What's the Point? And other Existential Musings

Anybody who is anybody is blogging these days. But for what?

Marketing, public relations, raising company profiles and brand-building. The New York Times called blogging as a "Low-Cost, High-Return" marketing tool for small businesses. And, as Aliza Sherman Risdahl, author of The Everything Blogging Book, notes, it's a small investment with a possibly huge return. But it does take investment.

She notes that only 5% of small businesses have a blog, and this may be because it does demand some decent writing skills and a time commitment that some small firms just don't have. Indeed,

it can be challenging to find a legitimate reason for blogging unless the sector served has a steep learning curve (like wine), a lifestyle associated with certain products or service (like camping gear or pet products) or a social mission (like improving the environment or donating a portion of revenues to charity).

How does this all tie in? The formula has to be right for a good blog. You have to have the resources, no matter how small they may seem, to devote to maintaining it and generating a consistent amount of posts. You have to have a captive audience, in other words, potential readers that care about your topic. And finally, you have to be in an industry that contains enough material to write about.

So does organic skincare fit into this model? We think it does. Organic goods in general attract a lot of attention from a specific public - those that are educated enough about the topic to care, but still are interested in learning more from qualified sources. And news? Every day some new study comes out, a new product is launched, certification standards are discussed. And it's growing. Two thousand seven was certainly the Year of the Green, but 2008 could very easily be a year in which living green becomes a more --pardon the oxymoron-- sustainable fad.

Are Antioxidants For the Birds?

I admit that The Economist is, as weekly publications go, one of the best out there. But it's difficult to be a regular enthusiast of their articles on foreign elections, the strength -or should I say weakness- of the dollar, Kim Jong, and EU regulation. Basically, it takes a bit more mental energy to digest than, say, InStyle.
However, a recent perusal of this text-heavy newsmag revealed a fascinating piece on antioxidants.

Antioxidants were a top hit of 2007. They're little biochemical wonders that clean up molecules in the body known as free radicals that would otherwise damage cells. They have been shown to have cancer preventative properties; other benefits include anti-aging and improved physical recovery from exercise. Modern science tells us (and we believe them) that antioxidants are extremely important for maintaining a healthy lifestyle. So where are these suckers? The principle micronutrient (vitamin) antioxidants are vitamin E, beta-carotene, and vitamin C. In other words -- fruits and vegetables.

And we know, as wonderfully educated human beings, that these are good sources of antioxidants. We have access to analyses of various foods and their antioxidant content. We also have access to Jamba Juice and Naked antioxidant-loaded concoctions. But what about animals?

In Germany, Martin Schaefer and his team of scientists wanted to see if and how creatures can sense antioxidants. The article explains:

They analysed how 60 different fruits appear to the birds that disperse their seeds. Birds see colours in their own way, because they are sensitive to wavelengths, such as ultra-violet, that are invisible to people. The researchers found that birds could clearly perceive the strong ultra-violet coloration given to the fruit by the presence of a group of antioxidants called anthocyanins.

Little geniuses, aren't they. The next step is to find out if birds know to supplement their diet with more antioxidants during "stressful" times, like during migration -- kind of like us reaching for that extra tangerine (ok, or glass of red wine) when we're feeling a little under the weather. So you see, we may have more in common with critters after all.

Mergers & Acquisitions 2007 Wrap-Up

It's the end of the year, which means much more exciting things than eggnog. (Thankgod.) That's right, it's time for the infamous Lists of 2007. And I'm not talking the dumbest celebrity feuds, although that's always fun, right?

No, it's a little less juicy than that; it's the Merger and Acquisition Highlights of 2007. With major movements in the industry like the Clorox takeover of Burt's Bees for $925 million (that's a whole lot of lip balm), Colgate-Palmolive's acquisition of Tom's of Maine, all following the 2006 purchase of French organic brand Sanoflore by L’Oréal, who also bought out the Body Shop. Big gun Clarins invested heavily in Kibio, and dampened rumors of selling themselves (short?) to an even bigger player.

