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.

Blurred lines

Arguably feminism's greatest victory is that it seems so unfashionable and embarrassing to be labelled a feminist. Adverts and pop culture in many ways set the aspirational blueprint, and makeup often becomes a tool by which to embolden the image. In the iconic Robert Palmer video, the women are stoic; their makeup is uniform smokey eyes and red lips. Yet their black turtle necks and guitars subvert the robbing of individuality and give them back their strength. In Robin Thicke's recent Blurred Lines video, the red lipstick remains - but the women are stripped whilst the men are fully suited. Robin Thicke looks a lot older than the models, and very slimy. It is undoubtedly grossly insulting (there is no irony) yet the jaunty lyrics make light of the spectacle. Check out this FT article for an interesting discussion. I've spoken before about how being jokey about being seductive is the new feminism, and the recent furore over Miley Cyrus desperately trying to look appealing is further entrenching this. Apparently red lipstick is the essential ingredient... how sad.

Benefit recently shared their advert for 'They're Real' mascara by trying to translate the objectification. This failed miserably. Ultimately, men and women are completely different and seeing men groping their bulging trousers is usually at best pathetic and creepy... But Benefit slathers on the 'it's a funny joke, lighten up!' patter. However, many wrongs go unchallenged by masquerading as light-hearted jibes. Well, it might all be forgiveable if the jokes were funny?!

Forensic Beauty

There has always been something very unsettling about 'eyes are the windows to the soul' and by extension the Disney-esque tendency to link mortal looks with moral virtue. Every time a mugshot of a celebrity or an unexpectedly good looking criminal surfaces, it causes excitement for the implied schism. But truly aren't both traits equally as random and dictated by fate as each other? Looks more so, but even criminals - usually it is their sad circumstance and 'There but for the grace of God...' etc etc. Well Dove are at it again, this quest to convince us that "real beauty" is in all of us (barf) and as their earliest campaign was severely blighted by the 'revelation' that in fact these dogmatically 'real' images were as retouched as the best of them - perhaps they should be applauded for their tenacity. Yes the advertising campaign to supposedly promote us insecure women that we truly are "more beautiful than you think" has struck again. It seems to me in some ways that this patronising tactic actually serves to entrench insecurity and normalise feelings of inadequacy. But maybe I am resisting their liberating, ground-shattering message... Nonetheless: this is an interesting experiment and a good idea. A forensic artist, more accustomed to capturing felons by a skillful recreation of testimony, is appointed to demonstrate the contrast between our own perception of Self, and the Self we project to Others.







Yes, as is inevitable with any self-righteous advert, it is ripe for parody and the second video is brilliant! It is a very true and rather perplexing point: Why is it, that as women we are always worried at some level about our looks - yet men, however gloomy, do truly believe that with the right lighting or circumstance, they could absolutely get that model! Even though men nowadays are more subjected than ever to the pressure of looking good (in addition to having a powerful position in society) there is still a very identifiable difference in the vulnerabilities between the genders. This advert would simply not work if it was aimed at men. I am torn as to whether I think the advert makes a great point (albeit a banal one) or whether it is very old fashioned and insulting to keep stabbing at the idea that as women we should be more resigned and then people will love us for our acceptance.

What do you think??

The strategy used to sell us Beauty seems to rest alternately on empowering women with the promise of instant improvement, or comforting us that we are just splendid the way we are - and that by buying this brand we are proving just that.

Collections decided by popular demand! (but hurry)

I love this, power to the people wooooo (Etc.) Bobbie Brown recently concluded her 'Bobbi Brings Back' lipstick initiative. Consumers, bereft of their favourite shades - that were so mercilessly axed - suddenly have a surge of hope. Votes were collected, and the deed is done. The 6 formerly moribund shades are now to be revived with a flourish. But hark, these shades will be available "for a limited time". Plus ça change, eh? Similarly, MAC have unveiled possibly one of their most exciting collections (unless you are an ebay seller specialising in hiked up priced LE fodder...) 'MAC By Request'. Here's the press release:

This time you decide! First time ever M·A·C are producing a limited collection created for and by the M·A·C fans. A selection of eighteen most requested, cult classics and iconic shades, will be put up to vote on M·A·C’s Facebook page. Giving another chance for those fans out there to bring back and get their hands on the most wanted M·A·C shades!

