Talk:Proactiv/Archive 1

I still move to remove this
Unless there is some chemical formula, or something that shows that it has some educational value, or something atleast, it should be removed. It has nothing for us to learn from, just some random prices and who is hired by the company to speak on their "life story" of how it worked. This would be a great article if it was a review, but this is wikipedia, not a avertising company. 72.143.36.130 00:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I must agree. I saw an info-mercial for this product come on while i was writing a paper and thought, would this actually make it onto wikipedia? Yes apparently. I realise this site can be better than conventional encyclopedias in that it can provide much more in depth information and cover a wider range of topics. Surely though, this must be weighed against the publication of content which really isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. I use this site almost daily, but many scoff at this and at wikipedia in general, articles like this detract from the acceptance of this site as a credible source of 'information.' If wikipedia is to be respected as an esteemed source of useful knowledge, this type of article has to go. I completely support your motion to remove this and hope to god you succeed, you are absolutely right it contains no educational value whatsoever. It is very late in australia, i'm tired please excuse grammar/spelling. 124.182.134.75 18:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is attempting to aggregate ALL knowledge, not just what we deem "acceptable" information for a conventional encyclopedia. Keep it, and if wikipedia wants to recategorize it as "trivial" information separate of the "hard sciences" sometime later then that is a quick fix. And for some example of how this article might be useful, I looked up this article to find out how Proactiv secured so many big name celebrities to endorse their product. The information isn't there, but if it was I might have gotten some incite on the advertising industry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.202.238.231 (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

This article borders on advertising. There should be information included about criticism of this product. Proactiv is not a cure for acne. The misconception that acne is a result of dirt, as this product claims to target misrepresents the underlying dermatological reasons for acne. Their three step process includes a 'toner' that dries out skin and is of no proven benefit. The fact that they have paid big name celebrities to promote an incredibly overpriced treatment does not justify a biased wikipedia article 220.244.162.112 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV
POV sounds like a disgruntled customer. Specific sections need cleaning up to adhear to NPOV. --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Effective?
Does it work? 71.125.244.183 23:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not check out the Street Cents weblink, which contains information on a test carried out by (or on) five spotty teenagers. Maikel 18:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Street Cents--Anchoress 09:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work it just makes your acne worse. Don't get fooled by those stupid commercials. they're fake and the before and after photos are retouched. Don't buy ProActiv you're just wasting money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.133.64 (talk) 03:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevance
Why is there a person writing about how he/she is using the proactiv....Some people really dont care.
 * The person's experience about the use of Proactiv really doesn't seem relevent. It lacks the formal tone, and will you find this in an encyclopedia? For all we know he may be lying; the information is invarifiable. I think we have enough reasons to pull the plug on that section. Wakka092
 * Absolutely! Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * @Wakka092: please sign using four tildes, like so:  ~ .  Maikel 09:29, 9 June 2
 * I was hoping somebody would reformat it into a more wiki-like style. And if you want verification then ask.  And while *you* may not care about a specific case story...other's may.  I'd have loved to have input like I wrote before making the purchase of which incidentally I've been continually using the prodect with minor and some odd results.  And please note that I was putting my case study at the *end* so that people could read the other stuff first.  You may want to check the validity of what's on the reverted (current) version of the page which reads a lot like the Proactiv advertisement.  Zephalis 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it may read like a Proactiv advertisement, but it wasn't derived or written from a Proactiv advertisement. How could we fix this? And to end this dispute, the ingredients of the Proactiv Solution steps are bonafide facts. Why not try a blog? We could link to it from this wiki if you set up one. Wakka092 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm kinda new to all of this...how do I set up a blog? and again...I've stopped using the stuff because it was actually enhancing my whiteheads...although the cleanser is kind of nice after working on a car and the skin lightening lotion did wonders for the bags under my eyes.  I'm actually lost as to what all the different wiki's are...i just dont' have the time to research it all.  Zephalis 03:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, this article was written by someone hired to promote the product, right? (from 24.42.85.58)
 * Yes, indeed. I live in a big house and feast on swan's eggs.  Thank you, Guthy-Renker and you idealistic fools at Wikipedia!  Maikel 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia NOT = Encyclopedia
Is this article really important enough to be placed on an encyclopedia? don't you realize it's really making an advertisement for this kind of product? This company has enough money to make advertisments somewhere else, not on an encyclopedia... and if any one wants to know more about this product, just go to it's web site, I suggest deletion.Puerto.rico 02:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The entry can be edited to be less of an advertisement and more of an encyclopedic entry. Adding references and changing the tone can be helpful. I've tried editing the entry to be more encyclopedic. I think it's a worthwhile entry just because of the exposure it's getting on North American TV, that's why I looked it up in the first place. WLU 03:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, this article contains exactly one source that can be regarded as reliable and independent of the manufacturer, and that seems to indicate that it is not a notable product. The criticism section seems reasonable, but absent sources it is original research.  The remaining sources are official websites, ads and so on.


