Are Olay\'s Claims Ethical

It is without a doubt that the people of the United States and much of the rest of the modernized and industrialized world are extremely focused on beauty, attractiveness and the perceptions of others. This focus and analysis is often pointed inward and towards the self but it also projected and stated outward in many ways as well. Advertisers know this full well and beauty product marketers in particular use that fact and detail as a wedge to sell beauty products. Olay is certainly among the companies that does this and this is easy to see when looking at the way in which they market their creams, lotions and other health/beauty products. While making good faith and provable claims about their products would be fair game, there are some claims and statements they make that are clearly puffery and perhaps bordering on unethical.

So as to make things easier, the ad and sales pitch that will be used is directly from the Olay website. To be specific, if it is the product page for the Olay Regenerist Micro-Sculpting Cream Face Moisturizer. This brief report will look at some of the parts and details of the ad and then respond in terms of whether the claims are proper, ethical and accurate. A screen capture of the ad can be found in the appendix of this report. With that established, the observations to be had from this ad are as follows:

• One thing that jumps out is that the customer opinion of the product can be seen on the webpage in question. As of the screen capture, there have been 23,282 reviews and the average score is 3.87 on a five-point scale. One thing that has to be asked is to what extent (if at all) that those reviews and scores have been manipulated or played with, either by Olay themselves or by reviewers that are not ethical or honest themselves. Regardless, 3.87 is a decent, although not excellent, score. A lot of the poorer scores could be because of unrealistic expectations from consumers. On the other hand, those warped expectations could stem from the way that the product is marketed (Olay, 2017).

• The stamp of review and approval form Good Housekeeping is a nice touch. However, it should be asked whether they were remunerated or otherwise compensated for that score and how legit the review process was (Olay, 2017).

• The claim about how $440 cream did not do as well as the Olay Cream, also per Good Housekeeping is possible . . . but sounds a little dubious (Olay, 2017).

• Equally dubious is that results with wrinkles will start from day one. That is perhaps true in many instances but probably for only certain types/degree of wrinkles and every patient's skin situation is going to be different (Olay, 2017).

• The claim about taking "years off your age" is something that is probably less than responsible. Even if there are superficial improvements in the short or long-term, there is only so much a skin cream can do when weather, time and other things have taken their toll. Sure, skin can recover and heal with proper care like sunscreen or even cream like that from Olay. However, there are other things that cannot be undone or that require surgery to repair (Olay, 2017). A good example would be scars (Delude, 2011).

In the end, it is clear that Olay's product is not completely snake oil. There are surely good benefits and positive results from Olay's cream. However, it is not a fix-all and skin creams can only do so much. Further, there is a fine line between puffery and being dishonest. There is a not-so-fine line between being transparent and being duplicitous when it comes to surveys, tests and research. It stands to reason that Olay and others will focus on data that supports and recommends them but the question becomes how far they go to ensure positive results.