ABC News Sydney exposed an ugly side of the beauty industry
that we bloggers (and influencers), have definitely contributed to in a way,
but even if it's legally okay, is it ethical?
 |
| ID: An infographic of an edited image of beauty products superimposed on a dreamy watercolour background (full image further down with description) with a big red X on it and text next to it that reads "Nah, I'm done with this lot". There is handwritten text at the top that reads "#RivetRant" and bottom that reads “(at)rivetlicker”, a sparkly pastel pink/purple/blue border, and an illustration of Lara with an angry expression, holding her palm up in the bottom right corner. |
Let's wake up the old school blog format with a good ol' #RivetRant!
.
Dupe alert!
Dupes are not inherently evil. They make a lot of products accessible to the
masses. I understand why there are issues with these things, because yes,
there are ethical lines that are crossed and I will get to that later, but
given how many people are struggling with the cost of living, you’d think
having a more affordable option available was the right thing to do by people.
Not all dupes are blatant copies, and that is a distinction that needs to be
made. Sure, a true dupe has to meet certain standards such as formula and
performance similarities, but that's the goal, it's not free reign to outright
copy others' hard work. That's called being a copycat, and that's what MCoBeauty has been doing, and like other consumers, I have been *duped* into thinking they've been doing it for my benefit.
There is a cost to copycats, and it’s mostly based off the hard work of women,
especially women of colour, and it goes beyond the physical realm. If you have
had any of your hard work stolen or plagiarised, you’ll know what I’m talking
about. I’m still scarred from having my original works stolen in the past that
I still watermark photos that don’t include my face!
Intellectual Property
Intellectual property is a name given to non-physical works. One would
usually think of this as being related to creation in arts and media, but it
covers loads of aspects of human intellect and ideas, and includes copyrighted materials and trademarks. Depending on where you live, IP laws can differ in
strictness, and in some places, not at all.
In the past, I have studied basic IP law in music, and know that if I
wanted to release a song containing others' copyrighted material, I'd be looking at
licensing fees and permissions from the original authors, but consumer
products like beauty items have too many generic ways of existing, because
unlike music, they are tangible items.
There are certain concepts in intellectual property that do have legally
binding exclusivity, but they come with a massive price tag. If you’re rich
enough, you can literally trademark a specific colour like Cadbury Purple or anything from Pantone, but there are millions of colours to choose from, so you have freedom to use them all, bar a few shades
based on a specific hexadecimal code have been slapped with legally limited
usage. Then, some things are just too generalised to be legally protected, and that's what copycats are exploiting.
In the context of beauty products, the intellectual property would apply to
things like the formula and the accompanying artwork (brand logos, etc). Sure,
you can definitely trademark certain aspects of your brand, but unless you
have the money, you aren't going to be able to get exclusive naming rights,
especially for terms like “foundation” or “eyeshadow”, unless you made up a unique new term altogether. The same goes for all single words, especially
adjectives, so unless a phrase is trademarked, it's fair game, which is why
the article mentioned that MCoBeauty’s “Flawless Glow” didn’t infringe on
Charlotte Tilbury’s “Flawless Filter” branding, because you can’t really
trademark the term “flawless”.
When it comes to packaging, artwork and branding designs are definitely
protected under copyright laws, but does anybody actually own the rights to a
line, or a squiggle, or a square? No, those are too generalised, which is why
we can all create artwork using those elements. Just like in piece of music, nobody owns the rights to the sound that an individual key on piano makes, but put together a bunch of those tones of different lengths and pitches, and you have a song. Back to beauty products, we can have the
same shape of product packaging like a squeeze tube and not infringe on
another's IP even if the packaging format is the same. Nobody owns that squeeze tube style, not even Big Toothpaste or Big Sunscreen!
Power Dynamics
Dupes of bigger or more exclusive brands don't mean that the originals are
going to lose sales, it's just that most of the market isn't in a position to
access them in the first place. Whether it be the price tag or being geographically
isolated, or even if they don't come in your shade, in the case of colour
cosmetics, which many brands are still guilty of (including MCoBeauty’s retail stockists), there sometimes is that gap in the market that budget and drugstore brands are just not filling the demand with their original products, so they have to take from the top.
