Editorial: Will Next Anti-Aging Market Disruptor Be Anti-Anti-Aging?

"The Rose Sheet" makes a case for the theoretical Dollar Anti-Aging Club and why updating the FDCA's "cosmetic" definition as part of broader regulatory reform could be in industry's interest.

If the Dollar Shave Club's strategy of undermining advanced razor technologies can be considered anti-razor, pooh-poohing the one-upmanship that's had market leaders embroiled in an arms race for decades, the stage could be set for a similar disruption in anti-aging beauty.

While men's shaving and women's anti-aging may seem worlds apart, both segments face challenges from a product-claims standpoint that could have implications for consumer engagement and customer loyalty now and going forward.

For razor manufacturers, the difficulty is in communicating design innovations (in many cases invisible to the naked eye) to consumers in a way that is both understandable and compelling. Market leader Gillette's latest stab at wowing men is Flexball, a technology that builds on the brand's razor pivot innovation from the late 1970s to ensure optimal contour control and maximum hair removal (Also see "Gillette Works To Promote Razor Science, Male Underarm Shaving" - HBW Insight, 24 Jun, 2015.).

An impressive piece of craftsmanship, the feature nevertheless has met with skepticism among influencers and consumer commenters online, with blogger Adam Clark Estes at Gizmodo asking, "Is shaving really so hard?" Consensus among detractors seems to be that while Gillette Fusion ProGlide with Flexball Technology is undeniably a quality instrument, it may not be worth the premium pricing.

Which is exactly Dollar Shave Club's marketing pitch. The value razor subscription service has made a fast-growing business for itself by changing the conversation around shaving, questioning the bells and whistles on advanced razors with hard-hitting, snark-heavy advertising that seeks to refocus consumers on practicality and economics.

"Do you think your razor needs a vibrating handle, a flashlight, a back scratcher and 10 blades?" CEO Michael Dubin quips in the company's 2012 viral video breakthrough. Evidently, the answer for a growing number of consumers is no.

Anti-aging skin care has followed a trajectory similar to razors in terms of competitive tech innovation driving prices ever skyward, and while inventive product names, puffery and the power of suggestion will continue to serve marketers in this segment, it's increasingly difficult for companies to convey how their anti-aging formulas work and what their active ingredients do.

It's not that products launching to market aren't formulated with novel anti-aging ingredients with sound clinical data to support their efficacy, and there are plenty of actives well-recognized by dermatologists and other experts as efficacious wrinkle-fighters. It's just that companies can't claim such benefits – at least not without assuming risks in an increasingly inhospitable regulatory environment.

2012 Anti-Aging Claims Crash

It could be argued that the anti-aging skin-care bubble burst, in important respects, in late 2012.

Notably, 2012 was the year the Nobel Prize in Medicine went to two scientists for stem cell-related discoveries, establishing stem cells more prominently in the public consciousness. Equipped with its own deepening understanding of the molecular and genetic bases of skin aging, the cosmetics industry was quick to capitalize on the trend, with manufacturers vying for new heights in the boldness of their claims.

This claims race came to an abrupt crawl, however, when FDA flagged down a half-dozen firms for statements that identified their offerings, in the agency's eyes, as unapproved drugs. L'Oreal was among the warning recipients, cited for claiming that technologies in its Genifique and Lancome lines could "boost" gene activity and "improve the condition around stem cells" for increased cell regeneration (Also see "FDA Warns Lancome For Gene/Stem-Cell Claims: A Signal To Marketplace?" - HBW Insight, 17 Sep, 2012.).

Other companies drew warnings for collagen- and elastin-building claims, further examples of structure/function assertions that, under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, exceed the definition of a cosmetic product.

The Federal Trade Commission got involved next, suing L'Oreal for alleged misrepresentations, which culminated in a 2014 settlement barring the firm from making what FTC characterized as unsubstantiated claims about gene-targeting to counteract aging.

Consumer lawsuits were close behind and have continued to pour in as FDA warnings for overreaching cosmetic claims have become more regular. By challenging the truthfulness of company's claims following an FDA scolding, class-action plaintiffs at their craftiest can put firms in the lose-lose position of having to settle or defend their products' drug-like properties without a new drug approval to back them up.

Moreover, defendants' arguments that FDA should have primary jurisdiction over cosmetics regulation, and the FDCA should preempt state-level food and drug laws, have been losing ground in the courts (Also see "Supreme Court Turns Down Athena v. Allergan; 'Torrent' Of Suits To Come?" - HBW Insight, 30 Jun, 2015.).

So what is an anti-aging skin-care marketer to do if it can't claim structure/function benefits without risking tangling with regulatory authorities and/or landing in court?

