We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!


Comments that do not adhere to our comment policy may be removed. Discussion and debate are highly encouraged but we expect community members to participate respectfully. Please keep discussion on-topic, and if you have general feedback, a product review request, an off-topic question, or need technical support, please contact us!

Please help us streamline the comments' section and be more efficient: double-check the post above for more basic information like pricing, availability, and so on to make sure your question wasn't answered already. Comments alerting us to typos or small errors in the post are appreciated (!) but will typically be removed after errors are fixed (unless a response is needed).

We appreciate enthusiasm for new releases but ask readers to please hold questions regarding if/when a review will be posted as we can't commit to or guarantee product reviews. We don't want to set expectations and then disappoint readers as even products that are swatched don't always end up being reviewed due to time constraints and changes in priorities! Thank you for understanding!

Comments on this post are closed.
We hope you'll consider supporting Temptalia by shopping through our links below. Thanks!

Depending on what that image may be, it most definitely can. For instance, even though I carry a certain style and a penchant for darker hues, I will not get into a brand that has an image of spiritistic or occult names, imagery or anything along those lines. On the other hand, I don’t find a brand whose image is too *vanilla* to generally be my thing either.

Yes. I don’t care for brands that have an edgy or bold aesthetic. It looks cheap and trashy to me. I prefer classic and elegant for a brand image and for me, that’s Chanel, Giorgio Armani, Anastasia, Make Up Forever, Tom Ford and MAC. MAC could be an exception, I guess, but I think it’s collection-specific (i.e. – this upcoming Let’s Work It Out collection is silly to me and I don’t care for those types of looks) but overall, I think the brand excels at diversity (including what I would view as silly), artistry and innovation, and I like that they have charities they support.

That’s funny. I see Chanel as snobby (though I agree it is really elegant), so I won’t buy it. I do agree that a classy image and classic packaging is a really big plus. Since you mentioned MAC, the MAC MUAs at their counter intimidated me in high school; it’s 25 years ago, but I still stay away, haha. Hard to change first impressions!

Likewise, I think that a brand’s image helps establish what kind of products we can expect from them. i think that a brand image is more meaningful among smaller and indie brands, because companies like Dior, Chanel and Guerlain on the high end, or L’Oreal and Maybelline on the affordable end are trying to be generalists and accessible for any type of consumer who might want to buy them.

To me this is interesting space. Brand image affects me less than it used to, since it seems many brands have shifted and/or muddied lately, or their image wasn’t so clear in the first place. For instance, based only on image, Dior, YSL run together for me; Lancôme, Estee Lauder, Clarins, Cle de Peau, Elizabeth Arden all mean about the same established and ‘mature’, though EL and Lancôme are shifting but in image/look only a little. I never really got an ‘image’ from Laura Mercier or Trish McAvoy though experience over time tells me LM is reliable in foundational — primer, foundation, powder — items. Though for some — Bobbi Brown, Tom Ford, Clinique — images are consistent enough to give me a sense what they offer.

A brand’s image is its calling card. It tells what to expect. It tells me if the brand is something that I would be interested in or not, but it is not everything. A brand’s image sometimes has to change a bit to keep the brand fresh and relevant, especially in today’s volatile economy.

Definitely, in that I know to expect a measure of product result. I might expect a highlighter from say Dior or Laura to be more wearable in terms of a more subtle look than say Jeffrey Starr.

I also have issues with how brands market to women. I avoid brands that use sex, violence, or other sleazy marketing/branding techniques to get attention (Too Faced Madonna/Whore complex; Kat Von D, Jeffrey Starr, Urban Decay glorification of violence, drug addiction, etc. in naming/packaging their products). Jeffrey Starr is a line that in my opinion has some MAJOR image problems because he is such a gross person.

Yes! I hate collections that are created after cartoon characters or kids’ movies lol….like Cinderella or Frozen, etc. I much prefer a more sophisticated brand with grown-up packaging and excellent quality. I just ordered eyeshadow singles from Giorgio Armani and they are fabulous….buttery eyeshadows that blend beautifully and they come in sleek gold and black packaging. I also love Guerlain because of their quality and packaging. No more cutesie kid stuff for me. 🙂

I agree about the kiddie stuff! I hate those collections too, except there was a Barbie collection at Walgreens that I loved! I think because Barbie represents the beauty/fashion obsession so perfectly, I don’t mind buying things in her image.