The shades to vote on include:

LIPSTICKS

EDEN ROCKS

First seen: launched in May 2000 and then made permanent. Discontinued in February 2011.

CANDY YUM-YUM

First seen: launched in Quite Cute collection in April 2011 and was the fastest selling shade in a collection in 2011

MOXIE

First seen: launched in September 1999 in the Retro Matte Lipsticks collection and then was made permanent. Discontinued in March 2011

SHITAKI

First seen: launched in the Cuisine collection in March 2001 and was made permanent. It was discontinued in February 2011

ROCKER

First seen: launched in the Time Rocker collection in 1999

3N

First seen: launched in the N collection in January 2008, then Warm and the Cozy collection and lastly in the Post-Holiday collection in 2009

LIPGLASS

EMANCIPATION

First seen: launched in the Wonder Woman collection in February 2011

FLASH OF FLESH

First seen: launched in the D’Bohemia collection in May 2005

ICESCAPE

First seen: launched in the Love Lace collection in December 2009

BAIT

First seen: launched in the Lure collection in June 2006

CULT OF CHERRY

First seen: launched in the Cult of Cherry collection in September 2008

2N

First seen: launched in the N Collection in January 2008 and then the Warm and Cozy collection and the Post-Holiday collection in 2009

EYE SHADOW

MOTH BROWN

First seen: launched in the Madame B collection in March 2000

GUACAMOLE

First seen: launched in the Salsabelle collection in May 2005

SOLAR WHITE

First seen: launched in the Cool Heat collection in June 2008

COOL HEAT

First seen: launched in the Cool Heat collection in June 2008

JETÉ

First seen: launched in the Danse collection in January 2006

HEAVENLY BLISS

First seen: launched in the Eden Rocks collection in May 2001

The three shades with the highest number of votes from the Lipstick, Lipglass, Eye shadow categories will form the M·A·C by Request collection that will be made available in October 2012 exclusively online, www.maccosmetics.co.uk

Voting commences on the March 12^th until March 30^th

...Check out this very excellent comparison post for swatches to help you decide! I adore Moth Brown and Solar White eyeshadows, and I am desperate to see what the fuss about the N series was about - and definitely want to have Dita Von Teese's favourite, Moxie, back in stock! The only downside is that, once again, it will be limited edition - and only available online. Oh well, it's a start!

I must hand it to Illamasqua (again) though. Not only do they so far eschew this abhorrent practice of discontinuing items and of making L.E a point of principle, they have also launched a very impressive section of their website called 'Socialise'. I have to say, I loved that Illamasqua had a humble 'blogspot' and I always enjoyed the posts. But I admit that now, as part of the official website, it does look simultaneously extremely professional and fun. The absolute best thing about Illamasqua is how they keep up with their customers and react to each and every demand. Their new live swatching is nothing short of a revelation! Such an obvious idea, taking its cue from 'live catwalks' as per ASOS, and applying it for makeup! And I see they are also keen for swatch donations - send in your swatch pictures and even further enrich the virtual experience. Human Fundamentalism is the new Illamasqua collection, and although I've not tried it yet, I love the manic mash up of imagery - a huge dose of 90s bungled in with tribal african elements, and an ombre hen just to spice it up. They even have an old lady - with wrinkles! Shocking stuff. Taking its cue from normal people really has become Illamasqua's calling card.

Check out the collection here. They have even brought back their statement mission to make blue lips 'stick' (so to speak) but I remain for the time being unconvinced as ever... despite Alex Box claiming this particular teal tricks the eyes... I will be seeing it for myself and will report back....! The eponymous Fundamental palette, with its unusual mix of colour and texture, definitely is on my hit list.

