Monday, January 4th, 2010

Make sure you also read the follow-up to this post, which compares Kitschmas vs. Kitschmas.

Old vs. New MAC Pigment Jar Packaging: A Tale of Comparisons

The news may be old, but the feelings are still raw. MAC has changed up their packaging for their pigments, which are loose color (often multi-purpose). The MAC website, just today, updated and not reflects the new jar packaging.

This post is extremely image-heavy (22 images, 4mb), so please be patient if it takes awhile to load.  If you like this post, please feel free to link to it, but we would really appreciate if you did not hotlink the images!  Thank you!! :)

Here’s why some are upset:

  • New packaging (we often do not like change, period)
  • Sizing has decreased from typical 7.5g/0.26 oz. to 4.5g/0.15 oz.
  • Pricing is the same ($19.50 U.S.)

Because this post is designed to give you a very detailed insight into the differences between the sizing and packaging of both the old and the new…

Here is a summary for those find this post too long to read.

After dumping a new jar and an old jar, seeing it in real life, looking at the heighths, widths, density, etc., I suspect you’re losing around 1/2 teaspoon worth of pigment.  It may be more, it may be less, depending on the pigment in question.  (I estimate roughly 4 teaspoons of pigment per old jar, on average.)  You’re still getting plenty of pigment for your money–likely more than the majority of us will use up in a lifetime. Pigments often differ in texture and density; they’re not all made alike. Some are very chunky (e.g. Kitschmas) while others are very smooth (Vanilla). At the end of the day, I think you’re still getting much more than you think (and you’re not getting as little as you think).

See my detailed comparison with LOTS of photos…

Above is why I think you’re not losing very much.

On the left, we have Universal Mix, which is a new and limited edition pigment debuting this Thursday. On the right, we have Blonde’s Gold, which is an older pigment (no longer available). I chose Blonde’s Gold for comparisons for two reasons: 1) I know I’ve never used it, so it’s totally and utterly full; 2) it had similar texture – very fine, though it’s not 100% the same. Universal Mix has a very, very fine and smooth texture. It’s like silk almost. It almost feels wet when you smoosh it together, and it has a tendency to clump together (see the photos above — Universal Mix looks like lots of chunky bits), whereas Blonde’s Gold is looser and doesn’t clump up nearly as much.

The piles may look a little different, which is a result of their textures - I just dumped both out on separate sheets of wax paper. The Universal Mix pile is smaller in size, but it’s taller; Blonde’s Gold just kind of splat and so it’s wider, but much shorter (which is why I took heighth photos, too). I don’t have a scale to which to weigh, which is unfortunate, but hopefully pictures tell you the bigger story.

I then clean and refilled the new packaging with Blonde’s Gold, which fit snugly into the old packaging. Do you see what remains? It’s a very small amount — roughly half a teaspoon or less of pigment. I used to sell pigment samples (like four years ago), and I can’t even tell you exactly how many teaspoons are in a jar — usually round four, sometimes more or less, depending on the pigment’s texture. If I really wanted to, I could have really compacted the Blonde’s Gold pigment into the new packaging and probably could have fit the rest in, which brings me to my next point…

On the bottom left, you’ll see Universal Mix back in its new packaging. Do you see how much is overflowing? Do you see all the residue beside it? Pigments can be “fluffed” or they can be pressed down and compacted. When brand new, all of it fit neatly and nicely in the new packaging, but unpacked and you can’t fit it all back in the jar without pressing the pigment down to fill it up again.  I’ve had matte pigments that say they’re only 2.5g in weight, but they fill up the entire jar… but I’ve also had matte pigments that say they’re only 2.5g in weight and barely fill half of a jar.

