In 1979 Clairol, a hair-care Proctor & Gamble subsidiary, introduced its Touch of Yogurt Shampoo. [i] However, the product failed. Several reasons may explain this failure.

Inadequately Informative

Clairol likely assumed that the general public readily understood yogurt’s purported hair benefits. [ii] If so, this unwarranted assumption reflects inadequately informative advertising. Apparently, “Yogurt”—the largest word on Clairol’s package—“confused” some customers who reportedly, “ate it, and became sick.” [iii]

Yogurt in hair may seem strange to common understanding. Though, even if mistaken for food people commonly understand yogurt requires refrigeration to ensure safe consumption. Thus, if sufficiently informed, no legitimate reason exists to consume shampoo simply because it contains yogurt. Therefore, this ridiculous reaction suggests “ineffective promotion” possibly from a “confusing marketing message,” failing to adequately inform consumers about the product. [iv]

Innovation Not Always Attractive

Companies sometimes differentiate their brand by line extension—adding new forms, colors, sizes, ingredients, or flavors to an existing brand.[v] Line extension diversifies products. However, companies need not diversify where customers react positively to the existing product. Why reinvent the wheel with a proven product? Thus, line extension might unnecessarily assume a need for product variation. This assumption neglects the distinction between innovativeness and attractiveness since new features may not always stimulate marketable appeal. Clairol perhaps espoused this “questionable” assumption. [vi]

By including yogurt, Clairol presumably extended its shampoo line. If so, the added yogurt feature represents a diversifying ingredient. Assuming Clairol intended a line extension as plausibly inferred from its yogurt-infusion, perhaps Clairol conflated innovation with marketability to differentiate itself among mainstream competitors.

Even if yogurt provided hair-related health benefits, an assumption perhaps overlooking skin sensitivities, Clairol assumed the risk of customer aversion. For example, Clairol disregarded uncomfortable “associations with a milk-based hair product.” [vii] After all, “grossed-out” sentiments of “soured-milk in hair” hardly evinces “consumer appeal.” [viii] By mistaking innovation with customer appeal, Clairol neglected that not all distinguishing features produce positive results. As one commentator aptly asserts, “Innovation sometimes spawns brilliance. Other times ridicule.” [ix]

Ignoring History

Yet, Clairol fails to heed history. Despite failing with “Look of Buttermilk” shampoo, yogurt seemed worth the try? [x] Think again! But whoever ignores history risks repeating it. This principle applies for Clairol, whose omission to correct reaps ruin. [xi]

Two Plausible Alternatives to Failure

Educate Customers

If Clairol “educated customers” about “yogurt” shampoo, people might not otherwise eat it, and possibly learn more about its ostensible benefits. [xii] Enhanced consumer awareness tends to signal a seemingly credible product, supporting sales.

Trends Not “Trendy”

Another way to possibly prevent Touch of Yogurt’s failure might involve replacing “trendy” with workable trends. For instance, Clairol, “might have fared better,” using shampoos with “milk proteins” or a slogan emphasizing “the freshness of dairy cream.” [xiii] Images of “milk proteins” and “freshness” perhaps evoke moisturizing qualities more viscerally compatible with “peoples’ minds.” [xiv] These dairy ingredients now constitute prevailing shampoo trends. But yogurt in shampoo seems foreign.