Industry Experts on Best Routes to Validated Product Claims

Industry Experts on Best Routes to Validated Product Claims

Efficacy validation in skincare is equal parts science and strategy and it all starts earlier in the process than you might think. We sat down with R&D experts to hear how they approach clinical and consumer studies and how this determines their ability to navigate what brands can and can't say about their products.

Krupa Koestline

Manessa Lormejuste

Jessica Abrams

AJ Addae

Four renowned industry experts joined us to share their experience with claim validation - beauty chemist and founder of KKT Labs, Krupa Koestline, PD consultant and category expert Manessa Lormejuste (Founder of LORM·CO), product innovation expert Jessica Abrams (Vice President of Danessa Myricks Beauty) and Founding Chemist of Sula Labs - AJ Addae.

See how each of these cosmetic developers perceives the various aspects of claim substantiation or check out some key takeaways.

Q&A Layout 1 — Stacked Cards

Many product teams think of consumer claim validation studies and clinical studies as equivalents. Do you agree? Please discuss any notable differences in objectives.

KK
Krupa Koestline
Beauty Chemist & Founder, KKT Innovation Labs

Not really. Clinical studies are designed to objectively measure efficacy under controlled conditions using instruments, standardized grading, and statistical rigor. Consumer studies capture perception, experience, and real-world usability. Both are valuable, but they answer very different questions: one proves performance, the other proves relevance.

ML
Manessa Lormerjuste
PD Expert & Founder, LORM·CO

They’re related, but they are not equivalent and they serve different objectives. Clinical studies typically rely on instrumentation and objective measurements (e.g., corneometry for hydration, tewametry for TEWL, imaging for wrinkles or pigmentation). The goal is to generate quantitative, statistically supported evidence that a product produces a measurable change under defined conditions. Consumer claim validation / consumer perception studies, on the other hand, focus on subjective experience and perceived performance. It mainly relies on how consumers feel the product works or how they believe it works on their skin or hair. These studies are often more qualitative in nature (though they can be quantified through structured questionnaires and scoring) and are designed to support claims like "skin feels softer," "looks smoother," or "product absorbs quickly." It’s important to keep the endpoints distinct, especially to avoid conflicting interpretations. For example, if you run an instrument-based hydration study, you generally wouldn’t want to ask consumers, "Do you feel your skin looks more hydrated?" as a direct parallel endpoint. If the instrument data doesn’t support increased hydration, the consumer feedback can create inconsistency in how the results are interpreted and communicated. In practice, both study types can be valuable. Clinical studies tend to be more resource intensive and are often prioritized when brands have larger budgets or need stronger substantiation. Consumer studies can be an accessible entry point, especially for smaller brands.

JA
Jessica Abrams
Vice President, Danessa Myricks Beauty

Both consumer perception and clinical studies are ways to substantiate product claims, but they are not interchangeable tests, there is much more nuance and context to consider. In a consumer study, a panel of participants will test a product and respond to a survey (typically on a 5-point scale) on whether they agree with statements about the product. The associated claims are usually phrased: "X% of participants agree/felt that {insert benefit}" In my opinion, much of the difference relates to the type of feedback: consumer perception studies are great for assessing sentiment, sensorial properties, and the overall experience of using a product—the perception of how that product performed and how their skin (or hair, lashes, lips, etc.) looked or felt as a result, which are by nature more subjective. Clinical studies utilize instrumentation to measure changes in skin’s appearance or attributes of product efficacy; These standardized test methods create more objective data sets. However, the degree of objectivity for both types of studies can vary based on factors such as the design of the protocol where acceptance and rejection criteria are determined. Additional considerations include blinding participants to the brand and the name of the product, and the P value (probability value) to ensure statistical significance.

AA
AJ Addae
Founding Chemist, Sula Labs

Clinical studies certainly require the oversight of a dermatologist or a physician in order to measure objective claims that go deeper than consumer perception/agreement. I like to think about consumer study results as subjective consumer responses that carry anecdotal evidence (which is highly valuable!) and can also capture a variety of sensory and experiential feedback. In both cases, the goal is quantitative metrics that demonstrates improvement.

Are there product categories across which your answers would differ?

KK
Krupa Koestline
Beauty Chemist & Founder, KKT Innovation Labs

Yes. In categories tied to biological change (or where the brand claims one) like anti-aging, acne, hair growth, or barrier repair, clinical data becomes much more critical. For sensorial or lifestyle categories like fragrance, body care, or color cosmetics, consumer perception often carries more weight, although safety and baseline performance validation still matter.

