Why Some Cosmetic Projects Become More Expensive Even Before Formulation Begins

When a brand decides to launch a new cosmetic product, it usually focuses its attention—and its budget—on the cosmetic formulation stage. This makes sense: formula development, stability testing, safety assessments, and industrial production are the most visible phases of the process. However, in practice, many projects begin to become more expensive long before the laboratory starts formulating.

This early cost increase is one of the most common—and least anticipated—mistakes in cosmetic projects, especially among new brands, startups, or companies working with cosmetic manufacturers for the first time. Poorly planned strategic decisions, lack of initial definition, or constant changes in project direction generate a chain of costs that accumulate from the very beginning and condition the entire development process.

Most importantly, these additional costs are not always related to technical failures or poor formulation. In many cases, the problem appears before a formula even exists, during the planning, conceptualization, and project definition phase. Additional working hours, unnecessary documentation, rework, and constant adjustments end up inflating the budget without the brand being fully aware of it.

From the perspective of laboratories and cosmetic manufacturers, it is common to receive projects that already arrive “overpriced” from the starting point. Incomplete briefings, unrealistic concepts, or poorly aligned strategies force additional resources to be allocated just to realign the project before formulation even begins.

For this reason, understanding which early decisions generate premature cost overruns is essential for any brand that wants to develop a cosmetic product efficiently. In this article, we analyze why many projects become more expensive even before entering the cosmetic formulation phase, starting with one of the most decisive factors: strategic decisions made at the beginning of the project.

Strategic Decisions That Generate Early Cost Overruns

Before discussing ingredients, formulas, or manufacturing processes, every cosmetic project is built on a set of initial strategic decisions. These decisions define the scope, complexity, and feasibility of the product. When they are not made thoughtfully—or are made too hastily—they become a constant source of additional costs from the very first moment.

A common mistake is assuming these decisions are “theoretical” and have no immediate financial impact. In reality, every definition—or lack of definition—translates into additional working hours for the laboratory, cosmetic manufacturers, and other stakeholders involved.

Lack of a Clear Product Vision from the Start

One of the main triggers of early cost overruns is not having a clear vision of the product to be developed. This usually manifests in several ways:

• Overly generic or ambiguous concepts
• Constant changes in product type
• Ongoing doubts about positioning
• Continuous redefinition of the target audience
  

When a project lacks a clear direction, the laboratory is forced to work on shifting assumptions. Each change requires revisiting previous approaches, resulting in more analysis, meetings, and adjustments—even before formulation begins.

Overdefining the Project Too Early

At the opposite extreme, many projects also become more expensive due to premature overdefinition. Some brands try to lock in all details from the very beginning, without yet understanding technical or regulatory limitations.

Common examples include:

• Highly ambitious claims without prior validation
• Incompatible technical requirements
• Combining multiple benefits in a single product
• Unrealistic expectations regarding costs and timelines
  

This approach forces cosmetic manufacturers to spend time explaining why certain combinations are not feasible or require adjustments, generating rework even before cosmetic formulation begins.

Constant Strategic Changes During the Initial Phase

Every strategic change has a cost, even if it is not immediately visible to the brand. Repeatedly changing direction during the early stages of a project leads to:

• New technical evaluations
• Reassessment of regulatory approach
• Adjustments to commercial strategy
• Accumulated delays that increase overall cost
  

Some of the most common changes that generate early cost overruns include:

• Changing the product type (for example, from a cream to a serum)
• Modifying price positioning
• Redefining the main sales channel
• Expanding or reducing project scope without planning
  

Each of these changes forces the laboratory to redo part of the preliminary work, even before formulation starts.

Premature Selection of Target Markets

Defining target markets is a key strategic decision, but doing so too early—or without sufficient analysis—can significantly increase project costs from the outset.

Common mistakes include:

• Including too many markets from the beginning
• Failing to prioritize markets in phases
• Underestimating regulatory differences between countries
• Assuming one single approach will work for all markets
  

From a cosmetic formulation and documentation standpoint, the more markets included from the start, the greater the project’s complexity—even before a formula is developed.

