Allure magazine A lure?

Yes, that's right: my conclusion, having read the 'editor's letter' available online, is that Allure magazine is ironically simply trying to lure in the grey pound. Do they honestly abhor the concept of anti-ageing? If so, why pick Helen Mirren who has had and admitted to having work done? As far as I'm aware, she's had a facelift and no doubt has a regime of peels, fillers, botox. So, she knows how to use them in moderation to avoid us being able to ridicule her for 'chasing youth', and that, presumably, is what is being applauded.

To me this is a cynical ploy to act as though they are at the forefront of some kind of revolution. I pity anyone who falls for it... No fool like an old fool, eh?

Allure seems like one of the more intelligent woman's magazines but it often looks like it's trying too hard. Until they put non airbrushed non operated non hair extension-ed non injected women on the cover, what is their point? And in any event, let's be frank, we want to see beauty, we don't honestly want to buy a magazine with a 'people of Walmart' poster child on the cover. The simple truth of the matter is, since the dawn of time, youth and beauty, are linked. Not inextricably linked, but there is a fact: looking good once you're older than 30, takes effort. Effort may mean just eating better and drinking water and exercising. But it's certainly not the bloom of youth that comes effortlessly from being, well, in the bloom of youth.

Women over 30 hopefully have the intelligence to know that calling something "anti ageing" doesn't need to considered in the same lexicon of "anti fungal" and "anti virus" and "anti anxiety" as the editor's letter suggests. Buying a cream labelled "anti ageing" doesn't mean you wish you would die young and never age, or that you renounce all wisdom and knowledge accrued with ageing. It means, clearly understood because you're old enough and self aware enough to accept it, that with ageing comes age spots, wrinkles, uneven texture, sagging. Is there any point pretending we want these things?? Is there any point pretending that we don't want to look like we have a fantastic body, fantastic shiny hair, fantastic gleaming even-toned skin? Why create this absurd Emperor's new clothes phenomenon by claiming, after the horse has bolted (a very hasty search of past Allure covers shows that they have never been mindful before - yes, I know, they say they know they were part of the problem...) that suddenly we object to being promised a remedy to these side effects of ageing?

I believe that magazines aimed at teenagers - and more to the point - online blogs and sites and instagram and social media, are a threat to emotional well being and are dangerous. Because when you're young you're very impressionable and vulnerable.But telling a woman old enough to recognise marketing babble, that she will now no longer have to endure the term "anti ageing" is really pathetic. The magazine is not claiming to actually address the true issue: celebrating ageing in all its undisturbed damage (and it is damage, let's not be coy). They want to have their cake and eat it. They will hoodwink us by saying that they champion age, while putting a woman who's had a face lift and who is posing with an undeniably young tattooed model's arm. Why the need to enhance Mirren with this young arm, why not let the age stand alone or be enhanced, with another aged woman? To put Mirren in this setting makes the cover seem diluted and made more palatable; it seems to signal it as a gimmick and a novelty. In fact, what they ought to be doing is accepting that beauty can and does exist in every age, and there is no point in being touchy about the fact that after 45 you certainly won't have the same, ahem, allure, as someone in the 20 year old bracket. Yes, it's probably linked to fertility. Sad but why be in denial. However, an ageing face can be beautiful and inspiring by virtue of its age, with an erstwhile beauty that still shines through proudly.

 Audrey Hepburn. "I believe that happy girls are the prettiest girls"

This is not to renounce advances in science, quite the contrary. One is welcome to fight ageing with all one's finances and all one's efforts. The fight will probably be lost - who, seriously, is convinced that these fillers giving an old cheek the same volume as a young one, looks anything other than a blown up old bag? But regardless, the procedures give the patient a sense that she has done all she can and has at least tried to stem the ravages of time... Do not go gentle into that good night...

So don't treat this fight as anything other than "anti ageing" and don't just lead down to an inevitable sickening platitude or euphemism. If it's because you're ashamed to have a cabinet full of labels screaming "anti ageing", that's one thing, and if it bothered me that much I would put masking tape on it or rip the label off... but I would be no less ashamed if the label said 'plumping and smoothing' than if it said 'anti ageing'. If it's because you genuinely think "anti ageing" is an insult, then why not just stick to a slathering of vaseline when your skin feels tight, and let ageing take its unabated course. By 'plumping' for that plumping cream, you've admitted this is a fight against ageing. You're old enough to accept this without a cynical ploy by a magazine taking payments from these companies and taking photo-shopped images from plastic surgery celebrities who swear on paper that this is down to healthy eating. To force brands to rename creams just to spare your feelings?! How about they say they'll no longer run adverts for anti ageing creams unless the celebrity is actually ageing? Or unless the celebrity is actually ageing without surgical intervention? Hmm well that is a step too far, evidently.

Beauty Dupe

Thanks to a throwaway comment on a blog I follow, I learned of the recent mumsnet furore. Off I went to read it (naturally.) I don't spend much time on mumsnet, indeed my mumsnet knowledge thus far had been limited to the historic "penis beaker" episode. I found the thread fascinating (ahem, talking about the beauty thread now...) it was originally titled something regarding Caroline Hirons as the whole chat had been triggered by an innocent reader asking whether the blog posts had been sponsored or not. A character named Iamnina had proceeded to spill the beans. Allegedly, this Nina works in PR and had an axe to grind. Soon enough the bloggers being discredited got wind of this mumsnet thread, and in addition to the usual outrage and denial, they have apparently managed to get mumsnet to not only edit the title of the thread, but also completely delete every post by Iamnina and no doubt ban her. I find these draconian tactics really repellent and as I had been toying with the idea of writing a post, this made my mind up.

I wish I'd copied and pasted every post by Iamnina. I had actually thought at the time that I should do it, but I decided: I don't blog anymore - what's the point? If anyone reading this has a copy then do please get in touch and I'll incorporate her points here, hopefully blogger is a safe platform (cue MI5 suspenseful music.) And, reader I know you guessed it, as this is such a hackneyed tale, but one of the reasons I stopped blogging was because it had started as a hobby and then it became a duty. I was beginning to get sent products. Getting what feels like "presents" tumbling through your letter box every day is very different to documenting what you spend your own clutched pennies on. Knowing your blog post will be read by the PR who sent you the "present" and might get angry or upset, or told off by their boss, all because of your post... It's nothing like a blog anymore. Not that getting samples was unpleasant, far be it for me to imply, as I have read many times - that getting samples is a chore/ or a workload/ tiring - or anything like that. But all the same, it does constrain you; it gives the whole enterprise a different spin. My relationship to beauty (I am a dinosaur for saying this) was ambling over to the beauty counters, chatting to my friends (erm, I mean, the beauty counter staff) and seeing the posters and the shiny new display cases and picking out the delectable new treats. Then testing them, either loving my new purchases, or feeling angry that I'd wasted my money. And the blog would be the channel within which to record these innocuous findings.