ML
Manessa Lormerjuste
PD Expert & Founder, LORM·CO

The core distinction stays the same across categories. You can execute both clinical/instrumental and consumer perception studies very effectively in skincare and haircare; the main difference is simply what you’re measuring and how you’re framing the endpoints. In haircare, a clinical or instrumental design might focus on measurable outcomes such as breakage reduction, shedding reduction, tensile strength, frizz control, or curl retention. A complementary consumer study would typically explore how the hair looks and feels. For example, whether consumers perceive their hair as softer, smoother, shinier, more manageable, or less frizzy rather than asking for a definitive statement about what the product is objectively doing. In skincare, instrumental studies often measure outcomes like hydration over time, TEWL, redness reduction, firmness/elasticity, or changes in the appearance of fine lines. The complementary consumer study would focus on perception-based outcomes such as: "Does my skin look moisturized?" "Does it feel more comfortable?" "Does it have a healthy glow?" A key best practice in both categories is to avoid using the exact same question in both study types. If the instrumental data and consumer perception data conflict, it can create confusion. This can potentially weaken how the claim is supported. Instead, the two should be designed to work together. Objective measurement on one side, and real-world perception on the other. This allows them to not directly contradict each other.

JA
Jessica Abrams
Vice President, Danessa Myricks Beauty

My opinion remains the same across product categories. Available time and budget are always key factors when deciding to deploy a clinical study versus a consumer study. Ideally, I’ll do a combination of both, strategically prioritizing claims and measurement intervals to minimize cost. Some additional questions to consider around product positioning are:

AA
AJ Addae
Founding Chemist, Sula Labs

I think that clinical studies can utilize consumer perception questions in order to deliver a more holistic view in addition to the objective results measured by instrumentation or a physician. However, products that lean on "safety" as a claim - such as those that are likely to be irritating - definitely benefit from additional tests such as RIPT or ocular irritation studies, before approval. I would also like to mention that clinical testing isn’t only for claims - in OTC products, it’s also for regulatory purposes. For example, a sunscreen SPF panel is a clinical test, but does not necessarily give "improvement claim" data.

At what point during product development would you do a clinical study, and when would you use a consumer panel?

KK
Krupa Koestline
Beauty Chemist & Founder, KKT Innovation Labs

I typically start with internal bench testing and stability, then small expert panels for early feedback. Clinical testing usually comes once the formula is locked or close to final, since those studies are costly and should reflect what will actually launch. Consumer panels can run earlier and iteratively to refine sensorials, positioning, and usability.

ML
Manessa Lormerjuste
PD Expert & Founder, LORM·CO

I start thinking about clinical studies at the very beginning of a project, mainly because they need to be accounted for in the budget, timeline, and overall claims strategy. When I actually run each study depends on formula readiness and risk level. For a consumer panel, I typically wait until the formula is approved and has cleared key gates. Most importantly, it should pass preservative efficacy testing (PET), so we are confident the formula is microbiologically robust. It must also pass HRIPT, to ensure the risk of irritation or sensitization is minimal before putting the product in consumers’ hands. At that point, a consumer panel is a strong tool to validate real world perception such as look and feel, sensorial experience, satisfaction, and perceived benefits. For clinical or instrumental studies, timing can be more flexible. In some categories, haircare for example, certain substantiation approaches such as hair swatch testing for breakage, tensile strength, combability, frizz, or curl retention do not require HRIPT in the same way a leave-on skincare product does. In those cases, I am comfortable running clinical-style testing earlier in development, especially because if results do not meet expectations, the team still has time to reformulate and retest. That said, for both clinical and consumer studies, one requirement is that the formula must be stable. There is little value in investing in substantiation, instrumental, or consumer, if the formula’s stability profile is still uncertain.

JA
Jessica Abrams
Vice President, Danessa Myricks Beauty

Typically, stability testing, package compatibility and functionality, and product safety testing begin at formula approval, and must complete before a product can be tested on a consumer. Once preservative efficacy (or water activity for anhydrous products) and RIPT testing have passed, the brand can begin formalized clinical or consumer studies. However, if there are multiple formula iterations that perform well during development, I will often conduct an informal consumer panel (meaning not used for claims substantiation purposes) prior to formula approval. This can serve as a "gut check" to determine the best formula to select, based on the sentiment of consumers (typically brand employees or friends and family) between the variations. If there is an overwhelming preference for one iteration over another, this data can aid in the decision-making process. A helpful tip within these informal tests is to blind participants to the differences between the versions. A PRO tip is to label the versions differently for the participants (keeping a private log of what was given to whom) to avoid common pitfalls such as groupthink! Any clinical or consumer studies conducted on the final formula used for claims substantiation would be managed through a 3rd party and would have a minimum panel size and selection criteria.

