J. Soc. Cosmetic Chemists 19 21-35 (1968) (•) 1968 Society of Cosmetic Chemists of Great Britain The importance of product testing in the sphere of product development R. W. ARTINGSTALL* Presented at the Symposium on "Product Testing", organised by the Society of Cosmetic Chemists of Great Britain in Eastbourne, Sussex, on 14th November 1966. Synopsis--Some of the shortcomings of existing research procedures in throwing up viable new or improved products are outlined and some views on the direction in which improvements in product testing may lie are given. Although this paper is concerned with the importance of product testing in the sphere of product development, and my remarks will thus be mainly concerned with product testing, I think it essential at the outset to define what I mean by 'product development'. It seems to me that product development begins with the original conception of a product idea and continues until the eventual withdrawal of the product, whether or not it reaches the market, and perhaps after many years of profitable sales. Within this definition it is concerned firstly with the modification of existing products, and secondly with the search for new products. Because I feel it essential to distinguish between these two, I propose to deal with each of them separately later in this paper. In both instances product development must take account not only of the physical characteristics of the products themselves, but also of the cir- cumstances in which they will be used, for unless the two are fully in harmony problems will inevitably arise. Before dealing with the subject of product development under these , *Beecham Group, Ltd., Brentford, Middlesex. 21

22 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CHEMISTS two headings, however, I should like to mention an apparent paradox. The marketing manager of a large and highly profitable firm recently pointed out that many of the apparently successful products on sale today are not of the highest quality, yet far better products, launched in competition with them, often failed to gain consumer acceptance and had to be withdrawn, at considerable cost to their sponsors. This man, a highly sophisticated marketing specialist, was well aware of the effects pricing and advertising can have on the success of a product, and he would readily subscribe to the belief that advertising can often persuade people to buy a product once but that, in a free market, they will rarely buy it again if it fails to come up to their expectations. Why is it then that products which their sponsors consider 'good' and which product testing has shown to be acceptable, often fail to sell, assuming of course that they are correctly priced and promoted? Equally is there not a danger that some items xvhich product testing has indicated do not match up to market leaders may be rejected by their sponsors when, had they been put on the market, they might have proved successful? The answer in both cases must frequently be sought either in a failure to define the market for the new or improved product with sufficient clarity or accuracy, or con- versely, a failure to define the specification of the product with sufficient clarity or accuracy to meet known market needs. What can be done in these circumstances to ensure that, as far as is practicable, new products have every chance to be proved successful products? This is an important question to which there is no easy answer. Obviously it is the aim of any firm marketing a new or improved product to ensure its profitability, but experience has shown that only a fraction of the new products which are put on the market prove successful, with consequent wastage of development investment. In this paper, I outline some of the shortcomings of existing research procedures in throwing up viable new or improved products and some views, not too heretical I hope, on the direction in which improvements in product testing may lie. Mrs. Ludford {1) describes in some detail product testing in its use for the guidance of research and product development chemists and has pointed out some disadvantages of existing techniques. She has also given us the benefit of her ideas on the way towards an era of greater light. I think she would agree with me that it is often easier to delineate the problems we must solve than to dogmatise about solutions, but if we succeed in stimu- lating more thought, and, inevitably, the necessary expenditure of more