It gives me an insight into a product, what it is and how good it is.
But recently I’m looking into less known brands that are Green and much better for your skin and overall health.

Yes and no. It tells me what they are about. KVD is about color and being bold. Cover Girl is about being the girl next door and effortlessness. Etc. But bottom line I’m skeptical of every product and if it will work for me regardless of their image. Js image is not enough to make me buy!

I’m not label driven and usually pick and choose between labels and products I love and ignore the rest of it; try not to politicize because man, there’s enough of dat going down everywhere else. Still, sometimes a brand image will works against me; product names and anything truly sexually offensive or any ridiculous privileged snob appeal imagery = KOD.

I do think a brands image affects my willingness to purchase. Initially when I read the question my response was, “Why would it?” The more I thought about it the more I realized how much it does play a part in where I spend my money. I am not vegan but I know that when I can support vegan product lines I do. If a brand is known for its lack of inclusiveness I prefer not to support them. This is new for me but I am happy about my change of mind. Brands that hype and don’t provide enough products for the expected demand, etc. So yes, I do think image plays a part in my decision making and I am trying to be more aware.

I mean, there are some brand’s aesthetics that I really enjoy and I do think I end up buying from them more, and if I didn’t know the brand I think it would tell me what to expect. Overall though, brand image is only important to me when brands give their products ridiculous sexual or drug-related names because it makes me question the validity of naming it something like that. Lorac usually names their shadows after the actual color or something benign, and they do just fine. Why does this color need to be called Orgasm or Underage Red or Druggie?

MacKenzie, I love that about Lorac…the fact that the product names actually mean something. “Parallax”, “Nebula”, “Stolen Moment” – those names tell me nothing, but “Pewter”, “Garnet”, “Deep Purple” – those talk sense! And while I can accept meaningless names, I think you and I are both in good company when we say we’re fed up with names related to drugs, violence and possibly inappropriate sexual activity. It’s neither chic nor clever.

Growing up my mom had a lipstick (I think EL?) called Rich and Rosy but when she mentioned it to my father, he heard “B**chy, Wh**y” and asked why she would want to wear Hooker make-up. ??

A brand’s image means something to me as it gives me a sense of the brand’s target market and the type products one can expect from them. I will not support certain brands if I feel the brand does not treat its customers well or if the behavior of the owner is derogatory, or if the target audience is a more specific/fringe audience that’s not for me. The campaign images also give a glimpse into the type of image the brand is reflecting. Brands like Dior, Chanel, Bobbi Brown, Charlotte Tilbury reflect a sophistication, and for BB a ‘be yourself’ image/message that resonates with me. The ELxVB campaign brought a new interest in EL, whose image to me before was a line directed to more mature customers.

I agree regarding EL. I always avoided it since adulthood as too mature (it was my favorite when I was a preteen into lipstick many moons ago). The line hadn’t even been on my radar at all in years & years. I too am having a change of heart, but for me it was not Victoria Beckham collaboration, but rather the Kendall Jenner & Irene Kim (Korean Beauty leader) involvement as part of the “Estee Edit” that is making me think the brand is now somewhat cutting edge. Sadly, when I did a few quick swatches of new Estee Edit products at Sephora, they seemed chalky, so I am still not sold. But at least I want to see what’s coming next. And that’s because of the new image.

Totally agree about the VB-EL colab. I never purchased a single thing from EL, but I bought about half the VB collection because it just felt so sleek and “vintage modern.” Yes, that’s a paradox essentially, but it ticked the boxes of vintage sophistication with modern shades and textures. So beautiful. I’m now actually looking forward to seeing what EL comes out with next, particularly if they do another VB series.

On the other hand, Lancome is doing the opposite for me. Despite trying to refresh their image, I just have no interest in the brand anymore. The new totally customized foundation is a fantastic idea (or at least, another iteration of that idea), but I find myself wishing that it’s not done by Lancome! Can Armani do it? Or Laura Mercier?