The question is, are they copping out, or buying in? Are large corporations just finding it easier (and more profitable) to acquire fast-growing niche brands that cover this sector and “ride the tailwind” of the green movement than to completely reformulate their own product lines? I think, probably. Well, to use an entirely inappropriate and irrelevant cliché, it's not over til the fat lady sings.

Beauty Goes Green Webinar Explores Topics of (Consumer) Interest

Yesterday the Global Cosmetic Industry Beauty Union hosted another session of their Beauty Goes Green webinar to talk about Retailing and Point of Sale. With a stated purpose of finding "what consumers [are] really thinking right now about natural and organic beauty products," we found that there was, in fact, an emphasis on market research.

Several polls were taken ahead of time in an attempt to identify current consumer trends. For example, they asked, "In which category is natural/organic the most important?" The results showed a large number of people who thought that both skincare and baby/maternity products were rather important. However, when the poll was given to the webinar audience, skincare outshone all categories by more than 50 percentage points. Why is this?

It may be that the participants in the survey were mostly people who are in the industry, not your average consumer. Those of us who are immersed in this world are already aware of current (high) standards for baby products. Put simply, you cannot put many harsh chemicals in these; mothers are protective. Ever try to approach a baby bear when the mother is around? Don't do it.

Yet when it comes to their own skin, women are a little slow to adopt to natural and organic products. Perhaps it is a process - first baby, then me. It's going to take education, they concluded, both from the companies and at the point of sale. But are retailers really going to make space for product literature on their shelves?

We doubt it.

Should Unilever Be Criticized for Hypocrisy?

Last month Unilever got some serious flak for it’s Axe ads, which portray women in an, ahm, interesting way. Part of the branding effort was to show Axe as a deoderant whose scent drives women completely crazy - even the most innocent schoolgirl transforms into a wild pole-dancer.

Taken seriously, it does seem rather hypocritical that the same company that put out the Dove Evolution video that went viral (at about 5 million views) and created the Campaign for Real Beauty. And of course there is "Onslaught" that drew similar attention in its "exposé" of the beauty industry and the ways in which it attacks the psyche of young girls, showing them unachievable goals of perfection and perpetuating issues of low self esteem.

Watch and see for yourself. And ask yourself this: does it matter that these two "campaigns" - the rather sexist (?) Axe ads and this viral video - are products of the same corporation? Or are people overreacting to a campaign that is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek? Is Unilever just as guilty for sending a message that could be construed as sexist?

Lead, in Small Doses, is Still Bad for You

When the news came out a month ago that there were dangerous levels of lead in lipstick, everyone freaked out. Some thought it was a hoax. A few articles came out to fill the need for objective information on the issue.

Though not 100% objective, the best source of information I found is from the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. They put out a comprehensive report on the problem, with a Q&A section for the truly curious -- I mean, concerned. They write, "Lead is a potent neurotoxin and linked to numerous other health and reproductive problems—and it doesn't belong in lipstick." I hear that.

Their studies show that one-third of the 33 red lipsticks examined by an independent lab contained a level of lead exceeding 0.1 parts per million (ppm). This level, incidentally, is the FDA's limit for lead in candy. As a candy-lover myself, this makes me nervous. Sure, I consume Red Vines at a much faster rate than I ingest -accidentally, of course- Dior Addict "Positive Red" or say, L'Oréal Colour Riche "Classic Wine". But the fact that it is present in both is somewhat unnerving. And what is even scarier is that none of the 'offending' companies listed lead as an ingredient in the product.

John Bailey, the executive vice president of the Cosmetics, Toiletry, and Fragrance trade association, had this to say (via the AP):

The average amount of lead a woman would be exposed to when using cosmetics is 1,000 times less than the amount she would get from eating, breathing and drinking water that meets Environmental Protection Agency drinking-water standards.

I guess, for ultimate safety, we should just stop consuming anything.

It's okay, though, because now we've got some politicians going after them. Mediapost tells us that United States Senators John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, and Barbara Boxer are hot on the FDA's tail, getting them to look into the matter.

Oh, and to actually do something about it.