does it range in price from say around 50 cents to $5-for those looking for a particularly exotic container? There are three primary reasons the content inside, the case outside, and the name brand. There seems to be only one reason for such a variety and that is customer choice. She may choose any quality she wishes and she may choose a plastic case or an 18 carat gold-plated case. I use this illustration to show that the cosmetic customer is interested primarily in many things such as beauty, quality, size, and design but not in ounces. If she were only interested in weight, how could we possibly have such a range in price and so many shades of lipsticks by so many different companies? How, for instance, could Merle Norman sell 40 different shades of lipsticks in the price range of $1 to $1.50?

Arguments have been made by the proponents of this bill that packages can't talk so the consumer only knows what she sees with the eye with respect to size or message upon the label. This was compared with yesteryear when the clerk would tell you about the product and presumably guide the consumer to the best choice.

Now, gentlemen, legislation is not needed on this point in relation to cosmetics. All major department stores, drugstores, and specialty shops-such as ours-have-or try to have-experienced sales people to relate the cosmetic message to the consumer. The consumer of

cosmetics has plenty of opportunity to be informed about them. The sales clerk and/or cosmetician behind the cosmetic counter in today's market is well informed about the functions and benefits of the products being sold.

My primary concern is what will happen to the customer if this bill becomes law. The proponents of this bill would have us believe that the customer is a confused, unhappy person. With respect to cosmetics, I don't believe there was a time in history when the female buyer was more happy. The majority of women use cosmetics because they want to be more beautiful and more glamorous. The feminine consumer now has a wide choice of products that are created with her in mind. There is also a cosmetic for every type of budget. I personally know that the vast majority of our Merle Norman customers are happy-and not the least bit confused about price.

Our Merle Norman customers also like pretty packages. They are always delighted when the company changes to a more artistic eyeappealing container. Why then should regulations be issued to take away another benefit to women by demanding that beauty preparations be packaged in less than beautiful containers? Women do not want cold cream packaged in mustard jars. They have not asked for this protection and I believe they will resent it.

With so many different interpretations of what this bill will or will not do it is difficult to estimate the ultimate effect on the consumer. It seems evident, however, that there would be an increase in cost resulting from the issuance of additional regulations if this bill should become law. Increased costs usually result from efforts by the manufacturer to offer the consumer a better and/or more attractive product. The consumer understands this. I can assure you that any arbitrary increase in price forced by Government regulations will certainly not be understood by the consumer and it will definitely make Merle Norman customers unhappy. The increase in price is only one of several

negative impacts that may result if this bill becomes law and is applied to cosmetics.

I sincerely hope that this bill will not become law. If it does, I predict that the mail you have thus far received on "cosmetic confusion" will be dwarfed by the avalanche of letters you will receive from unhappy Merle Norman users the country over.

Merle Norman cosmetics are only sold through Merle Norman retail outlets. Our cosmetics are not sold in department stores, supermarkets, or drugstores. Our cosmetic packaging does not produce confusion to consumers. Merle Norman cosmetics are lined up in neat rows on shelves in Merle Norman Cosmetic studios-with no other competing brands for comparison. Faithful Merle Norman users come to these studios not once but again and again—year after year to buy Merle Norman cosmetics.

Please, gentlemen, let Merle Norman cosmetic users retain their traditional tranquility of happiness. Gentlemen, the consumers of cosmetics are amply protected by existing laws. I trust you will exempt all cosmetics from this bill.'

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Senator NUEBERGER. I question whether lipstick would come under this bill, if passed, because of the limitation on the size.

Mrs. NALE-POvic. On the ounce weight? I don't think it would either. I use it only as an illustration of something that is standardized and still has a wide range of choice and price.

Senator NUEBERGER. There won't be anything in the bill to prevent the woman from choosing one kind of container over another, that I

can see.

We must hurry on.

Thank you.

Our next witness is Miss Mary Jane Robinson.

