9
Jun 2020
9Jun 2020 EDITORIALS
How Beauty Brands are Committing to Change + Next Steps

As brands have released statements over the last week, along with follow-up statements about where they’re positioned today and what steps they’re taking to commit to more equality and inclusivity as brands, I thought I’d share some ways I feel the beauty brands, and to some degrees, the community itself. I’m really looking forward to seeing if and how brands implement the changes they’re committing to in the next six-, 12-, and 18-months.

I previously shared how the language of the beauty needs to change, and I also detailed areas where complexion products could use further improvement or “next steps” to go beyond just offering 40 shades in a single formula.

First, here are some changes to look out for (and hold brands and retailers accountable for) based on commitments made this week:

L’Oreal has finally issued an apology to Munroe Bergdorf, and now, we will see her take a seat on L’Oreal UK’s Diversity and Inclusion Advisory Board to advocate for Black, trans, and queer voices in the beauty industry.  They also donated €50,000 to Mermaids Gender and UK Black Pride.

Glossier issued one of the strongest responses with an initial $500,000 donation across organizations fighting against racial injustice, but they will also allocate $500,000 available as grants to Black-owned beauty businesses (which they’ll provide more details on this month). The latter will go a long way to long-term, ongoing change.

Anastasia is also committing $1 million with an initial $100,000 donation and is working on specific initiatives to “support Black-owned businesses and artists in the beauty industry” going forward. ColourPop has donated $50,000 and will donate an additional $250,000 going forward.  There are many beauty brands who have made unspecified donations and donations from $5,000 to $50,000, so I’ve only called out some of the higher donation amounts.

Violet Grey has committed to stocking all shades in the complexion products they stock on their website, rather than a curated shade range (sometimes as ridiculous as 5 of 15 shades available).  This morning, SpaceNK said they’ll only provide testers for brands that have all shades displayed, and those who have a more edited display will have samples upon request for all shades.  What I like about SpaceNK’s decision is that it acknowledges how important accessibility is, especially in-store, to be able to see and try your shades.

Sharon Chuter, founder of UOMA Beauty, started #pulluporshutup (documented for easy access @pullupforchange) to push brands to share where they are today so that the community can hold them accountable going forward in a more transparent way. #pulluporshutup is less of a “gotcha” moment as it is a more measurable way to hold brands accountable, despite percentages only telling a partial story–how brands treat their BIPOC employees, the types of policies they have, whether there are glass ceilings for BIPOC, etc. are all more important than having “good” numbers.

Here’s why Sharon created this campaign, from an interview with Essence:

“I want to make it clear that this isn’t about bullying brands, it’s not an exercise in naming and shaming. This is a wake-up call. It’s saying, there is a problem,” she continues. “Thank you for your monetary donations, but we have to go back to the root cause, we have to go back and look at the overall system of oppression that has lasted for 400 years. We have to be cognizant of that. For the first time the world is listening, people are partnering with us at mass—we have the opportunity to make a long term change for future generations.”

A lot of the brands that “pulled up” shared their plans to create a more diverse workforce.  This has ranged from putting together diversity councils/boards, consulting with diversity experts on corporate policies (like recruitment, training, etc.), investing in internships and mentorships.  Brands that already wanted a diverse workforce but have not yet achieved it, they’ll need to dive into why and look into the hiring process, where they’re recruiting from, and if there are biases within corporate culture that they need to address.

Here’s how Sharon sees phase two of Pull Up or Shut Up, from an interview with Cosmopolitan:

“My push for phase two is that we need to set up independent diversity boards made of all people of marginalized groups,” says Chuter. “They will be charged with implementing true policies for change, documenting this, working with the companies to ensure their staffs are diverse and that those people are protected.”

Suggestions for Change

Here are four ways brands could do better going forward that would be effective with what I’d expect is “little” effort compared to implementing long-term policies that address the system beauty operates in.  These are on top of my suggestions for how complexion still needs to change.

Improve product diversity at all levels.

