Notes from the Editors of The Lipstick Page Forums: A Dedication to the Art of Beauty and Fashion.

Meet the Staff: The Sketchbook

· Blog Home
· Profile
· MySpace
· Contact Us
· FAQ/TOS

Older Articles
· Montale perfumes arrive
· Beauty Notebook OCTOBER 2007: A Whisper Down the F...
· Fashion Notes: More on Sex and the City, Manolo Bl...
· Fashion Notes: Milan Fashion Week SS 08
· Double strand freshwater pearl necklace
· Beauty Notes: Allure's Best of Beauty 2007
· Impending Hiatus
· Beauty Notes: the ever-elusive signature scent
· Beauty Notes: Indian Rapunzels, chopstick buns, up...
· Annick Goutal Eau du Ciel review

Comments
· October 4, 2007 1:00 PM by Blogger Colleen Shirazi

Archives
· Beauty Blog (2003-2004)
· Fashion Blog (archive)
· New Releases Blog (archive)
· Beauty Articles (archive)
· April 2005
· May 2005
· June 2005
· July 2005
· August 2005
· September 2005
· October 2005
· November 2005
· December 2005
· January 2006
· February 2006
· March 2006
· April 2006
· May 2006
· June 2006
· July 2006
· August 2006
· September 2006
· October 2006
· November 2006
· December 2006
· January 2007
· February 2007
· March 2007
· April 2007
· May 2007
· June 2007
· July 2007
· August 2007
· September 2007
· October 2007
· November 2007
· December 2007
· January 2008
· February 2008
· March 2008
· April 2008
· May 2008
· June 2008
· July 2008

Blog
Recent blog posts:





Links
Barneys
refinery29
The Sartorialist
Jargol
Perfume Shrine
Ambre Gris
Polyvore
The Fashioniste
The Powder Group
LA-Story.com
Dain's Literary Attempts
Colleen's Beading Blog
Colleen's Adult Acne Blog

The Beauty Blog Network



Blog Directory
Add to Technorati Favorites
eponym blog directory BETA
As Seen on Delightfulblogs.com
Health Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Eponym Blog Directory.
TBF Project:Blog
Health Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory
Search For Blogs, Submit Blogs, The Ultimate Blog Directory
Find Blogs in the Blog Directory
 
The Lipstick Page Forums Beauty & Fashion Blog
Beauty Notes: What's in a Name?


Posted by Dain, Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:56 PM (Eastern)

There is a certain fitness to cosmetics, and since I am crazy and prone to gaffes as well as things you never even thought of asking about, I will provide a very systematic demonstration.

QUALITIES
  • There is brand name, which first draws one in. A good brand name builds pleasurable expectations in the consumer, and everything below builds to create the image. The choice of model/models is important here. Who doesn't remember Christy Turlington for Maybelline or Elizabeth Hurley for Estée Lauder? Chanel is haute, Wet 'n' Wild is supercheap, NARS is edgy, Dr. Hauschka is natural, Cellex-C is scientific, Stila is cute, MAC is fashion-y, and so forth. Every hustle has its angle, to paraphrase Malcolm X.

  • Then, there is packaging. Many companies feel entitled to fleece their customers for fancy packaging, but that's an old story, often told. I like lipsticks to have a pleasant heft in the hand, a beautiful compact with a sizeable mirror, my perfume flacons elegant but my cream jars hygienic, my eyeshadows in one compact and readily customizable.

  • Third, array, which is color selection or range of offerings. Some companies prefer offer variations on a theme, viz. Chanel perfumes, La Mer, and Stila. Others dazzle the eye with possibilities: Urban Decay, MAC, NARS. Others still bear the mark of a sharp editorial hand: Bobbi Brown, Chantecaille, Clé de Peau, Bésame, NARS (again). Names also play an important role here. I doubt Orgasm would have attained such popularity if not for the name.

  • Hype is really important, but popularity mystifies me somewhat, as it is often misleading. Sometimes I wonder why some products merit a cult following at all.

  • Next, sheer innovation. Most companies are lucky if they can claim one, such as Vincent Longo's Water Canvas or Stila's champagne, while others have a bit more, like Shu Uemura (cleansing oil, brushes, pewter, Nobara). The two brands that seem consistently innovative are Serge Lutens and Bobbi Brown, and MAC more or less steals from everywhere else. With innovation, there are the inevitable copycats.

