How Makeup Brands Use Extreme Performance Claims (and How to Verify Them)

When stunts sell mascara: why dramatic marketing leaves shoppers confused — and how to verify the truth

Hook: You want a mascara that actually delivers volume and stays put, but you’re tired of dramatic stunts and headline-grabbing ads that feel impressive—and often leave you guessing whether the product lives up to the hype.

In late 2025, Rimmel London teamed up with Red Bull and gymnast Lily Smith for a gravity-defying rooftop balance-beam routine to launch its Thrill Seeker Mega Lift Mascara. The stunt—performed 52 stories above New York City—made headlines and social feeds, perfectly engineered to link the product with adrenaline, precision and visible impact. But does a high-wire show prove a mascara gives “up to six times more visible lash volume”? Not on its own.

The evolution of performance marketing in 2026

Experiential, stunt-driven marketing has been rising for years and intensified through late 2025. Brands are investing in spectacle to cut through saturated channels: live performances, extreme athlete partnerships and cross-industry tie-ins (think beauty x energy drinks) are now routine. The goal is emotional storytelling—positioning a product as part of a lifestyle rather than just a functional purchase.

But 2026 brings a counter-movement: shoppers and watchdogs want proof. Consumers are savvier, regulators and platforms are nudging for more transparency, and technology now makes it easier for brands to share detailed data—when they choose to. That makes this year an important inflection point: stunts still work for attention, but credibility increasingly requires evidence.

What a stunt proves — and what it doesn’t

• What it proves: Brand positioning, aspirational lifestyle, durability of messaging, influencer fit and shareable content.
• What it doesn’t prove: Controlled, statistically valid product performance across a representative user group under repeatable conditions.

“Stunts amplify a story. They don't replace proof.”

Rimmel’s balance-beam stunt made the mascara synonymous with daring performance. But the stunt itself is a marketing device; it doesn’t reveal the testing method, sample size, or measurement techniques behind the “up to six times” volume claim reported by CosmeticsBusiness. That’s where verification matters.

Why the distinction matters to you (and your wallet)

Performance claims influence buyer decisions and justify price. If a product promises dramatic results, you deserve to know how those results were measured. Misleading claims cost consumers time and money and dilute trust in brands that invest in real testing. At thebody.store we see three common shopper frustrations:

• Conflicting reviews and unclear small-print
• “Clinical” or “dermatologist-tested” that mean different things across brands
• Lack of accessible evidence or raw data when something matters (e.g., for sensitive skin)

How brands use stunts strategically: the anatomy of a performance-driven launch

Breaking down the Rimmel example helps reveal a repeatable playbook:

1. Hook: A high-visibility event (52 stories above street level) to grab attention quickly.
2. Authority transfer: Partnering with a respected athlete (Lily Smith) and a high-energy brand (Red Bull) to borrow credibility and thrill credentials.
3. Amplification: Short-form video and visuals engineered for social platforms and press headlines.
4. Claim insertion: Pairing the stunt with a specific numeric performance claim (“up to six times more visible lash volume”).
5. Call to action: Direct links to product pages, campaign landing pages, and retail partners to convert attention into purchases.

What this playbook doesn't include—unless the brand chooses to—are the scientific details consumers need to independently verify a performance claim.

What “clinically tested”, “dermatologist-recommended” and “up to” often hide

Marketing language matters. Here’s what to look for when you see common qualifiers:

• “Up to” indicates a best-case result, often derived from a subset of users. Critical questions: how many users reached that level, and was that average or maximum?
• “Clinically tested” can mean anything from a small internal trial to a larger independent study. Check for method details: sample size, controls, blinding, and who ran the study.
• “Dermatologist-tested” usually indicates safety/irritation testing, not efficacy. It may not speak to benefits like volume or longevity.
• “Proven” or numeric multipliers require specific measurement methods—photographic analysis, blinded grader scores, or instrumental metrics. Ask which method was used.

