Okay, so who knew that beauty brands actually pay to be used at fashion shows? It’s one of those insidery things that doesn’t get discussed much, but make-up brands seen on the cat-walk have very often paid to be there.
I’m using the Burberry brush as illustration but they’re one of the brands that obviously don’t pay to be at their own show!
It’s more the high street brands that don’t have a fashion arm that will put down vast sums in order to be used. Ironically, unless they are the main brand (i.e. sponsoring hard) other beauty brands can’t use the London Fashion Week logo or wording in any press materials – they have to say ‘backstage’ or ‘on the catwalk at..’, without ever saying the words LFW!
I know that it’s getting out of hand – a lot of brands just don’t want to do it any more – it’s a phenomenal expense for a start – but whenever anyone has tried to put a stop to it, other brands have just come in and seized the moment. And, it’s not just a quick chat with the designers; this actually goes to a bidding war in some cases and the wealthiest beauty brands are the ones that usually win.
So, what do you think? Is it okay for bidding wars to make consumers think that particular brand is so cool and desirable that a designer had to have it for his/her catwalk show? Or doesn’t it matter?
All products are sent to me as samples from brands and agencies unless otherwise stated. Affiliate links may be used. Posts are not affiliate driven.
Its that age old addage of art Vs commerce. This is something that as a freelancer has irked me for a long while. There are, however, a few things to consider here. Firstly, a fashion show is NOT cheap to put on, and fashion is a business like any other. As such, press, advertising and attention are valuable commodities all round. When a brand waves £30 odd k in a designers face, I do appreciate it’s a difficult opportunity to turn down. On the surface it’s a mutually beneficial relationship, the house does well, and has a show, the brand gets credence for its association with said house . I don’t think people are naive enough to assume that the choice made by a designer has anything to do with anything other than money though. But, this also presents some problems. Its fair to say that fashion and beauty are closely related, and not just from a commercial perspective, but also from an artistic perspective, and one should definitely benefit from the other. However it really does become a mutual responsibility to ensure the fundamental elements of integrity are met. This sometimes doesn’t happen. It’s worth mentioning a particularly odd pairing this last season with a major designer, and a beauty brand. Sponsorship does sometimes seem to value the pound (£) over artists/artistic integrity. In think this needs to be addressed.
No matter how much anyone complains, this will always be done. I think it is up to the consumer to really decide if the product is really worth buying no matter where it is publicized.
I never knew that! You learn something new everyday :p
I would love it it the world worked on merit- but sadly it does not.
I’m not surprised it happens and don’t object. However I cannot think of one report on fashion week in London where I read a credit for the make up. So is this more for marketing to insiders rather than Josephine Public. Who did which shows?
I assumed it was just a mutual arrangement that benefitted both. Never realised the beauty brands pay to be there!
I’ve personally never bought a product because it was used at a particular fashion show. I study the finished looks and, if it is something I like, I look for products by the brands I like that will replicate it. The looks for the shows are usually exaggerated and only have to last a matter of minutes; consequently, the actual products that were used become irrelevant. If I represented a cosmetic brand, I’d be willing to provide free product, but that’s about it.
Wow. I had no idea beauty brands pay to be used backstage, though it definitely makes sense now. The amount of times I have purchased and/or tested something, simply because I heard it was used on the catwalk is embarrassing. A fair amount of the time I found the products nothing special, but chalked it down to not being a makeup artist, model, or having the ‘right’ skin type or colour.
From a marketing perspective I see how this method would target the right crowd, but as a consumer it annoys me as I am being sold a false image and ideal. Absolutely nothing new there, but I would have thought designers and their artists were more discerning on the catwalk, simply because they needed to be with all the media attention they receive.
It just makes me grateful to have access to sites like yours, which raise awareness and seek to inform as well as advertise in an impartial way. It is why I no longer subscribe to magazines, and pay little attention to their sites- I get the impression they are little more than glorified ad placements for big brands.
Looking at the comments above, I feel I should probably also add a disclaimer. I’m not talking about blindly buying a product simply because it is used in a specific show, but when enough hype is generated over it/ the product itself looks good, I will be curious enough to purchase/ try it out. It is a major let down when the product itself isn’t as advertised, regardless of it being ‘how commerce works’. It gets boring and tiresome being sceptical of every beauty claim, but it makes it much easier (and a lot less boring) to have someone fighting the consumer corner. So thanks, Jane, for helping the average person navigate through the fashion and beauty media quagmire!