1

Advertising is prolific and permeates most of our daily lives.

Billboards, magazines, commercials, and products themselves show

branding by subtly persuading people in various ways. In

particular, the anti-aging market uses taglines and visuals that

incorporate scientific imagery and concepts in order to sell

their products. This paper will address how anti-aging skin care

products are marketed, what the role is that science plays within

advertising, what the controversy is that surrounds these

products and how cultural narratives are expressed.

‘Anti-aging’ is a term that unfortunately encompasses a

multitude of viewpoints and therefore needs addressing. According

to John Vincent, there are different anti-aging groups: those who

equate old age with ill-health by ‘battling’ disease, those who

wish to control the human lifespan on a cellular level (who aim

for immortality), and those who want cosmetic interventions

(2007:941). Furthermore, Courtney Mykytyn has conducted

ethnographic research on anti-aging advocates and emphasizes that

not all support the idea of living forever and even though these

“immortalists” exist, they are not the majority (2009:211).

2

Specifically, she suggests, “…anti-aging advocates clamor most

fundamentally for a salve to the physiologically painful decline

that has become synonymous with aging…constructed as agonizing

for individuals, heartbreaking for families, and costly for

society at large” (2009:210). Leigh Turner agrees, “…there is a

profound difference between developing more effective biomedical

interventions and making humans ‘immortal’” (2004:220).

Therefore, not all anti-aging advocates want less wrinkles and

want to live forever. Some are in the field for lessening pain of

the elderly and their families who endure hardships due to aging

related diseases. For the purpose of this paper, I will be using

the term ‘anti-aging’ to describe cosmetic skin products that are

marketed to consumers, who are mainly women. Traditionally, the

demographics with anti-aging skin care products have been sold

mainly to women, but the climate is apparently changing.

Hindustan Unilever launched their Pond’s product by, “…responding

to a larger change in the core target consumers of anti-aging

products — from the middle-aged 35-40-years-old women to 20-

something girls, yes, but even men too” (Sharma 2008). Moreover,

3

“[r]ecent skin care-for-men introductions…are all going after

this demographic…which points to men's grooming as one of the

fastest-growing categories in beauty and personal care” (Strailey

2011). The anti-aging demographics tend to be geared towards the

“boomer generation” which is approximately over the age of 50

(BCC Research 2013). Companies are stretching their demographics

to reach a wider audience. Therefore, the industry is

constructing what this public “needs” in order to buy their

products. Finally, Mykytyn also points out that, “…many anti-

aging researchers argue that the consumer-directed interventions

are not really anti-aging…in that they attempt to forestall or

mitigate the effects of aging, but they do not actually intervene

directly into the process of aging itself” (2009:213). Despite

this, skin care products are marketed as ‘anti-aging’ and here

begins the controversy.

“With age, gene activity slows down, resulting in less youth proteins found on skin. Doyou know youth proteins on skin give good skin quality? Lancôme gives you the

ultimate solution: Genefique, the first ever Youth Activating Concentrate. Boost genes’activity and stimulate the production of youth proteins to continually give skin its

youthful appearance. Drop by drop, infuse your skin with life” (Beauty Gypsy2012).

4

Figure 1: Lancôme Genefique Adhttp://thebeautygypsy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/lancome_genifique.jpg

The above description is an excerpt from a Lancôme anti-

aging skin care product advertisement, seen in Figure 1. This

example is one of many that markets false claims about their

products to potential buyers. Moreover, the claims made are

controversial because of the quasi-effectiveness of the products.