In conclusion, I think it is great that modern consumerism means companies have to bow to The Peoples' Will, and I think it is ambitious but overwhelmingly admirable, that Illamasqua have in their latest collection, attempted to distill what modern cosmopolitan hybrids mean today. The only drawback is that Illamasqua campaigns are often so ambitious and complicated that they risk looking messy and intimidating for the average sorry 9 to 5er. All in all though, the collections all look very exciting - and that's the bottom line.

...What do you think of this sudden surge of trying to capture our favourites and let the dog have its day?

I've added a poll up there

The last taboo?

It is so hard to shock nowadays... Sexual product names? yawn. Swear words or anagrams? Not amusing even the first time, double yawn. S&M? So commercial! Androgny? Well now we've finally had male to female, that's exhausted. Drug use? Yes, it'll get the ad banned, but so 90s. Wait - what's this, pedophilia?

The new Marc Jacobs fragrance, 'Oh, Lola!' apparently takes its cue from his own so creative use of a perfume bottle as codpiece. But here it is 17 year old Dakota Fanning, prizing the tall bottle between her dress. Subtlety is a wasted art to Marc Jacobs it seems.





What did you think, should the ad have been banned or is 17 too old to be considered a 'child'? What is the last taboo? Would an ad campaign actually make you boycott the product if you disagreed on moral grounds?

Origins Freebie Alert! YAY!

...And the best thing is, it's helping the planet!

As part of Earth Month, Origins has established a partnership with Global ReLeaf to plant trees to help restore areas damaged by wildfire and help clean our air and water. For every Plantscription sold during 17th-30th April 2011, Origins will plant a tree on the customer's behalf.

And for one day only, on the 22nd April (this Friday!) customers can bring in any skincare product (of any range, full or empty) and trade it in ABSOLUTELY FREE for a FULL SIZE of either Checks and Balances frothy wash (a personal fave of mine) or A Perfect World Antioxidant cleanser with White Tea. 150ml size. Worth £16. They come in these special edition packaging:

Can't touch this?

Make Up For Ever, fresh from their cameo in Britney Spears' latest music video, now have another publicity brainwave. And it is ingenious - what better way to prove HD really is different, than by a straight up photo?

At first when I read about this, I scoffed. Yes, a young and pretty model looks good in your makeup - Bravo. Show me a 40 year old and you might hold my attention. But, I must admit, visiting the website I really do admire what they have done. For the first time, I feel I can trust the lip and cheek colours - and seeing the instructions of every photo, it actually reads as true fact.

Is this a new trend? I must admit I like the vapid photoshopped alternate universe where arm wobble and stray hairs make no appearance. [I rely on blogs to give me the unglorified version!]

But perhaps the advertisers realise that in an age of manic papparazzi and bald twitter, there is hardly a point feeding us farcical visions of digitally manipulated beauty. I'll be most intrigued to see whether this becomes the "new thing." Many magazines have pushed this issue in celebrity features, so in hindsight it was only a matter of time - yet still, unexpected.


Thoughts? (+new poll above)

What do you think of the Make Up For Ever unretouched ads?

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?

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.

Men and Makeup

You'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger fan of men in makeup than me. Maybe I shouldn't admit it, but there it stands.

However on a recent trip to check out Illamasqua, I was served by an overtly bitchy guy in drag. Did he feel he had to be that way to complement his ostentatious fake lashes and glitter? I could tell he was viewing me as a corporate slave, by dint of my rather austere coat and boots and generally sober garb (it was a weekday). I felt uncomfortable and ended up going on a Trish McEvoy haul instead.

Yet in fact one of my favourite books is "DRAG: A History of Female Impersonation in the Performing Arts" by Roger Baker. The book traces the progress through centuries of female impersonation, which began with pageants as far back as 1100. The catalyst proves to have been the Church dramatisations: ‘It all began as an attempt to make the liturgy of the church more intelligible to the largely illiterate congregations’, which evolved to incorporate comic routines.

