In Part Two of a feature interview with the company founder who goes by the same name, he tells CosmeticsDesign-Europe.com that for his brand, putting the science ahead of the marketing is ‘essential.’
“Chemistry destroys the myths and misinformation that exist about cosmetic and personal care ingredients,” he says.
“I make products for young people who are looking to our industry for help, with the simple but necessary function of keeping them clean, fresh and hopefully feeling a bit more confident.”
Sam says that of course marketing plays its part but that with complex chemical formulations that are made by scientists; it is their area of expertise to communicate about the product rather than marketing departments.
“Using the right language in Chemistry is essential. Chemicals have specific names for a reason so we can ascertain how something will behave or what group of compounds it belongs to,” he says.
“A simple change of a letter from and ‘e’ to an ‘a’ means it is a different chemical and will behave in a different way. If you don’t use the right language in chemistry you don’t understand chemistry.”
Respecting consumer
One argument is that when it comes to marketing a product, appealing language and images need to be used to attract consumers.
As mentioned above, while Sam says that marketing does play its part, he also believes that consumers should also be respected enough to receive the facts about ingredients and why they are used scientifically, as well, as this can better inform them too.
“We are intelligent, sentient beings and can make up our own minds about products if given the facts,” he explains. “Making up marketing phrases that mean nothing only raises suspicion and ends up creating an atmosphere of mistrust for the personal care and cosmetics industry.”
“The problem exists because there is no direct line of communication between the scientists that formulate the product and the consumer buying it. This has to change for the industry to regain control of the damage done by misinformation and vague unscientific phrases.”