How much you’re going to welcome the arrival of Australian brand MCo at Superdrug will depend upon how you feel about dupes. A dupe is a copy of a more expensive product presented at a more affordable price. Dupes are everywhere – when beauty leans in on a trend, they lean from super luxe to ultra budget and, as every brand wants as much of the market as they can possibly get, creative licence is often used when it comes to packaging and appearance of the product. You could argue that dupes keep the market competitive and make beauty affordable for all while on the other hand, dupes could be copying the real creativity and cashing in on ideas that were never their own.
Duping is across all genres – small business owners in fashion, for example, often claim that bigger brands have taken their ideas but for this feature, we’ll stick to beauty. I don’t like how expensive beauty is getting and I particularly don’t like how marketing machines with massive budgets make beauty products so intensely covetable that they’re able to name their price which will bear little or no relation to the product’s worth. Dupes, while usually not exactly the same in ingredients, will give the same effects but duping brands are prepared to lower their price for bigger sales – and it works. And in working like that, there is less of a financial divide for those who love beauty trends.
[the cap on MCo has since been changed to be less dupey – we can assume lawyers involved]
So, step in MCo, who have taken duping to new levels and rankled other brands such as Charlotte Tilbury, Glow Recipe, Tarte and Sol de Janeiro. They’ve had several law suits regarding intellectual property, false advertising and trademark infringements. I wonder if MCo is what prompted Charlotte Tilbury to call themselves ‘the most duped brand in the world’ and give it a covetable twist. I mean, a lot goes on behind the scenes. I can’t explain how e.l.f. cosmetics ‘Cosmetic Criminals’ viral video (tongue in cheek mocumentary about stolen make up) was followed quick smart by a Charlotte Tilbury (self-starring) video campaign called Who Stole The Make Up? Which ended with Charlotte saying her make up DNA can’t be stolen. And now the e.l.f. full videos no longer exist. I have questions! But that’s a good example of how much duping is starting to irk the brands – and it can only be because they’re being hit financially. And if you remember the Huda vs Tilbury hubbub over the setting spray claims, I just feel a glimmer of amusement at MCo’s Miracle Flawless Setting Spray.
Right, so back to MCo which has just launched into Superdrug after launching at Target in the US in January. The retailers are very much not bothered about duping because it is bringing in the money and Superdrug was reliant upon Make Up Revolution which is no longer achieving the sales it once did. In short, they’re looking for a new duper.
I’ve tried MCo Flawless Glow, which has been likened to CT Flawless Filter although I’ve done a series of four ‘glow’ products – different shades but you can see they do the same thing and they differ in price from £27 to £13 (MCo). Bottom is e.l.f. Halo Glow, then MCo, then Saie and finally, MAC. There’s not a lot to call between any one of them in terms of glow giving, skin feel and texture and yet one (MAC) is taking far more of your pounds than the others, although of the four, it feels the more superior in quality. I mean, I could have done a swatch of 20 like products – annoyingly, long since given away, I don’t have the original CT. The MCo Highlight & Glow doesn’t have the same lustre as the Charlotte Tilbury Light Wand.
[MCo Flawless Glow and MCo Highlight & Glow – looks dull) I don’t think I’m all that bothered about duping any more – the consumer benefits from it and it keeps the lawyers busy. I never want to see it happen with small, home-grown brands – our bigger brands need to be better than that, but given that cascading (when a new technology or trend starts with the most expensive brand and is trickled down throughout the portfolio over a period of time) is a common occurrence at companies such as L’Oreal who own brands across the price range, really, they’re duping themselves – happily. I don’t find MCo exciting and, having seen interviews with the CEO, don’t find their denials and aura of innocence convincing, but I don’t care enough, at face value, to be aggravated by it. However, if dupes mean less fair wages and poorer factory conditions then I do mind – but there’s no way to know. What are your thoughts? MCoBeauty at Superdrug is HERE.
Leave a Reply