Fair & Lovely 2

 

Please study the page fair n lovely first. It contains fresh details and has been rewritten. 

Then only refer to this page, if inclined. This page limits itself greatly to Lever's sham market survey of March 2008

 

Law of the Land

 

The Supreme Court had ruled that  "the object is to bring honesty and truth in the relationship between the manufacturer and the consumer". And "if the general impression conveyed is false, the most punctilious and scrupulous accuracy in immaterial minutiae will not render the representations true"  [a lie is a lie even if covered with irrelevant packing. The essence is what matters - falsehood]

2. MRTPC: "if the claim of "102"% anti- bacterial superiority is ultimately not found to be true," consumers by and large can be said to have been duped by such advertisement campaign - if the advertised claim is ultimately not found to be true can be substituted for the earlier words within quotes. That is, the observation is not meant for one case but for all tall, dubious and unproven claims

3 Affected Party / Public: 'This injury caused to the public in general can hardly be compensated in terms of money, as the feeling of being duped cannot be evaluated in monetary terms'. This observation is against Hindustan Lever.

Hindustan Unilever, Colgate, Johnson & Johnson and many others have violated the terms and spirit of the Law of the Land. Please check Site Map 2 and select your page

Background details

Hindustan Unilever make Fair & Lovely. It is available in India since about 1978 or so, as a facial product to enhance 'Fairness'. Till December 2011, they have not produced any independent, reliable, proven or statistical record for its efficacy from the Users

It gets a sham market survey done in March 2008. The details are supposed to be at www.totaltruth.com. They misrepresented the  meagre survey results to broadcast some unrelated and unwarranted conclusions to the public. Lever sent a 25gms tube of Fair & Lovely free, to randomly selected females, in an attractively packaged parcel through Courier. The parcel was collected by me on 10-7-2008 - unlucky !.  My daughter says that she never contacted Lever.

Msg in Carton: The cream comes in a tube. It is put inside an outside cardboard carton, which has messages on all 6 sides [ 4+ 2]

Msg in parcel:  The product was put inside a specially printed, Maroon Colour parcel box, suitable for despatch through courier. The survey results were on this parcel. The pack of lies / Such messages are separately mentioned as 'msg in parcel'. The images of the parcel may be uploaded only if there is need

Truth and Lies - guilty by their self proclaimed certification

 

They have used the term 'total truth' for the website - it cannot be 0.01% less /  scope for lies. They set that parameter. 

Even if 1 drop of Gutter Water is mixed with 100 ml of drinking water or say, 0.01%,  it is undrinkable. Let us be clear about that. Even if one word is false / questionable, the integrity of Lever and the product, Fair & Lovely, becomes automatically questionable. It is also against the spirit of the law mentioned at the beginning. They know that. They said that to MRTPC in 1998. And we are with 2008 parcel. This page will mention some of the obvious and obnoxious lies

 

The  Cheapness:      Duping and unsubstantiated claims:     does not believe in its own claim

1]  Major Claimed benefit   -    Fairness:   did not even dare to verify !

 

Check the features claimed to have been tested with persons who have used one or the other cream

Fairness, the major TV advertised benefit, was not checked at all

Features checked are other than Fairness

features checked Cream 1  Cream 2  Cream 3 Fair & Lovely     Overall Opinion 5.3 about 5.4 near 5.4 5.7     Purchase intention above 4.05 about 4.05 4.0 4.4     Gives me glowing skin near 4.1 near 4.1 4.0 above 4.3     suitable for my skin near 4.07 near 4.07 near 4.2 above 4.3

..'The 4 leading international creams included Fair & Lovely Multivitamin Total Fairness cream, Loreal Relightening Whitening Moisturising Day cream SPF 15, Olay Total Effects cream Normal SPF 15 and Olay White Radiance Day Cream SPF 24'...

All are near equal products on the features tested

Some decimal points could be close approximations from the histograms

 

What / why it,  is then being sold to the Public as Fairness Cream ?

Features comparison

1. Suitable for my skin: It is between 4 to 4.3 as per the table. There is not much difference between one and another. It is a flat statement. No one pays Tribute for the Biovita content. Any skin ointment should make it soft, supple and itch free. No special benefit in any

2. Gives me Glowing Skin: The points just above is relevant for this feature also. Thank God there is not 'much glowing skin'. Imagine a lady 'with glowing face' when it is slightly dark / at night. [ I am still scared of Ramsey's ghost episodes on TV]

3. Purchase Intention: Desire backed by money is Demand. So, querying about intention does not convey anything special. Who does not want to be a Crorepati ?

4. Overall Opinion: It is 5.3 to 5.7 range for all the 4 products. In simple common terms, it just means 'chalega'. It is just OK

To sum up, no product is exceptionally good or bad in any feature, as per the survey summary

Distortion

In the leaflet, the Histograms / rectangular graphical images were positioned deliberately in an needlessly slanting position - to give the impression on cursory inspection, that Fair & Lovely is better compared to the other 3 unnamed creams. This is a deliberate misrepresentation to mislead the Public. It is an indirect insult to competitors as well

 

Cheapness:

To these 4 questions below, one more question on Fairness effect could have added. It was left out. Why ? We do not know. They should have checked this and had the integrity to convey that to the Public

The Public cannot again know the terms and conditions under which the 'Market Research' firm did the survey and presented the report. How it was edited would remain unknown. It does not indicate of an unbiased, independent survey

 