STATEMENT OF MARY JANE ROBINSON ON BEHALF OF FRANCES DENNEY OF PHILADELPHIA

Miss ROBINSON. My name is Mary Jane Robinson. I appear before this committee as a representative of Frances Denney, of Philadelphia, a company that bears the distinction of being the oldest American cosmetic firm on the market, having been founded in 1897.

For the past 15 years I have worked in the cosmetic industry in areas of direct sales, sales promotion, product development, package design, customer motivation, and training of sales personnel as cosmeticians for retail outlets.

I am personally familiar with the cosmetic business as it is conducted in department stores, drugstores, and salons. The female consumer of cosmetics is all individuality.

You can be certain, gentlemen, that when a woman makes a cosmetic purchase initially, it is due to one of several reasons.

1. Eye appeal.

2. Smell appeal.

3. Current fashion trend.

4. Promise of allure or loveliness.

I recall only too well the woman in Newport News, Va., whom I observed making a large Frances Denney purchase. When I queried

her as to her reasons for using Frances Denney she informed me that the first time she bought our preparations was due to the fact that the lovely Mediterranean blue bottles matched her newly decorated bathroom perfectly. She was even more delighted to find that the preparations she purchased were most pleasant to use. However, this was a secondary reaction.

I can assure this committee that a cosmetic user is interested in cost only insofar as what the product does for her. This cannot be determined in cost per ounce.

Our sales personnel are trained that when a customer asks for a Frances Denney product by name they should automatically present the larger size, since obviously the customer is satisfied with the product and making a repeat purchase. If she requests the smaller size, the saving, which is usually a dollar or more, is pointed out to her. Time and again the consumer will take the smaller container because:

1. She is going on a trip.

2. It fits on the shelf.

3. It fits in the drawer.

4. This size "looks best" on the dressing table.

These are consumers of all ages and all income brackets.

The consumer of today is hardheaded and practical; however, she is still a woman—and a strange combination of impulsiveness and emotion. This is not to suggest that she buys recklessly, foolishly, or wildly.

She is looking for assurance and personal satisfaction. Please remember that when the consumer purchases a jar of cream, a bottle of makeup, or a flacon of perfume, she is not buying anything tangible in the true sense of the word.

She is buying a look, a feeling, a promise, an idea, a state of mind. Frankly, gentlemen, I call it hope.

To require labeling of ingredients is impractical and to my way of thinking unnecessary. It would serve no obvious purpose. I can say unequivocally that a woman is not interested in what the ingredients of a product are.

The only thing she wants to know is-What is it going to do for me? To standardize packaging would be as catastrophic as to standardize

women.

The woman consumer constantly strives for individuality. She does not want her dressing table adorned with bottles and jars identical to those of the woman next door. To take this individuality away from her through standardization would not only frustrate her but infuriate her.

If the consumer wants her hand lotion in an early American, milkglass hobnail bottle let her have it.

If she wants her eye shadow in a replica of an Egyptian urn let her ave it.

If she wishes her perfume to be dispensed from a rock crystal vial of no matter what surrealistic shape let her have it.

These packages are not designed to deceive the consumer, but rather to please her. A woman demands that these packages have esthetic and decorative appeal and for that matter, gentlemen, so do the men.

What man, when giving a gift to the lady he loves, does not want that gift presented in the most attractive, indeed, unique matter possible? Cosmetics and toiletries are not household commodities that are hidden away in closets and cabinets. They are on display throughout the house, in the guest room, in the bathroom, and on the dressing

table.

Not only are women not deceived by cosmetic packages, but on the contrary are very happy that the many varied designs of packages available permits each woman a choice to suit her own personal taste or whim.

The only rational comparison to be made is that of the esthetic appeal of each package design and the personal result in attractiveness afforded by the content.

Please do not legislate in any way to diminish our preferences in beauty of package design or our quest for achieving loveliness. Thank you for your kind consideration.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you.

We will move on to the next witness, Miss Natalie Donay, assistant to the president, Charles of the Ritz.

STATEMENT OF NATALIE DONAY, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT, CHARLES OF THE RITZ, NEW YORK, N.Y.

