The Lipstick Lesbians' Leaked Labs launch is teaching us a lot about consumer trust, brand accountability, and has presented a precedent nobody in this industry should set.
One thing that springs to mind is that it seems they are trying to replicate what Rephr says/does, but with color cosmetics rather than brushes. Rephr has their “Concept store”, mention working with their community and “We use customer feedback to design world-class products.” Unfortunately, using lab samples that no one has wanted for years is not going to be successful because they were bypassed for good reasons!
Am I crazy or is this not that big of a deal? A poor decision, bad business, a violation of trust…sure. But I don’t think we need an hour long video parsing the specifics. I did enjoy OP’s breakdown, though. Very informative and there is always room for more context. But saying this is a precedent problem doesn’t feel informative so much as alarmist.
I'm seeing phrases like "not that big of a deal", and words like "alarmist" in your comment. What I'm not seeing is evidence of your credibility to weigh in on the gravity of this issue. Your profile tells me nothing about your work experience in the cosmetics industry.
Fill me in. What's your background in cosmetics? What part of the industry do you work in? In what capacity? If you're going to share an opposing opinion, you should at least verify that your point of view is based on your industry knowledge, not just a feeling.
First of all, you still haven't shared where your expertice on this subject lies.
Maybe you didn't realize your comment read like my article was being alarmist.
I can assure you, it was not. The article is based on research and the informed POV of someone with over 4 decades of behind-the-scenes experience in the cosmetics industry.
If your dispute was with the video from Kiki Chanel, you should have stated that more clearly and explained what citable FACTS brought you to that conclusion.
What is the value of a compliment when you leave a dismissive comment ("not that big of a deal") or use words like "alarmist"? That's what people see and remember - not a vague compliment about enjoying the OP's "other" content.
I’m not an industry professional. I’m just a consumer who also follows the Lipstick Lesbians on social media. From the moment this product was pitched, it felt clear to me that consumers were effectively being asked to fund market research. That didn’t require context: it was obvious at face value.
Because of that, I chose not to buy it. That option was always available. So it’s a bit hard for me to feel shocked after the fact when that framing was present from the start, regardless of how the business model was ultimately presented in their State of the Union.
You seem very angry at me for the lack of facts supporting my post. But Kiki’s point about this setting a broader precedent is not a fact-based assumption either. I don't think most people believe the cosmetics industry needs outside encouragement or inspiration to find ways to maximize their profit at the consumer's expense. They're pretty good at doing that already.
This is Substack, not a trade publication. You’re going to get responses from non-professionals. My earlier comment wasn’t meant as an attack. I was trying to open up a dialogue.
If the goal is to educate, responding to mild critique with this level of hostility undermines that effort.
The first thing that came to my mind after the fumbled communication and positioning was “we were rooting for you. We were all rooting for you.”
Thank you for giving us more context about the whole situation. I didn’t know that one of them had been on record saying that they were already reformulating it. That really changes everything. Either way, I am very intrigued as to how they handle their next launch. Hopefully they learn from this flub and come back significantly better, because I am still rooting for them.
Perhaps they should have considered something like a subscription box where they explicitly communicate what’s in the box and what is expected of consumers once they buy the subscription. (I think true beauty enthusiasts would love to be a part of testing/creating products) The founders then collect feedback and decide if they move forward and make improvements to bring to market, or they trash it once and for all. What you don’t do is sell a full size product at full price hoping consumers don’t notice it’s unstable, or gaslighting them once they do. That’s must be a crime of some sort.
I consulted on a project in early 2010, where the skincare manufacturer wanted to create a "lab sample" subscription box and charge just enough to cover costs and shipping. The products were actual lab samples, with the lab stickers, and subscribers were asked to fill out a web form with feedback after they used the products for a few weeks.
