Marketing is everything in the competitive, overcrowded world of skin-care products, because if you can’t get the consumer’s attention you won’t sell any products. It is well known in the industry that medical claims, especially from a dermatologist or plastic surgeon, are powerful endorsements that generate instant credibility and sales. It seems that’s what the CEO of Klinger Advanced Aesthetics (KAA) wanted to capitalize on. KAA is an extension of aesthetician Georgette Klinger’s namesake salons and spas. In talking with some inside sources, who must remain unnamed, I gathered that the promise of generous support to the Johns Hopkins Medical (JHM) facility created a formidable alliance in the form of an implied endorsement that was advertised as being far more significant than it really was.
No sooner had Cosmedicine launched at Sephora stores than press releases bragging about the connection between the product line and Johns Hopkins ensued, and a flood of criticism began pouring in. The controversy, as well as the conflict of interest over JHM being linked with creating and selling beauty products, was described in the April 5, 2006,
Wall Street Journal. Shortly after, Johns Hopkins Medicine issued a statement saying “KAA and the stores that distribute its products [Cosmedicine] have agreed to withdraw all references to JHM [Johns Hopkins Medical] except for certain limited information—on product packages and in previously printed promotional material—that disclose JHM’s consulting role. Johns Hopkins did not and does not endorse the company’s products.”
It turns out that Johns Hopkins was only indirectly involved with Cosmedicine. While Cosmedicine initially asserted it was “the only skin-care line tested in consultation with Johns Hopkins Medicine,” the truth was that Johns Hopkins never actually “tested” the products. Rather Johns Hopkins was involved only in recommending testing procedures and evaluating the results. The dermatologist involved in the project, Patrick S. McElgunn, Assistant Professor of Dermatology at Johns Hopkins and Director of Johns Hopkins Cosmetic Center, said that the products made “reasonable claims,” that the tests were fairly standard for skin-care products, and added that they were effective moisturizers. That’s nice, but not exactly worth the price and all the hype.
The latest ads for this line state that it’s “the best medicine for your skin,” but aside from the name and listing silicone and sunscreens as active ingredients (something that’s not unique to Cosmedicine), there isn’t anything vaguely medical about these skin-care products. Still, for a newer line they hit a few home runs and their price point isn’t nearly as eyebrow-raising as those of competing dermatologist-endorsed lines.
Note: Many of Cosmedicine’s moisturizers and serums contain Dromiceius oil. More commonly known as emu oil, it is no more beneficial for skin than most other nonvolatile plant oils. There is minimal research showing it to have anti-inflammatory action and that it may speed wound healing, but what heals wounds is not related to wrinkles or other visible signs of the skin’s aging (Sources: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, December 1998, pages 2404–2407; and The Australasian Journal of Dermatology, August 1996, pages 159–161).