2026 trends that change how claims should be evaluated

• Data-first transparency: In late 2025 and into 2026, an increasing number of brands began publishing study methods and anonymized datasets via QR codes or campaign microsites—making verification easier when brands choose transparency.
• Third-party verification demand: Consumers now expect independent lab involvement (Eurofins, SGS and similar) for performance claims—brands that publish lab names and reports win trust. See our notes on third-party verification and responsible evidence sharing.
• Platform accountability: Social media platforms and marketplaces are tightening ad review for unsubstantiated health and performance claims, pushing brands to document evidence during campaigns.
• Ingredient-level scrutiny: Shoppers increasingly cross-reference ingredient concentrations and known mechanism-of-action (e.g., polymers for lash lift) on databases and PubMed-backed summaries.

The 10-point consumer checklist: verify a performance claim in under 10 minutes

Use this checklist the next time a mascara, serum, or body product uses a headline performance claim. It’s a practical, prioritized workflow you can run through before you hit “add to cart.”

1. Read the exact claim. Copy the full sentence. Is it “up to”, “average”, or an absolute? Small wording matters.
2. Look for the study link. Does the product page or press release link to a study, whitepaper or lab report? If not, flag this immediately.
3. Check the methodology. If a study is provided, skim for sample size, duration, controls, and whether testing was blinded. No method? Treat the claim as unverified.
4. Identify the test lab. Is the study performed in-house, or by an independent lab (Eurofins, SGS, Intertek)? Independent labs add credibility.
5. Assess the measurement technique. For cosmetics: were results measured by blinded reviewers, instrumental analysis (e.g., photometry) or subjective scoring? Objective, blinded methods are stronger.
6. Look for raw images/data. Before-and-after photos should disclose lighting, angles and whether images are retouched. For guidance on lighting and mini-sets for consistent photos see Audio + Visual: Building a Mini-Set for Social Shorts. Raw datasets or anonymized spreadsheets are a bonus.
7. Scan third-party reviews. Check independent reviewers, Beautypedia-style reviews, and user platforms (Influenster, Reddit, verified Amazon reviews) for consistent outcomes.
8. Check certifications. Performance isn’t the same as sustainability/certification, but seals like EWG Verified, Leaping Bunny or COSMOS indicate broader transparency practices.
9. Contact customer care. Ask for the study protocol or full report. A credible brand will either publish or send it; evasive answers are a red flag.
10. Do a quick home test. If it’s low-cost: try a single-use or sample first, check immediate results (visual volume, smudge resistance) and observe wear over 8–12 hours.

Fast-path: verify a claim in 60 seconds

1. Search the product page for “study”, “clinical”, or “method”.
2. If nothing shows, search the brand’s newsroom or press release for a study link.
3. Check independent reviews and look for consistent language about performance.

A deeper look: what strong evidence looks like (for the detail-oriented shopper)

If you care deeply about the claim—say, for a higher-priced product—look for these gold-standard attributes:

• Peer-review or independent lab report: Not necessary for every cosmetic claim, but when available, it’s the most persuasive evidence.
• Transparent methodology: Clear description of inclusion/exclusion criteria, sample demographics (age, lash length baseline), evaluator blinding, and statistical analysis.
• Representative sample: A sample that matches the product’s target market (diverse skin tones and lash types for mascara studies) and a sample size that supports statistical claims.
• Reproducible metrics: Instrumental measures (image analysis, comb-force metrics) and blinded rater scores that align.
• Duration and durability testing: Claims about long wear or water resistance should be backed by time-based testing and standardized rub or swim challenges.

Examples of transparent, trust-building brand behavior

Brands that win long-term trust generally do several things right: publish methods and data, partner with independent labs, and make it easy for shoppers to find the details. In 2025–2026 we’ve seen growing examples of QR codes on packaging linking to study summaries, and campaign microsites containing full study PDFs. These moves don't eliminate stunts, but they restore balance: attention plus evidence.