It's not a big deal to bring forth an accessible and more affordable
alternative to the market that performs just as well as the original product. It just means that trends that the upper echelons of society have only had access to come down to the
masses, and it's something that everybody can enjoy. Within reason.
For example, I still go for "cruelty free" brands, it's lost meaning over the
years, but I am still putting preference into those kinds of products.
Sometimes there's an amazing product that doesn't meet my personal ethos to
support that brand, so I might find a cruelty free alternative, or dupe, basically. For
example, MAC's Velvet Teddy lipstick, even though there's millions of
alternatives out there, I don't care for MAC, it's too expensive and they
don't really meet my ethos, so I'm happy with a Kmart OXX lipstick that comes in a similar shaped tube.
But having said that, I don't wear makeup that much, so spending $30+ on one
lipstick is not something I would do for a product I'd only wear once. $3,
yes, $10, sure. As for skincare, I am more willing to spend bigger on skincare because at least I'll
use it, but I'm still priced out of the range of some products sold at high end beauty retailers, and that's why I might choose the cheaper alternative.
Enter MCoBeauty & Shelley Sullivan
I have always felt that Shelley's products have been too expensive for what they are, and MCoBeauty is no exception. That’s not to say it isn’t
good quality for the price point, but most of it is manufactured in massive quantities
in overseas, and the profit margin could be cut in half and they'll still make
a killing off them (guess that's why they can go on sale for half price so
many times per year?).
See to it their accessories and tools, you'll find the same unbranded items
for purchase from online marketplaces like Amazon or AliExpress for a fraction
of what they sell it for in retail stores. They are just a middleman who pick up the
cost of importing and branding goods as their own, then marketing it to us, in
a such a way you can just pop one into your trolley when you're doing
groceries (guilty!). Kmart really do the same, but they sell the products for a lot less.
MCoBeauty's skincare is manufactured here in Australia, which definitely can justify the price tag, because it's expensive to manufacture anything here, especially in smaller quantities, which is really how small businesses get by,
but the makeup and accessories make me feel quite ripped off.
 |
ID: Screenshot of an article excerpt. Black text on a white background next to a photo of a white woman with blonde hair and a caption that reads “Why isn't MCoBeauty being sued? Australian cosmetics company MCoBeauty has become a multi-million-dollar business by "duping" popular beauty products. But its success hasn't been without controversy, after pushing the boundaries of the law too far in the past. Read more” Main text reads: “MCoBeauty went viral for its dupe of a cult Charlotte Tilbury product that had strikingly similar packaging to the original, but was retailing for half the price as part of its "luxe for less" brand ethos. Founder and CEO Shelley Sullivan said her company wasn't concerned about duping cosmetics by smaller beauty brands. "I'm not worried that we're ripping off small business owners," she told The Business. "We have a bit of a view on other brands should probably protect what they're doing.”” |
Shelley Sullivan really has no shame in admitting that she is willing to
copy small businesses, and that is my biggest gripe. Copying small businesses who do all their own
work, but don't have the financial position to protect themselves are at risk
of losing out, and with what
Hilary Holmes
had to say about it all on her stories really resonates with me on the topic
(screenshot via
@minniemakeup_).
 |
ID: Screenshot of white text on a grey background that reads (sic): “I have been asked sooo many times about @mcobeauty and Shelley. I am constantly asked by media to give my view point and to be honest, I have sooo many reasons to be disgusted by their business model.
