Talk:Proactiv

I still move to remove this

Unless there is some chemical formula, or something that shows that it has some educational value, or something atleast, it should be removed. It has nothing for us to learn from, just some random prices and who is hired by the company to speak on their "life story" of how it worked. This would be a great article if it was a review, but this is wikipedia, not a avertising company. 72.143.36.130 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. I saw an info-mercial for this product come on while i was writing a paper and thought, would this actually make it onto wikipedia? Yes apparently. I realise this site can be better than conventional encyclopedias in that it can provide much more in depth information and cover a wider range of topics. Surely though, this must be weighed against the publication of content which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I use this site almost daily, but many scoff at this and at wikipedia in general, articles like this detract from the acceptance of this site as a credible source of 'information.' If wikipedia is to be respected as an esteemed source of useful knowledge, this type of article has to go. I completely support your motion to remove this and hope to god you succeed, you are absolutely right it contains no educational value whatsoever. It is very late in australia, i'm tired please excuse grammar/spelling. 124.182.134.75 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is attempting to aggregate ALL knowledge, not just what we deem "acceptable" information for a conventional encyclopedia. Keep it, and if wikipedia wants to recategorize it as "trivial" information separate of the "hard sciences" sometime later then that is a quick fix. And for some example of how this article might be useful, I looked up this article to find out how Proactiv secured so many big name celebrities to endorse their product. The information isn't there, but if it was I might have gotten some incite on the advertising industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.202.238.231 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This article borders on advertising. There should be information included about criticism of this product. Proactiv is not a cure for acne. The misconception that acne is a result of dirt, as this product claims to target misrepresents the underlying dermatological reasons for acne. Their three step process includes a 'toner' that dries out skin and is of no proven benefit. The fact that they have paid big name celebrities to promote an incredibly overpriced treatment does not justify a biased wikipedia article 220.244.162.112 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

POV sounds like a disgruntled customer. Specific sections need cleaning up to adhear to NPOV. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Effective?

Does it work? 71.125.244.183 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not check out the Street Cents weblink, which contains information on a test carried out by (or on) five spotty teenagers. Maikel 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Street Cents--Anchoress 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work it just makes your acne worse. Don't get fooled by those stupid commercials. they're fake and the before and after photos are retouched. Don't buy ProActiv you're just wasting money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.133.64 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevance

Why is there a person writing about how he/she is using the proactiv....Some people really dont care.

The person's experience about the use of Proactiv really doesn't seem relevent. It lacks the formal tone, and will you find this in an encyclopedia? For all we know he may be lying; the information is invarifiable. I think we have enough reasons to pull the plug on that section. Wakka092

Absolutely! Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

@Wakka092: please sign using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2

I was hoping somebody would reformat it into a more wiki-like style. And if you want verification then ask. And while *you* may not care about a specific case story...other's may. I'd have loved to have input like I wrote before making the purchase of which incidentally I've been continually using the prodect with minor and some odd results. And please note that I was putting my case study at the *end* so that people could read the other stuff first. You may want to check the validity of what's on the reverted (current) version of the page which reads a lot like the Proactiv advertisement. Zephalis 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it may read like a Proactiv advertisement, but it wasn't derived or written from a Proactiv advertisement. How could we fix this? And to end this dispute, the ingredients of the Proactiv Solution steps are bonafide facts. Why not try a blog? We could link to it from this wiki if you set up one. Wakka092 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to all of this...how do I set up a blog? and again...I've stopped using the stuff because it was actually enhancing my whiteheads...although the cleanser is kind of nice after working on a car and the skin lightening lotion did wonders for the bags under my eyes. I'm actually lost as to what all the different wiki's are...i just dont' have the time to research it all. Zephalis 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, this article was written by someone hired to promote the product, right? (from 24.42.85.58)

Yes, indeed. I live in a big house and feast on swan's eggs. Thank you, Guthy-Renker and you idealistic fools at Wikipedia! Maikel 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOT = Encyclopedia

Is this article really important enough to be placed on an encyclopedia? don't you realize it's really making an advertisement for this kind of product? This company has enough money to make advertisments somewhere else, not on an encyclopedia... and if any one wants to know more about this product, just go to it's web site, I suggest deletion.Puerto.rico 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The entry can be edited to be less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedic entry. Adding references and changing the tone can be helpful. I've tried editing the entry to be more encyclopedic. I think it's a worthwhile entry just because of the exposure it's getting on North American TV, that's why I looked it up in the first place. WLU 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, this article contains exactly one source that can be regarded as reliable and independent of the manufacturer, and that seems to indicate that it is not a notable product. The criticism section seems reasonable, but absent sources it is original research. The remaining sources are official websites, ads and so on.