Thoughts on New Packaging

Straight from MAC HQ, the new jars were designed to reflect the packaging of MAC’s entire line, particularly their nail lacquers and foundations. They hit it on the head with the new packaging. It’s slim, compact, and reminiscent of both the nail lacquers and foundations. The new packaging is slightly taller than the old packaging and the insert has a little plastic tab to make it easier to pull up (my big thumbs, however, did not find it easy to remove it). The new packaging uses a thinner plastic as well. The tops are similar, but obviously the newer jar top is taller, but the jar itself goes over halfway into the “top” (the black portion).

The labeling is also much different. The new packaging doesn’t list the weight on the jar itself, only on the box. The new packaging has the logo on the front, and then it has the name of the product and the location of MAC HQ. The bottom of the new packaging lists the same information as the back of the jar, plus the pigment’s name and the batch number (A99). The old packaging has much of the same information, but it doesn’t have some of the extra words like “Dist. By” and “Made in.” Again, the old packaging lists the weight of the product as well. The old packaging also has a label on the bottom with the pigment’s name and batch number.

Thoughts on Pricing

It’s very, very rare for a brand to reduce price. It’s usually not a good sign, actually. I wouldn’t have expected MAC to reduce the price. Seeing how much I’m still getting in terms of actual quantity and usage? I’m not too concerned about the price staying the same. Yes, you get a little less, but you really do get more than you need. I still think you’ll have plenty of product to press, though Universal Mix, because of its ultra fine texture, would likely still require a bit more pigment than some of the more frost-finish ones (e.g. Teal or Fuchsia).

But let’s not forget two points… MAC’s Richmetal pigments were 4.3g in the old jar packaging. I didn’t see much of an uproar then. But wait — those pigments still came full. 4.3g of those pigments still filled up the jar that also holds 7.5g of other pigments.  Second, this is not the first time (and few seemed to care then) MAC has changed packaging, given you less, and made you pay the same or more — Dazzleglass is a prime example. Dazzleglass was one of the first lip products rolled out in the larger-sized tube packaging, but it contains much less gloss — 0.06 oz. — compared to their traditional Lipglass, which is 0.17 oz. You lost 0.11 oz. AND you pay $4.50 more. It bothered me then, still bothers me now, but I just don’t remember nearly as much backlash as there has been over the pigments.

So…

While the OCD in me will miss the old packaging, I’m not going to stop purchasing pigments just because they’re in a newer jar. I’m, personally, going to get the same enjoyment out of them as I always have, because I’ve never, ever finished a jar. It’s not like I’m going to have to run out and buy a second jar because they’ve given me so much less. I’m still going to end up with a jar that looks practically full, even two years from now. Like all the other pigments I own. (The only pigments I have that are less than 90% full are either because I sampled out from them years ago or I’ve spilled it at some point.)

I’m not going to tell you to buy or not to buy, because it’s more about the value you see in pigments and your own money. I just wanted to tell you what I’m going to do, and I thought I would show you, as best I could, why the difference isn’t big enough to merit me getting upset.  If you’re upset, let MAC know, because I know they’re listening. :)

Sidenote: the best way to compare between the old and the new would be to take the same pigment and compare the new vs. the old that way.  It would also be helpful to have a scale handy, to weigh both and see where they came out.  I may or may not do this at some later point, but we will see.

What are your thoughts?

Look how much does fit into the jar – you probably could press it enough to get it all to fit.

Look how much is LEFT OUT of the jar when I put Blonde’s Gold back into the old packaging!  Does the jar look empty to you?  To get it all in, I had to press the pigment down to compact it.

Just to show you all the steps…

The fluff… the fluff… the fluff is on fi-yah!

Please do not hotlink these images. If you want to share these images or this post, please link back to it. Thank you!

Discussion and debate are highly encouraged, and we expect community members to participate respectfully. When asking a question, please check the FAQ section (above) for information about purchasing, price, dupes, and the like. If you have general feedback or need technical support, please contact us.

Comments that include advertisements, self-promotion, insults, etc. may be in violation of our comment policy and subject to deletion. Please see our comment policy for more information.

