Talk:Proactiv

Celebrity endorsements

Celebrity endorsements and advertising is one of the main things Proactiv is known for. However there is a delicate balance to maintain to cover all the major celebrity spokespeople, without creating an indiscriminate list.

Proactiv recently sent me a list of omitted celebrity spokespeople and I found two where their endorsement of Proactiv was covered in People magazine. That's Julianne Hough (source) and Olivia Munn (source). In both cases the source articles are more than 250 words (my measure for a "blurb").

Was hoping an independent editor might be able to offer a quick opinion on whether they should be added. CorporateM (Talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Request edit spokesmodels

One of the things Proactiv is known for is its advertising and celebrity spokesmodels, currently described in the "Marketing" section. I suggest adding a couple that are missing that were covered by People Magazine to the end of the second-last paragraph of the "Marketing" section as follows:

• "Actresses [[Julianne Hough]] and [[Olivia Munn]] became celebrity Proactiv spokespeople in 2011 and 2014 respectively.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2011/10/19/julianne-hough-proactiv-skincare/|newspaper=People Magazine|date=October 19, 2011|accessdate=April 1, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|first1=Alex|last1=Apatoff|first2=Gabrielle|last2=Olya|url=http://stylenews.peoplestylewatch.com/2014/03/20/olivia-munn-face-of-proactiv-acne/|accessdate=April 1, 2015|newspaper=People Magazine|date=March 20, 2014}}</ref></noiwki> [[User:CorporateM|CorporateM]] ([[User_talk:CorporateM|Talk]]) 14:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm personally uncomfortable with this, as such things are intrinsically promotional. (Also, although this may be my limitations, the two selected seem to contradict the first paragraph of the marketing section: "instantly recognizeable celebrity" and "music artists have been the most effective celebrity spokesmodels"... they may not be the best choice to illustrate the issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

I noticed the article's been re-structured from its GA-version. It looks fine with exception to "Sales and marketing" being a bit awkward as a section-title. The main thing this product is notable for is its advertising/marketing (it's actually sold by an advertising company, as oppose to a manufacturer), but not its sales. Sales is distinguishable from marketing in that sales is done in-person, whereas marketing and advertising are done through media. The Sales section could be better as a sub-section under Products, since its actually about how much of the product has been sold (revenue, units sold, etc.), as oppose to the act or field of sales (salespeople).

The Lead also appears to be really long now for this short of an article. 1-2 paragraphs seems more appropriate. Thoughts? David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 15:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

CM, several people have expressed concern about your editing, and recently you've ignored, reverted or misdescribed those concerns. You also haven't said who is paying you to work on this article. {{Connected contributor (paid)}} was created to help paid editors comply with the terms of use.

Re: your comments. To discuss sales and marketing together is appropriate, particularly for this company, and the lead is fine as an overview. Has the company mentioned it to you? SarahSV ^(talk) 16:46, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Issues

Cancellation problems

I haven't had much time to work on this article, but for future reference it ought to say something about the cancellation problems the company appears to be known for. Consumers sign up for a subscription – sometimes inadvertently, thinking they are sending off for a sample only – then can't get through to the company to cancel when they find they're being charged monthly. See Jezebel article, for example. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've added a paragraph about it to Proactiv#Sales (current third paragraph in that section) and a sentence to the lead: "Customers have complained that subscriptions are easy to set up inadvertently and hard to cancel."

I'm concerned that the article was promoted to GA without mentioning the difficulty of cancelling the credit-card withdrawals. If you google "Proactiv" some of the complaints are apparent, and FreeRangeFrog mentioned them on COIN in June 2013; see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 64#Proactiv Solution. This was the version promoted in October 2013. Pinging Edge3. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, unfortunately both editors are inactive atm, but I have seen LIz holding down the fort on FreeRange's talk page, if you want to try them. I was surprised you felt ConsumerAffairs.com was a reliable source. The website has a disclaimer that says "ConsumerAffairs.com makes no representation as to the accuracy of the information herein...." It's also known for being a shakedown operation that writes negatively about consumer brands, in order to blackmail them into paying a fee. This is discussed briefly by another editor at the bottom of the Talk page at Talk:ConsumerAffairs. I'm surprised there is nothing about it in RSN's archives yet. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 08:09, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

CorporateM, can you say why you left that material out? It's one of the things the company is best known for, and if you don't like ConsumerAffairs as a source, there are others, including Truth in Advertising ("Five Common Complaints about Guthy-Renker") and Slate ("Don't bother with Proactiv"). SarahSV ^(talk) 17:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Manufacturer

We don't say who manufactures this product and where. I've had a quick look for sources, but so far haven't found anything. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Proactiv+

The article doesn't say what Proactiv+ is. Is it just a variety of the three-step Proactiv, or is it a replacement? Is the original three-step Proactiv still available? The version of the article that was promoted to GA said: "There is also a Proactiv+ version that does not contain parabens and is intended to also act as a moisturizer," but it's not clear what that means. If it's a replacement, it affects what we say about the ingredients. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• There are multiple problems with the article, some of which I've fixed but not all. A key issue was that it didn't mention the many complaints about the practice of forcing customers to sign up (sometimes without realizing it) for these three-month supplies that keep coming, and making them hard to cancel. There are several complaints that the company has referred customers to collection agencies over payments for long-cancelled subscriptions.