The last day of Christmas (Twelfth Night) became associated with misrule and reversal of order. As the various dramas were completely separated from the Church and responsibility for them was taken over by the local Guilds, each Guild chose episodes most appropriate to their skill (mystery plays) and Bible stories were given sub-plots. Noah’s wife in particular, although not imbued with any characteristics in the original story, became a nagging shrew and still stands as a blueprint for countless nagging wives jokes.

Aside from the prevalence of what Baker calls the "Male Actress" in all corners of the world - from the ancient theatres in Japan and China, to the post-war boom of drag acts in Britain, to the trend in American cinema from Tootsie to Mrs Doubtfire, spreading then to Baz Luhrmann's fantastic Priscilla Queen of the Desert and the countless cross dressing comedians, from Benny Hill to Dame Edna, culminating in the revival now of stage musicals: Priscilla Queen of the Desert (with Jason Donovan reclaiming the chance he had all those years ago, and possibly going some way to softening the fact that he killed 'The Face' magazine off....), and Hairspray; The Rocky Horror Show. What's clear is that never has drag lost its audience. The recent passing of Danny La Rue has brought that point back too.

But if drag is at one extreme, does it filter down to the everyman or will it always be at the periphery, and always under the guise of entertainment?

We must remember Superdrug (UK drugstore) picking up Taxi Man, a brand which excels at punning: "Disguys", the concealer; followed by the now familiar "manscara" and "guyliner". The promo pic was accordingly mainstream, featuring a very heterosexual looking cabbie:



However despite the brand holding up Russell Brand and Robbie Williams as examples of their target audience mainstream appeal, the very use of these jocular terms admits their taboo nature.

Even at the other side of the spectrum, where it seems there are genuine attempts to invite male grooming and vanity to come to the fore (in much the same way as a female consumer may be enticed), there lies a coyness.

Notwithstanding the fact that the term 'makeup' is avoided, replaced by a more vague descriptions such as 'complexion enhancer'; the mascara a 'brow and lash groomer', and packaged in masculine affirming black thick robust compacts, Jean Pual Gaultier, who led the pack, had the press release of his Monsieur range as:

'A Monsieur lies hidden in every man. Monsieur is sophisticated and elegant without fuss or complication, but of course not without humour'.


This vital reference to "humour" may be there to relax its male purchaser that it's all just an experiment; a laugh. At the least it acknowledges that these products are usually only to be found at the margins of society and generally associated with rebellious teens, eccentric gay men and cross-dressers.

YSL's famous hero product, Touche Eclat, also seemed to transfer well. It already had a pen design rather than anything too flouncy, so renamed 'L'Homme Touche Eclat" and deprived it of its shiny gold tube (in favour of pewter) YSL used the biggest pleb-magnet - a Big Brother contestant!

Stuart Pilkington as the face of the eyeliner and concealer look:



Johnny Depp in his role as a pirate has done much to popularise the eyeliner look, and of course Pete Wentz fancies himself as another male makeup icon.

For a rock look, it seems in keeping with the role. However, this still means male makeup is marginalised.

Clarins male bronzing ranges, and Clinique's, and the countless male skincare products now launching within mainstream drugstore ranges, all attempt to edge closer to a point where men reach for their bronzer, concealer, mascara and lip tint without a moment's hesitation. Companies, after all, could double their market if they could convince men that they, too, were unsightly without make-up.

Before dismissing any likelihood of this,it is worth remembering that up until the 1850s men did openly wear makeup.

Male makeup has a long history, starting with the Egyptians, whose men applied thick eyeliner to ward off the "evil eye." Roman men used chalk-based foundation to brighten their complexions, and, in the 18th century, Louis XV and his court made it highly fashionable for men to wear (often toxic lead-based) makeup and rouge. During the French Restoration in the 18th century, red rouge and lipstick were used to give the impression of a healthy, fun-loving spirit.

Eventually, their preference for excessive makeup led to the jibe that the "painted" French had something to hide. Thus the trend ebbed as it began to be associated with being a rather too dandy sort. Perhaps by adding L'Homme or Monsieur, these cosmetic houses aim to hark back to a French bygone era?!