272 thoughts on “Old vs. New MAC Pigment Jar Packaging: A Tale of Comparisons

  1. Hannah

    I like the new packaging! it kinda reminds of their nail polish bottles!!

  2. stephanie

    its just harder for me to put it in my organizer lol… i do like that vanilla color

  3. sharon

    i dont really like that change at all.. but.. being honest i will not stop buying mac pigments… less product – same price.. it sucks really.. but.. i know im going to run and buy them as always.. :)

  4. Tina

    I wonder when everyone will realize that MAC is really only making a few cents more ‘profit’ on the new packaging? Like a previous comment said…it only costs pennies to make the actual pigment so they r only taking out a couple of pennies from their manufacturing cost…which trickles over to their profit margin…we r talking a few additional cents ppl.

    And also, do u guys realize that u r paying $14.50 for an eyeshadow that has 1.5g of product? So how r u getting mad when u r paying $19.50 for 4.5g???

    At the end of the day…those who love pigments will still buy the pigments and really rn’t missing much unless they were selling samples…which they can still do and make a profit.

    I will still buy…I LOVE MAC PIGMENTS!!!

  5. Christine, have you ever considered the possibility that this could be one of those releases with this 4.5 g exception? Because I also have other pigments in regular jars that only have a content of 4.5 g -> Antique Green, Push the Edge

    • I think the website now reflects 4.5g — I did, originally, question whether it was 4.5g for the All Ages pigments only, but yeah, the website has them listed as 4.5g.

      http://www.maccosmetics.com/product/spp.tmpl?CATEGORY_ID=CAT793&PRODUCT_ID=372

      Pigments have always had some variation – 7.5g was kind of the “standard” but there have definitely been deviations! Push The Edge I wouldn’t have thought, but it’s not surprising. I’ve seen 2g, 2.5g, 4.3g, 7.5g… I think maybe not everyone was aware that hey, you weren’t getting 7.5 when you bought Push the Edge, but you thought you did, because it felt like the same volume.

      I don’t even bother to look most the time, and I didn’t even know much about the variations until this whole new packaging shabang happened!

  6. I’m actually kind of happy about this. New packaging means my CCO is going to have a bunch of new additions to their pigments section for less.

  7. I noticed that in the last few pigments I bought (old packaging) that there was far less pigment in the jar. It was not as compacted. I think that they decreased the amount you were getting at least a year ago and just now started using a smaller package to fit the smaller amount. I have two pigments of the same color bought 2 years apart. One was purchased last year and the other a couple of years ago. There is a drastic difference in the amount of pigment in the first and second bottles.

    • By the way I do sell samples to the other Mom’s at dance. I paid for a Chinese dinner out with my daughter one night from that. They love it. I buy the little empty plastic paint cups that are all stuck together. I just cut them apart after each order. They snap close easy. I charge $1.50 for about a 1/4 to 1/2 a teaspoon.

    • It could also be that maybe you got more than what was stated, too. Unless you weigh ‘em, it’s hard to know what’s what, even if you’re getting the same, less, or more.

  8. mary c

    When I saw how small the Dazzleglass contents were, and the huge price difference, I stopped buying Dazzleglasses. Not worth it.

    • Diana

      Same here as well. The worst part is that they tried to make it seem like you were still getting a lot by putting it in a taller and thinner package… I hate to say this, but it seems like MAC is ripping off their customers..

      ..and I know the economy is not going well but it really does not cost much for MAC to make these pigments. Also, looking at the bigger picture, MAC makes millions and maybe even billions, so I don’t see how it is necessary for them to be raising prices here. Considering they reduced the pigments by almost half the amount, a small price reduction (like 16.50) would have been greatly appreciated. And technically if their reason for increasing the price is because the cost of production increased then they should lower the price once the economy is better. But it bothers me that they probably wont be reducing the price even when the economy picks up..