This is what beauty blogs and YouTube channels were in those days... I'm harking back to 2007 or so. Now the popular channels and blogs are to be viewed with suspicion and there is an 'us' and a 'them' which didn't exist at the outset. I remember Zoella's blog when she wrote about working in a post office. Every entry was her little Superdrug haul or her Primark haul, or so it seemed to me (I was not a regular follower but such was the gist at the time.) Incidentally, I find it amusing that bloggers and youtubers call their PR spoils a "haul". Although far nearer the mark than they intended, the general understanding of a haul is that which they have bought themselves. But this is a side note. Of course the legacy of these humble beginnings is mercilessly and unnaturally sustained, and naive youngsters do still think of the content as independent. But a long time ago, the puppet masters arrived to take the reins. The only bloggers and YouTube popular channels who can afford to be truly independent, well, that's the word: afford. They have to be rich (£200 serums and £35 lipsticks do take their toll) either from their own pockets or from the adverts on their sites which pay by the sheer scale of readership or viewing figures and not by the content as such. As Iamnina put it, ironically these adverts allow the content maker to be independent.

But the real money comes from the euphemistic "consultancy fees". What is it that the brands consult bloggers about, what mystery? As with all Law ('the Law is an ass') there follows a loophole. And here is the loophole to the FTC. As the mumsnet discussion made clear, to any untainted mind, 'reviewing' a product and taking a consultancy fee for, mais bien sur, a wholly unrelated consultation, is quite clearly a conflict of interest. There isn't any need to expand on such an obvious point.

When the FTC first came to upset the party, many blogs and youtubers (I would say the very ones who are now at worst fault) would put resentful, falsely jesting disclaimers. Something along the lines of: 'These were sent to me by little fairy elves at X brand towers but they didn't put a gun to my head, I just happen to absolutely love these products and I wouldn't lie to you my lovely cherry buns as you're the ones I answer to not them!' Occasionally they would adopt a more hostile jokey demeanour, well how can I pastiche or better the eponymous Caroline Hirons who was criticised on the mumsnet thread for her advice after just such a disclaimer, to "chill your tits." Making light of the product being sent for free, to my mind, was never a solution. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting samples, but trivialising the disclaimer is almost akin to an admission of guilt. Misplaced guilt, but still guilt - aggressively defensive.

Iamnina's posts laid bare all the agency business dealings.Blogger and YouTube stars know their worth and will not allow brands a free ride (and hurrah for that!) but to keep their audience on side, they have to pretend to not know their worth. They have to apologise for new houses, new handbags, new noses and breasts. They have to pretend or at least force friendships in line with who belongs to their agency. British Beauty Blogger piped up with characteristic journalistic nous, why don't you write a few posts on my site and see what it's really like! Iamnina scathingly told her that she was not referring to mid tier but to what were the select few bona fide "influencers": Bloggers and YouTube stars who can merely allude to a product for it to sell out instantly. I think she also meant by implication, blogs with less discerning readership. In other words, young impressionable minds who are made to feel that if they don't buy this then they have forfeited their allegiance.

What made me a blogger, and I dare say all the original early bloggers and YouTube hosts, at that point all ignorant of the freebies - let alone wealth and fame and privilege that now can be reached (I nearly said 'achieve', but frankly some of those terribly written blogs and some YouTube channels which have to lay bare every tiny detail, and to my mind are mind numbing, I don't consider enviable or worthy of the term...) - well what made us want to engage with an audience, was a camaraderie. For its own sake. Sharing favourite makeup purchases and saying why other makeup was horrid. Now nothing is without repercussion. The makeup has a PR person who is a new friend. What would happen to her if I slate the product? Will she be blamed and I'll have ruined her day? Or more accurately perhaps, it's the agency PR who is the friend, or more than friend, the employer? We, the audience, become the gift to this new friend. We are the currency for the friend who can open doors, doors not only to new makeup and dresses and plastic surgery and anything in between ("pah! chicken feed!") but holidays and all sorts of bonuses which lead to real opportunities.

One of the accusations which this Iamnina levelled, was that charities have big budgets. She added a wink face emoji to intensify this point. This must have touched a nerve because some bloggers at this point became incensed. (Sali Hughes I believe, but I didn't read her rebuttal which she linked to on mumsnet, because I found her tone very patronising and unduly harsh.) I know charities do have budgets and pay huge salaries (but this is another tirade entirely which I shall not fall into) so it's not incredible to assume some blogger charity posts are indeed paid for. It's not very nice to think of a post which talks about losing friends or family members and beseeches the reader to go and donate generously, all whilst the post has been paid for. But such is the world and it's become a case where unless expressly written "I waived a fee for this post and I have never consulted with their company or affiliated brands" we can't be chastised for assuming they have! Anyhow, this is the way the world works - if you think celebrities advising us where to put our meagre pennies aren't being paid themselves, or benefiting from the exposure for their own ends, then that's something you should really wake up to. It might be sad or cynical but that's capitalism for ya. In fact these people truly believe that their fee is merely a token, and they are still being very charitable... Later posts came and said perhaps this Iamnina was a charlatan. But each Iamnina post had had the unmistakeable ring of truth. Not only that, but she predicted every blogger retaliation; every move just as if these bloggers were robots. 

Successful bloggers and YouTube channels need to start representing themselves as what they really are: a business. No longer, a girl next door. This doesn't mean they lose their value. Although to an extent, that is what happens in that they dissociate. But in theory they could continue to be useful. Instead of being a like minded consumer, they could become a reference library and you choose the voice you feel resonates with you. The trouble is, with everyone's pay packet at risk, they all inevitably sing from the same hymn sheet at the same time, so pick one you've picked them all. Their original voice has been quashed. In this agency led tribe war system, the only way to be independent is to have faith to just allow the ad revenue to fund you and continue your own purchasing and reviewing, and hope the brands in turn feel that regardless of bad reviews they might get, not to be featured on your blog is an unimaginable offence. But for a real millionaire lifestyle, I suspect that only a seasoned agency with all the right contacts can get you there. Bloggers and YouTube hosts have become amazingly proficient at social media so who knows how long a middleman will be needed? Although every PR seems to be interconnected; one wrong move can provoke a domino effect. Presumably an agency limits such blunders. And there is always the thinly veiled suspicion that your appeal can be obliterated overnight, so better to invest via a puppet master who can keep you on the leash and avoid any ill advised opinions or photos and such.

I remember buying a highlighting powder on the recommendation of a YouTube video. It had been sent to them for free and I realised that implicitly, but I didn't think that had to compromise them. Well, the powder was horrible and chalky. The betrayal was genuinely upsetting. A pleasure in reading blogs and watching videos, is the unbridled contempt for a poor performing product. With freebies, or even more deceptively, gift vouchers, if a product isn't good, and if the blogger is 'honest', we just won't hear about it. It won't do to criticise a freebie after all. And arguably, it isn't quite right to criticise something if you didn't suffer paying for it. Reading a very measured criticism which hastily recommends another same brand product, is almost as bad as not having mentioned it. It's this guarded, measured and bland reporting which we'd celebrated blogs for avoiding. No more shall I buy magazines, we had all chanted jubilantly. Well, as the adage goes, the revolution eats its own children.

Round up Beauty thoughts

I have several ideas but usually they are not enough to justify a post in themselves, so I thought I would try out a round-up post and see how it goes...?

