Sunday Quickie: Can Skincare Sell ‘Truth’
The Ordinary's latest campaign debunks beauty myths — but sometimes the truth needs a reality check
Every sunday quickie I share how brands show up in the world and shape our experience. I think brands should be as responsible as their influence and as transparent as the trust they earn. I'll share a quick exposé/spotlight on a brand and I'd love your POV.
When The Ordinary, one of three skincare brands I covet, launched their latest campaign in January ‘25 I swooned over the idea: Debunk beauty myths once and for all.
Anchored by a digital archive thetruthshouldbeordinary.com — which evokes 80’s nostalgia with a brutalist/ retro-futuristic/ terminal-inspired design — the OOH (outdoor) + online campaign is a visually striking black and white swoon fest.
The homepage itself is an immersive prelude, mimicking old-school command prompt vibes. Thrilling.
Once inside the archive we discover carefully curated truth drops tackling common beauty myths, each linking to an opinion archive.
The stock ticker effect of the truth drops conveys continuous information flow. Riveting.
Each opinion archive page challenges the beauty myth, replaces it with informed understanding aka the truth drop, and cites/links to scientific research papers that support their perspective, analysis, and argument.
It’s like I’ve been given access to a covert intelligence unit. Electrifying!
So far I’m spellbound by the creativity, storytelling, and striking visuals of the campaign (developed by Uncommon creative studio), forgetting whether I’m curious marketer or enchanted campaign target.
Until I get to truth drop 3.
03: The aluminum in your deodorant is not a health risk
Which stops me dead in my tracks.
Wait, what?
Do my Hyaluronic Acid 2% + B5, and Multi-Peptide Eye Serum contain aluminum?
My thumbtips race to the ingredients list on the website.
No.
Phew.
So, WTF?
The Ordinary doesn’t. even. sell. deodorant.
Even the truth needs a reality check
Truth drop 03 is misleading campaign copy, and irresponsible messaging because —how many people will read the fine print in the opinion archive where the claim is placed in context?
Aluminum has caused concern for decades. Although there’s no conclusive evidence around it either way, the scientific community is unanimous in their agreement that more research is needed to establish definitive causal relationships between aluminum and potential health risks.
I cut it out of my skincare in 2001. And I’m not inviting it back.
Let’s dive into their 'scientific opinion' for truth drop 03 to see WTF.
The reality is in the fine print
I’ve extracted specific quotes in purple:
Aluminium, much like other ingredients, can be safely used in cosmetics if manufacturers follow safety limits.
So we have to implicitly trust the manufacturer? Wild ride.
Since we can be exposed to aluminium in many other ways, like through food and medicine, it’s important to look at the total amount of aluminium we might be exposed to from all sources, not just cosmetics.
It's impossible for you & me to calculate the levels of aluminium we're exposed to every day through food & beverage, cookware & food packaging, skincare & personal products, medicine & medical products, the environment, various household items (& more), so how do we keep ourselves within these ‘safe limits?
And why consciously expose ourselves to more?
Where is my aluminum exposure calculator please?!
But here’s the real kicker:
"You may be wondering why this document is called an opinion. It is called an opinion because it is the recommendation of experts based on the current and available scientific evidence. This means that it is backed by scientific evidence but is not absolute proof, because scientific knowledge is always evolving and so recommendations can change based on new findings."
Science is a moving goal post. This year it's safe. Next year?
Truth in science is an oxymoron because science isn’t static — it evolves as unknowns become known, theories are refined, variables are considered, new signals appear, and understanding deepens — sometimes changes completely — in the consistent pursuit of knowing what we don’t yet know.
Is it ethical for skincare brands to sell ‘truth’ when truth itself is fluid, shaped by perspectives, evolving knowledge, and the stories we choose to tell?
For me this campaign is a huge brand faux pas.
What do you think?
Faux pas or bon geste?
Typos are my way of checking that you're paying attention—or proof that my brain moves faster than my fingers. (Jury's still out.)
The science behind skincare and cosmetics has always intimidated me because of the constant updates and breakthroughs. Thanks for highlighting this because I feel like social media is oversaturated with “professionals” confirming hard truths. This is why I’m so selective in the brands I invest in.
Another great post!