      ..even though I don’t plan on boycotting their new pigments, I will definitely think twice before purchasing any, and in the event that I buy them, I know I will never be fully satisfied with the product.

      …this is a sad day. :[

      • Keep in mind that a company has many, many costs, not just the cost to procure or purchase or produce a single item. There are employees to pay, benefits to pay, marketing, packaging, public relations, third parties, etc. etc. I’m not saying that MAC is or isn’t profitable or that they’re not doing well despite the economy (I don’t know anything about the health of their business or even the makeup of their cost structure really is), I just know that no business has such a black and white cost structure.

        MAC raises all prices by $0.50 to $2.50 (I think this is the max) on all products every year (I think all Estee Lauder brands do this), so I very much doubt they’d lower prices, good or bad economy — they’ve still raised the prices over the past few years as far as I know.

  9. First of all – great post! Thanks!

    Second – I don’t see how is actually important the fact that I won’t spent something I’ve paid for? Is that actually a reason for someone to cut the amount of the product because there is, so they say, “too much of it”? No, I don’t think so. If I’m paying for something, why should anyone care how much it takes me to spend it?

    Third, prices are very different here in Europe so for us it really will be much more expensive. :(

    And, at the end, lucky for me, I love mineral pigments and thanks God those are cheap! :)

  10. Honestly, if they’re charging the same amount and giving you less, then the old packaging is clearly better. Unless they clearly stated somewhere that they were going to have a change in pricing policy.

    It’s all rather dubious otherwise!

    • If they put the weight on the box and you know the price, is it not clearly stated? I guess I am unsure what you mean by it being dubious, so what would make it clearly stated if that isn’t it? I’m just curious :)

  11. HT

    What a cool post! Thanks for breaking everything down. The pictures and explanation really helped!

  12. Dai Ming

    It’s true that I am not gonna finish up the whole bottle, but I do feel uncomfortable with paying the same price for less product than before. Not a problem with $$$ but it just doesn’t feel good. I will need need some time to get used to the new average price, and for the time being I won’t buy new pigments.

  13. I was thinking that these new containers might be easier to carry in an Artists case. I like the old jar. It’s like a friend. lol It’s not a big deal to me though. I can’t believe I paid 32.00 for a lipgloss that was half the size of a Mac Lipglass. When it comes to makeup product, if I want it bad enough, I’ll pay it. Otherwise, I’ll swap for a sample on Makeup alley or buy samples from LJ or specktra. I would never use up a pigment anyway.

  14. The only reason I don’t want to get the new jar is because it won’t fit with the rest of my pigments. That’s why I didn’t get any of the holiday sets even though I really wanted to, but the jars weren’t the same ;P. Sigh. I won’t stop buying the pigments though because they are my fav mac product. Oh, and I never bought any of the Dazzleglasses because of how little product you get and how expensive it is. At least with the pigments it’s enough to last.

  15. Luisafer

    your opinion is always of a great value for me!!! haven’t compare new and old, but at the same time, I’m not used to use pigments, guess I should use them more ;-)

  16. Honestly, my biggest problem with the change is that now the new jars won’t look like all my old ones, lol!
    Pigments are pretty much the only things in my collection that look nice and organized! :P

  17. Lizzy

    I’ve been wanting a “half jar” pigment that would be less for less money; It’s pricey stuff. I found a pretty impressive version at NYX, so I’m not so concerned by MAC doing this.

    The stack jar pigments coming out interest me too; $34 but I get plenty of four colors. That makes more sense for people who just buy for personal use.

  18. Thank you so much for taking the time to do that. I ordered 9 pigments last night and when I saw the first picture I was all sent to return them as soon as they arrived. Having read the entire article and looking at the pictures I am now not as cross as I was :0). I do however feel this will give the vultures on Ebay a great selling advantage saying they have the old packaging with more product.

