2005 ANNUAL SCIENTIFIC MEETING PROACTIVE ISSUE MANAGEMENT: SELECTIVE USE OF THE INTERNET TO HELP GET OUR MESSAGE OUT Tim Long, Ph.D. The Procter & Gamble Company Main premise: We need to change our mindset from being a reactive/defensive industry (i.e., even the title of this symposium - "Defending Our Industry" - has very negative connotations) to one that is proactive in a) promoting/communicating a very positive message ... a) the long history of safe use of our products and b) the health and emotional benefits that our products bring to society. The Bad News Syndrome What do they hear/see about our products in the new media: Almost exclusively they see negative stories about the hazards of cosmetic/personal care products and their ingredients That our government (i.e., the FDA) is not doing an adequate job of protecting our health, etc. Rarely, if ever, do they hear anything positive about our industry Given this media climate, what do consumers think about our products: Perhaps surprisingly, the majority believe that the products� use are safe However, 81 % (US)/53% (Europe) find it very or somewhat believable that personal care products, even when used as directed, could contain ingredients that can be harmful to your body You may also find it surprising that 71 (US)/74% (Europe) of consumers are very/somewhat confident in companies evaluating the safety of products/ingredients So, what are consumer's reactions to what they hear about cosmetic/personal care products? Most can't even recall having heard about the key negative media/ad campaigns against cosmetics Most react positively and are reassured by our counter-balancing key messages (when they have access to them) and, Most consumers indicate that they will not change their product purchase/use behavior So, to put concerns about cosmetic/personal care products into perspective ... our consumers are constantly being bombarded with "doom and gloom" messages about chemicals in all types of consumer products. The activist community is trying extremely hard to create a climate of fear of chemicals in general - what many have termed "chemophobia." Yet, when we ask consumers about their attitudes towards chemicals and they use, our research shows that in the U.S., 25% of consumers feel "very confident" that the products they buy are safe. Another 55% indicate that while they are oncerned about the safety of products in general, they feel that the products that they buy are safe. In Europe, the corresponding percentages are 54% and 39%. In addition, the majority of consumers are generally unaware of the negative information campaigns about product/ingredient safety. Research that we've conducted suggests that about 56% (US)/83% (Europe) of consumers have never heard or read anything about health problems related to ingredients in personal care products. However, among those who have heard negative information, approximately half indicate that they are somewhat concerned about what they heard and about one-third indicate that they are very or extremely concerned. The good news is that these same individuals are often open and receptive to the counter-balancing effect of our industry key messages ... particularly when you're dealing with brand-loyal customers. A Time for Action Given this somewhat conflicting set of information (which basically tells us that consumers are generally confused and uncertain about what they believe), isn't it time for industry to step forward and tell consumers the "other side of the story?" The combination of their general lack of awareness and a moderate level of concern creates an environment that is ripe for more disclosure and information sharing on our part. I'd like to suggest to you that this is exactly the right time for industry to be taking a more proactive role in sharing what we know about the great safety profile of our products and ingredients. When you think about it, we have a great story to tell. Cosmetic/personal care products have been around for a long time and, contrary to what the activists would have you believe, we're not harming people's lives. If we are not willing to tell our side of the story, however, no one else will. The news media certainly aren't interested in our kind of"good news". We need to stop letting the activists' misinformation campaigns go unchallenged. It's time for us to be more proactive! So how, then, do we best communicate our side of the story? 93

94 JOURNAL OF COSMETIC SCIENCE Power of the Internet It is common knowledge that the general public's use of the Internet is growing exponentially. Just think of how often you use the Internet each day to learn about new products, find facts, do research, fmd an organization, look for vacation destinations, etc. Therefore, it makes sense to consider how we can utilize this great technological tool to help increase public access to information about the science and safety of our products. The Internet may be a great way to inform and educate, establish dialogue, answer questions and, ultimately, build trust with our customers and stakeholders. Our research shows that while most consumers are likely to first hear about a negative, anti-cosmetics campaign on the evening news or in the newspaper, if they want to learn more about the issues, they tend to tum to the Internet. In a recent survey, when asked where they would look for outside information on the ingredients in their products, 57% of both Americans and Europeans indicated they would look on the Internet. The next most turned to resources were news/magazine articles (22% U.S./26% Europe) and family/friends (16% U.S./23% Europe). So, if we accept that the Internet is a good way to reach consumers with our key messages and product information, how can we accomplish our goal without also raising concerns in the minds of consumers who might be casually visiting our sites for other information and had not already been exposed to the issues? I would like to present a short case study that demonstrates the impact of an Internet-based issue management technique P&G Beauty piloted earlier this year in response to an ongoing anti-cosmetics campaign. We call the technique "selective visibility." By this, I mean: Making information "findable" via search engines in this way, the consumers use the search engines to find (and be taken directly to) the information that they want (i.e., the consumer is boss) At the same time, the issue-specific information on our site was slightly 'buried' in the site architecture to avoid raising issues for "casual" visitors to the site. Specific website content was developed to address key issues being raised in the anti-cosmetic campaign, such as general cosmetic safety, phthalate ingredient safety, regulation of cosmetics in the U.S. versus the EU, etc. This information was "optimized" for Internet "fmdability" by using techniques that are very common to IT professionals and then placed several layers down within our tiered site architecture. In this way, the information was available in two ways ... 1) via search engine results using specific key words in Google, Yahoo, etc. or 2) by really looking for it on our P&G Beauty Science website (a process that would generally take 3-4 "clicks" to navigate to the relevant data). Was It Successful? To help determine whether these techniques were effective in getting our message in front of the targeted consumers and stakeholders, we analyzed site traffic/visitors to the pages containing the specified content. Even though media coverage of the anticipated anti-cosmetics campaign was minimal during the monitoring period, traffic to our site was doubled compared to the pre-optimization months (4,000 visitors in July '05 versus - 2000/month in the April-June '05 period). In addition, traffic to the key pages containing the content that addressed specific issues approximately quadrupled (see table below)! Had the anti-cosmetics campaign really received a lot of media attention, we believe that the site would have been even more useful and successful in helping to get our side of the story heard ..... ensuring at least a more balanced coverage. Beauty Science Web Page Page Views Page Views (July '06) (last half of June '05) !Cosmetic Product Safety Substantiation 11 33 �IR Process 5 37 Cosmetic Regulatory Comparison US vs. EU 37 123 Phthalate Safety 7 546 Hair Dye Safety 24 122 !Antiperspirant/Breast Cancer Myth 4 32 CommonQ&As 25 57 Total 113 950