First up, those Chanel ads - how odd to have a man (ok no not "a man", I mean, Brad Pitt) fronting a women's fragrance. It has always been obvious that women could be used in adverts to sell a man's fragrance (or anything else) but it seemed clear that to sell to women we want to be enticed by a woman promising us an equal beauty to hers', if only we were to whip our credit card out for said item. But now, I guess in a classic case of post feminism, we too have the experience of being seduced for our purchase. These clips are the closest most of us will ever get to being chatted up by Brad Pitt, and I have to say I think it's a great ploy. Well worth his reputed $7M fee. It doesn't matter that what he's saying makes no sense, he is mesmerising, who is listening to him anyway?? Chanel No.5 really is legendary (in large part thanks to Marilyn Monroe's famous quip when asked what she wore to bed.) Chanel have made a video, somewhat bombastic and garish but describing its history (watch it here.) Personally I would probably still prefer Chanel's green bottle fragrance but I think it's ingenious to have the tagline "Inevitable" as there are plenty of clueless men buying their women fragrance or even women who don't know what they're supposed to like, so I am pretty sure Chanel No5 will indeed become an inevitable purchase and the campaign is bound to do amazingly well.

Seeing as I mentioned Marilyn Monroe, and seeing as MAC currently has their Marilyn Monroe collection out, I thought I would recommend a biography I just read - highly recommended if you are besotted with Marilyn Monroe as so many are. It is by Sarah Churchwell and called 'The Many Lives of Marilyn Monroe.' It is very academically written and examines the various theories surrounding her. It also goes some way to explaining why Marilyn Monroe still to this day, more than half a century after her death, seems so modern and fresh and is still used as the benchmark for confident alluring females from Madonna to Gwen Stefani and various Hollywood actresses in between, who would all hope to be today's equivalent. In her day Marilyn Monroe was a subject for ridicule: her wobbly walk lent itself to comedies and the real seductive actress du jour was Liz Taylor. But when Hugh Hefner launched his career and sealed his future by buying and exposing Marilyn Monroe's nude photographs (she had posed nude whilst still a 'struggling actress') Marilyn Monroe refused to deny they were of her as her studio would have preferred, and instead admitted they were and simply absorbed the extra attention without allowing it to provoke shame. On the other hand, many feminists argue that by adopting the pre-war persona of humble, hapless and doting hourglass woman, she plunged women back into their former place. She had a very bizarre mix of naive openness and cunning wit. To take the Chanel quote above for instance, Marilyn Monroe explained that this was a way to avoid saying naked but that she didn't know why they would be asking her anyway. And the seemingly retrospective attitude of thinking of Marilyn Monroe as a tragic figure was already in place in her lifetime; every authorised biography made sure to reference her childhood in an orphanage and the studio loved her Cinderella tale. But the book is also objective enough to recount her flaws and ultimately it seems more than likely that her drug taking and overdose was all a part of her disorganised state rather than a murder or even a deliberate cry for help let alone suicide. We will never know the truth and that is one part of why her image never tires. Even her mole has become a cypher to her legend. As such, let me say that MAC'S hideous packaging really is an insult! It is good that they found a photograph not gernerally known as it does escape pastiche, but the black and red looks lazy and we all know Marilyn Monroe would never have carried that gaudy packaging around... However the colours did seem pretty accurate. Personally I hardly wear red lipstick (too ageing) so I found it an easy collection to resist. By the way, the unbelievably famous white dress (valued at £3M) from 'The Seven Year itch' film is going to be on show in London for the first time.

And finally in my roundup, do you recall the slave earrings? Well the Guardian and Telegraph  say this time it is an Aunt Jemima looking print dress and earrings at Dolce & Gabbana (spring/summer 2013 collection) causing an outcry. The irony is that if this black image was a black woman with european features, i.e small nose and subtly plump lips, this would probably have gone unremarked. I see countless dresses and earrings featuring white women or ethnic women prints - but apparently having a typical black featured woman is racist. It is very sad that showing a black face and having it modelled by a white model is taken as derogatory. If it were a black model I am not sure if it would be attacked even more, or whether in that context it might be taken as celebratory?
 
 
 images: Style.com, PHOTO: Vladimir Potop; Rex Features.

Fashion Weak

As fashion week is upon us I was vaguely musing on the latest enfant terrible Marc Jacobs, who has once again stirred up the issue of child images used to entice invariably older adults. It is hard to feel sorry for beautiful people who earn their fortune through not mental prowess, but purely through their blessed genetics - yet as they are treated as 'independent contractors' and are routinely fleeced by their agents, and spend their days being tossed about like rag dolls - perhaps one should. The Marc Jacobs designs looked like they had the capacity to turn anyone over 25 into an instant old lady, so possibly, selecting a couple of teenagers was essential? It seems to me to be a tacit way of ensuring the emaciated scrawny flat-chested look without actively risking the model's ill health - as those 'objectionable parts' simply have not developed yet.

In a similar way, big lips are great but they often come with big noses - and that will not do. Big breasts often come with big hips and thighs but that will not do. So we are in a position where very young plumped faces with scrawny bodies are offered in the form of underage models (who will soon grow out of this ratio) and plastic surgery whereby your big lips can stay but trim the nose to a slither. And you can diet and exercise to get slim hips and thighs, but be sure to get bulbous round (but never drooping) breasts to establish your femininity in a swift motion. There is nothing wrong with setting the bar high to strive for virtually impossible beauty, but representing outright fake or misleading beauty as attainable is just so depressing and misguided. For the first time in decades women have the license to have curves, by seeing Kelly Brook, Kim Kardashian, JLo, Beyonce and Rhianna as templates. However for a high fashion and sophisticated image these do not qualify at all.

Is it wrong to see teenagers modelling clothes that they are not the target audience of? Perhaps not, in terms of them making the choice (if they conclude that dropping out of school to cash in on their youthful money maker face, that is a choice and should not be over-dramatised to equate to slavery) but, more prosaically, it is wrong because it is insulting to grown women, who know that young bloom is gone forever and no amount of botox and blusher can ever quite compete. Personally I would like an age minimum to be enforceable because I think there is something weirdly unhealthy about having prospective women customers basing their purchases on young under-developed teenagers...

Here's a video of the Vivienne Westwood makeup behind the scenes for more:



Whilst on the subject of fashion week, if you plan to attend London Fashion Weekend which sounds fun, don't forget to use quote 'Glossybox' for 15% off. [See my February glossybox review here (link.)]

A Brand: new make up identity

I want to briefly talk about the importance of branding, again. A product is a faceless void until it is named, defined and marketed. On the other hand, if a product is under-defined yet still dazzling, it won't take long before word gets out and it is defined and marketed for them, in effect, by make-up artists and consumers who leak it via the network of blogs and forums.

The first "Brand film" Illamasqua commissioned supposedly shed light on their roots. In truth, it left me more confused than before - I always knew there was some manufacturing link between the wonderful Kryolan, and Illamasqua - yet this film implied they were one and the same... hmm, Kryolan lipstick £6; Illamasqua £15? And although I appreciated the film's potted history, I didn't like the way it glamorised smoking, which I think in this day and age should never be allowed. However I have just seen their new film titled "Vicky & Vic" which is a rather more light-hearted way of explaining what they mean by an 'alter ego'. Vicky McClure looks equally fantastic as a blonde or with jet black hair, and is a very charismatic actress for the company to have. Illamasqua have steadily crafted a real brand image and know their target.

On the other hand, Sleek makeUP was apparently initially devised for dark skinned makeup fiends to have a high street specialised option. Indeed, there was a huge gap in the market. Soon enough though, the blog world learned about these cheap and highly pigmented options, and Sleek was seized upon by all. To commemorate their newly acquired 20,000 "likes" on Facebook, Sleek tantalised their fans with promises of a huge "50% off Bonanza". They had a daily countdown, then proceeded to admit they had forgotten their offer, and got the day wrong, and generally gave a very, ahem, shall we say "human" face to the brand.