This means going beyond more inclusive shade ranges in foundation and concealer.  It means that offering one highlighter or one bronzer shade is not enough.  Too Much Mouth has a recent follow-up video on the latest bronzer releases and how they appear on deeper skin, which comes a few months after a prior update on the state of “bronzers for dark skin.”  Nyma Tang also has an excellent video on products from 2019 that failed POC.

Examples:

There are some brands who have better than average ranges, and categories like bronzer have seen definite improvements in the last two years but many brands have not seen fit to expand there.  “Better” is really relative to how short most ranges are, though, in most cases below.

Examples:

More Inclusive Color Stories

Brands can still release shades that work better on lighter complexions, but it’s about pushing brands to ensure that they’re creating products that fit a color story that works on darker complexions.  If you take a critical eye to a lot of the limited edition color collections that launch, they tend to hover around more of a light to light-medium skin tone depth–that’s often who they’re “most” for so those with medium and deeper skin tones are more often “making them work” rather than having the collection work for them.

This is seen readily through cheek colors launched–like launching a single blush or highlighter–along with eyeshadow palettes where several shades are nearly unusable for deeper complexions.  There are several brands that will launch two cheek colors in a collection but often they’ll be very similar in depth, where it would be more useful to offer two shades with differing depths.

Examples:

Here are some products that have done well with readers, period, but have seemed to work well for medium and deeper complexions with less work…

Do Better with Themes & Names

From cultural appropriation to exoticization and/or fetishizing of people and places to racial slurs as names (g*psy still in use, though greatly reduced in the last five years) to the microaggressions like “nude” (when it means light beige) and gendered language.  If brands really create more diverse workforces and enact policies that support anti-racist policies in the workplace, I hope that we’ll see less brands make poor choices in collection themes and names.  But here are a few things that retailers and brands could do right now with little effort:

  • Brands + retailers defining nude as a concept, not a color.  Rename shades that are “Nude” when they really mean beige–particularly in complexion ranges.  Renaming should also occur for other commonly used choices for beige shades: Natural, Flesh, Skin.
  • Brands + retailers using gender-neutral language in product copy, marketing emails, etc.  These are often automated but pervasive yet greetings and copy can easily be edited to reflect gender-neutral language like they/them and people/person.
  • Brands + retailers stop using and stocking products that use racist slurs, like g*psy.  We’re so close to this one.  Sephora has one product that shows up, and Ulta has five (two from NYX!). Nordstrom has 11 (most being Byredo’s G*psy Water). Beautylish has six.

Provide More Accurate Swatches on Real People

Look, I get that brands are going to edit and manipulate their promotional photos–including swatches–to show their products in the best light (literally and figuratively), but if you’re going to show swatches on multiple skin tones, then those should be real people getting photographed, not digitally darkened (or lightened) skin.

Many brands have taken editing so far that swatches from brands have are often as useless as hex-code base square “swatches” were 10 years ago.  What is the point of showing swatches on three skin tones if the brand has manipulated them to look the same on everyone (when they’re not)?  (I appreciate Clinique showing how un-bronzer-like their bronzer is on deeper skin tones, though how marketing saw that and didn’t go, “Whoa, whoa, wait a minute!”)

Viseart provides more realistic swatches that are still neater, like they did for Spritz Edit, which clearly showed a difference in how colors appeared on lighter and deeper skin tones.  On other hand, you have a more “indie” brand like Melt Cosmetics that releases promotional swatches that look painted on and appear the same on all three skin tones… what’s the point?  Natasha Denona has been criticized for similar behavior, especially with respect to the mini Bronze & Glow released (but you can see here how the Love Glow palette is quite different on deep skin).

5
Jun 2020
5Jun 2020 EDITORIALS
Complexion Still has Room for Improvement

First and foremost, consistency is really key in determining whether a brand understands the need for diversity or is only doing it because it gets them marketing points. A brand’s product offerings should address the needs of a diverse community across all of its products, not just foundation or concealer (I feel like we’re starting to see improvement in getting deeper bronzers, but it is slow-going).