Motivating factors for this include money and ageism. The

debates are typically situated between the Food and Drug

Administration (FDA) and the skin care product companies. In the

Lancôme case above, they have tried to claim that their skin care

product works like drugs. The FDA warning letter (2012) said of

Lancôme’s Genefique products, “The claims on your website

indicate that these products are intended to affect the structure

or any function of the human body, rendering them drugs under the

5

Act. The marketing of these products with these claims evidencing

these intended uses violates the Act.” Lancôme then issued a

statement saying, "Lancôme is committed to complying fully with

all laws and regulatory standards" (Corbett Dooran and Glazer

2012). The outcome is resolved in the end with the FDA Close Out

Letter (2012) to Lancôme that says:

“…it appears that you have addressed the violationscontained in this Warning Letter. Future FDAassessments and regulatory activities will furtherassess the adequacy and sustainability of thesecorrections. This letter does not relieve you or yourfirm from the responsibility of taking all necessarysteps to assure sustained compliance with the FederalFood, Drug, and Cosmetic Act…”

Lancôme stopped the advertisement. At the very least, some

standards are put into place, specifically with the FDA and

advertising standards communities to try and protect the

consumer. The marketing strategies that are used by these

companies will be examined further in order to properly analyze

how those strategies contribute to the proliferation of the

issue.

Molly Edmonds (2014) explains the role of science within the

marketing of anti-aging skin care products:

6

“While the label may be full of words that sound complex andscientific, you’re likely just buying some excellentcopyediting. When the terms are put into plain language,even the priciest products offer nothing more than justmoisturizing and exfoliating. Since the terminology soundstechnical, consumers can be forgiven for thinking they’rebuying something close to medicine, but if these creamsactually did change the fundamental structure of your skintissue, they’d have to be classified as a drug”

The Lancôme advertisement in Figure 1 is one example of how

companies use scientific terminology to sell products by using

the term “genes.” Most skin care product adverts incorporate

terms from scientific fields such as biology, genetics and

technology. Barbara Duden’s theory of the “pop-gene” comes into

play as to how non-scientists interpret the use of the word in

every day life, “[t]he gene is tied to hopes and promises of a

future in which there is no sickness, no old age, you don’t have

to die…” (2009:261). Therefore, the word is transformed from its

original meaning into narratives of imaginaries. In the case of

skin care products, the gene becomes a way to “stay young” for

consumers. Catherine Waldby’s (2003) idea of “dream biology” is

important here because people take a scientific concept and make

it their own. People are transforming the meaning of one thing

7

and applying it to the wants and desires of an imagined state.

Donna Haraway suggests that, “[s]cience…is rhetoric, a series of

efforts to persuade relevant social actors that one’s

manufactured knowledge is a route to a desired form of very

objective power” (Haraway 1988). Marketing companies hold power

in this situation and use science as a means of achieving

financial gain. Olshansky et al. give their take on the validity

of anti-aging claims, “…scientists who study aging…have issued a

position statement containing this warning: no currently marketed

intervention—none—has yet been proved to slow, stop or reverse

human aging, and some can be downright dangerous… anyone

purporting to offer an anti-aging product today is either

mistaken or lying” (2002:92-93). This is shown, not just in the

Lancôme case, but also with the Nivea Company.

Nivea’s “DNAge” skin product ad claimed the following, “An

innovation in skin care, which boosts surface skin cell renewal leaving you with

noticeably firmer looking skin.” Again, Nivea uses scientific language of

“cell renewal” and DNA, and visuals of a stylized double helix

symbol to promote their anti-aging product in Figure 2.

8

Figure 2: Nivea DNAge Adhttp://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/08/26/article-1209038-062D47C6000005DC-932_468x611.jpg

A response from the Advertising Standards Agency (2009) said the

following, “…the claims appeared to suggest the changes achieved

would be permanent, when this could not be substantiated. It also

ruled there was no clear basis of evidence to make the claims.”