Riddled with errors, and inundated with angry and confused comments on their Facebook wall, the whole offer culminated in the code not even working. Knowing (since such was the cause of the offer, afterall) that they had so many eager fans, it seemed ludicrous that the website crashed and was unresponsive - and then, when it finally did 'work', as soon as the code went in, the basket was emptied. Only the most dogged customers stood a chance of getting their order by sheer force of luck and determination. As for myself, after 2 hours of filling and re-filling my cart, I gave up and simply emailed the company my list and asked them to process it from there. My email was ignored and today after a couple of weeks grace, I phoned. It seems my order will not be honoured, and Sleek are blaming SagePay for the fiasco. I have been told that there will be another sale soon, however when I asked them if it would only benefit those who could persevere all day long with a dodgy website, I was given no guarantee that anything had changed. All this means is that their fantastic and kind gesture to reward their staunchest fans, has simply antagonised many.

What is the best way to invest in your fan base? Offers that are not manifested are surely best avoided altogether. It seems that Illamasqua's level headed way of ploughing their prizes into creative contests is a far more effective approach. However for people who love makeup but make no pretence at being a makeup artist, this is not a universal reward. I think when a brand recognises a loyal customer, it should be like going to a coffee shop or hairdresser, you amass tokens which can ultimately be traded in for a freebie. MAC has realised this and has its 6 empties "recycling" programme. Whether this is mainly for recycling or for customer retention is a moot point but the result is the same: people like to be valued, and people love freebies and discounts. If you are going to create a following for a new makeup range, it must be managed well and appeal to all. Concentrating too hard on creative flamboyance risks alienating neutral makeup fans, and promising too much to all merely risks disappointing many.

MAC RODARTE: HUMBLE PIE GALORE

With the backlash so ferocious, MAC and Rodarte have done the ultimate right thing. As Temptalia reports, "In response to public concern over the limited edition MAC Rodarte makeup collection, set to launch in fall 2010, MAC will donate all of its global profits from this collection to a newly created initiative to raise awareness and provide on-the-ground support to the women and girls in Juarez. MAC and Rodarte are deeply sorry that this makeup collection was so offensive to the people of Mexico and concerned global citizens."

I am relieved not to be addressed as "fans and consumers" - now it is the far more austere "global citizens". Good. What is clear from this fiasco is that MAC's PR have made a bungled job of this, and MAC and Rodarte came across very badly. If only there had been clarity from the start! In contrast to MAC's very forthright apology and commitment, Rodarte seem to emerge rather unconvincingly: “Rodarte is committed to using creativity for positive social change. As designers, we strongly feel it is our responsibility to use ideas and actions for the good of our global community and are truly sorry for the offense we have caused. We are raising our voices in support of the strong women and girls of Juarez and joining others who are working internationally to improve their lives,” said Kate and Laura Mulleavy, designers of Rodarte. (my italics)

The main thing is, buyers do hold the cards, and we make the decisions. Thanks to blogs, buyers have a clear and resounding voice. MAC have realised that with so many buyers threatening to boycott MAC altogther, this concession was a small price to pay. Hopefully the money, as implied, will be coordinated by those who really can make a difference, and not fall into the hands of corrupt officials. I would also like to think that bloggers will now encourage MAC to make this charity collection idea more than just a one-off to silence the critics. I want to think that this will be a regular new pattern. Awareness of the issues has spread far and wide, and sales will generate yet more advantages.

I am relieved to hear that the names and marketing is being changed, making the apology more wholesome. However with so many bloggers remarking on the "blood dripping" eyeshadow and "pale dead lipsticks" etc, will they really be able to wash their hands clean this easily?

What's in a name?

 "So I'm thinking "Deep Throat", "Sex", "Orgasm", "Milf" and I'll just finish it off with this "Lube in a Tube" 

With NARS having lampooned makeup names with "Orgasm", "Super Ogamsm" and "Deep Throat", and Benefit following the trend with "Throbb", Soap and Glory's "Glow Job", Urban Decay's "Lube in a Tube", not to mention Illamasqua's litany of crude names: "Phallic" (a dark blue nail polish, so not even a logical name, at least one would hope not),"Fetish" (a blue lipstick, perhaps this is a clue??),"Welt", "Milf", "Climax"... What would it take to shock us now? Nothing short of the F bomb, or the C word, or a combination thereof, before we would flinch. But wait, here's some unchartered territory: how about tragedy and violence? Yes Ellis Faas introduced her so-called "Human colours" theory, and Illamasqua have both a "victim" and "Sadist", but apparently MAC have gone one better.

The criticism has so cut to the bone that both MAC and Rodarte have issued statements, and MAC has decided it had better give some of the profits to help.

The latest MAC collaboration takes inspiration from Mexico, and isolates Juarez as the perfect name for a "bright opal pink" nail polish. Juarez is notorious as a hotbed of drug dealing, violence and corruption.
"According to tallies at the respected Ciudad Juarez daily El Diario, June was the bloodiest month yet with 306 deaths and July could surpass that total, with more than 130 deaths over the past 13 days." In addition to its drug wars, there have been hundreds - possibly thousands of murders, young women working in the local factories, killed for sport. This video gives some inkling of the entrenched violence that pervades the area.

Rodarte, the fashion label owned by sisters Kate and Laura Mulleavy, have used the town as inspriration for their clothes.
"Before their show, the sisters explained that a long drive from El Paso to Marfa, Texas, got them thinking they might like to explore their Mexican roots. From there, they became interested in the troubled border town of Ciudad Juárez; the hazy, dreamlike quality of the landscape there; and the maquiladora workers going to the factory in the middle of the night. And that, according to the designers, who certainly know how to romance a pitch, led to this conclusion: They'd build a collection off the idea of sleepwalking."

You know what? The beauty blogging world have had the knee-jerk reaction of condemning the use of an impoverished and traumatised town, exploited for a fashion line - or worse, a makeup line! - but I have to tentatively disagree. Looking at the collection, it is clear that the sisters have genuinely absorbed the atmosphere and distilled the misery and beauty of the area. They transcend the stereotype of Juarez and come out with a haunted, stifled beauty. In an age where we are hardened to news articles reporting death (in fact just yesterday in Juarez drug hitmen killed 17 at a party), not to mention troops being killed in Afghanistan; suicide bombs; crazed gunmen - these reports and the language become hackneyed. Until the context is misappropriated, then, suddenly, our senses come alive.

Perhaps MAC and Rodarte were oblivious to the outrage they stirred. Perhaps MAC thought Viva Glam gave them carte blanche. But I think both deliberately set out to achieve a social commentary, they just misjudged their audience. In fashion, where Alexander McQueen and countless others already paved the way for fashion to be allowed to reference tragedy and death and any issue which inspires, makeup is not afforded the same lenience. It appears makeup is not allowed to be as complex as fashion: makeup is its poor, simple sister, merely there to be pretty or flatly artistic. I refute this, and moreover I welcome makeup houses to step away from the tired sexual double-entendres.

Of course both Rodarte and MAC are businesses, and there is an undeniable edge of exploitation. This would have been eliminated if at the outset the collection had been introduced as a charitable project. It appears neither realised that they had to justify their inspiration. But the fact still remains, that we are all now aware of this sorrowful town.