Practical at-home experiments for everyday shoppers

If you want to run simple, repeatable checks at home before you commit:

• Before/After photo protocol: Use natural light, fix your phone on a tripod, and photograph with and without the product at fixed distances and angles to judge visual claims. For tips on lighting and small-set staging see Audio + Visual: Building a Mini-Set for Social Shorts.
• Wear test: Observe smudge and flake over an 8–12 hour day and record findings—this helps validate longevity claims. Indie brands often include wear protocols in their testing; see recommended best practices for smaller brands in Advanced Strategies for Indie Skincare Brands in 2026.
• Allergy/patch test: For active products, test a small area over 48–72 hours to guard against irritation.

Reading the small print: legal and ethical considerations

Advertising bodies (like the ASA in the UK and the FTC in the US) expect claims to be truthful and substantiated. While regulatory enforcement varies, increased consumer scrutiny and platform ad-controls in 2026 mean brands can’t rely on spectacle alone. Ethical marketers align their stunt narratives with verifiable science—so the story amplifies real, documented performance. For deeper guidance on legal and ethical playbooks see the ethical & legal playbook.

When to walk away: red flags that mean “no thanks”

• No study or methods available for a big numerical claim.
• Refusal to share whether testing was independent or conducted in-house.
• Overreliance on a single influencer or stunt rather than evidence.
• Photos or testimonials that look staged or are heavily retouched without disclosure.

Case study recap: what the Rimmel stunt taught us

Rimmel’s rooftop beam routine was a marketing success: it grabbed attention, aligned with thrill-focused positioning, and created shareable content. But translating that spectacle into product trust requires follow-through: accessible testing details, independent verification and clear lab methods. As shoppers in 2026, you can appreciate the stunt—and still demand evidence before you buy.

Actionable takeaways — what you can do right now

• Use the 10-point checklist before buying any product with a headline numeric claim.
• Prioritize brands that publish methods and independent lab names.
• Try samples or single-use testers when a claim matters to your routine—sampling kits and event-ready setups are reviewed in the Weekend Stall Kit Review.
• Read multiple independent reviews to find consistent user experiences.
• Ask brands directly for study protocols—responsive transparency is a sign of credibility.

Looking forward: how brands should tell performance stories in 2026

The best brand stories now pair spectacle with science. Stunts create the emotional connection; transparent evidence converts it into trust. In 2026 we expect more brands to default to publishing methods, sharing anonymized datasets via QR codes, and partnering with independent labs. Savvy consumers will reward those brands with loyalty—and long-term value.

Final checklist (printable): the quick-verify cheat sheet

1. Is the claim “up to” or absolute?
2. Is there a linked study or lab report?
3. Who conducted the test (independent or in-house)?
4. Are methods and sample size listed?
5. Are measurement techniques objective and blinded?
6. Are images labeled and unretouched?
7. Do independent reviews corroborate the claim?
8. Are certifying seals or lab names visible?
9. Did customer service provide the protocol when asked?
10. Can you try a sample before committing?

Call to action

Ready to shop smarter? Download our printable verification checklist, or visit our curated collection of evidence-backed mascaras and body-care picks—each product page links to testing details where available. At thebody.store we back transparency: we want your purchases to feel as good as they look. Click below to get the checklist and start verifying claims like a pro.

Related Reading

• Advanced Strategies for Indie Skincare Brands in 2026: Creator Commerce, Micro‑Events, and Local Monetization
• Review: Checkout.js 2.0 — Headless Checkout for Modern Beauty Stores (2026)
• Audio + Visual: Building a Mini-Set for Social Shorts Using a Bluetooth Micro Speaker and Smart Lamp
• Vendor Tech Review 2026: Portable POS, Heated Displays, and Sampling Kits That Keep Stalls Moving
• Turning Graphic Novel Imagery into Song Lyrics: Techniques from The Orangery’s Hits
• Weekend Fan Trip: Plan a D&D‑Themed Getaway Around a Critical Role Live Event
• DIY Prebiotic Soda: Make a Low-Sugar, Gut-Friendly Sparkling Drink at Home
• How Rising Memory Costs Impact Quantum Edge Devices and Remote Readout Systems
• How to Build a 'Digital Bouncer' Evaluation Suite: Combining Security, Fairness, and UX Tests