Pantene commercials - from bad to worse

The new Pantene spots feature celebs such as Kelly Ripa and Patricia Heaton talking about how strenuous their jobs are--on their hair. In both ads they tell us, "With Pantene, you don't have to worry about damage" from heat tools, styling, etc.

What a load! Hair is dead, dead, dead from the moment it emerges from the scalp! Without cellular regeneration, hair, unlike skin, can NEVER repair itself! Chemicals, dye, sun or heat damage is irreversible. Pantene's silicone derivatives coat the hair shaft, thus imitating a look and feel of healthy hair, but this effect lasts only until you shampoo it out and the hair understand is forever and always the same.

These ads are really pushing the limits of what constitutes truth in advertising, in my opinion. I fear that some consumers might just think they can abuse the heck out of their hair with no reprecussions if they rely on Pantene. No, no no! I respect P&G as a company considering my corporation formed a strategic alliance with them some time ago, but.....aaaaaaaaaagh.

Lyris,

Add to this that the actresses don't actually USE that particular product (pantene in this case) and you have Marketing "hypnotism" at it's finest. BTW _ I am bmailing you my e-mail address so that you can send me the "bible of cosmetic chemical ingredients"!!

Thanks for sharing it with us.

jacqui

Ohh, pantene tests on aminals? thats so not cool.

Yeah I saw that commercial last night I couldn't believe the woman was talking about it like some kind of miricale solution. I really hate when non-long hair people tell me that I should try pantene. I know they're just trying to be helpful, but I guess they really don't have to worry about being nice to their hair. pantene will "fix" it.

Hearing about the testing on animals is enough for me not to buy Pantene's products again, and that poor dog - being a total animal lover, I can't stand the thought of that.

Yes, I think the Body Shop has a "grandfather clause" in their animal testing policy, which means the company can use ingredients that have been animal-tested as long as they weren't tested in the last five years. I believe I read that in Paula Begoun's book; not sure. Either way it's rather dubious.

And yes, I agree that the Pantene spokeswomen probably don't use Pantene (though they may, who are we to know?!) What I really wonder is whether they wash their own hair at all!

Different animals have different regions that are more sensitive than others. Like companies test mascara on rabbits because they have really sensitive eyes. If it causes problems then they will change it. It's really awful.

hairalways wrote: Add to this that the actresses don't actually USE that particular product (pantene in this case) and you have Marketing "hypnotism" at it's finest.

Just happened to notice the discussion and thought I'd throw in a bit of clarification. The actresses who are advertisting the hair products DO, by FCC regulations, have to use the product they are advertising. That's why you'll see a blurb in a magazine after some actress who's being doing those haircolor or shampoo ads makes a major style change that they did it after their contract with the company ended.

Just FYI,
JF

These are companies that DON'T test on animals:

http://www.stopanimaltests.com/c-cconsdont1.html

Enjoy

Wow. I'm surprised by the fact that they actually DO use those products. I didn't know it was regulated by the FCC like that. Whenever I see one of those pantene commercials with Kelly Ripa I always think "yeah, right". Anyway, I wonder if they have to use the product they are endorsing exclusively.

Caramia

caramia wrote: Anyway, I wonder if they have to use the product they are endorsing exclusively. Caramia

Depends on how "use" is defined in the contact. Presumably it doesn't not include "put in hand soap pump dispenser" or "wash dog."