AA
AJ Addae
Founding Chemist, Sula Labs

At SULA LABS, we recently launched a codevelopment model in which brands can get consumer panel feedback along the way during product development so that they don’t have to wait until after product development to understand how their products perform. The traditional format is that brands wait until after product development to consumer test, then go back and iterate. Obviously it would be the most ideal to do the same with clinical testing but there is typically a greater investment for clinical testing that makes this prohibitive - therefore clinicals are usually done after product dev, provided there is some aspect of preliminary consumer testing data.

If you could execute on the perfect Product Development project, how would you orchestrate clinicals, consumer studies, and any other validation points?

KK
Krupa Koestline
Beauty Chemist & Founder, KKT Innovation Labs

I would orchestrate clinicals immediately after formula approval. That’s usually the point where our test plan is locked, our endpoints are clear, and we have a final ingredient strategy we’re confident in. Assuming the formula is stable, I like to move straight into clinicals to make sure we’re actually seeing the benefits we’re looking for at real usage levels, especially for the ingredients we plan to lean on for claims. Once I know the clinical data is strong, particularly if we’re running an instrumental study, I would then schedule consumer perception. Again, that’s assuming we’ve cleared the key gates like micro, stability, and HRIPT where applicable. The consumer study is where you capture how people experience the product in the real world, without trying to mirror the exact same results as the clinicals. From there, I would keep testing based on the claims we still want to make or expand into. Overall, I think this is the best use case, especially in haircare and skincare, because it lets you stage gate the process. If something needs to be repeated, refined, or reformulated, you’re not so far down the product development timeline that you can’t pivot when needed.

ML
Manessa Lormerjuste
PD Expert & Founder, LORM·CO

JA
Jessica Abrams
Vice President, Danessa Myricks Beauty

From my experience, one of the most critical factors in executing a successful launch is upfront alignment with key stakeholders (i.e., marketing teams, retailers, founders, leadership). This includes a clearly defined product concept and positioning, along with the key claims identified to ensure the product is both compelling from a competitive standpoint as well as differentiated within the category. This allows you to design the product to achieve the desired claims. Many times, when a concept isn’t clearly defined, extra ingredients can be added (which can add unnecessary raw material costs or MOQs). If key claims aren’t determined upfront as part of the brief, the ingredients (or concentration) required to achieve the claim may be missing from the formula (resulting in last minute formula changes which can affect stability, or sunk costs from failed clinical studies).

AA
AJ Addae
Founding Chemist, Sula Labs

In a standard, non-OTC case, brands can develop with us with a testing panel recruited towards the product’s target demographic, so that they get consumer testing data along the way before nearly approving the product. Of course, stability and micro testing validation are necessary before manufacturing a product as well. Ideally during this time, an RIPT test would be ideal to lock in additional safety testing info. Then if needed, a clinical test would be a useful final step to further demonstrate quantitative claims regarding product performance. In essence, the goal is to build as much information about the product’s performance - and limitations - as a brand possibly can.

Key Takeaways

1. Two routes to claim validation, two different questions.

"Clinical studies are designed to objectively measure efficacy under controlled conditions using instruments, standardized grading, and statistical rigor. Consumer studies capture perception, experience, and real-world usability." ( Krupa Koestline) One proves performance, the other proves relevance — and both are valuable, but only when you understand which question each is built to answer.

2. Align on claims before you formulate.

"One of the most critical factors in executing a successful launch is upfront alignment with key stakeholders — marketing teams, retailers, founders, leadership." ( Jessica Abrams) Without it, formulas can end up missing the very ingredients needed to support claims, leading to last-minute changes, stability risk, or sunk costs from failed studies.

3. Subjective feedback is still evidence.

"Anecdotal evidence is highly valuable — and can also capture a variety of sensory and experiential feedback." ( AJ Addae) Consumer responses surface real-world nuance that instrumentation simply can't detect, making them a meaningful complement to objective clinical data.

4. Stability first, studies second.

"For both clinical and consumer studies, one requirement is that the formula must be stable. There is little value in investing in substantiation — instrumental or consumer — if the formula's stability profile is still uncertain." ( Manessa Lormerjuste) No matter how strong the study design, an unstable formula undermines everything downstream.