It never took off because consumers weren't as well educated about the cosmetic industry as they are today. Which is why I chuckle when I see the LLs acting like Leaked Labs was groundbreaking... almost 16 years later. 🙄
I’m okay…I think. If I’m being honest, It’s a toss up from day to day😆. How are you??? I miss seeing you as well! Felicia and I spoke about you and your amazing substack just yesterday. I’ve always loved reading your take.
Before becoming a makeup artist (12 years now) I spent over 20 years on the clinical side of pharmaceutical research. There are so many similarities in how both industries innovate and bring a product to the consumer (patient). As soon as I heard that you had to pay to try the product, I knew pandora's box was officially open and crossed over into the beauty industry.
In research it has been illegal to even suggest that a patient pays for a drug thst might help them. As of four weeks ago, I came across a conference that includes "discussing" 😳 possible benefits. Yes, but who benefits? The company, even when the patient dies. Thank God it's not that bad in the makeup industry, but greed is greed and I agree that this model of business is wrong.
Kevin, I had the opportunity to try several new products and give input on them through your FB group. Those businesses were upfront and the hardwork you put into sharing your knowledge and expertise about products and the industry in your FB group made it easier for me to trust your recomendation on giving those products a try. I also noticed, that some of those companies even sent samples and covered the shipping if I paid to try the product. Everything was up front, no shady stuff, just the facts.
I have not given up on the Lipstick Lesbians, but I am mystified that two people with experience in marketing could make such a huge blunder. I was at the Makeup Conference in NYC last Fall and many of the product developers spoke favorly of them.
I will be curious to hear what their thoughts are now.
Maybe I missed this info but what was the next step for the "leaks"? Would those that received positive feedback be acquired, put into finished packaging and added to a perm line for consumers to repurchase? Will they reformulate every leak until they receive positive reviews?
I've worked with beauty start ups on the corporate side and a brand's reputation can tank fast if consumers think they're being scammed or their feedback is dismissed/ignored, even more so when the brand is owned by influencers.
One thing that springs to mind is that it seems they are trying to replicate what Rephr says/does, but with color cosmetics rather than brushes. Rephr has their “Concept store”, mention working with their community and “We use customer feedback to design world-class products.” Unfortunately, using lab samples that no one has wanted for years is not going to be successful because they were bypassed for good reasons!
Am I crazy or is this not that big of a deal? A poor decision, bad business, a violation of trust…sure. But I don’t think we need an hour long video parsing the specifics. I did enjoy OP’s breakdown, though. Very informative and there is always room for more context. But saying this is a precedent problem doesn’t feel informative so much as alarmist.
I'm seeing phrases like "not that big of a deal", and words like "alarmist" in your comment. What I'm not seeing is evidence of your credibility to weigh in on the gravity of this issue. Your profile tells me nothing about your work experience in the cosmetics industry.
Fill me in. What's your background in cosmetics? What part of the industry do you work in? In what capacity? If you're going to share an opposing opinion, you should at least verify that your point of view is based on your industry knowledge, not just a feeling.
I thought Kiki’s video was alarmist. But okay, sorry. I complimented you in my comment and was talking about Kiki.
First of all, you still haven't shared where your expertice on this subject lies.
Maybe you didn't realize your comment read like my article was being alarmist.
I can assure you, it was not. The article is based on research and the informed POV of someone with over 4 decades of behind-the-scenes experience in the cosmetics industry.
If your dispute was with the video from Kiki Chanel, you should have stated that more clearly and explained what citable FACTS brought you to that conclusion.
I complimented you in my post. But okay.
What is the value of a compliment when you leave a dismissive comment ("not that big of a deal") or use words like "alarmist"? That's what people see and remember - not a vague compliment about enjoying the OP's "other" content.
I’m not an industry professional. I’m just a consumer who also follows the Lipstick Lesbians on social media. From the moment this product was pitched, it felt clear to me that consumers were effectively being asked to fund market research. That didn’t require context: it was obvious at face value.
