Making a Case for Makeup Dupes

Makeup is political, it always has been. From red lipstick becoming a display of power and prestige (and later protest,) to the latest “Republican makeup” and “Democrat makeup” trend exaggerating stereotypes of how either side of the political spectrum does their makeup while also taking a hit at their politics, a brand’s commitment (or lack thereof) to sustainability, and even the Leaping Bunny logo that signifies a brand has taken the stance of keeping their products cruelty-free. 

But if makeup is political, that means that makeup can be used as a tool for those in power to set the trends. We see this throughout history, with prominent figures in culture and society long setting makeup, style, and beauty standards. In ancient Egypt, “makeup served as a marker of wealth.” (Britannica) This also appears in the 1920s, when women were influenced to wear makeup when it became popular among Hollywood actresses, where “cosmetics were “now ‘productized’ and advertised, again [becoming] a mark of wealth and status, and emphasizing physical features, even for sex appeal, was no longer considered quite so selfish or wicked.” (Britannica) Once again in the digital age, we see influence finding a foothold once again, now in our pockets through social media. Today, the beauty world has been riddled with classism, with good quality makeup primarily only being available and accessible to those with higher socioeconomic status.

This is how makeup “dupes” took the beauty world by storm. Several brands have become popular for duplicating (or “duping”) popular, expensive makeup and more accessible by selling them at affordable prices. One of the brands that has probably become the most well-known for their affordable, accessible duplicate products is e.l.f. From their Glow Reviver Lip Oil sold for $8, (see: Dior Addict Lip Glow Oil for $40) the Power Grip Primer sold for $10, (see: Milk Makeup’s Hydro Grip Primer for $29) and probably the most popular: the Halo Glow Liquid Filter a controversial dupe for Charlotte Tilbury’s Hollywood Flawless Filter for $49.,

e.l.f.’s vision emphasizes their commitment to making beauty accessible for all, stating “[our vision is] to create a different kind of beauty company by building brands that disrupt norms, shape culture, connect communities through positivity, inclusivity and accessibility.” (e.l.f. Beauty) The brand’s “bold disruptor” persona has made waves for making high-end makeup at a lower price point, eliminating socioeconomic status based inequality in access to quality makeup products. 

But this has not come without controversy, with Charlotte Tilbury actually responding to e.l.f duping products from her brand. Of course, this pushback is to be expected but if you really think about it, e.l.f is not taking customers away from Charlotte Tilbury. No shade to Charlotte, but those who can afford her Flawless Filter at the price point its at are probably going to still reach for it—and are probably not shopping for makeup at Target or CVS where e.l.f. is sold. If anything, e.l.f. is eliminating the gatekeeping that comes with high-end makeup being by expanding the market to the masses by putting quality makeup on the shelves of stores that the majority of consumers can afford. 

Eliminating socioeconomic barriers to beauty makes the world more equal and beautiful for everyone. Beauty, self-confidence, and is no longer an indicator of wealth, power, or prestige. The inclusion of everyone even through something as seemingly simple as “duping” a product boldly disrupts the beauty industry’s historic association between influence and inaccessibility, and I think that that’s really beautiful.

• beauty
• dupes
• makeup