 * As for notability/encyclopedic topic, Benzoil peroxide based acne treatments are as common as, well, acne, and the cleanser doesn't look particularly remarkable or unusual. I just don't see the topic as encyclopedic, and I suspect it is unverifiable. Robert A.West (Talk) 15:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

There's no reason for this article. We don't need an article that reads like an advertisement, and even if it didn't, why does Wikipedia need an article on a commercial product with no cultural significance? Besides that, grammatically it's a terrible article. Causative ingredients? Can someone explain to me what that's supposed to mean? Caustic, maybe? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.1.209 (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I seems as if it should be in WP just because of its popularity, even if it's only known to most as something they see on TV late at night. It is a well known product, and there are many WP pages for well known products. Personally, I came here because I was wondering what the scam was about.

I agree that it is written like an advertisement. Maybe it should be mentioned in WP but unles WP is willing to back up claims about a product (any product) then claims about said product(s) should not be mentioned. Links to commercial websites are not good either. You have to understand that many people will trust in this information just because it is in WP. They will do no further research. And....where do you stop? Can any manufacturer have equal advertisement space? Then where will the integrity of WP be? Hey, I have a cure for acne that is 100% effective. Can you link me up?Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Links to the celebrity endorsers are BAD. It's like a recap of the infomercials. While legally they have to use this product, they may only have used it once. Also there's no mention of what other treatments they may employ. Let's face it, they are PAID for their endorsements. It seems totally out of context to list them on this site. If you want to balance the info then maybe you could link to some real people who have used this & not just those that are hand picked by the manufacturer. Better to remove the "celebrities."Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This company is famous for poor business practices. I would think that with a history of deceptive marketing, false claims, & IN YOUR FACE advertising- Guthy-Renker would be exposed here rather than bolstered.Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) If it HAS to be on WP then only a link to it'a ACTIVE ingredients should be included. I was shocked when I read this "information." Thistledownrider (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thistledownrider (talk • contribs) 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Talking about prices and alternatives
I do not think its relevant to mention that there are other products that are available at different prices. Many products have substitutes that can be cheaper or more expensive. This is not all that special to note.

Similar products being listed does not seem bad though. Chapium 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed --C A L L A M . R O D Y A 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if price should be a priority; would you buy and wear a shoe (something that is placed onto someone's foot) that costs you 5 bucks? Then why would you invest in an acne treatment (for one's FACE) that is cheap and ineffective? Rock8591 00:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock8591 (talk • contribs)


 * Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's ineffective. You're probably better off using the main components (benzoyl peroxide, moisturizer and an exfoliator) by themselves. I've cleared up my face and I can recommend acne.org for more information on benzoyl peroxide and acne in general. 78.82.141.241 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't Work
I've used this and have come to the conclusion that it does not work. It merely suprises the pimples, but does not completely get rid of them. If you go a day or two without using proactive the pimples will come back. I assume that it works like an antibiotic - killing the bacteria underneath the skin. However, you need to use proactive consistantly to kill all of the bacteria and prevent a resurgence of the pimple. This is unlike other acne treatments like Oxy that simply dries the pimple out. It's a harsh method, but it is much more effective that Proactive. Just thought I'd point that out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by • contribs).


 * Well, Proactiv does have to depend on people. I've recently got too lazy in the morning to use Proactiv, so I haven't used it for 2 weeks. But so far, i haven't got any pimples. Serpentine17ice 07:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * True, i used it for like 1 month and this stuff DOESNT work.

Man, I have been using Proactiv for almost 2 years and it STILL hasn't done anything. I've been using it on my neck, which is where most of my zits are, and I have more on my neck than before I started using it on my neck. It ain't worth the money; this product frickin' blows! C4pt4in W1k1

Seem like an advert
Does not seem to give information about skin care outside of production promotion. Sincerely, Mattisse 00:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I have removed the portion of the article that is written like an advertisement until someone can write a new description of the steps. K Watson1984 02:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree too, even with your removals. Anchoress 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This 'article' says virtually nothing about the product. Imagine if the Wikipedia article for Coca-Cola said 'Coca-Cola is a carbonated soft drink sold in stores, restaurants, and vending machines invented in the late 19th century by John Pemberton because he was interested in quenching thirst,' And then listed the various spokespersons they've used.