Poorly Defined Claims and Product Promises

Claims are one of the strategic elements with the greatest impact on project cost. Poorly defined—or prematurely chosen—claims generate additional costs that appear even before formulation begins.

Examples of claims that tend to increase costs from the start include:

• Claims that require complex studies
• Promises that are difficult to support technically
• Use of regulatory-sensitive terminology
• Incompatible claims within a single product
  

Each claim directly affects cosmetic formulation, required testing, and subsequent documentation. When defined without a realistic perspective, the laboratory must invest additional time reworking or adjusting them.

Misalignment Between Strategy and Real Budget

Another key factor is the disconnect between what the brand wants to achieve and the actual available budget. This misalignment generates early cost overruns because:

• Projects are designed that later need to be simplified
• Time is spent on solutions that will never be executed
• Expectations are created that cannot be fulfilled
  

Cosmetic manufacturers often detect this issue very early, but correcting it requires additional work that adds to the project’s initial cost.

Why These Decisions Increase Costs Before Formulation

All of these strategic decisions have one thing in common: they force the laboratory to do more work before formulation begins. Even if they do not immediately translate into raw material or production costs, they do generate:

• More technical analysis hours
• More meetings and redefinitions
• Greater initial documentation complexity
• Delays affecting the overall timeline
  

When poorly managed, these decisions make the pre–cosmetic formulation phase one of the most expensive stages of the project—often without the brand realizing it.

Poorly Defined Briefings and Unnecessary Rework

One of the factors that most increases the cost of a cosmetic project even before entering the cosmetic formulation phase is the lack of a clear, well-structured briefing. Although it may seem like a preliminary and easily adjustable document, the briefing is actually the foundation on which cosmetic manufacturers build the entire technical, regulatory, and production project.

When the briefing is ambiguous, incomplete, or contradictory, the project quickly enters a cycle of constant adjustments that result in unnecessary rework, consumption of technical hours, and cumulative delays.

What Is Considered a Poorly Defined Briefing?

A poorly defined briefing is not simply a short one. In fact, many lengthy briefings also create problems if they are not well structured. Common mistakes include:

• Unclear or overly generic product objectives
• Lack of prioritization between requirements (“everything is essential”)
• Contradictory information across sections
• Constant version changes without clear criteria
• Expectations misaligned with budget or timelines
  

From the laboratory’s point of view, such a briefing forces work based on assumptions, increasing the likelihood of redoing work later.

The Hidden Cost of Rework

Every time a project is redefined—even slightly—a new work cycle is triggered. This includes:

• Technical review of the approach
• New feasibility analysis
• Adjustments to the cosmetic formulation strategy
• Review of regulatory implications
• Replanning of the timeline
  

Even when these tasks are not explicitly billed, they consume laboratory and manufacturer resources and ultimately affect the total project cost.

“Small” Changes That Generate Large Cost Overruns

One of the most common issues is underestimating the impact of seemingly minor changes. Typical examples include:

• “We just want it to feel a bit more premium.”
• “Maybe we could add one more benefit.”
• “What if we also make it suitable for sensitive skin?”
• “We’ve decided to change the target audience.”
  

Each of these changes requires revisiting the project from the ground up, even if formulation has not yet started. The result is an accumulation of early costs that the brand does not always recognize as such.

Lack of Internal Decision-Making

Another key factor is lack of internal alignment within the brand itself. When multiple stakeholders are involved without clear decision-making authority, this leads to:

• Contradictory instructions to the laboratory
• Changes in criteria at advanced stages
• Reversal of already validated decisions
  

For cosmetic manufacturers, this situation is particularly costly, as it requires constantly reanalyzing and adapting the project to new directions.

Why a Good Briefing Reduces Costs from the Start

A well-prepared briefing does not just speed up the project—it reduces costs from the earliest stage. It allows the laboratory to:

• Assess real feasibility from the outset
• Anticipate technical and regulatory risks
• Propose solutions aligned with the budget
• Avoid developments that will never be executed
  

Investing time in defining a solid briefing is one of the most cost-effective decisions a brand can make before starting cosmetic formulation.

