Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Caution!
Contents may be not!

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


           

Skin test patch for consumer products

Yes, it exists - idea is for an untapped marketing opportunity
  (+3, -2)
(+3, -2)
  [vote for,
against]

Many hair colouring products and cosmetics come with instructions to perform a skin patch test to make sure you aren't allergic or otherwise sensitive to the ingredients. Typically, you're supposed to open the product, put a small dab on your skin someplace, and monitor for 24 to 48 hours.

Now, if I've just been to a salon or gone online to buy a tube full of promises, I might find it a bit inconvenient, might even skip it that step. And be really annoyed if it was an EXPENSIVE tube full of promises that I ultimately can't use.

My idea: Purveyors of such products could improve sales by offering a safe and easy way to pretest. You go online, order a free test kit, and they send you a tiny sample of the product in a tube with a small band-aid/sticking plaster/patch and instructions on how to perform the test. Costs them pennies. But knowing you could use the stuff would break down a lot of sales resistance. Companies that offered such a thing would have a marketing edge over those who didn't.

a1, Oct 26 2022

The WKTE part https://www.mayocli...atch%20testing%20is
Why don't consumer product companies make this easier to do? [a1, Oct 26 2022]

[link]






       If I had to guess, it's probably because they do such extensive lab testing on both human and animal test subjects, by the time it's ready to ship they already have a rough estimate of how many of their target demographics are negatively affected, and decided it's a non-issue. If they marketed something like this, it could give the impression (however erroneous) that they lack confidence in the safety of their product, and that could ultimately hurt sales.   

       It also could slow sales, as customers aren't going to buy until their at home test ships, and with shipping delays being as widespread as they seem to these days, that could also hurt sales. Consider that many people who buy a product and can't use it, don't like it, etc don't actually bother to go through a burdensome and lengthy return/refund process. They just take the loss and chuck it in the trash. They're hedging their bets that the number of return/refund requests due to allergies will be negligible.
21 Quest, Oct 26 2022
  

       They could also come under fire from environmentalist groups for the increase in their carbon footprint from all the extra packaging and shipping.
21 Quest, Oct 26 2022
  

       // all the extra packaging and shipping //   

       LMAO. The last expensive tube of promises I bought came beautifully (and excessively) packaged. A $10 product in a $50 box. At least I was able to get my money back after I failed the patch test.
a1, Oct 27 2022
  

       Exactly my point. Phone manufacturers like Apple and Samsung are under fire right now over their refusal to include chargers in the box. They BOTH have claimed that the reduced package size is more environmentally friendly, except they're both trying really hard to convert each other's users to their platform. Well, Samsung users converting to Apple don't already have lightning chargers, and Apple users converting to Samsung don't already have USB-C chargers, which means any cross-platform convert has to buy the complete phone in two separate packages, as does anyone upgrading from a model more than a year old to take advantage of the new phone's higher-wattage charging capabilities.
21 Quest, Oct 27 2022
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle