Let me start by saying that some of my favourite brands are guilty of slack fill – but not one of them omits the weight or amount of product on their packaging. It’s all there to be seen and not hidden, so nobody’s breaking any current rules here. But in light of the Olay fining in California (where the slack fill rule applies) I thought it was worth at least just pointing out again how important it is to be aware of weights and measurements when it comes to buying beauty.
The definition of ‘slack fill’ is using packaging to make it appear as though there is more product than there actually is in the said packaging. It may be, in some cases, that essential componentary takes up a bulk of space – for example, the Bourjois blush above – it’s made for a pump release, but the pump takes up a third of the size of the product. I don’t think you could say that was slack fill, but the two slender chambers of L’Oreal Sealing Repair are wrapped in a much bigger chamber, which makes it on first sight, appear like a generous amount of content. However, the packaging is see though, so I would say that the consumer can see what they’re getting. The blush in the top picture, however, there is no way that the consumer can see what they’re getting – the little cocktail stick indicates the maximum depth of the product inside and yet the pot is huge! Even the Illamasqua stick blush looks a little short when you twist the entire bullet out, but it’s nothing compared the the pot blush.
The core of the Sarah Chapman Morning Facial Oil is significantly smaller than the external packaging, although 15ml is clearly stated. Both the moisturiser pots look nice and full until you turn them upside down and see the thickness of the jar. Murad’s Invisiblur again has a core far smaller, but again, see though packaging helps the consumer identify that.
Believe it or not, I’ve got to the sharp end of a European Parliament Document on misleading packaging (which I wish I’d never found – page 117 and hoping for a powercut so I can’t even see it any more) – the main upshot of which is that the press don’t cover dodgy packing practices enough, apparently, which leaves the consumer oblivous. The answer to the question, ‘what measures could help to deal with misleading packing?’ is that they don’t know because it has to be established first that packing practices aren’t already sufficiently protected. Which is no help at all.. like really sticking it out through a film you aren’t even enjoying with the insult to injury of a very unsatisfactory ending. It mainly related to food anyway – beauty product wasn’t even mentioned.
It’s not okay to slack fill (there’s an excellent article on it HERE that pertains to US law) but although in theory it’s covered by Trading Standards, there are bigger fish for them to fry (such as counterfeit and dangerous products) so it really doesn’t get much of a look in. For the forseeable future, slack fill in beauty is something that the consumer will have to regulate by not buying products they deem to be deceptive or misleading because as long as we keep being fooled, brands will keep doing it.
Maybe my next job – Slack Fill Hunter!
Transparency Disclosure
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.
19 comments
Thank you again for being on the ball, not something I would even have thought about TBH but now that you’ve highlighted it either I’ll become a lot stingier or there will be sale only purchases to make up for the slack fill extra income to the packaging companies etc.
Mio Double Buff is guilty of this. 150ml in a 200ml tube. When you hold it up to the light you can see how much space there is.
I stand by my comment in the last post about slack fill though, that if Olay should be fined in California, then other brands who markets in California who practices slack-filling (which is a lot) should also be fined. I also agree that opaque packaging causes consumer to be oblivious to ‘slack-fill’ *looks at Sarah Chapman’s products*.
Such a shame that cases of beauty product slack fill don’t really get a look in. In some cases though, as you said, it is fairly easy for the consumer to identify eg transparent packaging. In in doubt, check before you buy I guess! Xx Sophie / http://www.prettyandpolished.co.uk
The consumer can also help by complaining to trading standards. Enough complaints will be noted.
The same with incorrect labelling – trading standards will make a retail store take them off the shelf and re-label if you bring it to their attention.
I get especially annoyed by eyeshadow palettes which are bulky yet have very shallow pans. Too Faced seem especially guilty of this, as do SmashBox.
On the single pans spectrum, I think just about everyone’s guilty of massive package for very slender pan: MAC, Urban Decay, Nyx, Too Faced (again)… I think only Revlon’s new click-together system minimises packaging.
Apart from anything else it’s a pain in the bum to store all these clunky packages! I wish more people took Inglot’s approach and just sold you the pan and then whatever size palette you want to build with those pans.
(Also square pans for the win. Sorry, MAC, but round pans waste so much space when you put them all together).
I LOVED your Periscope on this, it’s something I’ve never really considered before! For me it feels worse when it’s a really expensive brand like Sarah Chapman, when you’re spending that much money, you don’t want to be tricked!
Stephanie xxx
http://missstephanieusher.blogspot.co.uk/
https://www.bloglovin.com/blogs/hope-freedom-love-3436251
This is interesting! I definitely have noticed this in a few of my beauty products, and it always makes me irritable. And possibly hesitant to purchase in the future!
I bought a Sephora Favourites box of lip products, containing a variety of different sizes from different brands – some full size, some generous deluxe samples, others quite tiny but the Benefit lipgloss was literally a 2 or 3 inch high tube with a 2mm high product inside. It didn’t do them any favours because I haven’t bought any of their products since!!
Clinique have put me right off their chubby sticks for this reason. So annoying.
This is why I love your blog June. Not only do you have awesome reviews bit you always go the extra mile with posts like this. Thank you xxx
thank you so much!
Clarins lip balm crayons are as bad.
I remember being completely miffed when I finally noticed the mL on the Sarah Chapman oils and discovering they were only 15mL’s. The size of the containers could easily fit 30-50 (if not more) and I (stupidly) assumed they were the standard 30ml. I also hate how you cant see how much product you have left. This is a dig at all brands who package their products in completely opaque bottle with no way of knowing how much you’ve got left without having to dismantle the entire thing.
The Beauty Bloss
This is such a great reminder. I’m really not into bulky packaging because I have a tiny, ensuite bathroom. Also, for my kit, I need everything to be as small and light as possible. It makes me so much more aware of these kinds of things.
When it’s really obvious slack fill I put the product back on the shelf! Nothing annoys me more than getting more packaging than product! It’s such a waste of money – I don’t care if the excessive packaging looks prettier on the dresser, my dresser does not go about sporting said packaging in the big wide world!
Sarah 🙂
Saloca in Wonderland
I work in the industry of product development and I will tell you that a lot of packaging that is double walled or double chambered that contains liquid or creams is done for a few other reasons besides size impression.
Most thicker plastics are made from materials that are less likely to breakdown and compromise the cosmetic formula when coming in contact with products containing active ingredients. These protect ingredients also get better protection from light/moisture/air exposure when packaged in certain double walled or double chambered components. Therefore, a lot of companies turn to double walled or double chambered components because yes they do give a nice size presence however the materials and function of these products lead to longer shelve lives giving the product a chance to be preserved on the shelve longer and also giving consumers a longer experience with using the product (before the PAO expires ) with out it becoming compromised by elements or incompatible packaging (thinner, less dense plastics) its not always done for mere size impression..trust me.
As long as the packaging states correctly the actual amount of product, it’s all the buyer’s fault for not being careful
What bothers me most is liquids in tubes – mascara, lipgloss & the worst… highlighting concealer – often only contain a few mls. Agree with the commenter above that it’s the consumer’s responsibility to check before buying, but I’m usually much more concerned about whether it’s the right product, colour, price, etc and the quality of ingredients rather than the quantity.
Nic x
I had never thought about this issue until I came a moment away from purchasing Sarah Chapman’s overnight facial serum. I was in Space NK being introduced to it by the Sales Assistant. When I pointed out that you only get 15ml but the packaging is huge she just said cheerily “oh yes, no one would buy it if they realised they only got that much for the price!” Bit misleading isn’t it? I asked and she just shrugged. Glad you highlighted this product in your post BBB and let’s hope some laws comes in to regulate this.