How can this be considered an article about an acne medication when it doesn't even list the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide? Why are Awards listed, but critiques are not? John (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I removed something
Proactiv is only sold through infomercials and online. You cannot purchase it at a mall. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.45.169.97 (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

Proactiv is sold in malls. It's probably not sold at the mall you go to. It's true that Proactiv isn't sold at some malls, but there are malls that sell it, like the Ridgmar Mall in Fort Worth, Texas. C4pt4in W1k1

It's also sold at Cost-Co now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.23.98.247 (talk) 05:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't work
Period. End of story.--MP123 (talk) 04:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * QFT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.13.67 (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn right it don't work. C4pt4in W1k1 —Preceding comment was added at 01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Excessive/inappropriate links tag in external links section
I'm removing this tag because there's nothing on the talkpage about it and the section doesn't seem excessive or inappropriate to me. I don't have an investment in keeping the tag off, but if someone thinks it should be restored, could that editor please note the version they are tagging and their reasons on the talkpage? Thanks. PS this is the version of the article I'm removing the tag from: Anchoress (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I Want The Actress
I don't want a link to some face cleaner that doesn't work, why doesn't this direct to Kathy Fields, the actress in Johnny Got His Gun? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGibsonSG (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

External links.
Why are there 2 of the same link in references?

And to all those who feel this article should not be here...

Proactiv solution is part of history whether you like it or not.

It should be here purely for the fact that the product exists, and is widely known.

Tha article does need cleaning up, but it definately should be here.

Troobador (talk) 02:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Marketing.
There should be something onl ine in Wikipedia on this, if only due to the remarkable and unusual marketing for this project. For example, there are many vending machines inside the gate area of the terminals of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport selling this stuff. Got me to wondering, why would one sell a $30 acne treatment from a vending machine, and even if so, why would one put these machines in the gate area of a major airport... what is the target consumer there? (You probably can't even legally carry a tube of the stuff on board!)Ferd Blivid (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Results
The Results section is in the wrong spot and needs to be removed anyway. This is just some random person putting in their two sense in poor English I might add. It can't be cited and is not NPOV and thus I have deleted it. Silver (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Location of manufacture?
I was just watching the tail of an infomercial and it proudly stated that Proactiv Solution was "Made in Australia". Can anyone confirm this, or is this just marketing bull designed to drag Australian customers in? 121.79.17.86 (talk) 13:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Criticism
It's written like an advertisement. For each criticism, there's a mention of the product not being used as directed or Proactiv's rating with the Better Business Bureau.24.192.75.54 (talk) 23:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Replace with redirect to the active ingredient
The purpose of this article (particularly the introduction) seems to be to defend the existence of this article. Clearly there's been some discussion about whether its notability is purely based on opinion, and clearly someone (reps of Proactiv, let's guess) has taken the time to back that up with flimsy articles, few of which are valid sources. My opinion is that Proactiv is benzoyl peroxide, a common acne salve you can get anywhere, that's been heavily branded and marketed by Guthy Renker, who are snake oil salesmen. Just like their opinion - that it's somehow special - my opinion doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I think the best way wikipedia can serve the public in this matter is to just direct them to the article about the active ingredient, so they can read about the science. That's generous considering that means it's still notable enough to HAVE a redirect. How about it? Who's going to take some initiative and delete this?72.194.120.85 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Sorry, didn't sign Youdontsmellbad (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, this product isn't anything special. It's just overpriced for what it is and marketed heavily. 78.82.141.241 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the product isn't anything special, and it's overpriced and marketed heavily. But none of that really affects this article. I think the article itself is very neutral - for example, it notes that the active ingredient is found in many acne treatments, and it talks about the side effects. We have to make sure we separate our views on the Proactiv ads and the Proactiv Wikipedia article - we can be against one but for the other. That said, if there's mainstream criticism of the product, it can certainly be referenced in the article. Axlrosen (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated format and content of page
After reviewing the pages of many similar products in the category, the Neutrogena page seemed to follow the most accepted/agreeable format. I have updated this page to follow that model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpardo916 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Question to the community and COI disclosure
First off - let me be clear in announcing my COI status in editing this page. My employer has historically and continues to currently perform a variety of online marketing work for this brand. That being said, I understand that my position in terms of editing this page is somewhat compromised. However, I hope that this disclosure will allow the community to make the assumption of good faith on my part and engage in a discussion that helps to create a proper page for the Proactiv Solution brand.

