STATEMENT OF MRS. TRESSIE NALE-POVIC, MERLE NORMAN COSMETICS, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mrs. NALE-POvic. My name is Tressie Nale-Povic. I appear before this committee as a representative of Merle Norman Cosmetics, Los Angeles, Calif. I am the owner of three Merle Norman retail cosmetic store outlets in suburban Maryland. My association with Merle Norman Cosmetics started in October 1959, when I bought the Silver Spring Merle Norman Cosmetic Studio, bidding farewell to a successful Government career achieved over a period of some 22 years with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

My comments will be limited to Merle Norman Cosmetics and the consumer of these products, since I have a daily contact with both. I've seen my own Merle Norman customers grow from some 2,000 to over 18,000, and I believe I have some knowledge of their wants and expectations. I sincerely believe that the consumer decides whether you stay in business, expand, and grow, or whether you close down operations. As you gentlemen know, there are many factors, such as location, financial backing, services offered, and business ability, that determine whether you are successful in a business venture. But regardless of all these, it is the willingness of the consumer to part with money for your products that has the final say.

Now the big question on cosmetics as related to this bill is why does a lady customer prefer Merle Norman cosmetics even to the extent that she will come miles to obtain them and send mail orders from all over the United States and from overseas when Merle Norman products are not available in her area. I am convinced the major reason is that she has found a product that gives her the result she has been seeking. In the cosmetic field the product is linked directly to its capacity to produce a desired benefit. This benefit may be more soft hands, glamorous eyes, or a more beautiful face.

I am not talking about a special segment of the female population. Consumers of our products range from the budgeted high school girl and low-salaried clerk to the higher income level, including wives of Government officials. The skin tones range from dresden white to darkest brown. Merle Norman cosmetics are indeed exclusive in quality for our customers but not in price. The most expensive single cosmetic item in our stock is a perfume retailing for $4.75. The prices range downward to 60 cents for two eyeliner pencil refills. I personally service hundreds of these customers every week. To this date, not a single one has ever asked me the per-ounce cost of any cosmetic product.

Now, let us examine the large jar cream and its junior counterpart. This is a specific instance of opportunity when a customer may select to economize. It is the policy of our staff to point this saving out to the customer by advising that there is a saving of about 45 cents when she purchases the economy size. Why then do we sell about five times as many of the more expensive smaller jars of cream as we do of the larger economy size? The customer tells us why every day by passing up the savings of the economy jar with the comment that the smaller one fits better in the space where she wants to keep her cream.

I should like to illustrate just one item that is pretty well standardized as to weight and that is the ever so popular lipstick. Why then

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 cosmieties. All major department stores, drugstores, and specialty shops -such as ours-have-or try to have—experienced sales people to relate the cosmetice message to the consumer. The consumer of cosmetics has plenty of opportunity to be informed about them. The sales clerk and or cosmetic an behind the cosmetic counter in today's market is well informed about the functions and benefits of the products being sold.

eos

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 cos metics, 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 new 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 enstopers are happy—and not the least bir der fused about price.

Our Merie Norman customers also ke pretty packages. They are always delighted when the company changes to a more artistic eyeappealing container. Why then should regulators be issued to take away another benefit to women by demanding that key preparitions be packed in less than beautiful cortilers! Women do not want cold cream packaged in mustard jars. They have not asked for this protection and I believe they wi resent 't.

With so many di ferent interpretatiers of what this bill will or will net do it is defieu't to estimate the 'mate effect on the consumer. It seems evident, however, that there would be in increase in est resulting from the issuance of additional relations if this bill shor'd become law. Increased rests usually resht from eforts facturer to offer the consumer a letter and or more attraen na noviniet, The consumer understands is Ind assure you that any ar therese in price formed by Geterrent men'r'ops w

be understood by the versuver and tw ledn rely mag» More ̃Ñ»r

Dan PS mers inlay py. The innerste i "rice's my ore fever'

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 housework 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.