The collection itself looks wonderful for pale skins, and I also think the ghostly and sad promo image is fitting. Juarez is not the only part of Mexico that Rodarte could have found when searching for their heritage, but that place affected them and they used their artistic senses to translate the emotion. Pretty pictures are all very well, but sometimes it is only by searching into the abyss that you can find depth of beauty.





I applaud MAC for forcing us "consumers" to realise there is a whole world beyond that lipgloss. Life would be great if every makeup brand took on a current global issue, named its products after it, and gave a portion to charity. And to those who compare this to calling a lipstick after a concentration camp, that is hugely offensive. Firstly for the scale: there is no comparison; but fundamentally, because this issue is a live one, that can be helped via campaigns and raising awareness. I will be buying from the collection because it looks pretty, and because some of it goes to charity, and because it has made me THINK.

////////////////////////////

20/07/10 ///STOP PRESS/// UPDATE:

MAC and Rodarte released a further statement. See Temptalia for details. I must say I find it patronising to be repeatedly addressed as "consumers and fans", as if MAC is a cult or tribe...? Evidently MAC assumed that their name was synonymous with equality and charity, so much so that they didn't remotely forsee the backlash. It must have been sobering for MAC to be greeted with people declaring they would NOT be purchasing! The PR statements have unfortunately given credence to the fear that this was an insensitive error, and not that it is us consumers who misunderstood them... I do like to think that this is PR damage limitation, doing what they have judged that we want to hear - and that in fact we did misunderstand them, afterall. It will be shrouded in mystery now, anyway.

The decision to give a bulk sum ($100,000) is either brave or stingy, depending on who you ask. I think, again, it is damage limitation - to throw out an impressive round number like that, and not alienate those who swore they would boycott the collection. In any event, this makes the collection a charity one to some degree, and that is a good result.

However, if none of the names make it, surely the charity link becomes ostracised? What has been shown is undeniable: unfortunately, tragic events can colonise the evocation of a place or time, and some things should be treated with dignity. Calling a mint polish by that name - really was offensive to many. Time will tell whether the whole collection takes on a different tone. Because if they keep that misery-drenched image of a model haunted by a ghost, well, people will remember the outrage afresh. For the sake of a clean sheet now that MAC and Rodarte have made a big show of bowing to popular demand, they ought to re-evaluate the whole concept of a deathly pale, gaunt, black eyed woman enticing us to buy a pale lipstick....

(Lucky MAC come up with collections nineteen to the dozen, soon this will all be forgotten.)

Selling your swag

BritishBeautyBlogger has lombasted the elephant in the room: How do we feel about our favourite bloggers and YouTube hosts appealing to us to buy their unwanted makeup? And how do the PRs feel about the free swag being turned into gold (well, ok, £4.26 before ebay fees.)

I think one of the reasons the post has received so many responses is, I would hazard a guess, that some people there protest too much...???

I stopped following a lovely person because the only posts were sales. Not that there was anything wrong with it, but (a) By the time I saw them, a milion had people had already claimed it, and (b) It was boring. However, fundamentally, the price was right, and I saw nothing ethically wrong with it - even if I could never be sure if it was bought or given originally. I do however think it is stupid to sell something marked sample, and let alone pre release; and I definitely think it's rude to your readers to sell something that they know you got for free. (And often recommended they go out and buy!) I also think it undermines the camaraderie of blogging to sell LE items at an inflated price - that's what ebay is for, if you must.

It is easy to see the attraction of selling on a blog - directly to beauty enthusiasts who might otherwise not happen to search for it on ebay, plus you get to avoid the heavy ebay fees. From a buyer's point of view, ideally I would see it as a chance to let someone (a virtual friend) try your product for a bargain. If it is for charity, all the better. However the post was geared toward the pure pursuit of making a quick buck.

In my opinion, beauty blogging in particular, is crowded out with rubbishly written, misspelled and fake bloggers. People who in real life would possibly shun you, let you into their world, and you relish the chance, although it's hollow. Many readers don't mind if a review is poorly structured and riddled with spelling and grammer mistakes... perhaps it even makes it more appealing, as it's not too lofty... Personally, I don't enjoy those. If PRs are simply going in for the "numbers game" without considering whether the blogger has integrity, then it really shouldn't shock anyone if occasionally they do see their samples surface on blog sales and ebay. Indeed I would imagine that PRs are used to their samples being sold off by even the most prestigious publications. I reckon the greatest ire comes from the fact that BLOGS ARE NOT MAGAZINES. No, blogs are NOT replacing magazines, they are eternally associated with a friendly fellow beauty addict, who isn't hawking their wares. Who is trustworthy and dependable and not vulnerable to corruption, because afterall, it's just a harmless hobby. However hard the lines get blurred, the fact that blogs have a homely immediacy means they have to walk the line. With a magazine, I think a poorly paid intern can be forgiven for selling off a LE Guerlain compact; but with a blogger who voluntarily set up a blog, ostensibly to showcase their love for beauty products - well in that scenario, selling a LE Guerlain compact that they were lucky to get as a sample - it's unforgiveable. 

I have often mentioned in passing how annoying it is for me to see makeup sales that are either selling at a premium or selling former proclaimed "must-haves"; but I never thought it was worthy of its own post. PRs must know it goes with the territory, and as for bloggers privileged enough to get freebies, if they can't act honourably one can only hope that they are known to the PRs who can then decide whther to deal with them again. PRs are not auditioning for Judgment Day, so I would not be surprised if, let's say, they found a key player in the blog world, who gave them tons of exposure but then sneaked off to ebay with their loot, continued to be indulged. It was a post worth doing for BritishBeautyBlogger, if only to put the scare into unscrupulous and insulting behaviour on the part of whoever it was... let's hope it works... But on the other hand, this knowing (and cliquey, as it implies a select few knowing) whispered witch hunt merely puts everyone on edge: who is the rotten apple in our midst?

I am not sure it is bad to sell your surplus makeup, but discretion is essential. If it says sample, perhaps best leave it as a gift; if it hasn't launched yet, perhaps wait. But once it's given to you, yes it is yours, so I don't think it's quite sinful to sell... just best not to, if only for your own conscience. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS. I have a load of Make Up For Ever lipglosses I bought way too many backups, I really want to sell them but have never had a blog sale and feel queasy even considering it. How do you feel about blog sales? I am interested to know, how do blog readers feel about blog sales???

Reviewing Gurus

It's nothing new to speculate as to the ethical implications of a popular guru advising their minions to go buy a fabulous new item, yet here we are again. This article in the New York Times , crudely titled "Look What I Bought (or Got Free)" has exposed the trend further. 

The tone of the article is rather derogatory, as in this segment describing the narrative of a "haul":

“If you follow me on Twitter, you know I was Twittering about my dilemma,” she said earnestly to her audience. “Should I get the gray or should I get the black?” She held up a pair of black Uggs. Mystery solved.

Recently when the somewhat notorious "Elle" and "Blair" featured on Good Morning America, the TV hosts concluded, "Did I hear it right, this young girl had to quit school because she's so busy shopping?!" (this comment provoked ire from Blair, in the only video I've seen of hers, where she responded - but also included outtakes where she spoke about "putting on her voice" and how "no, I can't say that or they'll think..." which ironically added credence to the accusation of the sisters as a business enterprise controlling a huge, dumb audience.)