It depends, I tend not to buy things from certain brands based on their image. I know I don’t purchase from EL very often as they come off as very mature even though they aren’t that mature.

If a brand comes off as trashy or too mature, I do tend to stay away.

I agree with Christine’s “insight” comment.

Additionally, I don’t generally have a problem with brands that lean towards oversexed or edgy, though some applications of those ideas seem … wrong … when done in certain ways [NARS is one of the few that actually bother me; I’m thinking specifically of that Steven Klein thing, most likely because I seriously dislike turning “edgy” ideas into “art” — raw sexuality (i.e. “Orgasm”) = fine, “artistic” sexuality that implies something much darker beneath the surface = no].

I avoid brands that seem to market “custesy” products, or have that as an image, like Too-Faced. Sugarpill is especially annoying to me as, not only are they sickeningly sweet, but also, until recently, their homepage had a photo of a hyper-sexualized, doll-like 11-year old (at least she looks 11 to me), and I have a problem with that. You can still see her on the Shop page, but for the longest time she was “the face” of Sugarpill.

I’m pretty “meh” about marketing or ideas that are uncomfortable, or even taboo, as long as they’re presented in a straightforward take-it-or-leave-it fashion, and not “justified” by elitism or artistic pretension (again … Steven Klein … ugh). An example would be the brand My Pretty Zombie; many their offerings are unsettling, and some are downright grotesque (it’s aimed at a very small niche that would find zombie or gore horror flicks interesting, which doesn’t appeal to me **at all*) but they have some really nice products, so I’ve purchased. I don’t understand the mindset behind that niche, and couldn’t carry on a conversation with them about their interests, but I’m not going to boycott, so … meh.

I don’t have a problem with brands that seem occult-y. I do understand other people’s concerns, but as I’m not religious, I feel that “to each their own, as long as there’s no harm being inflicted” is the most sensible approach for me personally, Also, I really like dark, intense, and/or unusual colors and finishes, and the best of these can often be found in the occult-y indies. Again, probably wouldn’t choose to have a long conversation with anyone who took those ideas completely to heart, but I have some sympathy for **wanting** to be on the fringes, just my personal take on that doesn’t manifest itself in the occult (though some people who have seen me, but don’t know me, might assume otherwise).

I guess the only other thing that affects my interest is when brands seem to be trying too hard to market to the teenage demographic (ahem, Too-Faced, again, though a few brands have done this recently). Brands that seem to be trying too hard in general (**cough** MAC **cough*) are also off-putting.

Yes, image totally matters. Some brands to me say super “young” and/or “fun.” I feel like a fool wearing their stuff (Too Faced, Tarte) and the young/fun image leads me to think there’s a lack of quality (even if not true). Chanel to me says snobby & overly expensive, so I never buy it (yet I will spend the exact same amount on another brand’s lipstick!!). I have gradually become obsessed with Kat Von D’s line; I started with two liquid lipsticks, to explore the quality/longevity I’d heard of, which at that time I purchased despite her image (not a fan of tattoos!). But now I find I love the brand exactly because of that image. I used to see KVD Beauty as too antiestablishment/goth, but now see Kat as having an artist’s spirit (classical piano background, the artistry of the tattoos she does at her shop) & as being brave female for following her own path. It really makes me feel she is not following trends per se, but is being guided by that artistic sensibility & her love of makeup. So Kat’s image (and that of her line) makes me believe there’s a lot of quality & substance to the products.

I too was put off by her image plus hooking up with that tool Jesse James had my questioning her decision making but I have since come to admire her and adore her products. I used to think her brand was too edgy/goth for me but her eyeshadow palettes are amazing plus her liquid lips & tattoo liner. And she’s not afraid of color! Only 1 neutral palette not a multitude of them – THANK GOD!

Yes, the Jesse James past did give me pause, but I think he was going to implode his marriage one way or another (and pretty sure she got with him after he was headed for divorce). A lot of amazing women have sucky judgement with men (and vice-versa), so I don’t want to hold that against her.

I am so, so happy I looked past the goth/tattoos, and gave her products a chance! The value, quality, amazing colors and finishes have given me back a joy & creativity to doing my makeup that was fading. I can’t wait every morning too decide what I get to wear.