As for notability/encyclopedic topic, Benzoil peroxide based acne treatments are as common as, well, acne, and the cleanser doesn't look particularly remarkable or unusual. I just don't see the topic as encyclopedic, and I suspect it is unverifiable. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for this article. We don't need an article that reads like an advertisement, and even if it didn't, why does Wikipedia need an article on a commercial product with no cultural significance? Besides that, grammatically it's a terrible article. Causative ingredients? Can someone explain to me what that's supposed to mean? Caustic, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.1.209 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I seems as if it should be in WP just because of its popularity, even if it's only known to most as something they see on TV late at night. It is a well known product, and there are many WP pages for well known products. Personally, I came here because I was wondering what the scam was about.

 I agree that it is written like an advertisement. Maybe it
 should be mentioned in WP but unles WP is willing to back
up claims about a product (any product) then claims about
said product(s) should not be mentioned. Links to commercial
websites are not good either. You have to understand that
many people will trust in this information just because it is
in WP. They will do no further research. And....where do you
stop? Can any manufacturer have equal advertisement space?
Then where will the integrity of WP be? Hey, I have a cure
for acne that is 100% effective. Can you link me up?Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to the celebrity endorsers are BAD. It's like a recap
of the infomercials. While legally they have to use this
product, they may only have used it once. Also there's no
mention of what other treatments they may employ. Let's face
it, they are PAID for their endorsements. It seems totally
out of context to list them on this site. If you want to
balance the info then maybe you could link to some real
people who have used this & not just those that are hand
picked by the manufacturer. Better to remove
the "celebrities."Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This company is famous for poor business practices. I would think that with a history of deceptive marketing, false claims, & IN YOUR FACE advertising- Guthy-Renker would be exposed here rather than bolstered.Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

 If it HAS to be on WP then only a link to it'a ACTIVE  
ingredients should be included. I was shocked when I read  
this "information." Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thistledownrider (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) 

Talking about prices and alternatives

I do not think its relevant to mention that there are other products that are available at different prices. Many products have substitutes that can be cheaper or more expensive. This is not all that special to note.

Similar products being listed does not seem bad though. Chapium 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if price should be a priority; would you buy and wear a shoe (something that is placed onto someone's foot) that costs you 5 bucks? Then why would you invest in an acne treatment (for one's FACE) that is cheap and ineffective? Rock8591 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)

Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's ineffective. You're probably better off using the main components (benzoyl peroxide, moisturizer and an exfoliator) by themselves. I've cleared up my face and I can recommend acne.org for more information on benzoyl peroxide and acne in general. 78.82.141.241 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Work

I've used this and have come to the conclusion that it does not work. It merely suprises the pimples, but does not completely get rid of them. If you go a day or two without using proactive the pimples will come back. I assume that it works like an antibiotic - killing the bacteria underneath the skin. However, you need to use proactive consistantly to kill all of the bacteria and prevent a resurgence of the pimple. This is unlike other acne treatments like Oxy that simply dries the pimple out. It's a harsh method, but it is much more effective that Proactive. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by • contribs) 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Well, Proactiv does have to depend on people. I've recently got too lazy in the morning to use Proactiv, so I haven't used it for 2 weeks. But so far, i haven't got any pimples. Serpentine17ice 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

True, i used it for like 1 month and this stuff DOESNT work.

Man, I have been using Proactiv for almost 2 years and it STILL hasn't done anything. I've been using it on my neck, which is where most of my zits are, and I have more on my neck than before I started using it on my neck. It ain't worth the money; this product frickin' blows! C4pt4in W1k1

Seem like an advert

Does not seem to give information about skin care outside of production promotion. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed the portion of the article that is written like an advertisement until someone can write a new description of the steps. K Watson1984 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree too, even with your removals. Anchoress 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This 'article' says virtually nothing about the product. Imagine if the Wikipedia article for Coca-Cola said 'Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines invented in the late 19th century by John Pemberton because he was interested in quenching thirst,' And then listed the various spokespersons they've used.

How can this be considered an article about an acne medication when it doesn't even list the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide? Why are Awards listed, but critiques are not? John (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed something

Proactiv is only sold through infomercials and online. You cannot purchase it at a mall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.45.169.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Proactiv is sold in malls. It's probably not sold at the mall you go to. It's true that Proactiv isn't sold at some malls, but there are malls that sell it, like the Ridgmar Mall in Fort Worth, Texas. C4pt4in W1k1

It's also sold at Cost-Co now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.98.247 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work

Period. End of story.--MP123 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

QFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.67 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn right it don't work. C4pt4in W1k1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Excessive/inappropriate links tag in external links section

I'm removing this tag because there's nothing on the talkpage about it and the section doesn't seem excessive or inappropriate to me. I don't have an investment in keeping the tag off, but if someone thinks it should be restored, could that editor please note the version they are tagging and their reasons on the talkpage? Thanks. PS this is the version of the article I'm removing the tag from: [1] Anchoress (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I Want The Actress

I don't want a link to some face cleaner that doesn't work, why doesn't this direct to Kathy Fields, the actress in Johnny Got His Gun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGibsonSG (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

External links.