  19. Katya

    well new pacaging looks slim.., and cute, but i prefer old ones better no matter what…, but again pigment is a pigment – if you ran out – you most likely to go get it no matter what!!!
    also i dont know if its just me or not, befor ei left my house i checked out the “old pigments” and when i got to the mac store i compared the quality so speaking, and i noticed that the “older” pigments are smoother and not as chunky at all as “new once”…

  20. The need to charge a little less. Maybe convert it somehow, like 7.5g from original jars $19.50 and take tat amount of 4.5g from the new ones, and adjust the pricing that way. It just seems more fair, don’t you think? MAC addicts and MAC devotees should not be gipped my a company they trust and feel they can rely on. It isn’t fair for them. (them, I am including myself lol!)

  21. yvette

    christine, i bought one of the holiday pigment mini sets and i really don’t know how to use them on my eyes. can you point me towards any of your posts that explain this? i am thinking i really need a paint pot…

  22. Original Pigment
    7.5g for $19.50.
    What is the price per gram for this?
    $2.60 per gram.

    So for the New Pigments and in all fairness, they should charge by price per gram- because THAT’s the amount you’re getting!:
    4.5g x $2.60 = $11.70 (which is what the cost should be if they were to be fair, and charge by price per gram)
    !!!!

  23. alana

    the size doesnt bother me, nor does the cost, what does bother me is that all my pigments will be jumbled up in different sized pots, new and old. the OCD in me is really angry about this, i guess i will have to just deal with it, but eugh, i will have to have seperate drawers for my new and old pigments or this will do my head in!

  24. Profile wp-user-avatar wp-user-avatar-60 alignnone photo of aradhana aradhana

    thanks for the post christine!

    i prefer the new packaging, as one of the previous readers mentioned, i also found the old jar quite cumbersome…and i highly doubt i could use up all that pigment anyway, unless i start using it for body painting.
    i suppose the cost is going up, but make up is a luxury anyway, so i don’t dwell too long on the increase…

    anyway, looking forward to universal mix!

  25. ElleryAllison

    DO THE MATH!
    (I want to major in math when I get to college, so of course, I’ve done mine)
    If you compare the amount of pigment you get with the current price, the new pigment should be exactly $11.70 for the size. It’s proportions.
    4.5/7.5 = X/19.50
    That’s almost an EIGHT DOLLAR difference.
    Ridiculous.
    It’s not even that I mind the new packaging, or the size, it’s the fact that they have the same price!!!
    You lose 40% of the product with this size change!
    It should lose 40% off the price as well.

  26. j

    wow. I doubt I’ll buy anymore pigments. I like all my packaging of a particular item to be the same.

  27. DEE3YINT

    i’m not liking the new one s its smaller :/ wtf is mac thinking ?wow :/

  28. So sad that they changed the packaging and there is less product, but mabe they did it for reason and sometimes change is good, sometimes it is bad we will just have to see. I love the old packaging and will always love, i hate the new look, but…. i love MAC and their pigments so much that i’ll continue to buy and adapt to the change, until then i’m going to run to the counters that do have the old ones and stock up, cause i do use alot with the pigments. Well Ladies we will to adapt to this, just like we too adapted to many changes in life. I HATE THE NEW PACKAGING MAC>> LOVE YA>>>>….. “Thank you too Christine for posting the pic’s…..”

  29. Angela Ott

    I am really starting to think it is more about MAC becoming more of a consumer driven/directed brand rather than the artist driven it has been in the past and not so much about the money for MAC.

    The comparisons most are making are in reference to consumer directed brands, with MUFE being one distinction but none of their products are really like the MAC pigments at all-in quality, texture or usage. (ie diamond dust is s glitter product, star powder is a not a pigment product, the MUFE pigment is much more of a truer purer pigment compared to most of the MAC pigments,for example they don’t contain glitters etc) So I really think it is about MAC evolving slowly into a magazine/consumer type of brand where the smaller bottle with less product is more par for the course.