In reviewing the history of this page, it seems that the community has been very quick to remove any content that is perceived as remotely promotional to the brand (in cases where NPOV has been violated, I completely support these actions). However, in cases where NPOV has been violated in the converse (that is, statements made that are defamatory to the brand), the community does not seem to have been as vehement in their resolution. (NOTE: there have been several instances of editors attempting to rectify this specific situation when making previous edits, most notably Millermk90 here)

I'd like to ask the community to consider reverting the page to some version of the Neutrogena format previously enacted. Given that the Neutrogena page has not experienced any of the difficulties experienced here, this would seem to be a good start, and a balanced representation for brands in the same category - particularly since that page format was reverted by an anonymous user with no forewarning.

Many editors have expressed a desire to include information related to benzoyl peroxide in the article, and I would agree with that suggestion. However, as currently presented, the benzoyl peroxide information seems to be in violation of NPOV to the negative - pointing out only the potential negative side effects and lack of guaranteed results. It would seem that there could be a more objective manner to present the benzoyl peroxide information, particularly since a well-written version already appears on the benzoyl peroxide page.

Please respond with your thoughts. Thank you.Hoya1995 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing
At the moment, this article is entirely unsourced. Prior to today, there was one "source": an article which did not discuss Proactiv (it covers benzoyl peroxide, the active ingredient in Proactiv). Without substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, no topic is notable.

Someone else want to dig up some meaningful coverage? I've got nothing.

A few reliable sources I've uncovered:


 * Seminars in Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery (abstract) compares numerous OTC products. Again, there is virtually no meaningful discussion of this product.
 * CFP - Canadian Family Physician briefly notes that Proactiv is "a system of facial products containing 2.5% BP in a water-based formulation".
 * Skin & Aging, 19.6, June 2011 (unable to find an unwalled link) includes Proactive in a list of "Acne Myths". A brief paragraph discusses OTCs v. prescriptions. "Proactiv is the number-one selling acne medication in the United States, but it is not the most effective. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is an excellent topical acne treatment, but it is not more effective than isotretinoin. In fact, studies of combination drugs utilizing BPO and clindamycin or adapalene all show superiority over BPO alone. Evidence-based clinical studies back prescription medications. Clearly, patients vote for Proactiv, but this dynamic is driven by hype, promotion, and, of course, the fact that BPO is an effective treatment for acne."
 * International Journal of Dermatology - Coverage here is actually pretty thin, using Proactiv as benzoyl peroxide in a comparison vs. benzoyl peroxide paired with allylamine. In essence, the study in question used Proactiv as a generic benzoyl peroxide product.
 * Int Journal of Dermatology 2007;46(1) (unable to find an unwalled link). Again, Proactiv is used as "benzoyl peroxide alone" in a comparison to a combination therapy.

I can list these (pointlessly) a bit more, but the story is pretty much the same. I can find no meaningful news coverage and journal coverage merely lists it as one of numerous OTC brands or uses it as a stand-in for generic benzoyl peroxide. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Proactiv as a Culturally Relevant Entry
To start with, I would like to disclose to the community that I am currently employed with a company associated with Proactiv, so I am officially disclosing my potential COI status in editing this page. I am making this disclosure with the intention of allowing the community to make an assumption of good faith on my part, and creating a discussion that helps to create an appropriate page for the Proactiv Solution brand here on Wikipedia.

With that said, while I see the point made about the current Proactiv page lacking in educational value, I would suggest that we look at this page from a culturally relevant point of view. On the question of notability, over the past 15 years, Proactiv has become one of the most well-known acne products worldwide, and the Proactiv brand has clearly established notability from a marketing standpoint.

The brand has consistently partnered with timely, relevant and popular celebrities to represent its product, and laid the foundation for other celebrities to endorse other types of acne and self-improvement products, which prior to 15 years ago would have been considered embarrassing. Proactiv and its impact on pop culture has been mentioned in publications such as Billboard.com (http://www.billboard.com/features/justin-bieber-joins-proactiv-s-zit-geist-1004110497.story#/features/justin-bieber-joins-proactiv-s-zit-geist-1004110497.story ) and on top news sites including: NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/media/04adco.html?_r=1 ) and Forbes.com (http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenadamson/2012/08/08/what-justin-bieber-can-teach-michael-phelps-gabby-douglas-and-other-superstar-athletes-about-being-a-super-brand/ ).

