Tuesday, 17 July 2007

#40 Sisley... Seriously?

A large part of my job is to attend press days, kiss the cheeks of PRs, nibble on crab cakes, sip champagne and nod my head enthusiastically when presented with the latest, groundbreaking, world-changing revolution in beauty... cue well-timed oohs and aahs and there we have it, job done. It's fantastic, it's fun and when it involves PRs with whom I have a real giggle, it doesn't feel like work at all.

Then, unfortunately, there are the events that leave a bitter taste in the mouth. The events where the presentations are embarassingly hyperbolic, insincere or at worst, factually incorrect. Now, you wouldn't expect this from the best brands. The brands that pride themselves on cutting edge research and consumer intelligence. There have been some howlers in the past, but none quite so insulting as the recent Sisley launch - for their new Sisleya Radiance Anti-Aging[sic] Concentrate. It all started well enough. It's another product that deals with pigmentation. It has had impressive results. A lot of research etc etc etc. Then my mind wandered. There were little sugary cupcakes on the table, each decorated with an icing 'S' - though no one actually ate any of them - but it was all very white and light and pretty. Then the problems started. The spiel was given - not by the wonderful PRs, of whom I think very highly - but by a lady within Sisley's own ranks, who is responsible for training or education or something along those lines. Now, this blog is not meant to shame or sully, so I shan't get into the particulars - but this lady's beliefs (which she stressed, were 100% scientifically proven) were, in the main, complete manure. She used an imprecise, unscientific and confused mix of terminology; she fluffed her explanation of SPF several times; she repeatedly stressed that an own-brand product provided 100% daily protection - and when probed, admitted, that didn't include protection from UVA or UVB and she finished on a glorious high note - by advising us to use the product for 'two entire months, TWO months, yes, 28 days - and you'll see a difference.'

The irony is that Sisley is a fine brand. It sells itself. It has thousands of faithful followers - many of whom are the savviest consumers on the planet - and they know a good thing when they see one... just as, it has to be said, beauty eds can sniff out a dud when they see it. The product? Great texture, nice smell, good ingredients. It's been handed over to Mama Malcontent and we'll see what the verdict is in, what? Two months? Two months - yes - 28 days time. What an education.


Anonymous said...

As a facial therapist myself, the lady is right. To see a real difference in the skin a product needs to be trialled for more than a few days. You must work with the skin's natural cycle which is 28 days. Your opinions on skin care are hardly beneficial when you are putting hundreds of ingredients on the skin eveyday, no wonder your skin is tempremental!

Miss Malcontent said...

Hi anonymous. Not to be a stickler, but I think you've misunderstood me! The lady said two months (which is 60 days) and then contradicted herself by saying 28 days. She was essentially negating her own good advice by getting her simple facts wrong! I'm also a big believer in less is more, and since I've honed my routine to my 4/5 tried-and-tested faithfuls, my complexion and I have been plain sailing for at least 6 months. Thanks for your feedback and for reading! All best, MM