The bar is pretty low, so something might be better than nothing, but for all those brands who said they were listening (apparently, all of the many suggestions from the last few decades must not be accessible to read or review!)… here are some ways brands can keep improving in the complexion space to start:

Retailers Need to Carry All Shades

If a retailer is going to carry a product range, they should carry all shades when it comes to addressing the needs of different skin tones. In beauty, given that a lot of consumers purchase through places like Sephora and Ulta, retailers often encourage or discourage brands from doing certain things.

It’s one thing for a brand to release 50 shades of lipstick and retailers to carry 20 that they think will resonate (presuming a good variety of shade depths and undertones) but totally appalling when a brand has 30 shades but a retailer elects to only carry 10 of them.

Update @ 6/5/2020 7:15PM PST: Violet Grey has announced, as part of their larger diversity commitments: “In addition, we commit to stocking all color complexion shades from our current brand partners and will focus on securing wider makeup shade ranges moving forward.”

10 of 13 shades of MAC Face & Body carried at Violet Grey

Retailer Violet Grey makes curation a selling feature–but they do it even on foundation, concealer, and other VERY skin-tone dependent product ranges. Curating the types of products (this foundation formula over that one) or perhaps the top red shades in a lipstick formula may be of value… but the curation of skin-tone color products is baffling. In a timeline where many are advocating and pushing brands for greater shade ranges, and then they deliver, this seems like a retailer who is deliberately reducing shade ranges instead.

Violet Grey carries MAC Face & Body… MAC being one of the long-time leaders in inclusive shade ranges.  They carry 10 shades, while the range actually has 13… why are you dropping three shades? What shades did they drop?  N7, N9, and C7 — deeper ones, huh!  Violet Grey carries nine shades in Giorgio Armani’s Power Fabric Foundation (which is listed as a “new arrival” at the time of this post) when it is a 30-shade range; the deepest shade Violet Grey carries is 10, but the line goes all the way to 15.

4 of 15 shades of YSL's Touche Eclat carried at Violet Grey

I think one of the worst instances I’ve seen is that Violet Grey carries five shades (the deepest being 4.0) of YSL’s Touche Eclat Concealer, which is a range that YSL extended (it’s a cult favorite!) to 15 shades (deepest being 9.0).

I know Ulta carries only 40 shades from PUR’s range of 100, which is marginally more understandable.  On the flip side, Physicians Formula has long been known as having very short, limited shade ranges that favor lighter skin tones, but Ulta carries seven shades in their Silk Foundation, but there are actually 12 (which is by no means worthy of applause, of course!).  Ulta carries 14 out of 19 shades in Wet ‘n’ Wild’s Photo Focus Dewy Foundation; the missing shades are primarily in the tan/dark classifications (per the brand).

Update Existing Complexion Ranges, Too

I’m always surprised when a brand releases a new foundation with 30 or more shades but will often keep existing ranges the same. There are some brands that have revisited and extended existing ranges, which is a better approach and is actually acknowledging the need for more shades rather than trying to capitalize on having a “diverse” range for a new launch only.

This is especially true for brands that have struggled to have inclusive shade ranges; it would be so much stronger to take the time to extend the shade ranges of current formulas along with any newly-released ones.

Examples:

These are purely looking at number of shades offered, but please keep in mind that it is actually possible to offer 40 shades of poorly done depths and undertones, too, so sometimes more isn’t better.

Higher coverage formulas tend to require more shades due to level of opacity amplifying mismatching; sheerer formulas can have smaller shade ranges because they allow the natural color to come through more and so 40 shades may be unnecessary. This is not always true, though, and it really depends on the formula, finish, and how the shade range is distributed.

It’s more important that brands take care in creating a range of depths and undertones and evenly distributes those shades — 30 shades of light and light-medium and 10 shades of deep is still missing the point.

Maybelline Foundations at Ulta

  • Clinique Superpowder (six shades, only up to “Medium”) formulas were quite reduced compared to their liquid foundations (most having 25+ shades); Perfectly Real has 4x Very Fair, 4x Moderately Fair, 2x, Medium, and 1x Deep shades.
  • L’Oreal has 40 shades in Infallible Fresh Wear and 38 shades in True Match, but there are only 12 shades in Infallible Pro-Glow and 15 shades of True Match Lumi (Ulta’s shade match recommendations provide six options for lightest skin tones but only two for deep skin tones).
  • Maybelline finally extended Instant Age Rewind Concealer to 18 shades but their other top selling concealers have 12 shades, while Face Studio Master Concealer has five shades (the deepest being “Medium/Deep”).