It is hard to think that eyeliner on a man will be acceptable outside of the confines of a deliberate artistic flourish, but indeed our times seem to have heralded the return of the dandy:

"Recent reports have revealed that the global sales of men's grooming products reached $19.5bn in 2008. The value of the market in 2009 is estimated to be $21.7bn, an increase of 11.3% as compared to last year.... The desire to look and feel healthy has been driven by male role models such as film actors and sportsmen, and communicated via the huge growth in premium magazines dedicated to men.... As the boundaries between genders continue to be broken down, global companies are expected to find increasingly innovative ways to profit from the evolving characteristics of the male consumer." 1

Is male makeup the last bastion of the gender divide? Will the acceptance of male skincare extend to male cosmetics?? What are your predictions and thoughts???

Makeup the economic situation to suit you...

Yup, with The Beauty Brains highlighting the groundbreaking revelation (ahem) published by Science Daily :

"Professor Pine’s research found that an intense emotional state, high or low, could send women to the shops. “This type of spending, or compensatory consumption, serves as a way of regulating intense emotions,” she said.

This ability to regulate emotions is crucial for mental and physical wellbeing and humans adopt a variety of means of doing so, including drugs and alcohol. Shopping is one method increasingly adopted by women."

Hmm. Yes excellent excuse. That shopping is fun for most of us could hardly qualify as debatable. However it is rather noteworthy that the old adage, lipstick sales go up when the economy grinds down, known as "the lipstick index" (as coined by Leonard Lauder) has been debunked. The Financial Times even went so far as to reclassify the trend as "The Foundation Index" when it appeared that:

"The only age group which still appreciates the glamour of painted lips is the over-60s, with 40 per cent surveyed citing lipstick as the most treasured item."

I think the reason for this perceptible generational divide is that nowadays beauty is not associated with putting on a brave face, or treating oneself. Nowadays 'Health and Beauty' has become a phrase that rolls off the tongue: almost interchangeable. If the 80s Boom Years were complemented by flamboyance - bold eyeshadow up to the browbone, and blush in a dominant angled swoop, and bright lips - then today's more sober palette takes its cue from a battered and bruised economy. No wonder that a foundation purchase would overtake the more statement like choice of a lipstick. Foundation arguably more than any other makeup, represents the hybrid between health and beauty, particularly when viewed through the lense of current foundation promises "HD"; "Anti-Aging"; "Superfit"; "Perfectly Real"; "Superbalanced"; "Even Finish"; "Smooth Skin"; "Instant Rewind" ....the list goes on, you get the idea. With healthcare now seamlessly incorporating anti-aging creams, thanks in no small part to Dove's dominant advertising campaigns which imply there is a correct way to Pro-Age(?!), foundation is no doubt seen as an extra way to safeguard and invite the healthy skin we crave.

So why is this indeed a new trend, or a symptom of our current economic showdown? And why is it that the lipstick index has faltered, or even that it existed in the first place? Well, in the first instance, let us keep sight of the fact that by announcing this, Lauder did invite a self-fulfilling prophesy. As Estee Lauder herself had successfully ingrained Youth Dew into society by 'accidentally' spilling it and flooding a shopping floor with its distictive scent, the marketing angle within a lipstick index cannot be ignored. And as the FT article explains, "The index may be a frivolous indicator - some researchers point out that lipstick sales have at times grown in periods of prosperity as well as downturns".

That Science Daily now brings a study showing that indeed, these fluctuations coincide with any extreme emotional points, seems again to simply cloud what might in fact be a non-starter. Makeup purchases, ultimately, do stand alone. Often within the bounds of impulse purchases (especially as these days everywhere from supermarkets to hairdressers to Claire's to H&M or even WH Smith's Victoria Jackson sales troops have makeup thrown in the mix). And unlike even shoe shopping, which takes minimal undressing and fussing, makeup can literally be dabbed on and approved - the easiest, quickest pick up of the shopping kingdom experience. Does this necessarily mean that it is harder to gauge the pattern, and therefore easier to manipulate the statistics to illustrate some exagerrated theory??