On a subliminal level at the very least, I know I have been influenced by a brand’s imaging. It’s the only rational explanation why I flat out ignore some brands, and dive head first into others. I think it’s the practical result of having to make choices from so many offered products in a reasonable amount of time. If I had to look at every single product offered by every single brand in every single store (on-line or local) before I made a purchase, I’d lose my mind.

Sometimes. I think as I’ve gotten more into makeup, I’m drawn to pink, glittery, shiny things. So if that’s the image they have I’ll like it. lol

Like you said, it helps me get a feel for what I might expect from them, and though I am more likely to be drawn in by brands with goth or occult stylings, I do like to weigh a lot of other options, too.

Yes, I find that brands like Chanel and Estee Lauder and many other high end brands seem to cater to older people who are more after a classic style, I won’t even bother looking at those sections in department stores as I like to wear more unusual colours. Saves me time online too when I’m searching for a specific colour. Mac, makeup forever and illamasqua feel more professional and have more experimental colours and products so appeal to me. I guess also subconsciously I like to buy from these brands as they reflect what I want to be. My dissertation im writing at the moment is on this and it’s often that, when it comes to products like makeup, people tend to buy from brands that they identify with in some way as it’s a way to enhance their identity or aspiring identity.

Do you know Estee Lauder owns MAC and through Lauder’s ownership and experienced professionals launched MAC from a homegrown product of Canada to a worldwide very successsful line of cosmetics? Lauder saw the need for a new, fresh cosmetic line which would appeal yo younger cosmetic professionals and bring a different look to the landscape of up and coming cosmetic customers. The efforts of Lauder’s carefully trained professionals, new MAC artists were taught about good quality cosmetics and new methods of application which would appeal to any age consumer.

I think it does without realizing it but mainly a brands reputation is the most important if they are known for quality. Once a brand starts to lose its reputation then your a little more leery about making more purchases. So I think Image is important to draw someone in but reputation supersedes it.

Brand image doesn’t generally affect my willingness to purchase or try a product, but it does affect whether or not it grabs my attention. I remember the very first time I saw the Urban Decay brand (many years ago!). I liked the brand name, I liked the brand motto “Beauty with an Edge”, I liked the product names like spandex, freelove, crush, etc. That brand image is right up my alley. At the time, there was nothing else like it. I see them as a “sex and drugs and rock and roll” kind of brand, so the drug and sex referenced names of their products don’t bother me at all. They fit the image. However, if a brand like Lancôme released a shade called Druggie, I wouldn’t like that at all. It doesn’t fit their brand image. Nars’ signature blush being called Orgasm still boggles my mind. It just doesn’t “fit” their brand, IMHO.

I used to love MAC but I honestly don’t know what the hell is going on with them anymore. I don’t know who they want to market to or what their brand is about these days. Back in the day, I saw them as THE brand for runway/model kinds of products and looks. Now… it’s like they cater to the Kardashian crowd and I want none of that. However, there are still things from MAC that I like.

Make Up Forever will always be associated with theatre and television makeup for me, so I have a hard time seeing their products as “everyday” wear.

The Kat Von D brand was also an instant draw for me, as I am a tattoo and art kind of girl. I would expect “edgy” names from that brand. On the flip side, I am also drawn to “elegant” brands like Dior or YSL, and would not expect edgy names from them.

So yeah, the brand influences my expectations and where I turn to first to find something I am specifically looking for, but I wouldn’t say that the brand limits where I spend my money.

Image is EVERYTHING to a brand. As a marketer I know that first hand, and have had (and continue to have) a hand in creating images for corporations and organizations. I know the ins and out of image creation Do I respond, nevertheless? You bet, I do.

I love a classic, timeless look, so like a moth to a flame I first look at Chanel and that ilk of product. Even when I could not afford to even belly up to the counter, it was the aspirational, classic brands that held my attention. A level of quality is also associated with brands at this level — and most of the time, the deliver. But beware the product that lets consumers down. Think Lancome eye shadows and Dior quints. It can tarnish an image and turn people off big time.