  30. wonderful comparison! I think I’ll actually like the new packaging better because I always felt that the old packaging was very clumsy. I appreciated the vial since it’s less likely to spill but the opening is too small.

  31. HC

    My push the edge pigment from a collection not too long (forgot what it was!) ago is also 4.3g! I JUST noticed. Omg! And I bought it for $19.50 and was super happy about it. HAHA wow. How come MAC can’t just give us 4.5g and keep the same jars? Goodness. They love to toy w/ the OCDness in most people!

    • Profile wp-user-avatar wp-user-avatar-60 alignnone photo of Andrea Andrea

      ugh, I didn’t know that. I gave my sister my Full Size Grape pigment because it looked exactly like the Push The Edge pigment. The main difference was that the Grape had itty bitty glitter in it and was tagged on the insert as not eye safe. So I figured I’ll just get Push The Edge and share the pigment joy with my little sister. Hrm. Not that I’d use any of it up, but they were sneeking stuff in on us to see what the consumer would bear.

  32. Nora

    I like how they’ve designed the jar opening. Now that it’s narrower and has a lip to it I think it’ll be much easier and more practical.

    I’m all for the new packaging, for sure, but I think the price could be a bit cheaper. But I’ll live!

  33. I just feel uncomfortable with the fact MAC knows how much power they have, that they can do this and still people will buy, buy, buy! I also wish they had considered a completely different jar that would help with spillage!

  34. ak

    If the one in the first picture on the left is the new Pigment, then they’ve made it look taller and like they’re giving you more!

  35. Well im upset because i like things to stay the same in terms of aesthetics and i think its going to be annoying to get pigment out of the new jars and they will probably fall over ALL the time because they arent as wide :( they wont look right against my other jars!! :( im really upset to be really really honest with you! :(

  36. SiaM

    This post is so exact and professional (as always ^_^). I thank you for being so objective regarding the product. It was definitely worth it to read the reasoning, comparisons, pictures and details. Great point about the packaging and weight (g) that the different products have, I don’t own many MAC pigments but I am definitely still planning to expand my collection.

  37. this is not unlike going to the grocery store though right? The cereals and jars have cleverly shrunken or changed packaging to reduce product while increasing profit. If you want it bad enough, we’ll all still buy the beautiful pigments when they come out. It’s not fair, but honestly I expected something like this to happen. The corporate machines must perservere. Honestly, with MAC, it’s still worth it. I mean, we got a LOT of pigment in the old jars…pigments that, as mentioned, will last forever for a normal person.

  38. Mnemosyne

    i remember coming home with my richmetal pigments recognizing the amount in the jar and the labeling i went back to the store and exchanged them because i hate nothing more than cheating on customers!
    i’m in retail myself and i honestly would tell people that they are purchasing less product for the same price.
    MAC could have changed the jars back then, in holiday sets it is obviously less, you just know it by looking at the jar but not with the richmetal pigments.

    about the new jars, i guess even people who haven’t heard about the decrease of product know it by looking at the new jar, that the price remains the same is difficult to sell for their artists…they are the ones who get the complaining “why is the price the same?” “why was it not more expensive back then if the value is the same?”, “i’m not going to buy anything from you in the future” “i’m telling all my friends” etc etc – i’m with all the MAC artist worldwide :)

  39. Profile wp-user-avatar wp-user-avatar-60 alignnone photo of Andrea Andrea

    My thoughts.

    Personally, I like the new packaging for storage reasons. However I do feel like I’m getting jipped. I felt like I was getting jipped on the richmetal pigments also, but they were all so gorgeous I bought anyway. In the case of Heritage Rouge, more than once. Blondes Gold would be second only to Heritage Rouge for me. They pair so nicely. I think they should lower the price. We know we are never going to use a full jar of pigment, but we still think pigment is gold and should be priced as such. Price by the gram.

    For the OCD in any of us, it would be nice if Mac sold the new packaging jars empty, so we could re-package our old pigments to suit our desire for consistency and storage.

