Any colour as long as it’s red: Why is lipstick branding so generic?
22nd January
The Observer newspaper reports a huge anticipated sales boom in lipstick. It’s a result of the “lipstick effect” when women react to uncertain times by scaling back spending on designer clothes and handbags, but splurge on cheaper luxuries. Selfridges reports an average cross-brand rise of 12%. Bold colours are the trend – another timeless response to doom and gloom as we discussed here. Spring will see the biggest brand names launching major ranges of “statement colours” in a small war for share.
So, with millions at stake isn’t it curious how generic lipstick branding is – same materials, textures, colours, shapes. And any branding is typically very discreet and plonked on the lid.
In the advertising we get a set of competing interchangeable celebrities, generally with a product and logo tucked away at the base of the page. While understanding the appeal of celebrity endorsement, why is the advertising so generic and unmemorable? Here’s a test – can you name the famous names behind the packs which head this post or these current (lavishly expensive) advertisements? (Answers, as they say after the “jump”.)
Are lipsticks the last bastion of understatement in a world of garish fashion branding? Is it because women want their lipstick to become a discreet part of their personal style rather than a badge of brand affiliation? If so, it runs contrary to a world of statement handbags, eyewear etc.
Is it because the brands are chosen in a context of strongly branded point of sale? If so, once bought, such branding becomes invisible, and the chance to promote via being out and about is lost.
Am I just being a bloke and missing the fact that for women the differences are subtle but clear?
When all that separates these interchangeable sticks of red wax and lead is the branding upon them, and with a war to be waged, how odd that such a uniformly forgettable approach to standing out is chosen.
Anyway, click here for the answers if you are as confused as me:
And the answers are…
3 Comments
Sara F
January 22, 2010 10:49 am
As a make-up fanatic and addict I feel I can shed some light on this subject. Unless you are one of those women who puts their entire face on during their journey to work on a bumpy bus, the lipstick is the only item that you carry around and apply in front of others.
Therefore, if it’s a cheaper brand such as Rimmel, you don’t want the pack to be screaming, look I’m wearing a £3.99 lippy! And if it’s something sexier like a Chanel lipstick, every woman knows what it is. For example, I can tell a designer bag from a Topshop creation at a single glance, without seeing the branding.
On the other hand so many brands have launched gimicky lip products in strange and quirky structures ( such as double ended half gloss half lipstick, lipstick that won’t even come off with a blow-torch, duo-lipsticks with topcoat etc etc) I hate all that stuff! Just give me a beautiful, sleek, sexy, simple lipstick any day.
Anastasia Gerali
January 22, 2010 3:42 pm
AVON has designed various retractable-lid lipsticks over the years, that are fuss free and neat.
Cargo’s PlantLove range is the green answer to cosmetics. The lipstick tube is 100 % biodegradable and made entirely from corn. The outer carton is made with biodegradable flower paper, filled with real flower seeds, so essentially, it’s plantable lipstick packaging.
The advertising though, as you mention, remains interchangeable and ‘fish-finger-y’.
Natalie Nairn
January 23, 2010 1:21 am
Perhaps it is because red lipstick can appeal to so many segments of the female market that the advertising remains so generic.A little black dress,perfume and a red lipstick are items that are deemed essential to feminity and a red lipstick can work on every skintone,every age and for many different occassions.Red lipstick has a special place in a woman’s mindset and even in history so it is possible that off the wall message appeals would make the company seem that they are ‘missing the point’.Personally I think the advertising could be better and the celebrity endorsements should be better.Marilyn Monroe or a 50s movies scene would be a better choice or perhaps an ad sequence portraying the life time value of red lipstick-from a toddler with mum’s stolen tube smeared on their face to a grandmother wearing a classic pillar box red hue.I would prefer to see a move towards the Tiffany & Co emotive style branding
Post a Comment