I will say that teeny bopper images like Too Face turn me off completely. I decided a few months ago when UD turned out those offensive product names that I was done with the brand. Too many choices in the world. Who do they think that appeals to? Putting something called Mildew on your face makes you edgy? Razor Sharp with images that evokes cutting is au courant? Who the heck are these people who this speaks too? I, for one, will not ignore this tripe.

Imagine with the overall quality of UD, if they went with an inclusive, upscale, positive approach? I think their brand would sing across the demographic divide. Instead, they sit in their bubble thinking images that evoke one of the deepest sadnesses in society (addiction and low life) is an image they want to attach to. Amazing.

Anyway, I have lots more to say about this issue, have written white papers on the topic, and would love to dig into the data about how this is all finagled in the beauty industry.

I don’t think they could call themselves Urban Decay anymore if they switched to an upscale, positive approach. Urban Decay by definition is not upscale. While I get that it offends many, it’s also hitting it out of the park amongst young women who love that gritty, urban, downtown culture. If you look at MTV or the CW, there are a lot of zombie, vampire type shows for young people. They like their entertainment on the dark side. For me, when I see the druggie type names, I think it’s like a veiled reference to being beauty junkies, which most of us on Temptalia are. In general, I think their target market likes to feel like part of an underground cult, a “not your mother’s makeup” kind of things. I think the fact that their product names are offensive to much of their mom’s generation is part of the appeal.

I totally get that. Your point proves how really manipulative “image” really is. Honestly, are many of their colors and their offerings different than Chanel? Or EL? Or any mom or other brand for that matter? Not much. There are only so many tones of shadows and blush and this and that our there. It’s all made up, aspirational fantasy.

My exception to them is their aspirational fantasy pointed at young women is base. It maaaaybe was “edgy” at first, but now it’s getting quite lowbrow, and pointing to things that are sick and sad. I think equating their cutting images with being a beauty junkie gives them too much of a pass, that I, personally, am not willing to allow. Their current messages are subliminal and not harmless in my mind. To each his own.

I agree UD can’t/won’t change their image. My point was, their products are often quite good. I think of a smarter, cross generational truly positive aspirational message is always, always more powerful in the end.

Maybe they could branch off, like EL did with the Estee Edit, and offer the same quality with a different marketing strategy. They could call it Urban Vitality or something like that. But yes, their success is part quality, part marketing.

Eh, Mildew was in their lineup over 20 years ago (so was Roach [the bug, not the unsmoked end of a joint). That’s who the brand is and always has been. I think there’s a place for shiny happy aspirational, but that’s not with Urban Decay.

I agree but I really let the product speak for itself. I don’t really get tweaked at marketing since it’s just that, marketing, and as my mamma says “truth is in the pudding”.

100% It means A LOT to me!! I don’t want my HARD EARNED money, going towards someone who hates people like me, or is a jerk.

I’v mentioned it before, but as a gay women of colour. I’m all about inclusiveness, and intersectionality.

If a brand only has 4 shades of foundation, and I’m the darkest? I’m going to stick my nose up in the air, and i’ll be writing negatively about it on my blog/facebook. Because if my full blooded cousin’s and aunties can’t wear a certain brand, then I’m not going to support that brand either!

Also, If a brand’s owner is Misogynistic, Racist, etc, I’m DONE. I’ll actively warm my friends about them and never recommend that brand.

(Example, i’v had a beauty blog since 2014, and Iv ALWAYS supported POC cosmetic brands, and I’v always actively “bashes” racist/misogynistic brands. And we all know which brand i’m referencing 😛 )

Some of my European friends still happily buy from brands/YouTube personnels that are racist, misogynist or exercising exoticism. Meanwhile they criticize brands that still sell in china, due to their passion about animal rights. I find that quite sick. We should all oppose animal testing but what about stepping down from that moral high ground once, and think about your fellow humans too when it comes to brand names.

Also, not every brand caters to people who are a little bit more tan, and no a brand owner’s skin tone herself it’s not a justification for their lack of suitable color offerings to non fair complexions.

When I question my friends why on earth would they be supporting such indie brands that are so deeply rooted in controversy, they say the formula is really good, the best they’ve tried so they don’t mind. Or someone might think a certain YouTube celebrity isn’t as bad as people say, or that his videos are entertaining. Sigh. Sometimes people can be so shallow.