Choosing Claims, Formats, and Target Markets

Another major source of early cost overruns is the premature—or poorly planned—selection of claims, formats, and target markets. These strategic decisions condition the entire development process and, if not handled carefully, increase project costs from the very beginning.

Claims: A Strategic Decision with Immediate Economic Impact

Claims are not just a marketing tool. From a technical and regulatory standpoint, each claim has direct implications for:

• The type of cosmetic formulation required
• The studies and tests needed
• The documentation that must be generated
• The time and cost of the project
  

Common mistakes in defining claims include:

• Choosing overly ambitious claims without prior validation
• Accumulating multiple claims in a single product
• Using regulatory-sensitive terminology
• Copying claims from other brands without assessing feasibility
  

When this happens, the laboratory must invest additional time reformulating the approach, explaining limitations, and proposing alternatives—raising costs even before formulation.

Product Formats: More Complex Than They Seem

Format selection also directly affects initial costs. Not all formats involve the same level of technical, production, and regulatory complexity.

Examples of decisions that increase costs from the start include:

• Choosing innovative formats without prior experience
• Selecting complex or poorly compatible packaging
• Failing to consider real packaging availability
• Changing format in early project stages
  

Each format determines formulation type, manufacturing process, and required validation. When the format changes after the project has started, rework directly impacts the budget.

Target Markets: Defining Less to Move Forward Better

One of the most common mistakes is trying to cover too many markets from the outset. While it may seem ambitious, in practice it often increases costs unnecessarily.

Common issues include:

• Regulatory differences between markets
• Different documentation requirements
• Claim limitations depending on country
• Need to adapt products to divergent regulations
  

Even before cosmetic formulation, each additional market adds complexity. That is why many cosmetic manufacturers recommend:

• Prioritizing markets in phases
• Designing products with progressive expansion in mind
• Avoiding oversizing the initial scope
  

The Combination of Claims, Formats, and Markets: The Real Risk

The biggest issue is usually not a single decision, but the combination of several:

• Complex claims + multiple markets
• Innovative formats + tight timelines
• High expectations + limited budget
  

When these variables are combined without realistic planning, the project starts accumulating costs from the very beginning—before the laboratory even starts cosmetic formulation.

How These Decisions Affect Initial Costs

All of these strategic choices directly impact:

• Hours of preliminary technical analysis
• Initial regulatory complexity
• Number of meetings and redefinitions
• Delays affecting the overall schedule
  

Even if they are not always perceived as “costs,” they inevitably show up in the final project budget.

The Importance of Realistic Strategic Planning

Reducing early costs does not mean oversimplifying the project—it means planning with clear criteria. Experienced cosmetic manufacturers consistently emphasize:

• Defining realistic, scalable claims
• Choosing formats aligned with project objectives
• Strategically prioritizing markets
• Aligning expectations with budget and timelines
  

When these decisions are made correctly from the start, the cosmetic formulation phase becomes far more efficient and controlled.

Regulatory Requirements and Initial Documentation: The Cost Many Brands Do Not Anticipate

One of the factors that most increases the cost of a cosmetic project in its early stages is regulatory management prior to cosmetic formulation. Many brands assume that legal requirements come into play once the product is already formulated, but the reality is very different: a large portion of regulatory work begins before the formula is even developed.

From the perspective of cosmetic manufacturers, this is one of the areas where the most budget deviations occur—especially when brands underestimate the real scope of required documentation.

What Regulation Involves Before Formulation

Before starting cosmetic formulation, laboratories and manufacturers must assess several regulatory aspects that condition the entire development process:

• Applicable legal framework according to target markets
• Cosmetic product type and classification
• Ingredient restrictions under current regulations
  
• Legal feasibility of proposed claims
• Documentation requirements associated with launch
  

This preliminary analysis requires time, technical resources, and regulatory expertise. When not accounted for from the start, costs accumulate even before a formula exists.