    Does MAC listen to our comments on this page?

    • There are definitely MAC eyes on Temptalia, as well as other blogs, internet sites, forums, etc. Whether they listen *and* change their course of action? Who knows. I imagine since they’ve already invested money into developing and testing of the new packaging, plus it’s rolled out into stores online (it’s a pretty fast change, actually), I doubt you’ll see a change. It’s very, very unusual for a company in a non-essential product line (e.g. makeup) to decrease price permanently, if at all. MAC probably heard loud and clearly what MAC addicts thought when the news first broke earlier in December, too.

      We also don’t know the real reasons or how legitimate those reasons were for changing packaging and keeping the price the same. I wouldn’t expect them to reveal those to consumers/the public, either.

  40. Lisa

    Thank you, Temptalia! This was VERY, VERY helpful! While I rarely purchase whole jars of pigments, this gives me reassurance that MAC Cosmetics isn’t doing something “wrong” to it’s many customers. I appreciate all that YOU do for us!

  41. totally agree with everything desree said. mac has always been decently priced. i would rather get less product anyway! i hate having a lot of pigments because i feel as if i am wasting product. the price staying the same doesn’t bother me at all

  42. I hate this :( I think the taller packaging is ugly, I like it small and cute. I hate that they took away some product and didnt decrease the price. Overall fail for mac.

  43. Hannah

    If the mattes in the old packaging were 2 / 2.5g then how much will it be in to new packaging? Because if its less than one gram then I see that as a bit of a waste, especially if its an amazing colour.
    apart from that i’m not too bothered but i do prefer the old packaging. For me (because i’m a cheapo) i rarely buy MAC pigments because they’re too expensive (pocket money wages ;) so if they raised the price i don’t think I would buy them any more.
    Just my opinion…

  44. xoBellaCullenxo

    i saw this first with the collection and thought it was limited edition but then while i was looking at the pigments on the site i realized the new look! i prefer the old look, because you get more!

  45. santi

    the only issue i have is the security of the tops. they seemed to be an accident waiting to happen.

  46. I cant believe you dumped the product! Nooooo, what a waste LOL. Very interesting read though :)

  47. Eve Amezquita

    I think its wrong of Mac to charge the same and give me less product it is wrong! I am VERY upset and I think it’s time to look at another make up line. There are other brands out in the market that will do the job for me! Long time customer saying good bye!

  48. Philippine

    Here’s what MAC had to say in an e-mail after i complained about the issue:
    We sincerely apologize for any disappointment that may have been caused by the recent change in MAC Pigment packaging. We strive to provide our customers with the highest quality, professional caliber makeup products and excellent value. Occasionally, we need to adjust the sizes and/or pricing of products because of an increase in the costs associated with producing a product. We’ve recently adjusted the size of our Pigments. Because of the intensity of the colour and the high quality of the ingredients, MAC Pigments remain an exceptional value. You can create dramatic effects using just a small amount of product.

    Thank you for this opportunity to respond to your concerns. We hope you will continue to look to MAC Cosmetics Online with confidence and satisfaction for all of your cosmetic needs. If you would like to speak with one of our representatives at any time, please call 1-800-588-0070.

    Warmest regards,

    Meredith
    MAC Cosmetics Online
    Customer Service

  49. Makeup_Freak

    I am a Mac freak and I love their pigments, mostly because it’s so comfy to get in the jar, and because they are screw tops. I absolutely HATE the new packaging. It’s narrow, hard to get in, both pigments that I got spilled all over prior to me even opening them. The new lids suck, they don’t screw on, and pigment gets all over. This packaging is very very bad, and I am returning both of my messed up pigments.