I totally 1000% agree with you R!!!

I personally am not cruelty free, BUT I do not buy from brands like Almay, Jefree Star, Lime Crime ETC.

Because, While I am a light skinned person of colour, I still have to remember my Dark skinned people of colour siblings who CAN’T find a foundation shade!!

I choose to support people first.

For the most part, no. If I like a product, I like a product. I will check out new releases to see if I’m into anything. I would say I’m more attracted to brands that fit my personal tastes: Alternative, artsy, nerdy, edgy, goth, quirky cute, vintage, glam, etc. For example, Bobbi Brown’s natural style isn’t at all my aesthetic, but I like several of her products. The same goes for Tarte — it turned into a “natural” brand — but I love it, regardless.

Sometimes a brand’s public face can turn me off, though I don’t judge others for buying from them. I’m also willing to give second chances if said person makes an effort to change their ways, and I love the brand’s products.

Only in terms of quality. It can be trashy drug names or whatever but I don’t take any of that seriously. I think of brands like Chanel and GA as usually having high quality products. Maybe not always the case.

Knowing what brands are known for is helpful but how they market there products? Not really important to me.

Just like clothes they are trying to appeal to a certain demographic and I look beyond that.

I favor the image of a company far more if they have a reputation for quality, glamour and nice packaging. A positive image if far more attractive to me than one that puts products out that are far less than ideal.

Yes. Brand image, brand products & even Brand owner.

I refuse to buy products from a brand that has an owner that carries himself/ herself in a bad image and/or behavior and expects people to just buy his/her products!

If you disrespect the consumer then you’re on my black list, no money for you!

I’m at the point now where “status” names (Chanel, Dior, YSL) don’t automatically mean good quality to me and I don’t just accept products from any brand based on their cachet. I don’t have access to stuff from Jeffree Starr and didn’t have a clue about him or his product until I started hearing about his rotten treatment of people so even if I could purchase his products, I wouldn’t. That sort of thing – treating people badly (and that includes your client base, as Hourglass does with their highway robbery pricing on their Holiday/LE palettes) will turn me off a company entirely. They could make the most wonderful product ever to grace the cosmetics and skin care counters of the known world but if their treatment of people is disrespectful to the extreme, they’re out of the running for me.

Not really – sometimes the image can be about expectations – for example – Bobbi Brown is about neutrals, Colour Pop about colour etc. Some brands also seem to ‘target’ different demographics for both skincare and cosmetics – sheer, classical looks – Clarins, EL, Dior. But then again you have Urban Decay and MAC that release so many different types of products that women of all ages and stages probably have some in their stash.

To me a brand’s image communicates the type of customer they’re trying to court and the message they’re trying to convey. That’s what image “means” to me. If you’re asking how important image is to my purchasing decisions, I’d say it’s become a bit less influential as I’ve gotten older, more experienced and less likely to care about external qualities. However, if I feel that a company’s image is incompatible with my own ethics, I won’t purchase from them. If I feel that the “face” (spokesmodel, creator, CEO, etc.) of a company is morally reprehensible, I avoid them like the plague. With all the social media nowadays, there’s a lot of info out there.

Hmmm…I don’t know if I’ve ever encountered a brand that carries only nude or beige shades in lips, eyes, cheeks or nails. Interesting take on that.
What effects do a a brand’s image have on me? When I see brands I’ve never, ever heard of before, sold for $1.00 a piece or (as much as this may anger some) made in China, Hong Kong or Vietnam (be truthful with yourself),
I give little to no attention to them.
On the reverse side, brands price ridiculously high, with overly expensive packaging, not knowing for sure if the contents warrant the price, I have the same hesitation and most generally give them to little to no attention.

I know what “X” brand sells, I like the quality of their products I buy them. Whatever they name their product doesn’t bring the quality down, if they change something or produce something and I don’t like it, I will return it and I think that sends them a message that the consumer wants quality products. I also know that certain brands cater to certain aesthetics, if that is what I personally like those are the brands that I focus on. That’s where samples come in, if they put out a great product in a sample size to capture new clients, that is good marketing.

