Magazine
Email Newsletter
RSS Feed
LinkedIn
Twitter
Kinerase Extreme Face Lift Is No Five Minute Miracle
Suzanne Grayson
Grayson Associates
The value of theBrandAudit is to screen products to determine their launch “worthiness”—before the fact. This is the way a company can validate the potential of one or more product concepts, and select and/or improve them to create winners in the marketplace. The most impactful way to do this is to have an ad (or layout and copy), to express the product strategy in consumer terms; i.e., why should the consumer be impelled to try it? After all, a product only comes alive when the consumer sees a birth announcement—the ad.
Here we have a remarkably powerful Kinerase ad, scoring 96.86— among the highest ever recorded—and scoring in the high 90s in all of theAdAudit evaluation segments, Headline, Visual Impact, Copy and Consumer Appeal. Even with its slightly scary name Extreme Lift Face in the power headline, the claim: “Look up to 10 years younger in 5 minutes,” is a true wake-up call to consumers. Kinerase even incorporated the claim, in a seal-like cartouche, on the package front. With very few exceptions, women have been trained to expect anti-aging results “over time” (about two to four weeks).
 |
We promptly purchased Kinerase’s Extreme Lift Face ($150 for 1oz.), and gave it to our panel, only to discover that it was no better than a typical good serum, certainly no instant “lift” perception especially as the ad and package say “…is the alternative to physician-administered injectables.”
Kinerase Extreme Face Lift doesn't live up to its promise. |
Smoother skin? Isn’t that what a good moisturizer does? And, “smoother skin,” while a very desirable benefit, does not equate with an Instant Lift Face. Surely many consumers may see some of those claimed benefits, but “10 years younger in 5 minutes?”
Trial Yes, but Few Repeats
Because of the considerable discrepancy between the product concept and the product reality, we are presenting theBrandAudit scores both ways. As expressed with this ad, the audit’s concept score is a very good 84.63, Impactful, just brought down somewhat by the competition segment—obviously, a challenging and real fact of life. All the other scores were in the effective (80s) and powerful (90s) range. Now, look what happens if the actual product is brought into the audit. Positioning and Competition remain the same, but the lack of perceived benefit and support of claim performance lower considerably Product, Consumer Appeal and Marketing Potential, and bring it into the “Start Over” range with a 74.10.
This lower score defines what will happen in the marketplace. Lots of trial, for sure, but equaled with disappointment. It’s another reason for consumers to say that you can’t believe the ads for these products. What a disservice to an industry that mostly tries to earn consumers’ trust. Going over the top with product names and claims is bad for the company that makes them, and even worse for an industry that doesn’t need to be saddled with more angst. Shame on you, Valeant. You should know better. Note: RoC has been using a “10 Years Younger” claim for a grouping of its anti-aging products, but doesn’t saddle it with an unrealistic time frame. Better.
