Brooke Shields Latisse advertising slammed by Consumer Reports
Tom on Nov 5, 2009
Consumer Reports slams Latisse and the Brooke Shields ad that's been then center of the $14.5M Latisse advertising campaign.
With 88% of our readers saying Latisse is "worth it", do you think the Consumer Reports video lacks balance?
Return to RealSelf blog
Comment on this
435 posts
5 Nov 2009
Everything she's saying is the absolute ultimate worst case scenario with every side effect. And at the end, where they say "this video is sponsored by NO ONE??" That's a load too, because it's clearly sponsored by Consumer Reports and Health.org. Who are they kidding? I used Latisse for a month and loved the results. I stopped because I'm lazy and for no other reason.
70 posts
5 Nov 2009
She should take a look at Real Self and see the 88% unbiased approval rating for Latisse. I am shocked that Consumer Reports would produce such a biased opinionated report which appears to have an agenda other than just informing the consumer. If Mascara was the answer, then Latisse would not have such a following. David L Mobley, M.D.
114 posts
6 Nov 2009
We have had almost universally positive response from our patients (and our staff) to Latisse. The biggest problem we have seen is a small amount of eye irritation that responds to eye drops. In an effort to be a consumer watchdog, Consumer Reports has provided a very one-sided, jaded, and incomplete review of this product. If people want longer, fuller eyelashes, this is a great product. It works, it's safe, and has very few side effects. If they don't want longer eyelashes, or don't want to pay for the product, they shouldn't use it. The comments on Real Self about Latisse are much more representative of the approval and results this product has enjoyed. It is unfortunate that this type of sensationalist report from Consumer Reports really undermines their credibility.