Last night, the BBC aired a documentary presented by Cherry Healey, titled The Truth About Looking Good. The programme’s aim was to look into the validity of claims made by the beauty industry about its products. The first segment explored moisturisers in a study carried out by the University of Sheffield. A pool of just nine participants applied three different moisturisers – Nivea Soft Moisture, Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturising Lotion and Embryolisse Lait-Crème Concentré – on half their face, over the course of three weeks. The programme misleadingly reported that the Embryolisse moisturiser costs £43 at 100ml, when in fact it retails for £20 at 75ml; this was swiftly called out by the brand in a tweet last night.
Hello all! We wanted to share our full statement regarding findings on BBC programme ‘The Truth About Looking Good’. Thanks so much for all of your ongoing love and support for #Embryolisse! 🙏 pic.twitter.com/I4ESW8SyvG
— Embryolisse UK (@Embryolisse_UK) January 10, 2018
The three moisturisers (arbitrarily selected to reflect the high street, mid and luxury markets) were tested on the levels of skin hydration and skin health. The lack of diversity in the group of people being tested was hugely disappointing – seven out of the nine people participating were white and two were Asian. As the beauty industry is continuously, and rightfully, criticised for its lack of inclusivity, this programme only furthered the whitewashed image we’re presented with in the media, so naturally viewers took to Twitter to vent their frustrations.
#bbc1 #thetruthaboutlookinggood are you joking?! Not a single ethnic woman used to take part in this study? Is this a joke?
— Bobby Nero ✌ (@AhiaRose) January 10, 2018
#thetruthaboutlookinggood I am so disappointed in this show! As a black girl who loves beauty and makeup, I have seen no representation or tests that apply to my skin tone whatsoever. Rimmel foundation doesn't even have my shade, mua eyeshadow doesn't show on my skin
— Brown Sugar ⛾ (@Rozayzay) January 10, 2018
The inclusion of people of colour across the entire hour-long programme did not appear to be a consideration. When a study is being done on a group of predominantly white people, how are the millions of women of colour who buy into moisturisers benefiting? Furthermore, viewers questioned whether a study on just nine people for under a month, would provide insightful results.
Just turned on The Truth About Looking Good. I like the intention of questioning efficacy of cosmetics but a 3 week study on 9 people? Surely that should have a caveat?
— Becky Gilmore (@museumofbecky) January 10, 2018
Results from the study showed that hydration had increased from the use of the Clinique Dramatically Different Moisturiser and the Nivea Soft Moisture but not from the Embryolisse Lait-Crème Concentré. Healey used these results to make an unqualified leap and conclude that it's not the price of the product but the ingredients that determine the success of a moisturiser. It was even asserted that all three offer no long-term improvements for the skin. What Healey failed to mention was how environmental factors such as weather and the participants' skin type would have also affected the results. A study conducted over just three weeks is not long enough to see long-term results, and factors such as diet and hormones, where our skin's condition naturally fluctuates, would greatly affect the outcome.
I feel personally attacked by 'The Truth About Looking Good'. I used Embryolisse on my roaccutane-dry skin and it was one of the only things that wouldn't leave my skin peeling and gross.
— Sarah (@sarahmargaretta) January 10, 2018
Later on in the programme, Healey sought out cult beauty journalist Sali Hughes to dispel certain attitudes towards buying makeup. Testing two products for each category (namely eyeshadow, foundation, mascara and lipgloss), on a white audience of three (five including Healey and Hughes), luxury and affordable makeup products were pitted against each other. Notably, the Rimmel foundation received a better response than the offering from MAC. But again, the testing conditions were vague and didn't touch upon factors other than the appearance immediately after application. Hughes' detailed advice and expert opinion was subsequently edited out of the televised programme and the esteemed beauty editor also took to Twitter to explain.
What they cut was me saying that there are other factors that can’t be judged immediately, like staying power, colour remaining true etc. Also that luxury brands often serve the needs of women of colour, when the high street frequently doesn’t bother. All significant, I feel. https://t.co/GhOcWgoI2c
— Sali Hughes (@salihughes) January 10, 2018
Rather than being founded on comprehensive studies and reputable research, or offering new insights and information, much of the programme seemed focused on the presenter's own insecurities, and the language used to describe topics such as cellulite was dated and offended some viewers.
“Cellulite sufferers” 🙄 THIS is part of the problem. MILLIONS of people have cellulite, so why demonise it like it’s some kind of unspeakable ailment? You wouldn’t say someone’s a toenail sufferer JUST BECAUSE THEY HAVE TOENAILS. CELLULITE IS NATURAL! #thetruthaboutlookinggood
— Iz (@IzzyLaycock) January 10, 2018
pls don't say "cellulite sufferers" it's natural and saying that only adds to the reason why people get self conscious over it #thetruthaboutlookinggood
— ✼lorna✼ (@_lornamay) January 10, 2018
Pointless programme. Learned nothing and no mention of animal cruelty or nasty chemicals in some of these products ... #thetruthaboutlookinggood
— Natalie (@nataliewestuk) January 10, 2018
Unfortunately, the programme, which had the potential to be incredibly educational and inspiring, let down many beauty fans and insinuated that women blindly buy into marketing ploys by big beauty brands, when in reality, the cosmetics consumer is savvier than ever. Frankly, the truth about looking good lies in self-confidence and buying from the beauty brands we believe in, and in excluding whole communities of women from the conversation and discrediting certain brands, this beauty documentary really missed the mark.
Want more like this?
Ralph & Rice: London's Newest Sustainable Hair Salon
Bespoke Beauty: It's No Longer One Size Fits All
The Ban On Microbeads Begins Today – What Does That Mean For Your Beauty Products?
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?
I Hung Out In A Freezing-Cold Chamber For The Sake Of Beauty
You're So Vein, You Probably Think This Article Is About You