Incomparable Products

SPF means Sun Protection Factor and normally refers to UV rays A.  B & C are left out. So even SPF 50 also does not mean any thing meaningful. It is like jumping half a well - rough transliteration of a Tamil proverb. They do not provide Protection like Cotton Cap

Out of the 4 products, 3 mentions of Fairness.  Olay Total Effects is not a Fairness cream. Was it added to make a higher number ? These three are also slanted towards 'sun protection' and not 'fairness', which is the main emphasis of Fair & Lovely

Medical / Scientific misrepresentation

New Fair & Lovely Multivitamin cream is enriched with a revolutionary Biovita complex - a combination of Vitamin B3, B6, C and E. While fighting Colgate before MRTPC, Lever charged Colgate that there is no published evidence for the efficacy Niacin

Can the skin convert these pro Vitamins to Vitamins ? It cannot

Let them answer the above question / prove to the Public, published evidence of pro vitamins beneficial whitening impact on the skin

Lever have fooled the Public with earlier with pH maintenance, lowering Toilet Soaps standards, making unsubstantiated claim on Toothpaste and presenting 2 versions of Dove - one to Customs and another to Public.

How do I trust them on their words ? They are habitual liars. Do we trust jail birds and employ them as Security personnel ?

The Survey - defective and unreliable

 

Hindustan Lever has got conducted a sham Market Survey in Mumbai, for Fair & Lovely in March 2008. A leading international market research firm did the survey ! These field personnel gave each of these 4 creams to 200 Randomly selected female consumers selected from across socio economic groups and between the age of 18-40 years'

If a survey is done just with 200, is it statistically valid ? Lever and the International Market Research firm should know that. The number is insignificant and statistically invalid. To extrapolate that results to the whole of the population is an exercise an imagination

The  next paragraph says...'The study was conducted with 800 female consumers across socio economic groups, in the age group 18-40 yrs in India. The study was conducted in March 2008'. Whether the number is 200 or 800 is not clear

a] 31 days Survey ?

..'conducted in March 2008: These field personnel gave each of these 4 creams to 200 Randomly'..  If 200 persons were to use 4 creams, one after another, with a gap of 10 to 15 days, between one product and another, it would take 80 plus days. And the survey was conducted in March / within 31 days.

if each of these 4 creams were given 4 sets of 200 randomly selected people and is meant 800 people, it is not a comparative analysis by them  as different people have used different samples

 

b] Proclaimed Results: utter dishonesty

Msg in product carton: The Final Result: Total Fairness.  week 1- Fresh feel, Sun Protected bright look; week 2 - Soft and Smooth Glowing skin: week 3 - even toned radiance - These claims untested or not supported by the Survey

Msg in Parcel: 'Each consumer used the cream placed with her for a period of 10 days. After 10 days, the field research personnel asked the product rating on a set of predefined parameters. These parameters included overall ones, as well as specific skincare attributes'

There is contradiction between the 2 sources of printed messages. Note the term above 'used the cream'. It is singular and not plural. That is, only Fair & Lovely was used. Why then, 3 more products to be used with F& L ? Why send 20 gms tube of Fair & Lovely only, if it is not 'use alone' product ?

To my line of thinking, there is no honesty and ethics at all.  The Presentation does not seem to be worded to aid in decision making. Instead it lacks clarity and confuses the public / buyer - is it not a form of cheating ? They take the public for a ride brazenly

 

Shameless Lies

 

Msg in parcel: '99 out of 100 times Consumer panel chose F & L over other leading International brands'. * Interpretation of superiority at 99% significance of Fair & Lovely Multivitamin compared to leading international creams on overall opinion ...

From the tabled survey results, such interpretation seems totally unwarranted.

2. Some years back, Lever published a comparative advertisement for their 'No Marks Cream' with that of Garnier. Garnier is a division / brand of Loreal. As in this parcel of Fair & Lovely, Lever claimed something in the main copy in bold letters and said something else in the side copy - small boxes. It was contradictory, cheap, unsupported claim. They used 'removal' and 'reduction' as meaning the same and interchangeable terms as it would suit them. Garnier pounced on Lever. The advertisement never appeared again

3. msg in parcel:  " Once again, validating the pioneering skincare technology used in Fair & Lovely"

When the Scoundrel is not able to establish the main benefit, Fairness, with the survey results, where is the proof or basis to claim pioneering expertise in Skincare Technology on the basis of Fair & Lovely ?  None even in dreams. This is again an unwarranted over claim reaching imaginary heights without wings.

As I say in unfair practices page, the Chairman of Hindustan Unilever should be jailed for their habitual distortions, lies, duping and unfair practices. Refer that page. This site contains sufficient evidence provided by HUL

 

Complain

Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Government of India, Krishi Bhawan,   New Delhi 110001. Website www.fcamin.nic.in. [ You may complain to them.]

They advertise nowadays on TV about 'Rights and Responsiblities' of the Consumer. How will they protect that right and penalise the guilty is unsaid. Ever since I joined IIM, Ahmedabad in 1967 as a student and took interest in Marketing, not a single case has been taken up against any offending company in the last 44 years

If there be errors / oversights, please let me know. I would take them into account and reedit this page

 

	Errors and Omissions exempted.  If there be any unwanted oversights, mistake in content or suggestions for improvements,  I will be thankful for your feedback
	Personal website of R. Ranganathan M.Sc., [ MBA - IIMA]    Main / original content: after 2002: last minor modification, Jan 19,  2011