There were also sourcing issues. For example, the Daily Mail was used as a source for an Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruling, rather than using the ASA itself, and what the Mail reported appeared to differ from the ASA decision.

A key remaining issue is what the ingredients are, and whether Proactiv+ has replaced the original. The article offers it as another version, but the product logo in the infobox shows the Proactiv+ version. We say that it contains 2.5 percent benzoyl peroxide, and the toner contains glycolic acid, but it appears not to in the UK and perhaps elsewhere. So where does it contain those ingredients, where does it not, and why is there a difference?

The image, File:Proactiv kit.jpg, shows a three-step kit based on salicylic acid, so is that the Gentle Formula, the UK formula, or something else? I've swapped the image for another because of that confusion. The NIH list of ingredients doesn't (that I can see) mention a toner with glycolic acid, but does mention one with salicylic acid. Is that a mistake, or has the company changed it? Other less reliable sources do mention one based on glycolic acid. What is needed is a full list of products and ingredients directly from the company. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Ingredient list

I've created {{Proactiv sidebar}} with the ingredients list of the main three-step kit in the United States and United Kingdom. It assumes that Proactiv+ hasn't replaced the original kit in the US. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Noting here that DGG tagged the ingredients sidebar for speedy deletion at 22:30 on 18 December, without alerting me, and Seraphimblade deleted it less than four hours later, also without alerting me. I don't think I've ever experienced this before. Can either of you say whether someone emailed you about it? I saw no discussion on wiki.

The sidebar was useful for potential Proactiv customers (most of whom are young women), because it listed the US and UK ingredients so that customers would know what they're putting on their faces, what they're paying for, and whether those ingredients are available elsewhere. (This is an issue in part because the company has made claims about the UK product based on the US ingredients, according to the Advertising Standards Authority.)

I'd appreciate it, Seraphimblade, if you would undelete this, and if you still think it's inappropriate, nominate it for deletion. But I hope you won't do the latter, because this is what Wikipedia should be offering on its cosmetics pages.

Pinging Doc James. Doc, this was a paid article about an acne treatment. I rewrote it and created a sidebar listing the ingredients of the key products in the US and UK, sourced to the National Institutes of Health. Now speedy deleted for some reason. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Have noticed this article in the past but moved on to other things. This is basically benzyl peroxide and salicylic acid. Not sure if all the inactive ingrediants add anything. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

If the differences are significant, the key differences could be mentioned in the text. But quite apart from whether the content should be in the article at all, doing this in a sidebar, with the actual contents hidden, is the worst of all possible formats, and fails the standards for accessibility. But if you want it restored for discussion, Perhaps you should add it as article text. Since any form of collapsible text is discouraged in article, possibly the best way to include details like this might be a footnote.

I apologize for not notifying you; I thought that Twinkle would do it, as it does for articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)`

No, no one emailed me about it. I commonly go through the G11 category, and I'd imagine I picked this up on one of my sweeps through. I imagine I'd have at least been rather startled if I'd noticed you wrote it, but I wouldn't have done differently—I don't think things written by admins do or should get any special treatment. Looking back at it, it's a list of ingredients (which is pretty irregular in itself, I've never seen an article contain something like that), and then cites as "references" links leading directly to a page selling the products. I'm open to hearing you out as to why that should be restored, but I can't see any way that would ever be appropriate, and it really does seem like brochure material (as does the rest of the price-guide material in the article, and fluff like "registered trademark of..." that was restored, but we can address that in a separate discussion). If we're going to start including prices, full ingredient lists, and direct links to sales pages in product articles other than the standard "official website" link under external links, I think we really need to ask the community's viewpoint on that. It's not at all common practice at this point, and I've routinely removed over-detailed stuff like that without a bit of issue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I should note that I'd have no objection whatever to listing the active ingredients in prose, in the article. The inactive ones, probably only if sources significantly discuss a specific inactive ingredient, else that's probably toward the overly-detailed side. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the comment about hidden content. We simply should not do it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It isn't "unambiguous advertising or promotion" and was deleted out of process. Seraphimblade, I'd appreciate it if you would restore it while it's discussed, and gain consensus to delete it if you want to do that. With respect, you seem to be acting here both as admin and editor. DGG, please say whether anyone contacted you off-wiki about this article. I believe the company has tried to have it changed, so it's important to know whether they or anyone acting for them contacted you, and if so what they wanted.

