Ultra Violette’s high-risk strategy to hit back at Choice
June 18, 2025 11:03
This week, Choice revealed it had tested the SPF of 20 well-known Australian sunscreens, and found that just four of them met the rating on their labels.
Despite this being an industry-wise issue, one brand — the youth-focused Ultra Violette — hit out against the publication’s findings, and made themselves the centre of the story.
Below, PR experts Sally Branson and Phoebe Netto explore the fallout of Ultra Violette’s decision to put the gloves on.
You describe other products as low-rated as though they were in the same ballpark.
Ultra Violette’s score was so low they weren’t even playing the same sport.
Ultra Violette scored an SPF of 4, which presumably means people are slathering it on and still getting sunburt.
The next lowest score was SPF 24, which, as a layman, I assume does the job in 99% of cases.
If Ultra Violette is being singled out, it’s because their product is nigh on useless.
I have experience with Choice. The problem they have is that they test a wide variety of products but do not have the analytical expertise for each product.
In the current case it is surprising that so many products failed their tests indicating their results are suspect.
The scrutiny is because Ultra Violette’s sunscreen tested an SPF of 4. All the other “failed” sunscreens still had SPF values in the 20s and 30s, and would still provide effective sun protection. The focus is not disproportionate.
For those who know and follow UV’s content, seeing Ava’s ‘cluttered’ wardrobe is a recurring visual. In a crisis, having some unfamiliar polished background would reek of fake PR polish. Ultra Violet is a brand built on honesty and realness and their response to this moment has nailed those two things imo.
This whole thing smacks of a culture that still loves dragging down successful, unapologetic female founders.
Female Founders? Other brands (e.g. Cancer Council) escaped scrutiny? No. You forgot to mention that product sells at a significant premium to the other brands ($52).
Didn’t they attract the most criticism because they had the worst performing product? Testing revealed Ultra Violette to have an SPF of 4. I think that made them the lightning rod for the media, not their brand positioning.
Interesting. Very long responses for people who work in Comms. Not the concise info I would expect. Feels like they don’t understand the social audience the brand is built on. Go onto TikTok and see whose integrity is questioned. Many experts knocking choice’s testing methods. We already know the news media will pick and choose the bits that suit their headline. Does it matter tho if none of the brands actual customers never watch the news because TikTok is their primary source of all info. They are savvy to news media’s spin.