Celebrities front ad campaigns all the time (just ask disgruntled models!) but I don't think anyone accepts that a YouTube celebrity is afforded the same luxury. Whereas when Eva Longoria fronts a L'Oreal home dye we all know there is hardly a more unlikely scenario than her dyeing her own hair at home, with plastic gloves on - when a YouTube guru does the same pitch, we accept it as genuine. Afterall, invariably the reason a YouTube personality is embraced by so many, is because of their 'homeliness'.

So when emails were leaked (linked in the NYT article) which revealed the fact that once a Guru is popular, an agent will come along and poach them, and demand money for reviews... we feel betrayed. FTC rules only go so far; there is no reveal of how much consideration is given, let alone any bribes/"gifts".

The article speaks of a trend for "haulers" and avoids the heart of the makeup community, which is arguably makeup tutorials. The beauty community is described as having been fully absorbed into a shallow hauling frenzy. Perhaps it has, and perhaps, as the article suggests, it is a tonic for these recession hit times, "a voyeuristic thrill: seeing how other people spend money". 

I am unfamiliar with any of the Gurus profiled by the NYT, except Lauren Luke, who they describe as: "a role model to many haulers (she parlayed her YouTube videos into a career as a makeup artist with her own product line and TV show)". This does her a huge disservice, as she is in fact a prime example of a Guru who has got to her exalted position purely through tutorials.

I know the beauty community is insular, and we bond because we know most people would mock the way a certain tone of lipstick can make our day (!), but even so, I feel upset to see how the article denies any scope of intelligence, as it sums up: "Then she caught herself with a philosophical thought, which seems to be a rarity among haulers. 'When is it going to be enough stuff?' "

But some of the videos I watch are very articulate and informative. It's a shame to see the dumb airhead stereotype being reinforced like this. Having said that, dozens of Gurus enjoy nothing more than to be called Barbie, they revel in the shallowness. But in the main they do it self-effacingly and for effect, right? Right?? (just hope so.)

And if you can harness such a huge audience and companies approach you for a review, why should the company get away with free publicity? Some Gurus can rival a TV show audience, and what's more, an audience saturated with admiration and trust. So, in many ways, it is unfair that companies balk at paying for a spotlight review! On the other hand, viewers feel personally affronted to see that an honest review is inevitably compromised once sums change hands. Making money by becoming a partner is fine, making money with your own TV show, makeup line, T Shirt selling, website... all fine. But undermining the integrity of your channel is surely very different. Perhaps they could set up a different channel for paid reviews, would that be a solution? 

It is a fine line, and it's hard to argue that if your position allows you to cream off money with endless reviews, you wouldn't take it. YouTube is an unknown quantity, relatively new. Will a major Guru always retain their power or will it fade away? Should one seize the free money and assume that viewers should rely on their own judgement, 'a fool and their money, and so on?'

It is a tricky situation. I have been watching makeup videos for a while, and there is an argument to say that the mass of haul videos and review videos have corrupted YouTube. The Partnership programme has corrupted YouTube. But everything gets commercialised. 

Luckily when a blog or YouTube personality gets a great reputation, they can be loath to lose it. "Reputation, reputation, reputation! O, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial!"  Temptalia is the clearest example. As a long-standing blog resource, it has set its own pace and tone and is never compromised. I am grateful that when I'm considering a purchase, I can go there for an objective analysis. And the brands continue to send products whatever the review, because any self-respecting beauty company knows, blogs are the lifeblood of a true beauty consumer, and the only thing worse than being trashed, is being ignored.

I would like to review more makeup, but reviews take time and ultimately can lead to sales, so if it can be a gifted product, I would see no harm at all. And luckily many successful reviewers go by that maxim. I wish articles and news segments would focus more on well written blogs, or well executed YouTube reviews. That might allow makeup to be aligned with art, rather than tart. Or something. 

Size Matters

As I mentioned in my last rave, Boots No7 Highlighter might be a gorgeous find, but don't call it "drugstore". This pitches itself as above Estee Lauder and more in line with Chanel and YSL. I had to buy 2 compacts to get as much product as EL gave me, and what is more, the No7 compact is kind of tacky. Added to this is the trend set by MAC, giving us less product but keeping the price static. Or putting Dazzleglasses in huge tubes but in fact reducing product. It is patronising and irritating, making beauty shopping a stressful exercise whereby we must - for we must, PLEASE, show we are aware by our shopping habits- calculate how much they are giving you, and what they are charging.

I often justify buying "high end" because the quality, and often quantity, is greater. I often relinquish lemmings and head to a drugstore to take advantage of a more justified pricetag. But these erstwhile categories are no longer clear set. A new trend has begun: drugstores come out with "revolutionary new biospheres voted No1 etc etc" so no no no, this one can't be £5.99 honey, this one is £18.99. Oh and this is our "Pro" range, so no no no that one can't be £6.99, it's £11.99. And suddenly MAC is same price, but whoosh, it's less product. And EL, Chanel, YSL are relatively stagnant. So hmmm how does one compute the better deal???

Have you noticed a trend in makeup sales? Has it affected you? Will you allow it to intrude on your spending habits?

FTC Guidelines: F* This Crap?

From December 1st, FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) guidelines have been put in place. The reaction amongst bloggers and YouTubers in our beauty community has been that of panic, usually disguised as flippancy. Let me first preface this by saying that the UK has one of the most stringent legal systems when it comes to business online. Most of its laws and regulations are similar to those in Europe, but in contrast, the US the rules were very much dependent on the state you happen to be in. Therefore the FTC is arguably applying a level playing field. Many of the FTC guidelines are already Law for UK and Europe based bloggers who fall foul of the disclosures required. But the waters are muddy and moreover Guidelines are not Law: This is acknowledged by the FTC...

"The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act."

In addition, the outrage and confusion of bloggers, particularly those who felt the new strictures and penalties violated their right to the sacred First Amendment, have provoked this soothing assurance from the FTC:

"Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it. If people think that the FTC is going to issue them a citation for $11,000 because they failed to disclose that they got a free box of Pampers, that's not true. That's not going to happen today, not ever."

In addition, Richard Cleland (assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC) addressed individual blogger concerns and reiterated this point:

"That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?"

So, the widely reported instant $11,000 is inaccurate, and moreover the onus is on the word of mouth marketeer or advertiser. Now, I have often thought that bloggers accepting money for promoting a brand is in many ways less unethical than those brands getting free publicity, but this FTC rule seems rather patronising to bloggers. Wheras an old media publication can review a free book (for instance) with no risk of breaking the rules, the same does not apply to blogs. This seems incredibly arbitrary. If I print out my blog articles and hand them out for free as a newspaper, suddenly a different set of rules apply:

"The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. Accordingly, such reviews are not “endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides."

If my day job is as a journalist for print media, is my blog independent, or is it addressed as within my capacity as a "traditional media" employee, is it me held liable, or my employer vicariously liable? In any event, how will bloggers' lapses be monitored?? Will FTC employ people, at the public's expense, to police the myriad of blogs out there - or will snitches and rivals use the muddy rules to threaten the competition? Well, the latter apparently: "Competitors are very quick to turn people in. I've never suffered from a shortage of competitive complaints."