There are two separable issues:

• One of Wikipedia's flaws, and one of its gender-gap issues, is its coverage of cosmetics. We don't cover the products women buy, and when we do, we don't give them the ingredients list. So I decided to do that here for the key products. It can't be done in the text because it's too long.

• That aside, Proactiv has become an iconic product with almost cult status. It contains an ordinary list of ingredients that could be found in several drugstore acne treatments, but it has been marketed to make it appear different. The company would argue that the combination of ingredients does distinguish it from other brands. Customers are persuaded to pay higher prices for these ingredients that they would elsewhere, and when they order online are automatically made members of a club, which entails being sent hard-to-cancel repeat orders. Customers report having their details turned over to debt collectors, because they've had to cancel their credit cards to stop the company withdrawing monthly payments.
  The ingredients differ from one country to the next, as do prices, names, and purchasing arrangements. When you try, as a consumer, to find out what the products contain and cost elsewhere, the company re-routes you to your own country domain. You have to know to change your IP address. This is the kind of thing Wikipedia is good at: providing information that consumers have difficulty finding otherwise.

For all these reasons, I would like the article to make clear – this is what this product contains in country X; this is what it is called there; this is what it costs there. Doing some of that in a sidebar is the neatest way to do it, and having collapsed sections in sidebars is common. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:35, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think I'm "acting as admin and editor". I've never edited that template, and that's the only thing I took any admin action on. Like I said, I routinely review G11s. In this case, I found glossy-brochure type material, every phase of a cosmetic treatment in order, complete with links to buy it. That is, to any reasonable observer, marketing, and the deletion was not "out of process", it fell under an established speedy criterion, as seen by two experienced editors and admins (this is not DGG's first rodeo either). I then followed up to associated stuff, as I routinely do, and discovered more price-guide material, "registered trademark of...", ensuring to name-drop everyone involved in development, etc. Now, knowing you, I really doubt it was your intent of any kind, but that's very similar to what I frequently see from marketroids. In this case, unfortunately, it just looked very close. I'm willing to restore it for the moment, but as you've received now several objections to including it in the article, I'd ask you refrain from that unless a consensus develops for such. We also do need to discuss the price guide information and the like; that's normally covered by not a directory, and I don't see the type of mainstream media discussion of price that would justify an exception for this article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, you mixed admin and editor roles because you speedied a template; removed material from the article, calling it fluff; and expressed views about the article and template content on the talk page. But thank you for undeleting the template.

The problem may be that you're not familiar with the product. If that's correct, it might not be obvious why certain material is offered and written as it is. The trademark point, for example, is there because even the paid editor who wrote this seemed to think that Proactiv is a company. But it isn't. It's a registered trademark of a direct marketing company. If there are other points you're wondering about, by all means ask me to explain them.

Also please bear the gender gap strongly in mind. Women do want to know what's in cosmetics they plan to buy. Companies sometimes make that info easily available, but often they don't. Compare the detail offered in articles about video games, to which no one objects. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You have, I think, an unusual definition of that, given that removing marketing material is an administrative action (and, regardless, a template is not an article), but I suppose it's moot at this point. No, I'm not familiar with the specific product aside from general familiarity with the type, and that is most certainly not a requirement to edit or discuss the article. I am familiar with the general principles of WP:NOT, especially as regards price guides and indiscriminate information. I would tend to reiterate that if those practices are to be changed, it really requires community involvement, as that would have very wide-ranging effects in how we write articles about products and is a significant departure from current practice.

I'm not sure what video games have to do with anything, but out of curiosity, I checked a few video game articles I picked more or less at random (well, from whatever my Steam front page stopped on): (Fallout 4, Grand Theft Auto 5, and Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain. All of these are recent games currently on sale; none of them contain per-item prices or other exhaustive detail like comprehensive lists of items, locations, characters, etc. (which would be a game's "ingredients"). They do, of course, include total revenue and sales figures, and those are pretty standard for articles on products. I also took a look at some prepackaged foods (Wheat Thins, Chips Ahoy, Jello), and these either did not contain ingredient lists or just contained short mentions of the main ingredients within the article prose. I still do not see either detailed pricing or exhaustive ingredient lists as appropriate in tone to an encyclopedia article. I would suggest listing the primary ingredients, especially if they are heavily discussed in sources, and having footnotes or reference links pointing to the more exhaustive material. That's pretty standard practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Notable differences between formulations could definitely go in the products section. We do need justification for why this is not just redirected to the article about the active ingredient like we do with most brand names. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:22, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, this issue goes beyond this article for me. One of Wikipedia's gender-gap issues is that we barely cover the cosmetics industry. One of my projects for next year was going to be creating a template (with collapsible sections) that would include the ingredients of some well-known cosmetics. Crème de la Mer, for example, is a very expensive facial moisturizer – $1,080 for 8.4 oz (238 grams) in the United States – but the main ingredients are very ordinary (seaweed extract, mineral oil, petrolatum, glycerin). Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it; it's currently a redirect to the brand, with no information about ingredients. Women have to go to other websites for this information. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:28, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I could be convinced that ingredients are significant enough to be listed. I think they should however be visible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