Turner suggests that organizations, “…market their products to

individuals eager to postpone the effects, or at least the

observable physical manifestations, of aging…the products

promoted by these groups have no credible scientific basis: there

are no proven, scientifically established ‘anti-aging’

medications” (2004:220). Moreover, he says there is a lot of

“magical thinking” on all sides of the debate (2004:220) People

9

tend to see what they want to see, typically ignoring the

evidence. Therefore, marketing a product as a potential ‘fountain

of youth’ will win over consumers if that is what they want for

themselves, despite any evidence to the contrary. Figure 3 shows

an ad for Nerium AD that says, “Accidental discovery in biotechnology leads

to age-defying breakthrough! Real Science Real Results”

Figure 3: Nerium Adhttp://www.better-health-energy.com/images/Nerium_results_300x250_fore.jpg

Another ad from Olay uses military metaphors, “Join me in the battle against aging!” in Figure 4.

10

Figure 4: Olay Total Effects Adhttp://www.extramirchi.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Kajol-anti-ageing-cream-Olay-ads-Pictures-

2.jpgMilitary metaphors are not uncommon in anti-aging marketing

campaigns. Vincent suggests that as, “…the details of much

biochemical and physiological research are not comprehensible by

lay people, it is understandable that practitioners use metaphors

when communicating with non-biologists” (2007:944). Richard

Lewontin goes on to explain, “[t]he trouble with most metaphors

in biology is that the people using them don’t know what to

import and what to leave out” (2009:279). The language is

typically used in the business community more so than the medical

community and Vincent says the, “…the most prolific use of

military metaphors is by the promoters of cosmetic interventions…

11

These components of contemporary anti-ageing science most appeal

to non-scientific audiences” (2007:957) and those military ‘war

on aging’ metaphors “…play on the fear of a loss of physical

attractiveness” (Vincent 2007:951). Therefore, consumers start to

think about overcoming their fears by “battling” the problem of

aging. Scientific terminology and military metaphors are rampant

throughout anti-aging marketing.

Situated against scientists themselves, Vincent suggests

that “…cosmetic charlatans can readily be excluded from

mainstream science as ‘quacks’…for putting forward fantasies that

are beyond the known capability of science” (2007:955). Adam

Gollner (2013) points out that there is, "…no documented validity

to any life-extension strategy, but that hasn’t deterred the

making, selling, and buying of countless longevity creams,

potions, and pills.” Also, in order for science to provide a

product that works, studies would have to be conducted over

several decades and include a placebo group as well (Weintraub

2006). Therefore, a sense of patience on both the industry and

participants in a study like that would be hard to come by. The

12

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (A4M) is a professional

organization, “…dedicated to the advancement of technology to

detect, prevent, and treat aging related disease and to promote

research into methods to retard and optimize the human aging

process” (2010). “A4M sponsors conferences, sells books and DVDs

about anti-aging…It also waves around research showing that the

industry pulls in $56 billion a year now -- and that number could

swell to $79 billion by 2009…” (Weintraub 2006). This makes

salient the first major actor that motivates the anti-aging

industry: money. “L’Oreal is tied with rival Procter & Gamble Co.

for leadership in the U.S. anti-aging market, which grew to $2.9

billion in 2011 from $2.7 billion in 2010, according to

Euromonitor International” (Corbett Dooran and Glazer 2012). BCC

Research projects the following numbers, “The total market for

antiaging products and services was valued at $249.3 billion in

2012. This is expected to increase to nearly $261.9 billion by

the end of 2013 and $345.8 billion in 2018…” (2013). These

numbers are staggering and shows what the consumers are willing

to pay for a chance to look and feel younger. Gollner (2013) also

13

suggests that researchers have started companies that are

intertwined with the multinational pharmaceutical industry. With

stories and numbers like these, it is no wonder that marketing

executives are distorting the truth. What counts for these

companies is the bottom line and there is no social

accountability. Even in the medical field, the anti-aging economy

is based on the idea that “aging is a disease requiring

technological intervention” (Petersen and Seear 2009:267).

Researchers propose that on a greater scale, this medicalization

of aging is driven by factors such as government support for

biotechnology, private sector investment, strong professional

networks and symbiotic relationships between scientists and

members of industry (Petersen and Seear 2009:269). In our

society, these factors coupled with large markets and big

financial returns perpetuate ideas that aging is “bad.”