I’ve noticed that a lot of the brands carried at Sephora have 20+ shades in a range, and the majority seem to be consistent across their ranges–not always the same but often reflective of coverage-level (so tinted moisturizers or sheer formulas have less than medium-to-full coverage formulas).

Travel-Sizes in More Shades

It’s always funny when a brand with 40 shades proceeds to offer travel-sizes or sample-sizes of two or three shades. Oh, that’s useful!

Recently, I saw that Tarte offered their Shape Tape in travel-size… across 30 shades, which is the full extend of the full-size range (though this isn’t the case with some of the other travel-sized complexion products, like Babassu Foundcealer, which offers six shades in travel-size–at least they were evenly split across depths–vs. 30 shades in the full-size range).  I’ve also seen NARS Radiant Creamy Concealer and Laura Mercier Tinted Moisturizers offered in mini-sizes in the same shade range as full-size.

Here are a few that are missing the point:

  • Benefit Hello Happy Foundation offers one, lonely mini in their lightest shade 1, at Sephora.
  • Giorgio Armani Luminous Silk offers minis at Sephora, stops at 7.5 whereas full-range has 15 as the deepest shade.
  • Urban Decay Stay Naked Concealer offers three shades in travel-size through their site in 20CP, 40NN, and 50CP — but the depths go all the way up to 90.

Improve Descriptions

Brands could help their customers so much more by providing specific descriptions of each shade by depth (lightest to deepest), undertone (not just warm vs. cool but is it pink, yellow, olive, neutral, red, peach, etc.), and strength of that undertone (“warm yellow” or “neutral, leaning warm” or “very pink”).  I have reached out to brands for specific shade descriptions and received the answer, “We don’t have any,” and surely, when the brand created and developed the shades, there was something written down with respect to what each shade was supposed to be…. no? There should be!

Stop Calling Shades Nude

Seriously, let’s leave “Nude” as a single shade name in 2020–why is any single foundation or concealer shade being called nude?   This is such an easy thing for consumers to do; as I mentioned previously, nude is a concept, not a color, so it as a shade name or a description doesn’t do an apt job of describing the depth or undertone of a product.  There are far too many brands who market certain types of products, say a range of lipsticks, and convey that they kind of understand that nude isn’t one color but then will have a shade called Nude something rather in their foundation range.

Maybe Try Numbers

Typically numbers go from low to high and represent light to deep in depth, and there are some brands who have flipped that and made the lowest numbered shade correspond with their deepest offering, so it doesn’t seem like the perfect solution but by and large, a lot of readers find a numbering system to offer greater insight in how shades are arranged in depth and enables brands to add-in undertone information pretty readily while side-stepping a naming minefield otherwise.  I mean, hey — MAC’s system still remains a way a lot of people identify their coloring!

Example:

  • Pick a numerical range: 10 to 100 or 1 to 40 or 100 to 1000
  • Create an undertone system:  use letters to convey undertone value, e.g. Y for Yellow or W for Warm (which is not quite an undertone; brands could be way more specific on what they’re trying to sell you given they created it!)

It’s probably a good call to leave room between shades so that shade extensions can be made as necessary, so 10, 20, 30, 40, etc. allows for 12, 26, 34 as necessary.  It’ll also save brands from the pitfalls of imbalance in the types of words they use for lighter vs. deeper shades as readers have pointed out… some really have no desire to be referred to as various foods.

Re-Think Fair

As a final note, I’ll say that we need to re-think the usage of fairest (and fair) when we really mean lightest. Fairest/fair has connotations linked to being beautiful (“who’s the fairest of them all?”) and justness, so being tied to very light skin gives us reason to scrutinize its usage more.