Because of that, I chose not to buy it. That option was always available. So it’s a bit hard for me to feel shocked after the fact when that framing was present from the start, regardless of how the business model was ultimately presented in their State of the Union.
You seem very angry at me for the lack of facts supporting my post. But Kiki’s point about this setting a broader precedent is not a fact-based assumption either. I don't think most people believe the cosmetics industry needs outside encouragement or inspiration to find ways to maximize their profit at the consumer's expense. They're pretty good at doing that already.
This is Substack, not a trade publication. You’re going to get responses from non-professionals. My earlier comment wasn’t meant as an attack. I was trying to open up a dialogue.
If the goal is to educate, responding to mild critique with this level of hostility undermines that effort.
The first thing that came to my mind after the fumbled communication and positioning was “we were rooting for you. We were all rooting for you.”
Thank you for giving us more context about the whole situation. I didn’t know that one of them had been on record saying that they were already reformulating it. That really changes everything. Either way, I am very intrigued as to how they handle their next launch. Hopefully they learn from this flub and come back significantly better, because I am still rooting for them.
I’m seeing lawsuit.
Perhaps they should have considered something like a subscription box where they explicitly communicate what’s in the box and what is expected of consumers once they buy the subscription. (I think true beauty enthusiasts would love to be a part of testing/creating products) The founders then collect feedback and decide if they move forward and make improvements to bring to market, or they trash it once and for all. What you don’t do is sell a full size product at full price hoping consumers don’t notice it’s unstable, or gaslighting them once they do. That’s must be a crime of some sort.
I consulted on a project in early 2010, where the skincare manufacturer wanted to create a "lab sample" subscription box and charge just enough to cover costs and shipping. The products were actual lab samples, with the lab stickers, and subscribers were asked to fill out a web form with feedback after they used the products for a few weeks.
It never took off because consumers weren't as well educated about the cosmetic industry as they are today. Which is why I chuckle when I see the LLs acting like Leaked Labs was groundbreaking... almost 16 years later. 🙄
There’s nothing new under the sun!
Totally unrelated - how are you boo??? I miss seeing you! 💙
I’m okay…I think. If I’m being honest, It’s a toss up from day to day😆. How are you??? I miss seeing you as well! Felicia and I spoke about you and your amazing substack just yesterday. I’ve always loved reading your take.
I'm doing great and would love to see the two of you - let's make it happen!!!
Before becoming a makeup artist (12 years now) I spent over 20 years on the clinical side of pharmaceutical research. There are so many similarities in how both industries innovate and bring a product to the consumer (patient). As soon as I heard that you had to pay to try the product, I knew pandora's box was officially open and crossed over into the beauty industry.
In research it has been illegal to even suggest that a patient pays for a drug thst might help them. As of four weeks ago, I came across a conference that includes "discussing" 😳 possible benefits. Yes, but who benefits? The company, even when the patient dies. Thank God it's not that bad in the makeup industry, but greed is greed and I agree that this model of business is wrong.
Kevin, I had the opportunity to try several new products and give input on them through your FB group. Those businesses were upfront and the hardwork you put into sharing your knowledge and expertise about products and the industry in your FB group made it easier for me to trust your recomendation on giving those products a try. I also noticed, that some of those companies even sent samples and covered the shipping if I paid to try the product. Everything was up front, no shady stuff, just the facts.
I have not given up on the Lipstick Lesbians, but I am mystified that two people with experience in marketing could make such a huge blunder. I was at the Makeup Conference in NYC last Fall and many of the product developers spoke favorly of them.
I will be curious to hear what their thoughts are now.
Maybe I missed this info but what was the next step for the "leaks"? Would those that received positive feedback be acquired, put into finished packaging and added to a perm line for consumers to repurchase? Will they reformulate every leak until they receive positive reviews?
I've worked with beauty start ups on the corporate side and a brand's reputation can tank fast if consumers think they're being scammed or their feedback is dismissed/ignored, even more so when the brand is owned by influencers.