Scientists are not totally exempt from the company and buyer

relationship. Gollner (2013) gives a perfect example:

…many well-regarded aging scientists demonstrate a lackof reticence when making sweeping declarations aboutending the disease of growing old…In a 2011 open

14

letter, biotech company Sierra Sciences wrote of anurgent need for investors when they lost funding duringthe recession: “It is no exaggeration to say that weare on the brink of actually curing the disease we callaging!” Actually, most rational humans would agree thatstatement is an exaggeration. However, Sierra Scienceswas unarguably on the brink of something else:bankruptcy. The letter, circulated widely on anti-agingwebsites, appealed for $200,000 a month to keep the laboperational; if no one stepped up, they wrote, it“would be a tragedy for humanity, as well as a missedopportunity to create a multi-billion dollar industry

Even though Courtney Mykytyn’s ethnography has shown that most

anti-aging advocates are for the well-being of the elderly, some

scientists are in it for the money. Not only are these particular

scientists implicated financially, but they tend to lack some of

the more tactful social communication skills as Gollner pointed

out. They tend not to think about the consequences of their words

when speaking with the general public or the media. This example

becomes another way that misinformation about anti-aging products

gets perpetuated.

Science for Life Extension Foundation is a Russian group

with many advocates, one of whom being Maria Konovalenko, a

molecular biophysicist. Her blog claims that they, “…integrate

efforts in order to increase funding for research in regenerative

15

medicine, gerontology, genetics, neuroscience, systems biology,

and related sciences aimed at studying the mechanisms of aging

and searching for methods to increase human longevity”

(Konovalenko 2012). This description sounds inclusive to all

definitions of ‘anti-aging,’ yet the advocates within this group

are not so diplomatic with their agendas. Konovalenko has written

in the past about her personal views on aging, “… we need to

change the perception of aging, so there would be no confusing

terms like ‘healthy aging’, which is an oxymoron. It’s like

‘dignified poverty’, or ‘merciful tyrant’. Aging is not and can

not be healthy. Aging is itself a disease” (Konovalenko 2013).

The personal views of the scientists are very clear and certainly

have an effect on what research gets conducted, as well as how

the perception of aging as a disease is perpetuated. Aubrey de

Grey is another anti-aging advocate who works as a biomedical

gerontologist with the SENS Research Foundation. Their research,

“…emphasizes the application of regenerative medicine to age-

related disease, with the intent of repairing underlying damage

to the body's tissues, cells, and molecules. Our goal is to help

16

build the industry that will cure the diseases of aging” (SENS

Foundation Website 2013). He has co-written a book titled Ending

Aging (2007) with Michael Rae, whose back matter says the

following: “[n]early all scientists who study the biology of

aging agree that we will someday be able to substantially slow

down the aging process, extending our productive, youthful lives…

Dr. de Grey believes that the key biomedical technology required

to eliminate aging-derived debilitation and death entirely--

would not only slow but periodically reverse age-related

physiological decay, leaving us biologically young into an

indefinite future…” For anti-aging advocates, the motivations

range from wanting to lessen pain due to age related problems to

wanting to avoid death itself. Haber explained that, “…anti-age

advocates generally depicted old age as a time to be feared and

despised, devising myriad procedures in order to eliminate it

entirely…their ideas and actions ultimately serve to marginalize

the very process of growing old” (Haber 2004:515). People like

Konovalenko or de Grey may not be aware of both the consequences

of such thinking that marginalizes the aging population or the

17

underlying thoughts that drive them to see aging as bad. For

those with a fear of aging, the ideas of marginalization and

perpetuation of societal standards of youth does not make much

difference in their thinking.

People are getting manipulated and conned out of money to

satisfy a societal construction of what it means to look good and

no one seems to be doing anything about it, other than the FDA.