You can't do it without collapsible lists, because the ingredients lists are often too long. When you're dealing with something like Proactiv, where there's a three-step kit and the ingredients differ between countries, it would be very messy uncollapsed. Opposing uncollapsed lists because of screen readers means no one can have these lists because a tiny percentage using screen readers might have difficulty with them; and it's not even clear that they do. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It's still a pretty significant change. I think the accessibility issue Doc James brings up is a valid concern, and I'm also of the mind that if something would be excessive detail if uncollapsed, it does not become non-excessive by being collapsed. (Since you brought up video games, visions of collapsed character and item boxes are dancing in my head, we spent years getting rid of the excessive detail on those and similar fiction...). I'd still advocate to stick only to covering active ingredients, and any other ingredients that have received significant discussion in reliable sources discussing the product. I'm certainly open to having an RfC on it, but since you seem to want to do this more widely, I think probably better to do it as an RfC on those general principles than one on this specific article. What I'm not sure is where we'd hold the RfC, since the proposed change implicates NOT, UNDUE, and probably MOS as well. Any ideas? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you see as the significant change? We've been using collapsible sidebars and collapsible infoboxes for years. Here are the articles that link to {{Sidebar with collapsible lists}}. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've certainly seen it used many times for "article series" type links, and from a check on those links, that appears to be the type of usage in question. That's a pretty common use for it. Using it for article content is a very different beast. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I should add, though, to stay on the topic, that the real departure is in providing an exhaustive list of ingredients in any format. Even in articles where such a list of ingredients would normally be available, like articles on prepackaged food or drugs, that's not at all a common practice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Can you can see how the gender-gap issue is playing itself out here? As a woman, I'm frustrated that Wikipedia doesn't cover cosmetics as it does other issues. I'd like to be able to look up cosmetic items on WP before I buy them, just as readers look up video games, operating systems, phones, computers, etc.

But when I try to offer what a lot of women might see as useful coverage (please tell me what I'd be putting on my face if I were to buy this), I'm reverted; a template I spent quite a lot of time on is speedy deleted; and I have to go through these arguments about UNDUE, MOS, collapsed, screen readers, etc. And now I may have to initiate an RfC, to which most respondents will be men who for the most part don't know or care anything about the main issue.

Why would I bother to do that to myself? The answer is that I won't bother, so the thing won't get done, and once again I'm left with the feeling that this is a men's website. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't. I've been opposing the use of Wikipedia as a "consumer guide" for many years, including on computers and video games (not to mention a "fan guide" on fiction), where it was often at issue at the time. That was well before the gender gap issue was raised or even known about at all.

If someone wanted to include full-system specs, let alone pricing, on an article on a computer or phone, I'd oppose that every bit as strongly, and indeed have. It's nothing to do with gender, it's to do with the purpose of Wikipedia. And yes, UNDUE and MOS do relate to that. I'd never come only to Wikipedia to determine a purchase of a computer or phone. I might start here, but then I'd visit professional and consumer reviews, too, not to mention sites that do include the specs in full detail.

I'm not putting you on with the offer to do an RfC. If we're really at an impasse, asking for wider input is the next step. It does not and should not matter who that input is from; it will be from Wikipedians. If your proposal gains consensus, that is what we'll do. It's better to have responses from those who don't have a fully-formed opinion coming in, as that helps to ensure neutrality. So I would hope to get input from a lot of people who don't know or care about this specific subject.

As to the discussion about accessibility for the disabled, I think it's a crucial one and one we should absolutely consider when writing articles. Now that is an area where I do have something of a personal stake, as I know more than one blind person who accesses the Internet via screen reader. But I don't consider that something to "go through". I want our site to be accessible to anyone who might like to use it, even if they are disabled. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Trademark

Sorry, realized I forgot to respond on the trademark point. That's very easily handled, without the awkward and unencyclopedic tone: "X is a Y, made by Z...". Then that can be cleared up right from the lead sentence. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

What is awkward and unencyclopaedic about "Proactiv is a registered trademark of Guthy-Renker"? SarahSV ^(talk) 04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It's deprecated, see WP:MOSTM. Granted, it doesn't explicitly cover typing out "registered trademark", but it does deprecate use of "®" which is essentially an abbreviation for that. "X (manufactured|sold|marketed) by Y" is the standard formulation, and I think much clearer and better sounding about who is doing what. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)