Expensive Is Not Always Best, Say Cosmetics Testers

It's been a couple of weeks since we published the results of our blind tests of four anti-aging potions and a control product.

As you may recall, a moderately priced drug store brand, L'Oreal Plenitude Action Liposomes at $7.65 an ounce, came out ahead of higher-priced department store lines and several other drug store creams.

After the results were published, we phoned several of our 36 volunteer testers to ask what they thought in retrospect.

Laura Steig, who preferred the L'Oreal product, the personal preference of 14 volunteers, said the results reinforced a longtime belief:

"I've often felt that the most expensive is not necessarily the best. . . . If you just pick a middle-of-the-road price you're not getting cheated or paying too much."

Steig has used L'Oreal products on her own but didn't recognize the one in the blind tests.

Many volunteers said we hadn't given them sufficient quantities of the skin creams for the 12-day trials. Steig noticed that too and said advice given at the cosmetics counter about how long a quantity of cream will last seldom is correct.

Quantity is an issue

That is one of the points made by consumer advocate Paula Begoun, author of "Don't Go To The Cosmetics Counter Without Me." Begoun says one of the biggest myths in sales pitches is how long a jar of cream, especially an expensive product, will last the customer.

Norma Rosenthal, who chose Lancome's Niosome Plus Perfected Age Treatment as her personal favorite, had been using Chanel Formule Intensive Day Lift Refining Complex before our tests. Yet, without labels and advertising hoopla, Rosenthal didn't recognize the Chanel product and ranked it last.

"I had problems with the smell. It bothered me all 12 days I used it," Rosenthal said.

The Chanel product, one of a growing number that contain alpha hydroxy acids to exfoliate the skin, is $46.50 an ounce; the Niosome product retails for about $20 an ounce.

After learning she bypassed her previous favorite in the tests, Rosenthal said she felt "ripped off" and acknowledged she had been talked into buying the Chanel product.

As Rosenthal discovered, fragrance or odor is a big factor in sales at the cosmetics counter.

Howard Lanz of Lanz International Laboratories Inc. in Snohomish County manufacturers skin and hair care products (and gourmet licorice). Lanz says there are three reasons why cosmetics companies want women to test products at the cosmetics counter:

Women respond first to odor or fragrance; next, to how a product feels on their fingertips, and lastly to the way it feels on the face.

Lanz thought our 12-day test of each product too short. He believes in 90-day tests, though many manufacturers of anti-aging products promise results within a few weeks.

Carole Alexander, normally a fan of the Lancome's Niosome Plus, was one of only three women who said they preferred the Chanel AHA product as their first choice.

Alexander said she really noticed a difference using Chanel and when some friends said: "`Gee, what are you doing? You're looking younger,' " she was sold on it.

The product must deliver

Christine Mattila said she was "pleasantly surprised" that the volunteers' favorite was moderately priced. Mattila says she does return cosmetics that "don't deliver" when they don't work out for her, especially if the salesperson has said " `this is real close to what you've been using. Just bring it back if it doesn't work out.' "

That's a strategy also suggested by consumer advocate Begoun, especially when far-reaching claims have been made by salespeople.

Several male readers contacted us after the two-part series on skin creams.

One said he had used alpha hydroxy acid products for several years and liked the results on his skin.

Watch for manufacturers to pitch their AHA wonders to men in the baby-boomer generation. It's a logical sale.

Another male reader took me to task for not chastizing the cosmetics industry for manipulating women into thinking they must spend money to look younger.

Frankly, one of the points of our tests was to learn whether anti-aging creams did make people look younger. We found that the women themselves did not see the dramatic results promised in the products' advertisements.

One of the surprises to Troubleshooter researchers Cheryl Morningstar and Madeline McKenzie was that the volunteers' final preferences weren't necessarily what you would expect based on their reports on individual creams filled out as they progressed through the testing.

Before conducting the blind tests, we considered having the skin creams chemically analyzed to compare similarities and differences.

Representatives of several labs told us it would cost thousands of dollars to do so. That wasn't possible, so we chose to have volunteers blind test the creams and state their preferences.

Several people in the know - Paula Begoun, the consumer advocate, and Sue Hutchcroft of the federal Food and Drug Administration - said expensive chemical tests really weren't necessary.

"Just read the ingredients on the label," they said.

The list of ingredients on product labels didn't mean much to anyone but chemists. If you become a label reader you're likely to learn cosmetics contain such interesting ingredients as horse chestnut extract, linseed extract, apricot kernel oil, evening primrose oil, candelilla wax, and others in addition to sunscreens.

Not surprisingly, the very first ingredient listed on every label we tested, and therefore the highest percentage in each product, was that well-known item, water.

The FDA requires cosmetics manufacturers to list a product's ingredients, the company's name and address, and how the product should be properly used. But cosmetics are not tested or approved by the FDA before manufacturers put them on store shelves.

To us that means you should see if the product agrees with your skin and delivers what it promises. If it doesn't, ask for a refund.

Shelby Gilje's Troubleshooter column appears Wednesday and Sunday in the Scene section of The Times. Do you have a consumer problem? Write to Times Troubleshooter, P.O. Box 70, Seattle, WA 98111. Include copies, not originals, of appropriate documents. Phone, 464-2262, FAX 382-8873.

CASES CLOSED

T.H., Des Moines: By now you should have your Kwik Stamp from Hampton Marketing of Medford, N.Y. About time since you ordered last November. Quick?

G.S., Lynnwood: You received a refund of $35.11 from Hal's Meats & Seafoods in Seattle after complaining about being overcharged for the whole pig you bought for a luau.

F.H., North Seattle: The "Stefanie Powers' Broadway Workout" video ordered nearly a year ago has arrived. Powers blamed a lackadaisical supplier for the delay and has changed business arrangements.