  • Quality is actually rarer than you might think. Jurlique, Serge Lutens, Clé de Peau, Essie are very consistent about quality. Others are more variable, such as NARS. This has much to do with the texture (the "feel" of the product), the grace required in mixing colors, notes, and ingredients, as well as results.
I will provide an example, in this case, a line gone very wrong: Parfums Givenchy.

There are plenty of bad makeup lines out there. Because they have little to offer, they disappear in time. Remember the ill-fated Olay makeup line, for example? I suspect it went under because the packaging was unspeakably dowdy, while Neutrogena is still with us today because it had the wit to look a little classy, at least. Other bad lines linger, because of corporate backing or lingering public image, like Stila. Whoever helms Stila now should be shot. I speak with the bitterness of betrayal; they have ruined a once excellent line, the brand I dreamed about.

Parfums Givenchy is bad in almost every respect, but it doesn't raise pity or ire in me the way as Olay and Stila do, it just makes me giggle. The creative director of this line must be taste-blind. Givenchy depends almost entirely on its name and the hauteur of its packaging, and it most certainly gets much help from its parent company, LMVH, but its appeal is clearly very thin, if one is to judge by its presence in America, though I get the feeling it does somewhat better elsewhere (if you can't capture the American market, you'd better pray you get Japan).

It's been a long time since the magic of Audrey Hepburn, is all I can say.

Instead of Hepburn's L'Interdit, or even the more modern contrivances of very-80s Ysatis or the very late-90s gourmand Hot Couture (which is to date the only fruity perfume I have ever liked, because it was interesting), today we have Liv Tyler's Very Irresistable: like Ms. Tyler herself, very decent, damning with faint praise. Now, I have nothing against Liv Tyler. She seems exceptionally nice and down-to-earth, and she is a mighty purty lady. But the unfortunate idiom holds true: as with many nice girls, she makes a boring spokesmodel. I suppose it is better than Guerlain's decision of Hilary Swank. It's the rare actress who knows how to model, anyway. Now, I think it would not do any favors for Givenchy to pursue too much Audrey Hepburn. The implicit comparison will undoubtedly work against them. If I had a say, I'd choose Gemma Ward, of whom I have mixed feelings but there's no doubting her professionalism. She has an oddly arresting elfin beauty and a wholesomeness of attitude that is much the same spirit of Audrey Hepburn without the sort of obvious referencing that would make the similitude cheap.

Here is what I mean about Givenchy making me giggle. Here are the notes, from sephora.com: Centifolia Rose, Peony Rose, Fantasia Rose, Passion Rose, Emotion Rose, Verbena Leaf, Star Anise. What the hell is "emotion rose"!? Give me a break. This mediocrity has inspired no less than seven spin-offs in only four years, though I cheat a little by including the masculines: Very Irresistible for Men, Very Irresistible Sensual, Very Irresistible Rose Bulgare, Very Irresistible Summer, Very Irresistible Soleil D'Ete, Very Irresistible Fresh Attitude. There are some other stupid-sounding perfumes like "Lovely Prism" and "Ange ou Demon". (information from Now Smell This.)

I also thought I would include, the names of the products:
Lip Lip Shine!
Lady Pulp
Vernis Please
Mister Eyebrow
Parad'Eyes
Subli'Mine Sculpt Light
Prisme Again! Visage
Prismissime

Wahahaha... have you ever heard more ridiculous names for cosmetics!? It's the kind of tacky that you find among drugstore lines for preteens, not among luxury brands! But, you say, if the products themselves redeem... Ehhhhhhhh. Decent, not worthy of a luxury brand. An embarassing copycat of YSL, as Sienna Miller with Kate Moss. The skincare is even less worth speaking of; I am very impatient with haute cremes. What Givenchy needs is refinement, in which discretion plays such a huge role, none of this effete flailing about. I could do a better line than this in the idle ruminations of this blog (I am pretty sure of what eyeshadows I'd offer, for example) than Parfums Givenchy manages with all the muscle of LMVH behind them.

Labels: , ,


1 comment(s)
 
October 4, 2007 1:00 PM, Blogger Colleen Shirazi said...

I can admit I've never heard much about the Givenchy cosmetics line, which proves your point. I've read tons of raves about Yves Saint Laurent, Dior, Chanel, just about all the other comparable brands.

 

Post a comment (NO SPAM) Permalink . del.icio.us . Stumble
Links to this post:

Create a Link



 
Tell me when this blog is updated! Your email:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Google Custom Search

 subscribe in a reader




Powered by Blogger