For my own part, I do feel more and more that my own 'signature look' should be curtailed to a light colour on the lids, some black eyeliner and some neutral lipstick and rosey cheeks. In other words, I find myself suddenly more prone to clothes and accessories shopping, than to bright eyeshadow. Whether this is a symptom of ageing or a conscious decision to stop frittering away money on shades I know are superfluous, I cannot quite decipher.

Makeover shows like Gok's Fashion Fix, and the plethora of shows that feed off the economic climate to promote cost effective ways to feel better, have lent credibility to the sense that looking good should not be related to one's financial position. Adverts for drugstore ranges that promise benefits which once upon a time were the preserve of the 'High End' ranges, also push this. I do now find myself questioning whether a £14 eyeliner is necessarily better than a GOSH or Prestige one. Even packaging for drugstore ranges seems to have got sleeker. With Boots pushing the boundary by commissioning a scientific study for its best selling 'Protect and Perfect serum' - (a move usually reserved for prescription-only medicines) the force of the consumer being entitled to expect top-notch from a drugstore range surely casts a shadow over the definition of high end creams. Indeed, Estee Lauder et al are if anything more notorious for their adverts being pulled for misleading and false promises. Could economic woes prove the catalyst to sound a death knell for high end ranges altogether?

Probably high end can rely on its niche status for now, but with drugstore range prices creeping up and all the products aping each other, even innovative ones like the Givenchy Phenomen'eyes mascara wand, or the Lancome oscillating mascara wand, how long will there even be any gravitas associated with high end anyway?

What is the future of makeup shopping, will it retain its status quo or is there shifting afoot? What do you think... have your makeup spending habits changed?

How important is it for your makeup to be exclusive and original?

Do you like my new shoes?? I had been on the hunt for a pair that would simaltaneously tick the box 'stylish/original' and 'practical looking/ease of walking 40 minutes a day'. This was harder than anticipated, but these were the closest I could get. I would be devastated to see someone in the same pair, as that would be really embarrassing: it would mean we both went out of our way to be different, and failed in the very harshest way. Like the time I went on camp as a teenager, with a "radical" pink streak in my hair - and another girl had the same, exactly the same streak - same colour and everything ... cringe!

"Nice hair," we both said, trying to make light of it. But inside, clearly we were both seething with rage and humiliation. So, is it better to just go for simple sobriety, black lace ups, brown neutral smokey eye and a little belted blazer? Yes, most times it probably is.

This is a beauty blog, preaching to a beauty addicted community, who probably have all the basic colours covered, yet still yearn for the next big trend, the next big thing, the limited, exclusive or otherwise original new product to be tried and tested. Why do we persist?? This is my latest lemming:

It's the 'cool eyes' quad. And it's a duty free exclusive. Is it too absurd to book a holiday so I can get a MAC quad which has Springtime Skipper, Flashtrack and Water Nymph in? All colours I missed and wish I hadn't... I mean, any excuse for a holiday, right?! I have lined up two people I know who are going abroad anyway, and hopefully at least one of them will get it for me, but if not, I will definitely take matters into my own hands!! I need it!!

So, why do all beauty companies (though MAC is the greatest exponent of this technique) insist on bringing out these limited collections, seasonal collections, country exclusive collections, travel editions... why place all these unnatural barriers on your consumer? Yes, clearly it's to appeal to the same two box ticked boxes that I'd looked for in my shoe purchase, roughly: 'stylish/original' and 'practical/ease of use.' How else to achieve this than by limiting its availability, and assembling shades neatly and easily categorized. It works. And for addicts, it's no use debating the 'dupes' either - they're not exclusive, are they?

This extends even further when it comes to niche products. I once tried a sample of the famously expensive Creme de la mer and I was comforted to find that I hated it. I was grateful to be reminded of this in an article I once read, and can agree that it did cause spots. Yet make something shiny enough, or scientific looking enough, and my hopes are raised again. That article in fact argues that we enjoy this runaround, subconsciously or consciously we allow ourselves to be lulled into the hype; perhaps somehow imagining that even a placebo effect can have its advantages. Articles like that however are all too rare, it's no secret that magazines depend on major companies to fund their publications through advertising revenue, and are understandably reluctant to antagonise their sponsors.