Initial Documentation That Generates Early Cost Overruns

Even without a formulated product, documents and analyses are already generated that have a direct economic impact. The most common include:

• Preliminary regulatory feasibility assessments
• Analysis of potential ingredients and restrictions
• Legal review of claims and commercial messaging
• Adaptation of the project to market-specific requirements
  

When these aspects are not clearly defined in the briefing, documentation often has to be redone multiple times, generating unnecessary rework.

The Impact of Target Markets on Regulatory Workload

One of the most frequent mistakes is oversizing target markets from the outset. Each additional market requires:

• Analysis of specific regulations
• Different documentation requirements
• Variations in permitted claims
• Possible adjustments to cosmetic formulation
  

From the cosmetic manufacturers’ point of view, defining too many markets from the beginning multiplies regulatory workload and increases costs even before formulation.

Claims and Regulation: A Direct Relationship with Cost

Claims do not only affect marketing—they have a direct impact on regulatory documentation. Poorly defined or overly ambitious claims may require:

• Additional studies
• Reworking of the initial concept
• Repeated legal reviews
• Changes in product approach
  

All of this generates early-stage costs that many brands fail to consider when defining their initial strategy.

Lack of Regulatory Guidance from the Start

Another common issue is failing to involve regulatory expertise from the earliest project stages. When regulation is addressed too late, brands often face:

• Mandatory changes in direction
• Removal of already developed claims
• Unplanned technical adjustments
• Delays that affect the overall budget
  

For this reason, integrating regulatory insight from the beginning is one of the most effective ways to avoid early cost overruns before cosmetic formulation.

How to Reduce Costs from the Planning Phase

The good news is that many of the costs that arise before formulation are avoidable. Reducing them does not mean oversimplifying the project, but rather planning strategically and realistically from the start.

Based on the experience of cosmetic manufacturers, the following practices are among the most effective for controlling budgets from the earliest stages.

Define a Clear, Realistic, and Prioritized Briefing

A well-structured briefing is the best tool for reducing early costs. It should include:

• The product’s main objective
• Clear priorities (what is essential and what is negotiable)
• A well-defined target audience
• A realistic indicative budget
• Coherent timelines
  

The clearer the briefing, the fewer reworks will be needed before entering cosmetic formulation.

Make Strategic Decisions in Phases

One of the most common mistakes is trying to finalize everything from the start. Phased planning allows brands to:

• Prioritize an initial market
• Define scalable claims
• Postpone non-critical decisions
• Reduce early regulatory and technical burden
  

This approach is particularly recommended for brands working with cosmetic manufacturers for the first time.

Align Expectations, Budget, and Technical Feasibility

Reducing costs does not mean asking for “more for less,” but rather aligning:

• What the brand wants to achieve
• What the budget realistically allows
• What is technically feasible
  

When this alignment exists from the start, the laboratory can propose realistic solutions without repeatedly reworking the project.

Involve the Laboratory as a Strategic Partner from the Beginning

Involving the laboratory from the earliest stages allows brands to:

• Detect risks before they generate costs
• Adjust expectations early
• Optimize the cosmetic formulation approach
• Avoid decisions that unnecessarily increase development costs
  

Experienced cosmetic manufacturers add value not only by formulating, but by helping plan the project more effectively.

Simplify Without Losing Brand Coherence

Reducing costs does not mean giving up brand identity, but avoiding unnecessary complexity:

• Fewer claims, but better defined
• Formats aligned with real objectives
• Strategically prioritized markets
  

This approach allows projects to move forward with greater budget control from the very beginning.

Conclusion: Costs Do Not Start with Formulation

One of the key lessons in cosmetic product development is that costs do not start with cosmetic formulation, but much earlier. Poorly planned strategic decisions, unclear briefings, unrealistic claims, or inadequate regulatory planning can make a project more expensive from its earliest stages—before a formula even exists.

For brands, especially those working with cosmetic manufacturers for the first time, understanding this reality is essential to avoid budget overruns and frustration during development.

Careful planning, clear definition, and early collaboration with the laboratory reduce rework, optimize resources, and help build stronger, more efficient, and more viable cosmetic projects in the long term.Because in cosmetics, many times, success—or cost overruns—are decided before formulation begins.