Why are there 2 of the same link in references?

And to all those who feel this article should not be here...

Proactiv solution is part of history whether you like it or not.

It should be here purely for the fact that the product exists, and is widely known.

Tha article does need cleaning up, but it definately should be here.

Troobador (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing.

There should be something onl ine in Wikipedia on this, if only due to the remarkable and unusual marketing for this project. For example, there are many vending machines inside the gate area of the terminals of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport selling this stuff. Got me to wondering, why would one sell a $30 acne treatment from a vending machine, and even if so, why would one put these machines in the gate area of a major airport... what is the target consumer there? (You probably can't even legally carry a tube of the stuff on board!)Ferd Blivid (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Results

The Results section is in the wrong spot and needs to be removed anyway. This is just some random person putting in their two sense in poor English I might add. It can't be cited and is not NPOV and thus I have deleted it. Silver (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Location of manufacture?

I was just watching the tail of an infomercial and it proudly stated that Proactiv Solution was "Made in Australia". Can anyone confirm this, or is this just marketing bull designed to drag Australian customers in? 121.79.17.86 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism

It's written like an advertisement. For each criticism, there's a mention of the product not being used as directed or Proactiv's rating with the Better Business Bureau.24.192.75.54 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace with redirect to the active ingredient

The purpose of this article (particularly the introduction) seems to be to defend the existence of this article. Clearly there's been some discussion about whether its notability is purely based on opinion, and clearly someone (reps of Proactiv, let's guess) has taken the time to back that up with flimsy articles, few of which are valid sources. My opinion is that Proactiv is benzoyl peroxide, a common acne salve you can get anywhere, that's been heavily branded and marketed by Guthy Renker, who are snake oil salesmen. Just like their opinion - that it's somehow special - my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I think the best way wikipedia can serve the public in this matter is to just direct them to the article about the active ingredient, so they can read about the science. That's generous considering that means it's still notable enough to HAVE a redirect. How about it? Who's going to take some initiative and delete this?72.194.120.85 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't sign Youdontsmellbad (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this product isn't anything special. It's just overpriced for what it is and marketed heavily. 78.82.141.241 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the product isn't anything special, and it's overpriced and marketed heavily. But none of that really affects this article. I think the article itself is very neutral - for example, it notes that the active ingredient is found in many acne treatments, and it talks about the side effects. We have to make sure we separate our views on the Proactiv ads and the Proactiv Wikipedia article - we can be against one but for the other. That said, if there's mainstream criticism of the product, it can certainly be referenced in the article. Axlrosen (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated format and content of page

After reviewing the pages of many similar products in the category, the Neutrogena page seemed to follow the most accepted/agreeable format. I have updated this page to follow that model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpardo916 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Question to the community and COI disclosure

First off - let me be clear in announcing my COI status in editing this page. My employer has historically and continues to currently perform a variety of online marketing work for this brand. That being said, I understand that my position in terms of editing this page is somewhat compromised. However, I hope that this disclosure will allow the community to make the assumption of good faith on my part and engage in a discussion that helps to create a proper page for the Proactiv Solution brand.
In reviewing the history of this page, it seems that the community has been very quick to remove any content that is perceived as remotely promotional to the brand (in cases where NPOV has been violated, I completely support these actions). However, in cases where NPOV has been violated in the converse (that is, statements made that are defamatory to the brand), the community does not seem to have been as vehement in their resolution. (NOTE: there have been several instances of editors attempting to rectify this specific situation when making previous edits, most notably Millermk90 here)
I'd like to ask the community to consider reverting the page to some version of the Neutrogena format previously enacted. Given that the Neutrogena page has not experienced any of the difficulties experienced here, this would seem to be a good start, and a balanced representation for brands in the same category - particularly since that page format was reverted by an anonymous user with no forewarning.
Many editors have expressed a desire to include information related to benzoyl peroxide in the article, and I would agree with that suggestion. However, as currently presented, the benzoyl peroxide information seems to be in violation of NPOV to the negative - pointing out only the potential negative side effects and lack of guaranteed results. It would seem that there could be a more objective manner to present the benzoyl peroxide information, particularly since a well-written version already appears on the benzoyl peroxide page.
Please respond with your thoughts. Thank you.Hoya1995 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)