Clinical studies are essential but there are more factors that show a product is effective.
When a brand launches a new product and I'm asked to teach and help educate, before I can even start I'm seeing confusion and hesitation. 'Where is your proof? What do the clinicals say? How many people? Were there adverse events? How long were the studies?' These are all valid questions, but is that all you need to make a decision?
In an office, I haven't even had a moment to speak and share this amazing technology or that phenomenal innovative ingredient before I see the folded arms and questioning looks. Before the new product earns its place and the claims I may make, you need to know the science. I'm a provider, I'm a physician, I work in a medspa. We need to know, or we won't be able to recommend the product. But is that enough? Did we create a culture of clinically proven results above all else? Or can those clinically proven results also be from years' worth of treatments, valid protocols that have given us results without all the clinical testing?
I have been around long enough to know that yes, those clinical publications are essential and of course you have a right to ask and should ask. It validates testing and safety and results we may not have the time to do before we have to start recommending it, or the right environment to ensure that it is safe, and effective. So we rely on your studies, your information before we feel comfortable even listening to you and your pitch.
Often a new brand may not have 30 years of experience with proven protocols or the ingredient technology is so new we can't even wrap our brains around what it can actually do, but you show the results so it's got to work right?
Without those clinical proofs, that formula may not make it, and may not be purchased for the practice. What I'm about to say may get some all fired up and make me a little unpopular. We lean too much on clinicals to understand if this formula will work on clients, on ourselves, and it may not always be necessary. It's part of the decision, yes, but not the whole decision.
Look Beyond the Clinical
What then, should influence the decision if not just the clinicals? Firstly, the mechanism. How is this formula working? Think of it as the story of how the innovation, the ingredient or technology is working in or on the skin. What is it doing? How is it acting? If the clinical is the outcome measured then the mechanism is the explanation to help us understand. If the mechanism is strong, then that may be worth considering.
Let me put it to you this way. We understand the skin, in particular the barrier for example and how it is essential for protection. We know that ceramides, cholesterol and fatty acids replenish the lipid matrix keeping the good in. No clinical study was needed to explain that, the mechanism does all the work because essentially we understand what those lipids do to help and support the barrier. I want to mention here that the mechanism explains why it should work. It is not the proof (clinical study). However, I do still feel that understanding the mechanism is an essential part of the process to choose what is necessary for the business and the client.
Proof-in-Practice
The third consideration is to ask how is the skin responding? This is another important question because this is where 'proof-in-practice' comes in. If we do not just rely on the clinical study, we can take note of before and after images of clients on a regimen with this product. Those images are valuable because they show people stayed compliant, which is critical, and we know full well that a good product is one that is used. It's the testimonials and reviews, in particular the documented ones from providers, that matter here, the same way you rely on reviews when you want to make a purchase yourself. How many clients have said, 'I love this and here are my results'? Look for a pattern of 'it's working' across clients, over time. When the results are repeated consistently across several clients we can take note, not one person who had amazing results as the proof.
Two Channels in the Brain
Where does this leave us? I think some science can explain it. We have two channels in the brain, one is analytical-rational and the other is intuitive-experiential. The analytical side is logical and deliberate, the one that trusts the study because it is not personal and does not have an opinion. The experiential one is intuitive and learns from what's been lived and seen. This is based on the Cognitive-Experiential Self-Theory (CEST). It is built on the idea that we operate using these two separate systems to process information. One channel usually is the leader and we need to recognize which pull is stronger when teaching about the products. Some of us need the clinical and others need the proof-in-practice. It is our duty to speak to all three (clinical, mechanism and proof-in-practice) but know which one to focus on depending on who our audience is.
Which Channel Is Leading?
Ok, we now understand we have two channels and I am sure your first question is going to be how do you know which channel is leading? Is there something specific they say? One question they may ask is the obvious one, what clinical studies have you done? But the more subtle is their need for details, specifics, more of a focus on the science. They will want more information on 'how do you know?' and this will be your cue to bring out the clinical studies and publications and you can even lean into the mechanism as the closer. They need to know that you know and understand the product, the science and can speak to it. Once you have shared the clinical support, you educate on the mechanism in a way that summarizes the proof.
The experiential channel is a different animal, it often can come across as 'who has tried it?', they want the success stories and want to see it in action. 'I want to try this myself' or 'can I have one to give to a patient to try who I think could benefit from this?'. Your focus is on the regimen, where it fits in their routine, the before and afters, the practical application is important to them. I know an aesthetician who has been using it on her clients for about 2 months now, here is what she is starting to see and how the skin is responding. Initial observations of improvements may help as well. Of course you speak to the mechanism but more as the benefits than features.
Both channels still want some information on the other channel so to speak. Ensure you do mention one or two points to satisfy that need and understanding as well. This isn't me saying 'tell them what they want to hear'. I prefer it to be this is education from a point of understanding their needs, and addressing their beliefs in an honest and relatable way. Ensure the bulk of what you say addresses the channel they need to focus on as well as interesting facts, ingredients and benefits since their clients may need that information at some point. It is about sharing the facts, the science, the proof and the experience that makes this a necessity for their business and clients.
Lead With What They Need
Understand which channel needs to be addressed first when speaking to the client, whether that is analytical or experiential. Understand their needs. Those needs could be the science which of course is imperative and essential, but if those aren't as robust, lean into the mechanism and proof-in-practice to get the message across clearly and effectively. I'm analytical, but boy I LOVE a good mechanism and proof-in-practice story too. Lead with whichever channel they need, but ensure you have the other available too. Know the science, know the mechanism and definitely know the 'proof-in-practice' so you can teach from a place of understanding and their belief in your product will lead to a yes. That's The Education Effect™.