In the case of firms that deliberately avoid structure/function statements, how meaningful to consumers are their anti-aging skin-care innovations? Can companies give their R&D its due and drive home the fruits of their investments when ingredient mechanisms of action and effects have to be obfuscated or dumbed down in order to keep claims safely within the parameters of the FDCA's cosmetic definition?

References to genes and stem cells speak for themselves, striking powerful chords in consumers' imaginations without much need for detailed explanation, but regulatory authorities have drawn a line with regard to such claims that demands caution from marketers. This at a time when personalized skin care based on individuals' genetic predispositions seems to be where the science and industry are headed.

Going forward, companies' most compelling science for truly novel advances may have to remain buried beneath veneers of regulator-proof marketing. Unless FDA relaxes its enforcement stance, appearance language will continue to be firms' best resource, communicating product benefits with claims like "Dramatically reduces the look of wrinkles," ungainly and unsatisfying as such phrasing can be.

However, in recent litigation, even Athena Cosmetics' careful wording for RevitaLash offerings, said to "enhance the look of luxurious eyelashes," failed to convince the courts that its products were not unapproved drugs (Also see "Any More Athenas Out There? Plaintiffs May Allege So In Expected Suits" - HBW Insight, 1 Jul, 2015.).

Enter Dollar Anti-Aging Club

It's in this climate that an upstart newcomer – let's call them Dollar Anti-Aging Club – could conceivably take an approach akin to Dollar Shave Club's, challenging the semantics of anti-aging leaders' convoluted benefit claims and calling their technologies, and their prices, into question.

How different is the latest epidermal growth factor derived from elk antler velvet from yet another blade added to a razor head? It may have a more curious and colorful backstory, but certainly could be subjected to the same puckish derision in the context of a competing value proposition.

Further, the Dollar Anti-Aging Club could point to statements from dermatologists suggesting that SPF and basic daily moisturization are the most effective tools, if not all one needs, to fend off premature skin aging.

The Dollar Anti-Aging Club's mail-order delivery plans surely couldn't be literally a dollar, but then, neither are the Dollar Shave Club's, which are priced at $3 (including shipping and handling), $6 and $9 monthly.

Humor, particularly of whimsical, satirical and kick-in-the-groin slapstick varieties, tends to play well in men's grooming, with Dollar Shave Club's advertising being no exception.

Were Dollar Anti-Aging Club to take a similar tack, it might find that humor of any brand falls considerably flatter in the women's anti-aging space. In a market long driven by the hope-in-a-bottle concept, a campaign making light of user aspirations and the products they hang them on could encounter a cold reception. Or maybe it just hasn't worked yet.

If nothing else, Dollar Anti-Aging Club could prep consumers for its value message by gently reminding them that reversing the hands of time is, after all, an impossibility. And for a startup with limited resources to negotiate regulatory and legal risks, such a strategy could be its safest bet.

Regulatory Reform Could Include New 'Cosmetic' Definition

The theoretical example may not point to a threat as much as an opportunity before anti-aging skin-care firms and the larger beauty industry.

While the structure/function claims necessary to fully capture product benefits in today's cosmetic marketplace are no-noes in the U.S., that's not necessarily the case in Europe.

The European Cosmetics Regulation defines a cosmetic more broadly than the FDCA, permitting products that "protect" parts of the human body or "keep them in good condition," which provides marketers with some leeway to make structure/function claims (Also see "Aligning U.S. With EU Cosmetic Definition Could Enable Claims, Reduce FDA Warnings" - HBW Insight, 19 Mar, 2015.).

The Personal Care Products Safety Act introduced this year to modernize FDA's cosmetics oversight program makes no mention of updating the FDCA's cosmetics definition, but does propose plenty of measures to increase FDA's and industry's responsibilities under the law, many along the lines of what European law requires.

The legislation appears to have stalled in committee, and a House bill rumored to be under development, with wider industry support, has yet to emerge (Also see "House Cosmetics Bill Imminent With Small – And Big – Business Support" - HBW Insight, 4 Jun, 2015.).

But with NGOs perennially clamoring for tighter cosmetics regulation, legislative proposals are likely to continue surfacing, and it could be in industry's interest to seek a revised cosmetic definition as part of such efforts, which could help to offset compliance burdens that manufacturers would be taking on.

Certainly, anti-aging skin-care firms would stand to benefit, as well as the anti-aging hair-care segment, whose prospects are similarly limited in the current regulatory climate.

And any dollar club to come along would have a much harder time finding a toehold if anti-aging marketers were permitted to promote their offerings for what they truly are.