Speaking during a panel session at the UK’s Cosmetic, Toiletry and Perfumery Association’s (CTPA) inaugural scientific conference earlier this month, members of government and industry came together to discuss strategies for public, media and consumer engagement in beauty.
The members-only event held in Central Hall Westminster in London delved into various areas on how scientific evidence, regulatory decision-making and public understanding can converge in an era of information overload and widespread misinformation in beauty today.
Addressing attendees during her opening remarks, Caroline Rainsford, director of science at the CTPA, said that strong science communication is key today. “No matter our role, we all spend our days trying to translate complicated scientific information into something more manageable and understandable for audiences,” Rainsford said.
Speaking later, during a panel discussion on how to build trust through science communication, she said that working to put science into context for consumers is always helpful.
Context and consistency
“I remember having a conversation with salon professionals about an ingredient being banned in nail polish and the context was that you would have to wear two kilos of nail polish on your nails to get anywhere near the level that causes harm,” Rainsford said. “I think putting things into context really speaks to people.”
Marc Pissavini, sun research lab director at Coty, agrees on the importance of context, adding the Olympic swimming pool analogy can be helpful when trying to communicate liquid relevance. One Olympic swimming pool, for example, would take an individual around 4,500 years to drink, when drinking two litres per day. “If you explain that to someone, afterwards they understand that a drop in a swimming pool is not a lot,” he said. “To fight against misinformation, we first have to try and explain and give consumers the key on how to measure or how to understand.”
All of this also comes down to education and consistency, he said. “Credibility in science requires consistency,” Pissavini said. “We need to speak with one voice and sometimes it’s not the case. If tomorrow, dermatologists, doctors, big companies, everybody here, speaks with one voice and stops saying ’I’ and starts saying ’we’ – like pharmacy and big groups do – I think we can be much stronger.”
Wendy Middleton, chief scientific officer and director for science at the UK government’s Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), said the concept of having one voice is interesting. “But it’s also interesting in exploring that, as scientists, we’re not very good at doing that,” Middleton added. The very crux of credible science is science that has been critiqued and peer-reviewed, for example. “I’m not saying stop doing that but there’s something about us being more cognisant of our profession and how we communicate with one another,” she said.
Pissavini, also editor of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Cosmetic Science, said it is crucial the scientific community keeps the peer review process. The challenge today, however, is finding reviewers and communicating better with audiences; readers both inside and outside of industry, he said.
Rainsford said the industry needs to work collectively to “demistify what peer review means”. Most people don’t understand how the peer review process works, she said, even industry members. Looking ahead, therefore, she said transparency and explaining exactly what the process involves is going to be important.
Meeting consumers “where they are”
Claire Coleman, journalist, editor and specialist consultant on the science behind beauty, said it is also important to establish where misinformed conversations are happening. “From my perspective, I think what works is to begin where the misinformation is when you want to try and correct it,” Coleman said. “You have to meet people where they are and make them understand. For me, it’s about finding out where the misinformation is and making sure you’re standing on the same platform.”
Middleton, agrees: “Meeting people where they are is absolutely critical. In government, we used to talk a lot about hard to reach consumers, but they’re not hard to reach; they’re hard for you to hear.” When it comes to reaching consumers, she said that taking more responsibility to listening is key.
For Coleman, though, it is important that the beauty industry understands it will not be able to convert or ’reach’ everyone. “You should not be there for the hard-liners, you should be there for, essentially, the floating voters,” she explained – consumers who are uncertain and are looking to better understand.
Roger Pullin, head of chemicals policy and health at the UK’s Chemical Industries Association, said that technical terms and other acronyms are best avoided where possible when communicating with consumers. “I think if you can try to frame it to a consumer’s perspective, messages need to be precise and clear without losing that science,” Pullin explained. That obviously becomes “tricky” when working with complex subjects like risk-based exposure, he said, but where possible it should be the goal.
Beyond this, he said companies can work on providing a more balanced scientific perspective in communications. “Science isn’t necessarily black and white; that’s a problem we do have,” he said. “Being transparent is key but it’s also about acknowledging where the uncertainties are. We should consider being upfront and direct: what is actually unknown? Sometimes we try and avoid those awkward questions.”
Emma Meredith, director-general of CTPA, closed with: “How we communicate science, and that we communicate it well, is critical.”
