Ultra Violette’s high-risk strategy to hit back at Choice
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.
Ultra Violette
Sally Branson
Branson was the senior press secretary for former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and advisor to senior military officials including US joint chiefs of staff. She has also guided numerous global brands and high-profile operators through various communications crises.
Ultra Violette’s decision to escalate their dispute with Choice represents a high-risk strategy, given Choice’s decades-long reputation as Australia’s trusted consumer voice. However, Ultra Violette’s demographic likely differs from Choice’s traditional readership, which may mitigate some of this risk with consumers, but perhaps not with investors and financial stakeholders. With both organisations doubling down on their positions, this conflict will ultimately test which brand has the stronger reputation buffer to withstand a prolonged public dispute.
The media’s disproportionate focus on Ultra Violette, despite other brands like Banana Boat and Cancer Council also underperforming in the testing, highlights the double-edged nature of brand success. Ultra Violette has a compelling backstory. Female founders, an Australian success story with international expansion, $15 million in New York private equity investment, and positioning as a prestige beauty brand sold in stores like Sephora. I believe this has made it a bigger target for scrutiny than traditional sunscreen brands.
Does Ultra Violette’s beauty positioning provide some buffer against sunscreen performance criticism, or does its success story simply attract more media attention? The disparity in coverage demonstrates how fickle crisis dynamics can be, that a brand’s narrative and market position significantly influence public and media response, sometimes more than the actual severity of the issue itself.
Sally Branson
Of key interest here is Ultra Violette’s leveraging their ecosystem of beauty influencers, bloggers, and TikTok creators who directly reach their core demographic. Whether organically activated or deliberately orchestrated, these stakeholders have amplified Ultra Violette’s counter-narrative, sharing annotated critiques of Choice’s testing methodology while promoting the brand’s claims of systemic issues in sunscreen testing standards.
Ultra Violette’s commitment to “turn over every stone” until they prove their position demonstrates the founders standing firmly behind their brand promise rather than retreating. Their pre-loading social media content and meeting consumers where they are digitally shows they knew this was coming and it would be a tough fight. This transparent, combative stance resonates with consumers who expect brands to fight for their reputation rather than hide from controversy.
Whilst social media provides an excellent immediate platform to communicate with stakeholders and meet the market where the market is, execution must remain elevated and professional. There should always be an element of care in both the statement and presentation, as it’s not just stories that matter—any information that’s placed and shared becomes part of your official statement and public record.
The founders have a fine line to run here, a product built on beautiful brand building and good looks, needs to now step up and show that it is more than just meets the eye.
The Choice article
Phoebe Netto
Phoebe Netto is the founder and MD of Pure Public Relations.
Ultra-Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews’s eight-minute video response to the Choice findings felt more reminiscent of a hostage plea than a strategic response. While authenticity is often a strength in brand storytelling, in crisis comms, execution matters. A cluttered background and casual clothing undermined the credibility of her message, especially for a brand that trades on premium quality. When your product integrity is in question, your presentation needs to instil trust, not raise more doubts.
The video missed the mark in several key ways. First, the tone was defensive when it should have been reassuring. Chandler-Matthews spent much of the eight-minute clip outlining Ultra Violette’s own testing process and casting doubt on Choice’s results. That is an important message, but it was the only point covered, indicating that she had lost sight of who the message was really for. She wasn’t speaking to Choice; she was speaking to her customers, many of whom were likely feeling confused, disappointed, and uncertain about whether they could still trust a brand they once relied on. In moments like this, the focus should be squarely on empathy, reassurance, and clarity. Instead, the response felt more like a chance to defend the brand rather than nurture its relationship with customers.
The irony is that if they had resisted the urge to defend themselves in this way, they would have been far more likely to emerge with their reputation intact.
The second issue is that, despite being notified of the Choice findings back in March, the response felt rushed and reactive. It’s rare for a brand to have the prescient advantage of a three-month lead time before a crisis hits, yet Ultra Violette appeared underprepared. With that kind of runway, there was ample opportunity to craft a clear, strategic message.
Phoebe Netto
The third misstep may stick with customers long after this scandal dies down. In attempting to cast doubt on Choice’s testing methods, Chandler-Matthews explained that Ultra Violette’s sunscreen is so sensitive that it can’t be decanted or exposed to certain temperatures. Rather than easing concerns, however, this may have raised a new and arguably more damaging question among customers: If it’s that fragile in a lab, how will it hold up on my skin in the sun?
Despite all these issues, choosing a founder-led video response isn’t inherently wrong, especially for a brand like Ultra Violette, which often leans on personal storytelling. But the decision to go long and unscripted handed journalists eight minutes of content to dissect. It extended the life of the controversy and made the brand the headline, while other low-rated products, like those from The Cancer Council, largely escaped scrutiny.
Even now, with a more polished written statement out, most media outlets are still quoting the original video. That’s the power (and danger) of visual content in a media crisis: it sticks.
A better approach for Ultra-Violette would have been to keep it short, composed, and customer-focused. A direct, confident statement like: “We stand by our testing, the full results are on our site, and anyone with concerns should contact our team directly,” would have gone much further.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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).
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.
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.
User ID not verified.