This seems a recipe for disaster. It is not newsworthy to suggest that there is a lot of victimisation and vindictiveness around as it is, without giving people scope for serious dobbing in and invoking a penalty.

Now onto the fraught issue of whether a blog is akin to journalism, or a personal conversation. i.e Should government interference be viewed as justified to protect an innocent consumer, as the FTC maintains, from being tricked into purchases; or should a blog be allowed to maintain its image of being independent and indeed the very embodiment of free speech? A comment on an article made me laugh... "Government interaction is always the best answer. Just look at communist China - the people love it over there. They don't have to worry about that silly 'freedom of speech' stuff." It does rather beg the question, how long before the internet and its content is policed... recent issues such as illegal file sharing and downloading have also been presented as a threat to us as users and terrorism laws can be twisted to suit allegations of suspect community forums; IP addresses could well in future be replaced by an internet passport, with all our ID viewable to the government and the nanny state controlling our every move. But wait, this isn't the Daily Mail. Nevertheless, the point is: from being a soft touch, there is now a reversal. Companies who once took advantage of essentially free publicity will now have to ask themselves, whether the blogger can bring a profit greater than the potential thousands of dollars fine to the company. Very few of us can do that. They take the risk:

"The Commission recognizes that because the advertiser does not disseminate the endorsements made using these new consumer-generated media, it does not have complete control over the contents of those statements. Nonetheless, if the advertiser initiated the process that led to these endorsements being made – e.g., by providing products to well-known bloggers or to endorsers enrolled in word of mouth marketing programs – it potentially is liable for misleading statements made by those consumers."

But wait, what is an endorsement?? What if a blogger confines herself to stating demonstrably proven facts? Does the FTC consider that an endorsement? What if one confines oneself to stating such facts and includes links to an ecommerce site? Has the writing somehow been transformed from a statement of fact to an endorsement? And what if I describe a product I genuinely love and recommend, and have google automated ads on my blog, which are prompted by the article, and thus I make money from my recommendation? This point amongst others was eloquently made here:

"I have been writing nice things about my treatment at Sloan Kettering. This has caused ads to come up on my blog, via Google, from the hospital. Presuming someone clicked on them, I’ve made money from the hospital. Does that taint what I say or me if I don’t disclose the payment? That’s the level of absurdity this can reach."

In fact, where to draw the line - what if a product was received as a gift from granny, or you're a millionaire who buys YSL everyday just for something to do, of course your review will be inflected by your situation. There seems a deep suspicion of the government's need to intercept and determine when a disclaimer must be made. Do the FTC just want to control advertising and shut up any mouthpiece other than their own controlled and approved (ahem, $$$$) outlets?

However I have seen increasingly, many popular bloggers have irritated me with their high blown opinion of themselves. They address companies with the assumption that their word can make or break the product on a global scale. It really does make me think, "It's only a blog/ It's only YouTube!" However popular it gets, surely it still is small fry? But perhaps it can compete, as I have said before, the blogs and videos do cut straight to the core of makeup enthusiasts. Seen in this light, maybe the time was ripe for FTC intervention?

Ultimately, here in the UK there are laws in place which will protect consumers from deliberate scams and astroturfing, but on the level of reading blog and YouTube reviews, it ought to be merely regulated by the individual's own conscience, and taken with the viewer/ reader's own judgment. People who abuse the trust instilled within them will hopefully become a victim of their own destruction. I recently got an email from a company which was so clearly a cut and paste job (Dear... [space] oogle makeup .... etc) and what with my bad experience with a ruthless word of mouth company I value my blog and individuality more than I value the novelty of a freebie. (Chanel, if you are listening, I don't mean that really, haha) but by the same token there is clearly no harm in accepting and reviewing a freebie that genuinely is of interest to you and your readers. It can even be the veritable lifeblood of your blog, and to great acclaim.

"And there is the greatest myth embedded within the FTC’s rules: that the government can and should sanitize the internet for our protection. The internet is the world and the world is messy and I don’t want anyone – not the government, not a newspaper editor – to clean it up for me, for I fear what will go out in the garbage: namely, my rights. "

Beauty underbelly

It's hard to sustain a beauty blog, without it evolving into a marketing bulletin or a tiresome photo montage or a blog sale. I write posts so sporadically because I try to grapple with issues I notice arising, and exploit them with the aim to eventually see this blog as a collection of essays... (pretentious, moi?!)

Seeing an explosion of blog sales, with many popular personalities charging the lion's share of what they paid originally, and moreover had originally praised as magnificent, can make one feel slightly taken aback and rather shatters the veneer. However, with beauty buying getting out of hand, and a willing audience, who can cast blame? In any event, this is not the "underbelly" I speak of. It merely adds to the insipid state I found myself in, the lack of inspiration if you will. But recently I read a popular blogger's post, in which she denounced Sigma for jamming up her inbox with their latest contest challenge. Within moments, comments waded in, vowing to avoid Sigma brushes. Before long, the owner of Sigma arrived on the scene, assuring all that as of now the rules and contest were over, and apologies for the inconvenience. I asked in the comments why this unkind attack on a small company had been dealt publicly (rather than addressed as a private email). Afterall, this person had been one of numerous YouTube partners given a load of Sigma to give away and enjoy. Was it, I ventured, because she objected to Sigma expanding their contests and thus undermining the elite Super Gurus??

This got me thinking (haha insert Carrie Bradshaw voice)"How vulnerable are small companies?" and "How ugly is beauty's underbelly?"

Recently there was another minor scandal, Lime Crime were accused, again as far as I can see, by a lone ranger blogger with determined conviction, of simply repackaging cheap mica and plastering it with slogans and promises of, as they boasted, "illegal" levels of outrageous colour. Again the owner of the company was forced to emerge in staunch defence of her company. She made a YouTube video but disabled comments, thereby preventing any right to reply and avoiding escalating the debate. In her video she made a show of being emotional and gave a brief outline of a hard life through which she had toiled and triumphed. Clearly with popular YouTube Gurus being able to look forward to launching their own ubiquitous makeup/skincare ranges (Lauren Luke, Enkore makeup, Michelle Phan to name the most obvious) it is clear that this 'personal touch' is paramount... but, how much do we value that above all else? Even Gurus who review too many 'freebies' come under attack, so how much more so one who is exposed or simply accused - however reliably - of having ripped us off?

A popular YouTube member with a debilitating illness was recently outed as a mass swaplifter and fled her channel, thereby incriminating herself further. Subscribers were understandably horrified and went quite far in their condemntion. Nevertheless, the YouTube member returned with a perhaps feeble explanation, but heartfelt and emotional, and was largely forgiven. YouTube was seen in a new light: even members who seemed so familiar as to be true friends, became strangers. The ease with which one can disappear belied the security of trusting a face. Yet a voluntary return was rewarded and appreciated and the harm was undone. The issue of control is central: The power of the people, in one way or another, as a force.

The popular Guru can command a cause, as when Google AdSense lost Partners money and they made their discontent a subject for a video; or when a company is deemed to have offended - SunLove being an additional example; or when a company dupes their buyers and are attacked - MAC using the recognisable Ben Nye packaging in a promo shot being an indisputable example. Word of mouth is a quick, cheap way to get your brand recognised, but one wrong move and the damage is extraordinarily hard to undo - and usually involves a calculated mix of humble apology, complete retraction and compensation.