I move that we proceed in maintaining this page, and focus our emphasis on its impact as a culturally-relevant brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsnoddy (talk • contribs) 17:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Community Follow Up: Proactiv as a Culturally Relevant Entry
I still would like to move forward with editing the current Proactiv entry to focus more on the cultural relevance of the product. Please let me know if anyone has any feedback regarding this idea or would like to collaborate on the new entry. Otherwise, I'll be getting started on the updates in the coming weeks. Nsnoddy (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Nsnoddy
 * As you are one of several COI editors visiting this page and Guthy-Renker, I would encourage you to provide independent reliable sources here on the talk page before adding material to the pages. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:22, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Proactiv History Section
One way I think we could improve this page would be to start off with a brief history of the product, similar to other product pages. What does the rest of the community think about this strategy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsnoddy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * IMO, before we bother with a history of this stuff, we need to firmly establish whether or not the subject is notable and, therefore, whether or not we should keep the article. At the moment, there is not significant coverage in independent reliable sources. No subject is notable without such coverage. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * SummerPhD. - appreciate your response, as I hadn't gotten any feedback to my previous suggestions. Regarding your concern about the brand being "notable" enough to merit inclusion, as I mentioned in my previous notes, based upon inclusions in such major news outlets as The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/media/04adco.html) and Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/sites/allenadamson/2012/08/08/what-justin-bieber-can-teach-michael-phelps-gabby-douglas-and-other-superstar-athletes-about-being-a-super-brand/), Proactiv Solution is "notable," and particularly so as a culturally relevant product (as I suggested the tone of this page indicate) and feel these sources help the page to pass the litmus test of notability. The brand has played a significant role in changing the landscape of acne treatment and the direct marketing industry, and in turn, has resulted in the product becoming a universally recognized brand name for acne treatment.  Based on the above, I suggest that the next section added discuss Proactiv Solution’s role in the Marketing Industry, and will provide draft copy for such on this Talk page for community review.--  user : nsnoddy   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsnoddy (talk • contribs) 18:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As someone whose continued employment depends on the continued sales of Proactiv, your opinions as to the "cultural relevance" of a zit cream and how this one "changed the (world)" aren't particularly compelling. Wikipedia needs independent reliable sources. The sources you note above, for instance, tell us virtually nothing about Proactiv, the topic of this article. The first one discusses your company's efforts to change the advertizing for Proactiv from the "frantic pace or cluttered look (of) the direct-response ads that Guthy-Renker uses to peddle Proactiv" to something more like the ads for other zit cremes. The second source tells us one basic fact about Proactiv. It is "an acne-treatment product geared toward his tween and teen fans".
 * Meanwhile, products "should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." [Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Products_and_services]. Taking a look at Guthy-Renker (which has also seen a few conflicted editors), I do not see an article anywhere near being large or unwieldy. Instead, I see a brief article about the company -- entirely sourced to the company itself -- and two sections about Greg Renker and Bill Guthy that have apparently independent sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * SummerPhD- I appreciate the time and consideration that you’ve taken to provide feedback. I would like to mention that I have expressed my opinion on this discussion page only. The content suggested for the article, has all been sourced, from NPOV sources.


 * The initial approach I suggested was to discuss how Proactiv is a culturally relevant product and has impacted the way acne products are marketed/ advertised. According to The New York Times article Proactiv Solution’s direct response ads were among the first to appear during primetime influential pop culture television shows, as well as top tier magazines. The Forbes article supports also the claim that Proactiv is culturally relevant by detailing its use of A- list that celebrities that are consistently a strong a fit for brand.


 * As to the inclusion of this content on the Guthy-Renker page if you take a look at that page’s history you will notice that the Wikipedia community has repeatedly blunted efforts to include product information on that page. Moreover, I would like to point out a few other pages that the Wikipedia community has accepted and allowed to maintain individual pages, typically where the nature of the offering is distinct from that of their parent company. For example – CoverGirl and Olay (both P&G products), or Aveeno and Clean & Clear (both J&J products).