Today, I expect that we will update and rollout adjusted skin tone names to reflect that here on Temptalia such that Fairest is now Lightest and other adjustments were made to reflect that. Numbers still need descriptions, so using 1 for deepest or lightest would still require a description (like lightest, medium, deepest) to convey where that number was on the scale, so the step forward today is in adjusting the descriptors.

I want to thank readers who mentioned it on my editorial earlier this week (and also on social media), and I also want to thank my Discord readers who let me bounce naming ideas off of them to try and find a substitute for “fairest” and “fair” — because we already use “light.”

I’d also love to hear from readers and the larger community as to where you’d like to see additional improvement when it comes to complexion product offerings!

3
Jun 2020
3Jun 2020 EDITORIALS
How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change
How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change

The language we use is important and has consequences.  Adjusting our language (or being aware of the impact of language) is a way we can reduce harm as individuals on an on-going basis. By being aware of how the word choices we make and whether there’s room for improvement, we really can make the beauty space more inclusive, respectful, and kinder.

Let’s Use Specific Descriptions

Is there any product that’s universally loved? Any?  Regardless of product category, price point, color, texture, or whatever, not everything works for everybody and that’s literally the point of having a billion brands and products released every year — something for everyone.  There are several examples of the language used under the guise of one-size-fits-all that need to change.

Nude is a concept, not a color.

The color of what is “nude” depends on who it is being applied to, and it really is a “me but better” kind of concept.  It’s the natural flush your skin makes when you blush, it’s your natural lip color but better, it’s your skin tone but more defined (through playing with light and dark).  A lot of brands use the word “nude” to describe something that is a shade of beige.  This is also done with words like flesh and skin.

It is infinitely more useful to describe something like, “This is my favorite nude [product type] on my [insert skin tone/coloring] because it enhances [color/undertone].” For me: This is my favorite nude lipstick on my light/light-medium, neutral-to-warm skin tone because it enhances the rosy undertones of my lips.  I’m so bothered by the word nude that I would rather say “my favorite lips-but-better lipstick is” than “my favorite nude is,” though.

Examples:

(Links go to product reviews, I’ve consciously not linked to any retailer in this post.)

Some of the brands above have more inclusive shade ranges in their foundation or concealer products, but even within those ranges, sometimes they still use Nude as if it is an actual color. Is the word “nude” really descriptive of a specific color or undertone or depth?  Would it not be better to describe it as “light beige, pink undertones” or “pale pink, neutral undertones” or “mid-tone brown, pink undertones” — would those descriptions not be more useful for everyone anyway?

A lot of times brands will be more descriptive for shades that might be “nude” in concept — NARS Belle du Jour is listed as “sheer nude beige,” but shades like Rosecliff (“satin soft rose”), Pigalle (“matte neutral pink chocolate”), Pour Tojours (“matte warm pink”), Tonka (“matte rose brown”) all get clearer descriptions but don’t use the word “nude.”

Some brands seem like they are trying to expand on what “nude” means, like Natasha Denona’s “I Need a Nude” Lipstick, which has 18 shades, or Pat McGrath having Flesh 3 / Flesh 5 under “Nudes” (along with several other shades) and neither are light beige.  Huda Beauty released three versions of their Nude Obsessions Palettes (Light, Medium, Rich).

Honestly, as customers, we would be so much better served by brands who were specific in their color descriptions across products. There are a lot of brands that use all sorts of names that indicate nothing about the color and don’t even bother to provide descriptions of colors, undertones, and/or finishes. Which is more useful to you as a consumer?

Description #1: Giggly Bot
or
Description #2: Giggly Bot, a light-medium green with muted, olive undertones, metallic finish.

Similarly, if you talk about products you love, whether as passing comments on forums or social media, or write reviews, whether on your own space or on a retailer, being more specific about how a color looks to you, on you, and what your characteristics are (that are relevant to that product type) goes a long way to making your recommendation/review have more value.

Universal? Far From It

The more aware you are of how different formulas, finishes, and colors work across skin tones, the more obvious it becomes that “universal” shouldn’t be used… but especially in context of color cosmetics.  Not only is it more useful to be descriptive and say, “This shade is so flattering on my [insert your skin tone, undertone, coloring details here] because it [does whatever]” than “This universal bronzer adds warmth to all skin tones!”