  50. I wrote to CS two days ago and still waiting for an answer, their CS sucks big time and I need them to be quick so I can return them as we don’t get the same returns service you do in the UK

  51. Erika

    It’s funny because not too long ago I was using the holiday pigments and thought they were much easier to use with the small opening. If you’re a make up artist you cant be dipping brushes into the jar, you have to spill some out onto a palette to keep everything sanitary. The smaller opening would be much easier to use, in my opinion. If not, i can understand why it would be more inconvenient…But MAC did start out as a professional line, and is still used by many make up artists, so maybe thats one of the reasons why they changed the size. (and of course the economy)

    I do miss the old packaging though, I like everything to look uniform :(

  52. dfhb

    It’s just the simple fact that we, as consumers, do not like to see our products deplete in quantity but still cost just as much. It was a dumb move on MAC’s part and I’m sure will cause lots of people to stop buying Pigments. I know I will!

  53. Shatteredshards

    Meh, MAC more or less lost me when they started making every new collection half out of regular colors. I get much more interesting pigments from indie companies – sorry, MAC.

  54. Hey Christine! First off..I have bee following your blog off an on for years, and this is my first comment :) Anywho…I had seen this post a few days ago…I went into MAC yesterday, and I was talking to one of the mangers about how bummed I am that we are paying the same for less pigments…She then tells me, no your not…It is the same amount! And I said..well the old pacacking was 7.5 and they new is 4.5..and she said…no only glitters were 7.5.. its always been 4.5…So..I knew that I was right, but she is kinda moody, and I thought..well maybe i am wrong? So I guess my question/comment, is have you, or anyone else, had a MAC sales assocaiate/mngr. try and tell you that it did NOT change? I was completely in shock, and she has worked there for YEARS, and I just cannot imagine that she really thinks its the same…I wonder..Is MAC, or just my counter, maybe purposely lying about this?
    Okay..sorry for the long post..I hope you can answer this, and once again, lovely blog..I have been enjoying it for a long time, and will continue to :)
    XOXO
    Erika

    • I don’t know if she lied or if she really didn’t know. See, MAC pigment weights have varied — some matte pigments are 2.5, several of the recent MAC pigments have been 4.3g (not even 7.5g, but they’re in the older jar packaging), and now they’re 4.5g.

  55. amber

    I hate the new packaging!!! I have the Mac pro kit that has the extending shelves and the old pigments fit in there perfectly standing up, now they dont fit so I have to lay them down and they get cluttered and roll around when I’m driving to shoots. Bummed on it:(

  56. Brittany M

    I agree that the Dazzleglass is a bigger rip off. If you guys want the old pigment jars, go to your nearest Cosmetic Company Store, thats where I bought my first MAC pigments lol

  57. Sam

    I used to buy MAC pigments, and I owned quite a few, but I gave them all away because I could not stand how messy they were! (Black Black Pigment) And I am not a clean freak, but when I apply a pigment to my eye, I should not see it on my cheeks! All of the ones that I gave away, were the old packaging. Since then, I still do not like pigments, but I really LOVE MAC Reflects Glitters. And I will say, that the new packaging is a rip off. It is definitely a price increase. I already used some of Reflects Bronze with some clear lipgloss, and I used some on my cheeks and hair, and it is already half gone!!! It did not even come full to the top, but it was only a little bit more than half full, and that really annoys me! I am sorry, but I feel like MAC is ripping us off. Just like the Dazzleglasses, Cremesheen Glasses, Glimmerglasses…. ect. It is not fair. I work really hard to be able to buy makeup, and I have never been sent anything for free. I do not have a MAC pro card, and MAC is expensive in my opinion. I think it is easier for some people who were sent the product for free, to give a better review on it, because the money did not come out of their pocket. And I think that you have to understand that it is a price increase for consumers, because we pay for it.

  58. Hatti

    I actually much prefer the new packaging. How much is in there now doesn’t bother me because i agree with you when you said that nobody could go through one of these even in a whole life time. The new packaging is much sleeker and more dinky, and i link the “clink” of the glass as opposed to the plastic on the old ones.