Independent avenues like YouTube and blogs can run the risk of being swayed but are clearly less vulnerable. Whatstyleistonikel on Youtube went as fas as saying this sponsorship trend would sound the death knell for the YouTube makeup community, yet his own previous (very reliable and useful) review belied any real threat that this might truly be the case. Nevertheless companies are wise to realise that herein lies a passive, willing, consumer to be tapped.

Before YouTube, aside from the fact that my makeup collection generally has exploded, I had little notion of expert blending brushes, and no notion of eye bases, mixing medium or depotting. Pixiwoo, although also a prime target for sponsorship, has made a point of refusing YouTube partnership to enforce an independent image, and never uses an eyeshadow base as she has said this is pure marketing. Although I would respectfully disagree in the sense that new products can sometimes indeed signal new scientific progress, and none more so than the marvel that is UDPP, her point in general does hold true.

Although magazine articles arguably remain the best way to promote high-end beauty products, consumers now have the opportunity to go to independent sources to see the actual product being daubed; to hear a fellow makeup enthusiast assess its virtues in uncompromising terms.

TV adverts are still flooded by the major brands' drugstore products, afterall these are the easiest to shift in bulk and one imagines make up their biggest revenue, being as they are designed as impulsive purchases. But it seems niche markets with a higher price point, must seek out a more exclusive audience, ripe for convincing.

In terms of appealing to the customer on the shop floor, MAC have positioned themselves as a trend-driven, young brand. Their no-nonsense packaging reflects both the professional theme, and the rebuke towards all those austere "old lady" gold detailing so ubiquitous in Estee Lauder, Elizabeth Arden, Helena Rubenstein et al. Yet even MAC have now decided a "line filler" must become part of their permanent line-up, to appease their dedicated following, who by now struggle to deal with the onslaught of fine lines, and might otherwise consider whether now they too should embrace the more senior beauty ranges.

Clinique similarly taps into the young emergent market by having its very practical sounding 3 step program, and including acne remedies. But its emphasis is on the white coat and plain clinical (even in name) designs, so it avoids being tainted as surely as MAC in its demographic. MAC has deliberately cultivated close ties with fashion, particularly with young new designers, who are obviously delighted to be supported by a major brand.

The MAC promo images too are usually identified by their novel design. This is in stark contrast to simpler promo images aimed at the more senior makeup consumer. Spot the difference:

Top:EL; Bottom, MAC.

And how easy is it to change one's perceived brand image? I suspect it will be easier for MAC to move in line with their established customer base, than it would for a company like EL, HR or EA to convince a younger generation to shake off the image of a frail granny hand carefully twisting up her golden lipstick case.

But if Nivea manage to pull this one off, then anyone can:

... How do you make your beauty choices? And what does your chosen brand say about you? Does it matter to you to whether something is exclusive?

Rational make up discourse

After the recent thunderstorm provoked by one girl and her opinion on Coastal Scents... (gosh, déjà vu anyone??) I feel it is timely to point you in the direction of a few websites which always prove valuable resources when I start to panic.

Make up is created to make you look flawless, young and beautiful... but when you start wondering whether the ingredients will break you out, age you, or, as in this case- cause severe, perhaps fatal! lung disease, then it is time to take stock. Although scaremongering will always prove more exciting than platitudes, I felt unconvinced by the Youtube video. Nevertheless, Coastal Scents are developing a notorious reputation over these scenes, which will undoubtedly cost them dear.

....Knowledge is power, peeps!

Check out http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/index.php if you ever need to know what's what.

Check out http://datecalculator.googlepages.com/englishhomepage as an easy way to tell how old your make up is!

Check out http://search.caringconsumer.com/ if, like me, you worry about the ethics side of your make up.