Hourglass Ambient Lighting Palettes are loved by a lot, but they have routinely been harder-to-use or have completely left deeper skin tones out of it.  The original trio is described as “three universal shades,” when I know readers have mentioned this is not the case. Charlotte Tilbury Filmstar Bronze/Glow originally came in one shade (probably not bronzing on anyone beyond medium) and described it as universal (it’s still described this way but now has a second duo available).

I’ll give you this: something that’s clear–colorless–like a lip balm could have greater mass appeal and wearability regardless of skin tone (but it’s not going to work well universally!).

Not Everything is For You

If there’s one thing I’ve tried to really, really build and enforce in my community is a respect for each person’s individual preferences.  A lot of the products covered here are from mainstream brands, who likely dump tons of money into figuring out what their demographic will purchase, so when a color gets released, they had someone in mind who wanted it.

It’s important that when making commentary about a product, especially when it’s in regards to its color, to speak in a way that clearly gives it as a personal opinion on that color on you.  When someone says something like, “Who would wear this?” it puts boundaries on what is or isn’t acceptable, what is or isn’t the “norm.” It implies that there’s something wrong with those who would wear it.

This often occurs when a highlighter is released in a shade more geared toward deeper skin tones, say in a copper, and you might see a flood of comments like “how is that a highlighter?” It is a highlighter… just not for you.  You might approach it from a different perspective going forward: “It would be too dark for me, but it has a gorgeous finish!” or “I love the color, but I’d use it as a shimmery blush!” or you might refrain from commenting since it’s just not a product for you (it doesn’t need to be!).

This also applies to your preferences.  Share your preferences without casting judgment on other people’s preferences.  If you don’t like blue eyeshadow, then that new blue eyeshadow palette isn’t for you, and that’s okay, but it doesn’t mean that someone who wears it is wrong/different for loving it.  Saying “That’s only for Halloween” or “That’s clown makeup” are typical expressions whenever a color is released that is nontraditional.  Again, center your opinion of a color to yourself: “That color wouldn’t work for me!” or “I don’t know how I would use that in my routine!” or–I know it is hard sometimes–you don’t have to participate in that conversation.

(Seriously, have you ever seen how mocked 1-star reviews are when they effectively say “wrong shade, one star”?)

Need for Gender Neutral Language

The continued, prevalent use of female pronouns in beauty is dangerous and doesn’t acknowledge the diversity of the community.  This ranges from the assumption that people in the community are all female to how retailers divide the beauty category into male and female product categories, which is first and foremost, not acknowledging the full spectrum of gender identity but also supports the idea of makeup is for women, not for men.

If you go to Nordstrom, Beauty is a separate section, but “men” remains a section and under “men” you’ll find select beauty product types; if you browse sale products, “beauty” shows up under “Women.”  If you go to Sephora, there’s a “Men” section, which only includes fragrance, skincare, shaving, hair, etc. products. Beautylish is pretty much all-beauty, and they only segment by gender under “Fragrance.” Some beauty brands’ direct shopping sites don’t categorize under gender, like Bite Beauty and MAC, but some do, like Clinique.

I became much more aware of this when I had a male reader reach out and said he felt included for the first time because I used “they” instead of female pronouns, and he appreciated that he was just included. This was many years ago, and it has stayed with me, and as I’ve learned more about gender identity in the last few years, trying to ensure I use gender-neutral language is something I try to be more and more aware of.

Let’s Learn Together

These are some of the ways I’ve changed my language over time.  “Nude” is probably the hill I will die on when it comes to language used in beauty. I try to use the term “beauty enthusiasts” over “beauty addicts” as I don’t want to encourage shopping addictions or rampant consumerism. I also try to be very aware of when I say “need” over “want” for similar reasons.  I’m not a huge fan of the term “wearable” because I feel like it isn’t a neutral descriptor, so I’ve been using “nontraditional,” though I’m not fully satisfied with that either.

What are some ways language in beauty could be improved? I’d love to learn from readers as well!

How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change

How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change

How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change

How the Language of Beauty Needs to Change