Miss DONAY. I am sales promotion director and assistant to the president of Lanvin-Charles of the Ritz. This corporation came into being through a merger between the two companies of Lanvin Parfums and Charles of the Ritz about a year and a half ago. Prior to the merger, I was for 111⁄2 years the advertising-publicity and promotion director for Charles of the Ritz, which is the cosmetic end of the company, distributing its products through 1,200 selected department and specialty stores. Lanvin Parfums sells both through department and drug stores with an overall distribution of about 10,000 points of sale. The company also includes several other cosmetic divisions.

I am here today both in behalf of my company and of the millions of American women who, like myself, are totally and hopelessly addicted to fashion. We consider cosmetics and fragrances as part of our fashion addiction. Despite this affliction, we are still totally aware that we really don't need any of these goodies to exist. They don't make our house work any easier. They don't get us a salary raise. They don't relieve a headache and I've never known them to make any man swoon. Obviously, we use them just for fun and that's what fashion is really all about.

Women buy cosmetics, perfumes, nail enamels, what-have-you, to make them feel pretty. They want these items to look pretty in the store and they want them to look pretty in their homes or handbags. We know that no article of fashion, be it a lipstick, a hat, a pair of gloves, or a girdle can ever correct nature's mistakes-but we all go on hoping they will do something to help conceal them.

But as a spokesman for both by company and my sex I fully agree that no matter how frivolous our intent in the purchase of this industry's products, we all still deserve and, indeed, need all the protection possible against abuses in packaging or labeling or any other deceptive merchandising device.

I believe cosmetics and fragrance consumers are given such protection. Protection that is offered and enforced by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the regulations of the Food and Drug Administration. Present law has been, and is, more than adequate and equally important, it has been practical for both the consumer and the manufacturer. So adequate and so practical that no further demand for new legislation for our industry has arisen from the general public.

The further legislation suggested by S. 985 is neither necessary nor practical. To take one example: Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, if a product makes claims to produce a physical action-such as "stimulates"-the active ingredient, or ingredients, responsible for that physical action must be indicated on the label. This is both adequate and practical for the consumer who has been enticed by an active claim made for a product and for the manufacturer who finds no difficulty in giving her the necessary ingredient information on the label.

However, S. 985 suggests that we have a label statement of ingredients and composition of commodities containing sufficient information with respect to the ingredients and composition whether an active claim is made for the product or not. That leaves the manufacturer with the choice of listing ingredients and composition of commodities, all of which are important to the formulation and none of which are decipherable to the consumer.

Take a typical face mask, for instance. A face mask, as I am sure you all know, is a preparation in either cream, or liquid, or creamy liquid or gel form that is applied to the face where it usually dries to present a rather startling image to any delivery boy who happens to come to the door and is then removed after a certain period of time, leaving the user feeling as though she may look more attractive that night when she attends the theater.

Here is what might be on the label of such a face mask simplified down to the most nonmystic chemical terminology our chemists could supply me with: Hydrated complex colloidal magnesium aluminum silicate, sodium carboxy methyl cellulose, vitamin A, F.D. & C. No. 3, polyvinyl pyrllidone K-60, methyl parahydroxy benzoate, propoxylated octadecanol, water.

This is not a complete listing of the ingredients or composition of commodities by any means, and outside of the elements of water, not any of it can possibly mean anything to any woman. It is physically impossible to list all of the ingredients of any cosmetic or fragrance product on a label. To list less than all is certainly arbitrary.

S. 985 also suggests that we can further protect the consumer by allowing her to comparison shop like products by establishing standardized weights or quantities in which a product shall be packed-in other words, 2-ounce sizes of hand lotion, whether that product be a lotion, a cream, or a foam.

The consumer cannot get a fair comparison between one hand product and another merely by standardizing weights. Firstly, there is consistency of product which, in turn, affects the size and shape of the package. Secondly, there is application of the product. Where one requires liberal application, another calls for sparing use.