Is It Science or Just Good Marketing?
Updated: 6 days ago
A Consumer’s Guide to Understanding Evidence
We live in a world where information is everywhere. Spend five minutes looking at soap and skincare products online and you'll find a wild number of claims about what individual ingredients can supposedly do.
Coffee will “tighten” your skin. Charcoal will “draw out toxins.” Honey will “heal” your tattoos. Turmeric will “reduce” dark spots. Fragrance oils will “disrupt” your hormones. Tallow will “support” the skin barrier. Natural ingredients are “safer” because they're natural.
Some of these claims may have a kernel of science behind them. Others may be based on laboratory research, traditional use, or very limited studies. And some are simply marketing language that has been repeated so many times that it starts to sound like fact.
Today, a TikTok video, an Instagram post, a podcast, an influencer, a news article, and an actual scientific study can all show up in the same search. Sometimes, they can even look like they carry the same weight.
Truth bomb: They don't.
That doesn't mean every influencer is wrong or every scientific study is right. It means we need to learn how to ask a better question:
What kind of evidence are we actually looking at?
Marketing can take a small piece of scientific information and turn it into a very big claim. Understanding a few basics can help us separate “there is a study” from “the evidence shows this works.”
So let's make this simple.
Think of Evidence Like a Ladder:
Level 1: Someone says it.
Testimonials, personal experiences, influencer recommendations and expert opinions can be interesting. They can even help us come up with questions worth studying.
But an anecdote tells us what happened to one person. It doesn't necessarily tell us why it happened or whether the same thing will happen to everyone else.
“I started using this product and my skin cleared up.”
That's an experience. It isn't the same as a controlled study showing that the product caused the improvement.
Level 2: We observed something.
Observational research looks at what happens without researchers assigning people to a particular treatment.
It can show us interesting patterns, but an association doesn't automatically mean one thing caused the other.
Correlation does not automatically equal causation.
Level 3: We tested it.
Randomized controlled trials are designed to create a fairer comparison between groups and help researchers determine whether one thing actually caused an outcome.
But even a randomized trial isn't automatically perfect. A study can be small, short, poorly designed, or find an effect so tiny that it isn't particularly meaningful in real life.
Level 4: What does the body of evidence say?
This is where things get really interesting.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can bring together the results of multiple studies so we can ask a bigger question:
What happens when we look at the research as a whole?
One study is a data point. A consistent body of well-designed research is much more informative.
And that's the important takeaway:
The goal isn't to find one study that agrees with us (aka confirmation bias). It's to understand how much confidence the overall evidence deserves.
Where Marketing Gets Interesting
Marketing doesn't always have to lie to mislead us. Sometimes, it just has to leave out the context.
A study might find an association while the marketing implies causation.
A study might find a small improvement while the advertisement implies a dramatic one.
A study might involve a very specific group of participants while the marketing makes the claim about everyone.
Consider the difference:
The study:“Participants who used ______ experienced an improvement in ______.”
The advertisement:“______ transforms your health!”
Those aren't necessarily the same claim.
That's why one of our favorite questions at Douglas Smith Soap Co. is:
“Okay... but what kind of study?”
Not simply:“Is there a study?”
Marketing Red Flags
Checking every claim in depth would be exhausting. Thankfully, you don't have to. We created some red flags to look for so you can take a pause before you believe the claim.
Certain phrases should make you curious, not automatically convinced:
🚩 “Clinically proven”🚩 “Studies show”🚩 “Scientists say”🚩 “Detoxifies”🚩 “Brightens skin”🚩 “Chemical-free”🚩 “100% effective”🚩 “Ancient wisdom proves…”
None of these phrases automatically mean a claim is false.
But they should make you ask:
“Show me the evidence.”
One of our favorite red flags: fear-based “free-from” claims
A product being free from an ingredient doesn't automatically make it safer or better.
Before accepting the claim, ask:
What evidence shows that this ingredient is actually harmful in this product, at this level of exposure?
Think about the sun. We know UV radiation can damage skin and increase cancer risk. But risk depends on how much, how often, how intense, and for how long we’re exposed.