 * A concern of mine is that we are not going to be able to reach an agreement which is necessary to move forward. I think it may be best to invite the opinion of other editors to weigh in on this debate. Nsnoddy (talk) 21:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC) NSnoddy
 * Your opinion is, as far as I'm concerned, Guthy-Renker's opinion. As a conflicted editor, you have selected material from sources. The coverage is not deep by any stretch of the imagination.
 * Your "culturally relevant" argument is your argument. It is not covered in the sources you've selected. You mention the New York Times article's discussion of Guthy-Renker's ads for Proactiv. This article is supposed to be about the product, not the company's advertising strategy for the product. Actually, it discusses your company's efforts to change from the "frantic pace or cluttered look (of) the direct-response ads that Guthy-Renker uses to peddle Proactiv" to something more like the ads for other zit cremes. That does not say Proactiv is "culturally relevant". It says Guthy-Renker's ads were out of step.
 * Your spin for the Forbes coverage is a bit unclear, but you seem to be claiming that the celebrities you've hired show that the product is a "strong fit" for them. Actually, all it tells us about this product is that it is "an acne-treatment product geared toward his tween and teen fans". Again, this is not about the product, this is your companies advertising strategy for the product.
 * Looking at the history of the Guthy-Renker page (actually, looking at the history of discussion on the talk page), I see several complaints that it was being used as an ad for Guthy-Renker. Looking at the article's history, it seems you may have something to clarify: Have you edited before under any other names or IP addresses?
 * (What has been done with other products and other companies is immaterial. This article is about Proactiv. See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Third party opinion
I think this product is of low enough importance that it does not merit its own page, and instead should be simply listed under the company page. Shlaer (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was in response to a question by the COI editor Nsnoddy at WP:3O: "Difference of opinion regarding the notability of the entry topic, and associated sourcing. Thank you in advance for any assistance" -  Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Draft
I've been coaching the Guthy-Renker team through creating a proposed draft that represents our best-effort at being fair, neutral and following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I am here on their behalf and would like to request impartial editors consider our draft and/or provide any feedback needed. I ask that, if it is an improvement over the current article, we implement the draft and continue improving the article from there. The draft is located at:
 * User:CorporateM/Proactiv

I appreciate your time considering the draft and welcome any feedback and/or improvements. Cheers! CorporateM (Talk) 20:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (Stalking) My immediate comments on the draft are that the "External links" section should be after references per Manual of Style/Layout and Advertising Standards Authority is a dab-link (should it be Advertising Standards Authority). Other than those, it looks well referenced and reasonably neutral. Nice job -- Senra (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Link and ordering fixed per your suggestion. Thanks! CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pretty good effort on first read. Where you discuss history - "In 2010, Proactiv awarded celebrity" sounds a little self-serving. How about just "signed" instead of "awarded"? Also, the Katy Cuoco sentence feels out of place in that paragraph. I suspect you're posting the events sequentially, but seems odd bouncing from US to UK then another unrelated US event.--Icerat (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Moved the sentence and changed "awarded" -> "signed" CorporateM (Talk) 21:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look at some of the sources and have a few comments: This says "If you order Proactiv online, after a month you're automatically billed for a three-month supply at almost $60, plus $7.99 for shipping and handling". Shouldn't we mention this, along with the cost of it and other similar products, as the RSs do? Also this NYT article is about how they were changing their advertising from a "fast-talking, hard-selling direct-response" as it was "getting fatigued" but the article doesn't say anything about this - isn't it a significant part of the brand's history? Why not create a section on advertising, since this has evidently been important for the company. Has there been any commentary on the use of celebrities in their adverts? It's already an improvement on the current article, but I'm not sure it is an accurate summary of the available sources. SmartSE (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm... In the past I've been discouraged from including pricing information, even when it is prominent in sources (usually in a more positive context). There is a substantial amount of commentary (both positive and negative) on their celebrity-based advertising, probably to the extent of being what they are best-known for and some analysis in an Advertising section might be of interest. The Business section could be divied up to Products and a new Advertising section, which could be expanded. CorporateM (Talk) 23:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Consider: The original report cited by @Smartse's Ric Romero of KABC-TV/DT is
 * -- Senra (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ... and Orly Arvitzur's web site :) -- Senra (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I hear 'ya. Because price is the primary focus of several articles, it deserves more weight and detail. CorporateM (Talk) 23:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Not sure I would mention price though, as prices date very quickly. Even comparative pricing, such as that mentioned by @Smartse, can date as competitors adjust their prices according to market conditions. This is why I chose a non-price based quotation from that report ;) -- Senra (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For a product like this, price is important as the Consumer Reports article shows as there is almost an entire paragraph about the price. I agree with Senra that there can be problems listing price, which is why if it is included it should be along the line of "In November 2011, Consumer Reports stated it cost around xxx a month compared to yyy which cost zzz". This at least gives the reader some information about it's relative price. We can use WP:CALC to work out the prices per month from the source. I look forward to seeing the changes. SmartSE (talk) 00:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello all. I work for Consumer Reports. I confirm that it has been difficult to talk about price on Wikipedia in such a way as to make it internationally relevant and sensible considering that information could become dated. I appreciate that you are having this discussion because I myself do not know what to recommend to people and am still thinking about what is best.

My thought is that people come to articles like this because they searched on Google for the product name, and they read Wikipedia to get help making a purchase decision. If readers are coming here to get information to make a decision, then it seems to me that some information about price is relevant because that meets the demand. Consumer Reports always considers price in reviewing product value because there are decades of precedent in the demand for this information.

