the understanding of the skin, going all the way back to Winogradsky’s
www.personalcaremagazine.com October 2021 PERSONAL CARE
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