Beauty buying has seemed to have changed over the years too, it seems more collections than ever come out, more brands emerging, more folding - and aggressive sales tactics abound. It is virtually impossible to go peruse a makeup stand anymore. The unsubtle way one is speculatively judged, then rounded on, is deeply off-putting. I often feel far happier buying from the company website, and with Illamasqua's new absolute accuracy in online swatches, perhaps this is indeed the future.

Beauty shopping has an immediacy to it: the instant promise of change, the rush we all know so well. Yet blog sales attest to the briefness of that feeling. Perhaps buying online would limit the impulsiveness and allow time to decide rationally between shades?

The companies we buy from all struggle to maintain a personal identity: Bobbi Brown, Trish McEvoy, Benefit, all feature images of their creator at every opportunity. MAC still present themselves in this way too, although they are far removed from those days since being bought out. But seeing Sigma's creator and Lime Crime's creator coming out, and seeing our favourite Gurus extolling their products, puts many of us on our guard. It seems the distance between a personality as an icon rather than a familiar face, is preferable in many ways. Lauren Luke has been careful to only use her products very sparingly, and continues to use mainstream brands in general. I marvel at the way she is so sure-footed in her atttitude, meaning she never alientes her original fans. Many Gurus may not be so wise. And many small companies may find they overstep the line between friendly and personable, and clumsily fall instead into naive and overconfident - and worse. A captive audience can be swayed, and the domino effect can be lethal.

Makeup as cultural index

I was so involved with my stressful channel issues (detailed below) and then escaped for a holiday, so this post ideally was designed to coincide with London Fashion Week...

However, looking back at the images I collected, perhaps unfairly, it just seems that if it's not the nude look, it's the cat eye... There was some manga makeup at Luella (pictured) which probably was chosen to contrast with the childlike innocence and pretty minnie mouse bows...

There was, though, the adventurous and breathtaking shock of how Hair stylist/artist/designer Charlie Le Mindu re-addressed hair as a medium. When will this shake-up hit the makeup side of Fashion Week?

For the crux of the matter is that designers are interested in show-casing their clothes, obviously, and makeup must merely off-set the designs without intruding. Until noses are coloured in green and lips drawn on backwards, or similarly unknown avenues taken, inevitably makeup languishes in trodden paths. Recent genuinely experimental makeup came via the interesting Emma Bell, I noticed the brave makeup in her 2009 collection. This was by makeup artist Rachel Wood (aka Pixiwoo's friend) who used Benefit products to create a "Hello Kitty and Barbie go clubbing" look. She told her team to "pretend they were at pre-school" when applying glitter to the models' faces. (taken from fabsugar overview of 2009 collection)

This is Emma Bell's 2010 collection, with makeup by Nadja Hluchovsky. Here more subtly, but equally as surely, reflecting the fun spirit of the clothes:



But, the usual default it often a bare face on a young lithe model, or otherwise the classic beauty of a smokey or cat eye. This obviously can extend to a very smoked out eye/ drop down shadow/ cat eye or winged eye, but usually absorbed to some degree into this eternal favourite - this image is from the Issa 2010 catwalk collection at London Fashion Week-



This article gave an interesting taster of what the makeup artists are typically doing behind the scenes. Sample: "[Sometimes they] practically give you a painting-by-numbers guide to the specific look for the show, but at others they might just throw out obscure cultural references such as "we want Laura-Palmer-Twin-Peaks lips, OK?" This made me very nervous."

The innovative and fantastic (read: ugly?) hair show, although a menace to the ozone layer, inevitably harked back to the 18th Century trend for ornate hairpieces which marked you out as high society, which were extravagantly adorned with feathers, ribbons, jewels, and even ships, gardens and menageries.




The 18th Century taste for high maintenance styles famously soon gave way to the Victorian modest and restrained hair and makeup. It could be that like music, cultural identity today seems to be vague and riddled with retro influences, with no real cohesion, but possibly edging towards a trend eventually...?

Right now broadly speaking there is the alternative of looking your best (a la Laura Mercier, Bobbi Brown) or looking 'edgy' (MAC, Illamasqua). Witness MAC's recent collection, recalling its indie roots by the collection name "Makeup, Art, Cosmetics" and using real artists to front and design the items, and Illamasqua's use of the cult classic sci-fi film Metropolis as its inspiration. The irony is that looking 'edgy' becomes its own uniform: these so-called subversive directions are often just as restrictive and full of rules.

Tracing how makeup has accompanied cultural changes is tempting and has been addressed to some extent in this blog already when examining men and makeup. If the ornate attention to detail in the 18th Century led to the deliberate modesty by the 1780s, which ultimately became a hallmark of any self-respecting Victorian, this pattern equally is traced in the 1980s. Then, the boom years led to big hair and overt makeup, accompanied inevitably by the contrast of Punk rebellion, and evolving by the 1990s to the deliberate unpolish of Grunge. Taking a view of fashion and makeup as reactionary in this way, the pivotal decades can be traced...

1920s can thus be seen as reactionary against the austere Victorian ideal. A shortage of man-power during WW1 had meant women took on perceived male roles and obviously this re-defined what women stood for. The Political movement towards women's suffrage began during the war and in 1918, Parliament passed an act (the Representation of the People Act 1918) granting the vote to women over the age of 30 who were householders, the wives of householders, occupiers of property with an annual rent of £5, and graduates of British universities. This advance invited the fashion for brave new short hairstyles which eschewed traditional female stereotypes.

The 1930s and 40s saw film affect fashion and beauty, most famously the ultra female seductive curls popularised by Veronica Lake. However once again historical facts colour the trends, as this time WW2 with all its upheaval ushered in the need for a return to reliable old values, though now with the wife as simaltaneously glamorous and perfectly conservative. The makeup is as depicted in 'Mad Men': bold lips but doe eyed.

By the 1950s and 60s as the scars of WW2 receded and women again reacted against the stereotypes, political activism was a fashionable interest - with the realisation that the 'power of the people' was a reality. Protests, most obviously against the Vietnam War, became commonplace. Music became an important influence on society. The short skirts, short hair, bold eyes and pale lips, mixed and matched feminine with androgynous.

As before, this constructed image then reverts back to a 1970s trend for unconstructed long hair, no makeup, a general loosening on rules to highlight the hippie message of 'free spirit'. This, in turn, invites the converse trend for the more aggressive declaration of disenchanment: Punk. Makeup used not to embellish, but to unsettle.

Elements of punk were absorbed into popular fashion, thanks in no small part to Madonna, who feminised the look and redefined once again what androgyny meant.


The world now is smaller than ever, brands merge and every high street looks the same. Is that one reason why now there is less emphasis on any identifiable fashion movement...? The 1990s had the cult of the Supermodel; then the reactionary 'Waif/ Heroin Chic' trend; the Nirvana and Seattle bands' Grunge; 1997 Toni Blair's landslide victory and the rush of hope which led to the coined term 'Cool Britannia' and 'Britpop' - but ultimately had no fashion substance to distinguish itself.... And now, post 9/11 and with Barack Obama a symbol of a changed world, when fashion should be reaching a fever-pitched zenith and beauty should be revolutionary - a perfect mix of science and aesthetics perhaps - all I can find are fragments. A trend for non-invasive surgery, mixed with the same beauty styles that ever were. The new millenium seems to have stagnated where beauty is concerned. I await a shake-up with eager anticipation...