What would it be like to choose summer or outdoor activities that were “sun-free”?
Sounds rediculous right?
These labels can be helpful if you have a known allergy, otherwise, trendy fear-based claims require the same kind of context and inquiry.
Okay, But What About Soap?
Now you might be thinking:
“Michael and Kevin, this is great, but I just want to buy a bar of soap. Ain't nobody got time for a dissertation in the bathroom!”
Fair point.
That's why we created our 10-second evidence check, along with the guide below to help you understand what soap actually does, what it doesn't do, and which claims deserve a closer look.
Our 10-Second Evidence Check
What Does Soap Actually Do?
When it comes to soap, the most meaningful claims are often the simplest.
Soap cleanses. It removes dirt and oils and washes away substances from the skin.
Claims beyond that deserve to be evaluated on their own evidence.
And that's okay. Soap doesn't need to detoxify your body, balance your hormones, cure a skin condition, or perform miracles to be a good product. Sometimes, doing the job you bought it to do is enough.
A Final Thought
We don't have to believe something because an influencer says it worked for them or “a peer reviewed article says so”. We don't have to dismiss something because the research isn't perfect. And we don't have to believe something simply because someone says: “There are studies!”
Instead, ask: “What kind of evidence do we have, and how strong is it?”
Because there's a big difference between:
“There is a study.”
and
“The evidence shows it works/it’s harmful.”
The next time you see a big claim about an ingredient or product, pause for 10 seconds and ask:
What’s the evidence?
Then use our evidence ladder, red flags, and 10-second evidence check to decide how much weight that claim really deserves. Because that's where critical thinking begins: not with what we want to believe, but with asking what the evidence actually tells us.
What We Believe at Douglas Smith Soap Co.
We don’t expect consumers to simply trust a label. We look at the ingredients we purchase, supplier documentation, IFRA standards, and available third-party testing.
At Douglas Smith Soap Co., we’ll keep making our products thoughtfully and talking about them honestly, because you deserve more than marketing hype. You deserve information you can trust.
A Little Something for Our Readers
You did the research. Now treat yourself.
Ready to choose your soap? Explore our small-batch, plant-based products and consider treating yourself with something truly special (how’s THAT for a claim?).
Use code EVIDENCE at checkout for 15% off each item in your cart.
Treat Yourself and Your Skin Well,
Michael and Kevin
References:
Schultz, K., Rochester, J. R., Lathrop, M. K., Favela, K. A., Hartnett, M. J., Watson, W. D., Janssen, J. A., Grossman, J., Kwiatkowski, C. F., Timmons, G. C., & Hua, J. (2026). Hidden hazards: Nontargeted chemical analysis reveals widespread contaminants and mislabeling in personal care and cleaning products. Environment & Health. https://doi.org/10.1021/envhealth.6c00181
Hopewell, S., Chan, A.-W., Collins, G. S., Hróbjartsson, A., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., Bhandari, N., Butcher, N. J., Campbell, M. K., Elbourne, D., Farmer, A., Fergusson, D. A., Golub, R. M., Goodman, S. N., Hoffmann, T. C., ... Vohra, S.
(2025). CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: Updated guideline for reporting randomised trials. BMJ, 389, e081124. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2024-081124
Liakos, A., Pagkalidou, E., Karagiannis, T., Malandris, K., Avgerinos, I., Gigi, E., Bekiari, E., Haidich, A.-B., & Tsapas, A. (2025). A simple guide to randomized controlled trials. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 24, 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/15347346241236385
National Institutes of Health. (2025, June 26). Understanding clinical studies. https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/science-health-public-trust/tools/understanding-clinical-studies
Olarte Parra, C., Bertizzolo, L., Schroter, S., Dechartres, A., & Goetghebeur, E. (2021). Consistency of causal claims in observational studies: A review of papers published in a general medical journal. BMJ Open, 11(5), e043339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043339
Ramspek, C. L., Steyerberg, E. W., Riley, R. D., Rosendaal, F. R., Dekkers, O. M., & van Diepen, M. (2021). Prediction or causality? A scoping review of their conflation within current observational research. European Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 889–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00794-w
Comments