CorporateM's proposed draft as linked above article says, "A test by Consumer Reports with 80 volunteers found that the Proactiv system was just as effective as cheaper drug-store products." That seems accurate and appropriate to me. Other ways of summarizing the CR article could be by saying, "A Consumer Reports study on several acne treatment products found that there was no statistically significant difference in acne reduction among brands and that Proactiv was the most expensive product tested." I am not sure which statement I prefer, or how this should read. I do think that price comparisons meet reader demand and like the idea of including whatever price comparisons have been published by reliable sources. Thoughts?  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   16:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Second draft
Hi all. Below is a second draft I've helped the Proactiv team develop in a public relations capacity. Compared to the first draft, the ASA controversy has been expanded substantially per WP:WEIGHT. Based on SmartSE's suggestions I've created an Advertising section and added direct price comparisons. It also talks about the "fast-talking... hard-selling" traditional infomercials and the transition to mainstream network television ads. While most editors would affirm the first draft I prepared was a clear improvement over the current article, I think this will make it ready for a GAN, and even if it's not perfect, myself and other editors will be able to continue improving it incrementally. I also consolidated some of the prior sections in particular due to the Advertising section.CorporateM (Talk) 21:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Proactiv is a skin-care brand created by two dermatologists in 1995 and marketed by Guthy-Renker. It is known for infomercials and advertisements that use celebrity endorsements. Proactiv's products include a three-part acne treatment purchased on a monthly subscription, as well as face masks, soaps and other products. A clinical study in the International Journal of Dermatology found that Proactiv reduced blackheads, inflamed lesions and facial oilness, but it has been criticized for being expensive compared to retail products that use the same active ingredient, benzoyl peroxide.

History
Proactiv was created by two dermatologists, Katie Rodan and Kathy Fields, who met during a summer job at a cardiovascular research lab in Los Angeles in 1984 and both attended Stanford University Medical School. The two dermatologists graduated and started their own practices, before deciding to create an acne treatment together that was focused on being preventative.

In 1989 they hired a chemist and began developing Proactiv out of Rodan's kitchen using $60,000 in personal funds. Business ideas were brainstormed with executives and market researchers that were invited to dinner parties at Rodan's house. Those dinner guests led the founders to do market research, which found that consumers didn't want to talk about their acne and often denied having it. Once developed, the product was rejected by several distributors, before Guthy-Renker agreed to market it in 1995. The first proactiv infomercials aired that year with celebrity endorser Judith Light.

Proactiv installed 100 automated vending machine kiosks for Proactiv products in Atlanta, Las Vegas and Laguna Hills in 2006. Lindsay Lohan became a celebrity endorser that same year a few months before being arrested for drunk driving and drug possession. From 2008-2010 new entrants to the market for acne treatment created stiffer competition for Proactiv. In 2007, Proactiv experimented with two-minute advertising spots and in May 2010 with 30-second network television ads.

In 2010, Proactiv signed celebrity endorsement contracts with Katy Perry, Avril Lavigne, Jenna Fischer, Justin Bieber and tennis player Caroline Wozniacki. Proactiv also modified its formula with smaller benzoyl peroxide crystals to enter pores more quickly and changed the packaging. In 2011 Proactiv was one of nine companies that pulled advertising from the MTV show Skins, after the Parents Television Council urged for an investigation into whether the show violated child pornography laws. In December 2011, Naya Rivera from the TV show Glee became a Proactiv celebrity endorser. In August 2012, Kaley Cuoco from the TV show Big Bang Theory was recruited as a celebrity spokesperson.

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned some of Proactiv's celebrity-endorsed advertising in the UK in June 2012, after a UK woman filed a complaint claiming that the advertisements were misleading. She said the celebrities were likely to have used Proactiv's American brand, which contains an active ingredient not present in the UK version. The ASA said that signed statements by the celebrities claimed they used the UK version of Proactiv for a few weeks one-to-three years prior, but the advertisements gave the appearance that they continued to benefit from the UK-formulation of the product. Additionally, the ASA noted the advertisements were targeted at a UK audience and that the UK Proactiv products had a different active ingredient to the US version.

Products
Proactiv is sold in a three-part kit that includes a cleanser, toner and treatment that are shipped every three months and purchased on a monthly subscription. The cleanser and treatment both use benzoyl peroxide as their primary active ingredient, while the toner uses glycolic acid. Proactiv uses a 2.5 percent concentration of benzoyl peroxide, compared to an industry norm of 10 percent. The active ingredient can cause skin irritation, sensitivity, or allergic reactions and discolors fabrics. Proactiv has a Gentle Formula, which does not include Benzoyl Peroxide, for consumers that are sensitive to or allergic to it. The acne kit is intended to be applied twice daily. Proactiv also sells face masks, body washes and other skin-care products.