Yes – particularly if their “image” includes being cruelty free. I can’t justify purchasing a product knowing animals suffered in the process of bringing it to market.

Hmmmm…….I had to pause and think about this ? a little.
You see I started out as a California girl but ended up married to an Indian living in India. My husband & I sell Himalayan art/jewelry all across Asia so I’ve gotten to see how different brands are perceived all across Asia & the Middle East.
When I first moved to India 12 + yrs ago the ONLY dept store/high end makeup brands that were available in India were Estee Lauder and Elizabeth Arden. I was using Bobbi Brown at the time and thought EA was seriously ‘granny’ because my mom wore it. EL suffered the ‘granny’ image in my mind too- Heavy, orange/pink tinted, highly perfumed, ‘pancake’ makeup.
So eventually my Bobbi Brown stash ran out and I ventured into EL in Delhi. The EL SA perfectly matched me with a Double Wear foundation that withstood the heat & humidity of the Monsoon and a flattering shade of rose blush. And she gave me a bag full of samples (perfume, skincare, and makeup), a full sized pure color lippy, and a beautiful enameled EL powder compact. I WAS IMPRESSED.
So anyway, I’ve since figured out that the American brands EL and EA are FAMOUS across Asia and are still considered premium brands here (not ‘granny’.)
How American EA & EL differ from other Asian or French brands-
1) The American brands offer the widest color selection in foundations/concealers WORLDWIDE. That’s especially important in countries like India where you have EVERY possible skin tone from richest to lightest.
2) American brands accommodate different cultural tastes:
-I know it’s taboo in the US but ‘whitening/lightening/fairness’ products are in demand across Asia. EL & EA have developed skincare lines to address this preference.
-In gift giving or purchasing luxury products in Asia presentation is IMPORTANT so EA & EL have special enameled hefty refillable compacts (that weigh live 1/4 lb) sporting large brand logos to impress! I’ve not seen this luxury packaging at EA & EL in the US.
3) Generous samples: this is something rare in Asia. Not many Asian or European brands are not as generous with samples as EA & EL. Some very $$$ Japanese and SKorean brands have started with more generous sample programs (like my beloved Cle de Peau and Amore Pacific)
4) Quality- in general you get what you pay for with EA & EL. They might not be the trendiest but they are solid, performing products.
So anyway, you can now buy MAC, Bobbi Brown, Chanel, Clarins, Lancome, in India. (Clinique just left India, I’m not sure why.) I still buy certain products at EA & EL because 1) their quality and service can’t be beat and 2) I have every skin color imaginable in my family now & EA & EL accommodates that.
Jai America!!!

YES for sure!
I’m slowly stopping MAC products since they test on animals.
And after great internet drama, I refuse to try any Jeffrey Star and Limecrime.

I’ll admit that it does. I’m willing to try anything, from almost any brand, but using the product – the experience of taking out that package and applying it to me face – feels different depending on what I’m using. I feel more sophisticated using Chanel and Armani, more badass using Urban Decay or NYX, and just more normal using drugstore brands. I love them all though. There are only two brands I really just don’t like, and I like both their images. I have just been disappointed by their products too many times.

Oh, and I feel cooler using indie brands that most people don’t know about, especially if I take it out in public and they ask about it. Besides, almost all the indies are cruelty free. These days, most makeup is except if they sell the the Chinese market, because China requires animal testing. I don’t know of any brands that do this other than to sell to China.

Yes it does, I won’t purchase from tarte because they feel like the makeup brand personification of the ‘cool mom’ from mean girls. Similarly I was very put off by too faced previous sexy childlike imaging.

Not really….I’d rather read comments about a product rather than take a company view of what their product is. Additionally, I’ve had experiences where one product is fabulous while another on the product line is, well…meh.

It really does! The whole Limecrime Doe Dear scandal makes me never want to buy any of her products. Same for Jeffree Star, his behaviour makes me sick to my stomach. I really like the look of his skin frosts, but no way would I give him a dime!

We try to approve comments within 24 hours (and reply to them within 72 hours) but can sometimes get behind and appreciate your patience! 🙂 If you have general feedback, product review requests, off-topic questions, or need technical support, please contact us directly. Thank you for your patience!