882 JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY OF COSMETIC CItEMISTS '" PROOtlCT IOE,4 •XPlORATION '" PROPOCT clinics ( • x,. PRODUCT panels ... I:V•UAIIOrU • placement tests / '•.•,,• market tests Figure 1. Product development-evaluation cycle Product development will be discussed from two points of view: A. The repetitive nature of the development-evaluation cycle. B. The need for a conscious, planned approach to sensory evalua- tions. Although the substance of this paper has broader implications, it is directed to the development of consumer products and more specifically to cosmetic products. PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION CYCLE The key steps in the product development process are shown in Fig. 1. Research generates information that permits the conception of a good product idea. The idea is explored. If the result is en- couraging, a product development program emerges. With the ex- penditure of adequate time and effort, a product usually appears. It must be evaluated. Common ways to handle practical evaluations involve the use of beauty clinics, consumer panels, placement tests, and actual marketing attempts. It is a common experience to put product developments through these evaluation procedures many times. When products fail they are returned to development. Some of them never escape from the development-evaluation circle and all too many stay there a long time. Why? As is well known, the success or failure of a commercial product is involved intimately with consumer reactions. Of course, the only way a consumer can react is through the senses. It seems strange, therefore, that the scientific literature relating to cosmetic products is silent about the sensory evaluation of consumer items. At least, based on several cosmetic literature searches, only a few vague references have been found (1-6). No articles are available that really help the cosmetic scientist think about his product creations in psychosensory

PS¾CHOSENSORY REACTIONS AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT 883 terms. Yet products subjected to practical evaluations fail or succeed based on the sensory reactions of the consumer. A detailed discussion of the evaluation services available to cosmetic scientists is unnecessary. However, a further word about consumer reactions and their relationship to product development is indicated. PSYCHOLOGY AND THE COSMETIC SCIENTIST Market research people evaluate products in terms of consumer reactions. This indeed is a handy phrase. It embraces all the ways that consumers consciously or subconsciously decide whether a product is good or bad. The reporting of these reactions becomes an auditing procedure based on free or forced responses from the consumer after exposure to a product. Words like satisfaction or dissatisfaction are commonly used in the box score generated by the market research man's galloping poll. Even the most expert market researchers reach product evaluation conclusions with difficulty. Theirs is a most difficult exercise. Nevertheless, their findings are commonly the basis for all major product marketing decisions. Inherent in all practical evaluations is an acceptance of the consumer as the ultimate judge of product developments. The author contends, however, that cosmetic scientists are using consumer studies to tell them things they should already know about the sensory impact of their products. Consumer evaluations have become an escape mechanism --a substitute for scientific observations and judgments. Practical evaluations are very time-consuming in most organizations. The evaluation work load becomes more awesome with each passing year. The evaluation procesz becomes more and more an excuse to wait and see. More and more the scientist leans on consumer judgments to guide his product programs. More and more the views of the con- sumer provide escape from responsibility, creativity, and scientific effort. Practical evaluations of products by the consumer will always be needed. They should be carried out for the purpose of confirming what the scientist has done rather than being used as a means of expos- ing what he has not done. The author feels that many product failures can be anticipated by the scientist. The repetitive cycle problems that take products from evaluation back into a new product development program can be minimized. This can be done through a planned approach to the investigation of the sensory implications of products, by failing to fall into the trap generated by premature enthusiasm, by avoiding