The Proactiv brand is owned by its founders, but marketed and distributed by Guthy-Renker. $850 million in Proactiv products are sold each year, 70 percent of which is in the US. The product line is responsible for about half of Guthy-Renker's revenue. Proactiv is often purchased to avoid embarrassment in retail outlets. As of 2010, 60 percent of Proactiv orders were done online. It's also sold through a toll-free number, in mall outlets in vending machines and in certain boutiques.

According to The New York Times, online forums have mixed reviews for Proactiv. A clinical study published in the "International Journal of Dermatology" assessed 23 patients over eight weeks. It found that within four weeks, users of Proactiv reported reductions in comedones (15.1%), inflamed lesions (26.4%) and facial oilness (27.8%). However, a mixture of benzoyl peroxide and butenifine out-performed Proactiv in the study. A physician writing in Salon noted that Proactiv uses the same active ingredient as cheaper generic store drugs, but that it's three-step system made it easier for teens to be diligent. A test by Consumer Reports with 80 volunteers found that the Proactiv system was just as effective as cheaper drug-store products. According to a 2011 review in Consumer Reports, the three-part Proactiv system is sold for about $20 per month, while individual drugstore products cost $5. After the first 30 days of the subscription, customers are automatically billed for a three-month's supply every three months, until the subscription is cancelled.

Advertising
Proactiv is best known for its infomercials and advertisements that use celebrity spokesmodels. $12-$15 million a year are spent on celebrity endorsements, $200 million for commercial air-time and $100 million in traditional marketing. According to Billboard, "the guiding philosophy behind the endorsements is that Proactiv spends less on branding by signing an instantly recognizeable celebrity than it would on billboards and commercials." According to Guthy-Renker, music artists have been their most effective celebrity spokesmodels.

As of 2005, Proactiv's commercials showed before and after images of Proactiv users, including a mix of average consumers and celebrities. They have "a smattering of scientific-looking diagrams" and an introduction to the two dermatologists that founded Proactiv. The New York Times said, "The overall tone walks a line between sympathy for those with acne and something closer to a call to action against a debilitating societal crisis." The New York Times described Proactiv's first infomercials as "fast-talking" and "hard-selling." The infomercials had an announcer repeatedly saying "Call Now" and offering faster shipping if the order is placed within three minutes.

Starting in 2008, sales of Proactiv were stalling as 30-minute infomercials became less popular. Proactiv transitioned from "less classy publications" into traditional advertising spots on prime-time television, during shows like American Idol and Glee. The ads used the theme "Be Proactiv". They included close-up before and after shots of celebrities' faces, with slogans spoken by celebrities, such as “I’m no pushover. I’m Proactiv” said by Avril Lavigne. Guthy-Renker also expanded into Web, social and mobile marketing. As of 2010, the company had 1.5 million views on its YouTube channel, 41,000 Facebook fans and 8,700 Twitter followers.

Efficacy claims
I saw the invitation to comment at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. I've looked at the efficacy claims and have no problem with them or their sources. They're primary sources but carefully used. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * For anyone coming from COIN, the draft was implemented by Jreferee here and the Talk page version of it was archived (probably because having whole drafts on Talk can be annoying and mess with the navigation/headers). Though editors are obviously still welcome to continue editing in article-space. CorporateM (Talk) 15:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Move
The article probably should be moved, since Proactiv Solution merely is one product in the line of products. I'm not sure whether to move it to Proactiv or to Proactiv (brand). "Proactiv" is too close to the word proactive, so Proactiv (brand) may provide more clarity in the title. Also, the editors need to decide whether the article is going to be about the product line or the company. I think the article should be about the product line, since Guthy-Renker is running the show and Wikipedia already has an article on Guthy-Renker. If the article is about the product line, then statements in the article such as "Proactiv installed 100 automated vending machine" need to be revised since a product line cannot install vending machines. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. I went to the Proactiv website to see if there was a "Proactiv LLC," but it says the copyrights of the website are owned by Guthy-Renker and there is no mention of a separate corporate entity. I also checked to see if "Proactiv Solution" was the formal name of the product, but it's typically referred to as a "system" and "Proactiv" appears to be trademarked alone, not with "system" or "solution" as part of the name. So, Proactiv (brand) seems dead-on. CorporateM (Talk) 23:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)