If we want Aussie brands to be at the forefront and successful, we should be saying no to brands like these who steal creatives ideas and condone that behaviour across all businesses (fashion, art, music etc) and saying yes to taking time to think, pause, create and see the opportunity. This is how we ALL become successful because that type of culture cultivates more of it. The more we condone stealing and then using people's financial situation as a defence for why they can then prepare for Aussie brands to go off shore or not do anything good. There are so many Aussie brands being sooo clever and working damn hard and it's all being shat on like smug brands like Mco because up until now they have made us believe it's for the best interest of people. It's not and as a beauty brand owner who is just waiting to be ripped off and watching my clever industry peers being duped, I say that enough giving money and platform to lazy thief's who don't give a shit about anyone but their own bank accounts. No one and no industry is safe if we condone this behaviour. Now, I don't wanna talk about it anymore. If people want me to speak in media it'll be about how progressive and innovative @holmebeauty is being and why we spend our money on being accessible and diverse ORIGINALLY. Time Australia celebrated and platformed the wonderful things people are doing without stealing from others.” |
Others who do the same
I don’t personally have so much of an issue with Kmart or Aldi bringing forth their copycats, because they are
ultimately the pinnacle of accessible consumer products. When you live on a
pension or a low income where most of your money goes to actually living, being able to
easily get a product that is of reasonable quality is sometimes better than going
without because you can’t afford to purchase something more extravagant. There is to be no shame in not having the
means to buy the original product, but legal protections for intellectual property
should be protecting small businesses from these predators in the first place, which they clearly are not.
Obviously, I don’t judge the consumer on what they buy, but if you are in a position where you can afford nice things, buy from the small business, buy from the indie brand, buy that $50 mascara, just don’t judge those on the other side of the equation for choosing the dupe or copycat.
Conclusion
I personally think that we as beauty bloggers, influencers, and media personas, especially newcomers in the past few years, need to consider what we are doing when we promote these kinds of things. We should be more conscious about what we purchase or accept in PR so we don't insult our audiences' intelligence for easy engagement, a quick buck, or a free product. I have definitely been guilty of doing that as you can see by what I was going to post on Instagram at some point to give others a heads up about what's accessible and affordable in beauty products, but this weighs in on my conscience now, so it remains here as a reminder of me selling myself out.
 |
| ID: Cutouts of various shapes and colours of beauty products superimposed on a dreamy watercolour background. There is white text with a black border at the top that reads "Rivet Goes Grocery Shopping" in all caps, below that "MCo Beauty Edition". There are white arrows and text pointing to each product. Text from top left going clockwise reads "Flawless Glow, Luminous Skin Filter, 1 Very Fair", 'Clear, Retinol Part Pack Pimple Patches", "Glow Up, pH Cheek + Lip Oil, Berry Pink", "Miracle BB Cream, Light", "4-in-1 Colour Corrector, Green". |
As for the people who run these kinds of business models, I expect this kind of
behaviour in multi-level marketing and other questionable business practices. That kind of attitude shows they don't care who they hurt along the way. If
they’re willing to do that to get ahead in business, I wonder how many people
they have hurt in their personal lives. A lot of the time, they only care
about themselves and enriching their own needs, while not actually
contributing anything beneficial, or in this case, anything original. In
nature, there is actually a word for that kind of behaviour.
Needless to say, I won’t be purchasing or promoting anymore products from
MCoBeauty. I'll just use up what I have and seek other alternative products.
.
UPDATES: A third article has been published with the responses to the articles and video in the comments section on the ABC News' Instagram and TikTok accounts.
Minnie Isaac of White Rabbit Social posted this great story about why it's a privilege to say no to purchasing products from MCoBeauty.
I made this reel thanks to a fellow creator who provided their two cents on the matter. "BlogFriend" used to work in design/IP.
I published another reel for further information on why there's a difference between dupes and counterfeits.
.
Rivet xx
Putting together blog posts such as these take a lot of time and effort on
top of the cost of the product (if I have to purchase it myself), so I don't
publish them often and leave this space for reviewing unique and unusual
beauty products and trends. If you enjoy these posts, please consider buying
me a coffee on Ko-Fi!
My regular beauty related content can be found on Instagram.
This post is presented as an opinion piece.
For more information, please read my Disclosure Policy.
No comments:
Post a Comment