Carol Haber explains the social construction of anti-aging

further:

The apocalypse o{ aging, the disease of old age, the horror ofwrinkles, and the loss sexuality, as well asthe "burdensome task" of supporting the old, allref1ect beliefs that go beyond simple hair dye orexercise programs. They reveal the return of disturbingideas about the nature of elderly people and their placein society…the new fountain of youth may not simply beoffering its supplicants the hope of fewer wrinkles and amore active sex life…the anti-age movement, like itslate 19th century and early 20th century counterparts,tends to demean and marginalize the very process ofgrowing old (2004:521).

Society constructs a good versus bad narrative over something

that is simply a process. Therefore, people need to start

changing the harmful construct of aging being “wrong” and perhaps

make salient where their values and thoughts come from in order

18

to start changing the anti-aging landscape. Taussig et al. (2003)

did some research on little people and how some of them choose to

undergo limb extension surgery. The procedure is cosmetic and “…

they may desire individual improvement or perfectibility…that are

deeply consonant with shared aspects of our cultural milieu”

(2003:71). People not only undergo physical cosmetic changes, but

focusing on ‘normal’ aging leads to ideas that there is one way

to age and that, “…anything deviant from the typical pattern of

European-derived populations is pathological” (Ice 2005:89). The

idea that people want cosmetic changes because of societal views

can cost a lot of money. People exposed to societal pressures end

up feeling like they need to change who they are in order to

conform to societal norms in order to be happy. The neoliberal

ideas of improvement have no boundary. With so much money being

made, sometimes what is best for society, and people themselves,

falls by the wayside.

The promises of youthful skin, beauty and cell enhancement

are inherent within skin care product advertising. From the

evidence provided in this paper, the average consumer of these

19

products would be better off buying a cheaper moisturizing lotion

instead. The more consumers can learn about the manipulation and

false claims of anti-aging skin care products, the more money

they will save in the long run. Although the public is being

duped, at least the FDA has some regulatory practices in place to

mitigate the effects of dodgy advertising. Science has shown that

these products do not work and scientists also have their

terminology and images distorted and abused by media and bad

marketing practices. Companies like L’Oreal and Lancôme have used

scientific authority to lure consumers into believing they are

helping to keep them young. Cultural views of aging can be seen

from a negative perspective, that aging is something to get rid

of like a terrible disease. Other views counter this perspective

by showing the cultural construction of what aging is and how

Western society views the elderly. Aging is a process and the

human mind constructs values of good or bad as well as time

abstractions like beginnings and endings. There must be some

balanced ideas brought forth. Is there a way in which people can

improve themselves, but not to the detriment of their happiness,

20

well-being and bank accounts? The idea here is not to be

complacent all the time, which can lead to stagnation of the

self, but to look at what we are changing about ourselves and

why. Are we really using anti-aging creams for ourselves or

because society dictates it? Take away the obsessive and extreme

thinking that people need to look young or need to be perfect and

what is left is someone who can be ok with how they look and who

has more time and money to focus on non-superficial aspects of

their lives. Anti-aging creams do not work, so grab some

moisturizer instead. By doing so, not only will people be saving

money, but they will be contributing to the consumer voice that

does not perpetuate society’s desire for the fountain of youth.

References

American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine2010 Company Website. http://www.a4m.com/, accessed Feb.20, 2014.

21

BCC Research2013 Anti-Aging Products and Services: The Global Market. Website.http://www.bccresearch.com/market-research/healthcare/antiaging-products-services-hlc060b.html, accessed Feb.27, 2014.

Charan, Anubha2012 FDA yells at Lancôme for making creams sound like magic drugs. The Beauty Gypsy Website. http://thebeautygypsy.com/fda-yells-at-lancome-for-making-creams-sound-like-magic-drugs/, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

Corbett Dooran, Jennifer and Emily Glazer2012 FDA Rebukes Lancôme on Marketing. The Wall Street Journal Website. September.11http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10000872396390444426404577645740604858440, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

de Grey, Aubrey and Michael Rae2007 Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime. St. Martin’s Press: New York.

