Why Plum voluntarily downgraded its sunscreen rating

In an industry often rife with exaggerated claims of protection, reparation, and transformation, it is rare for a beauty brand to voluntarily downgrade a product's efficacy rating. Yet, that is what direct-to-consumer (D2C) beauty brand Plum did recently with its Alpha Arbutin Fluid sunscreen.

In a recent interaction, Shankar Prasad, founder of Plum, addressed the brand's decision to label the product as SPF 35 instead of SPF 50, despite receiving higher test results from some laboratories.

According to the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD), SPF, or Sun Protection Factor, is defined as a measure of how effectively a sunscreen protects your skin from sunburn-causing rays.

Plum prides itself on not only testing its Sun Protection Factor on large batches of their sunscreen, but it claims to test them in smaller individual batches too, so that the brand can ensure that no batch or formulation is underdelivering on the SPF promise.  

"The Alpha Arbutin Fluid sunscreen, by virtue of being a fluid sunscreen, has difficulty forming a film which blocks sunlight, which is why the fluid sunscreen was giving us varying results," Prasad explains.

"Some labs were still giving us 50+ SPF, some 40+, and some 30+. I asked, 'What is the best way to ensure that we accurately reflect the true SPF?' I would rather not be selective and cherry-pick the SPF 50 results and say I am still SPF 50." Plum chose to go with the lab results with the lowest SPF count. 

The context: The 'SPF Controversy'

View this post on Instagram

This move comes against the backdrop of a broader conversation in the Indian skincare market, often dubbed the "SPF controversy", where influencers and independent studies have debunked claims made by various major sunscreen brands, highlighting discrepancies between label claims and actual sun protection.

"So, we were not, fortunately or unfortunately, part of that study. But at that time, we were anyway on to addressing the variability in testing," Prasad notes.

Explaining why discrepancies arise in SPF testing, he compares the consumer expectation of SPF testing to medical diagnostics, arguing that the reality is far less binary. 

"To be very honest, we all think of SPF as like blood glucose testing or any of the other lab tests that we do where we expect an exact result. SPF testing today cannot give you an exact result because of the variability in the process that is being used. You can get a range of results."

Plum’s solution? The 'True SPF' standard

View this post on Instagram

To combat this ambiguity and build consumer trust, Plum has introduced internal protocols dubbed 'True SPF'.

"So, if we claim our sunscreen offers SPF 50, three out of four in vitro (in-laboratory) and in vivo (on-skin) tests need to confirm SPF 50. And every batch needs to pass the SPF 50 criterion," says Prasad.

He clarifies that these protocols were not a knee-jerk reaction to the controversy but a long-term goal. "For more than a year and a half, we have been struggling with variability in SPF results. So, what the controversy actually helped us do was fine-tune our approach."

Indoors vs outdoors: the debate that never ends

Beyond the technicalities of testing, consumer confusion persists regarding when to apply sunscreen. Do remote workers sitting in front of laptops really need UV protection?

Prasad advises a nuanced approach based on exposure. "If you're not going outdoors, SPF 50 is probably not necessary. You can be okay with an SPF 30 or 35. If you're outdoors, you should go for SPF 50.”

He highlights that the need for protection extends beyond direct sunlight. "Glass windows also transmit a lot of ultraviolet rays. Even on a cloudy day, 60% of UV gets through. Last but not least is blue light that comes from screens, particularly laptops and phones." Wear your sunscreen, he asserts. 

Regarding safety concerns about long-term chemical exposure, Prasad reassures that the ingredients are well-established.

"Actually, many of the molecules which are currently being used in sunscreens are relatively old, about 30-35 years old. And they have good safety data with them."  

How to get the message across? The marketing mix

View this post on Instagram

As a digital-native brand, Plum’s marketing spend continues to favour new-age media over traditional print.

"Print right now is very small. So, it is largely digital plus connected TV," Prasad reveals when asked about the brand's media mix.

He also notes that the line between television and digital is blurring. "Also, it is tough to disaggregate connected TV and digital because the purchase goes as one. It really depends on where we find the customer digitally. We may find them on a device, but we may also find them on CTV."

The brand is also prioritising community engagement, inviting real customers, "Plumsters", to Plum events alongside media and influencers. 

"We want to do more and more of this where we connect with people in person because that's a very different experience compared to anything you can do digitally," Prasad adds.

The road ahead

Prasad envisions a shift toward greater transparency in the Indian skincare landscape.

"I think we are on a journey to create the next generation of genuine, honest, and transparent skin care in India, for India.”