Duden, Barbara2009 What Genes Say. In Ideas on The Nature of Science. David Cayley, eds. Pp.257-265. Goose Lane Editions, Fredericton.

Edmonds, Molly2014 Do Anti-Aging Creams Work? Discovery Fit and Health Website.http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/aging/anti-aging-tips/anti-aging-cream2.htm, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

Gollner, Adam Leith2013 Live Forever! Can Science Deliver Immortality? Salon Website. http://www.salon.com/2013/08/18/live_forever_can_science_deliver_immortality/, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

22

Haber, Carole2004 “Life extension and history: The continual search for the fountain of youth” The Journal of Gerontology 59A(6):515-522.

Haraway, Donna1988 Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies 14(3):575-99.

Ice, Gillian2005 Biological Anthropology and Aging. In Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology 20:87-90.

Konovalenko, Maria2012 Personal Blog. About. http://mariakonovalenko.wordpress.com/about/, accessed Feb.17, 2014.

Konovalenko, Maria2013 There Can Be No Healthy Aging. The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Website, November.8. Electronic Document. http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/konovalenko20131108, accessedFeb.17, 2014.

Lewinton, Richard 2009 Losing Sight of People. In Ideas on The Nature of Science. David Cayley, eds. Pp.276-297. Goose Lane Editions, Fredericton.

Mykytyn, Courtney Everts2009 “Anti-Aging is not necessarily anti-death: Bioethics and thefront lines of practice” Medicine Studies, 1:209-228.

Olshansky, Jay and Leonard Hayflick with Bruce A. Carnes2002 No Truth to the Fountain of Youth. Scientific American, June, 2002: 92-95. PDF Document.http://www.sjayolshansky.com/sjo/Background_files/NoTruthtotheFountainofYouth.pdf, accessed Feb.4, 2014.

23

Petersen, Alan and Kate Seear2009 “In search of immortality: The political economy of Anti-aging medicine.” Medicine Studies. 1:267-279.

Poulter, Sean and Abigail Edwards2009 Anti-Aging Cream Advert Banned For Misleading Claims. Mail Online Website. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209038/Anti-ageing-cream-advert-banned-misleading-claims.html, accessed Feb.26, 2014

SENS Research Foundation 2013 About SENS Research Foundation. Website. http://sens.org/about/about-the-foundation, accessed Feb.17, 2014.

Sharma, Amit2008 Anti-Aging Cream Goes Young. Economic Times Website. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-06-02/news/27714789_1_anti-aging-skin-care-facial-creams, accessed Feb.27, 2014.

Strailey, Jennifer2011 Anti-aging Products Come of Age. Progressive Grocer Website.http://www.progressivegrocer.com/inprint/article/id1487/anti-aging-products-come-of-age/, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

Taussig, Karen-Sue, Rayna Rapp and Deborah Heath2003 Flexible Eugenics: Technologies of the Self in the Age of Genetics. In Genetic Nature/Culture: Anthropology and Science Beyond the Two-Culture Divide. Goodman, et al. eds. Ppl58-76. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Turner, Leigh2004 “Biotechnology, bioethics and anti-aging interventions” In Trends in Biotechnology, 22:219-221.

Vincent, John A.

24

2007 “Science and Imagery in the ‘war on old age’” In Ageing and Society 27:941-961.

Waldby, Catherine2003 Stem Calles, Tissue Cultures and the Production of Biovalue.Health 6(3):305-323.

Weintraub, Arlene2006 Selling The Promise of Youth. BusinessWeek Website, March.19. Electronic Document.http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-03-19/selling-the-promise-of-youth, accessed Jan.19, 2014.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2012 Warning Letter to Lancôme. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Website.http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2012/ucm318809.htm, accessed Feb.26, 2014.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)2012 Close Out Letter to Lancôme. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Website.http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/ucm336860.htm, accessed Feb.26, 2014.