Beauty dupes are all the rage, but are they ethical? It’s complicated

It’s not news that everyone and their dog seems to be feeling the pinch of rising interest rates and cost-of-living expenses. Many businesses across various retail industries are noticing a decline in discretionary spending. As a result, beauty consumers, in particular, are searching for ways to try the hottest products, for a fraction of the price.

Beauty dupes, short for duplicates, are a big business. Affordable beauty brands take product development inspiration, a term used loosely, from the most popular high-end, luxury must-haves and offer them at a price that simply cannot be ignored. It’s a business strategy that’s been around for a while and it isn’t dying off anytime soon.

After a product launches – receiving rave reviews, driving demand and celebrity endorsements – the next wave of the PR life cycle generally shifts to searches for the ultimate dupe. From bloggers to TikTok creators to news publications – everyone appears to be reporting on the best beauty duplicates money can buy.

Can a dupe be too good?

Without a doubt, this year’s most talked about beauty dupe has been the MCoBeauty Flawless Glow Luminous Skin Filter: a $35 foundation promising consumers the perfect dewy complexion. Australian beauty brand MCoBeauty took its inspiration from Charlotte Tilbury’s iconic Hollywood Flawless Filter, a foundation that sets you back $65 for 30ml.

But the two products are so incredibly identical, from the ingredients, and product name, all the way down to the packaging of the product, that the public was immediately in dispute when it launched. Did MCoBeauty go too far? Or was it merely a win for making beauty more accessible to the masses?

To be fair, the media coverage that this generated worked to promote both brands equally. Charlotte Tilbury received just as much press coverage as MCoBeauty, and searches for the two foundations increased concurrently. 

Controversial Instagram beauty collective Estée Laundry, collated the public response in a post questioning the ethics of the dupe. Most who replied argued against MCoBeauty, with one comment stating, “Dupes are one thing. Blatant copies are just gross.” But what exactly is the difference? Is a copy a copy, or not? 

Most outraged consumers said using nearly identical packaging was the obvious straw that broke the camel’s back. It seemed that creating a replica of a product’s design was far worse than creating a replica of the product itself. Interesting. 

So, what did MCoBeauty have to say on the matter? A comment the company posted on its Instagram account replied: “MCoBeauty is a luxe-for-less beauty brand that provides people with high-quality products at an affordable price. We value our customer feedback, and we receive many requests for affordable luxury products that our customers wish they could have in their beauty regimen. We value and respect intellectual property rights and do not infringe on the rights of other cosmetic companies. Our products are always clearly branded MCoBeauty and sold in distinct packaging, so the consumer is 100 per cent aware that they are buying a product made and sold by us. We offer the customer choice, and it is their choice what brand they decide to purchase. We are proud of our brand and what it means to consumers.”

OK, sure. Despite the brand ignoring the fact that it created replica product packaging and asserting that the product is ‘distinct’ to the MCoBeauty brand, the dupe continues to gain recognition as a must-have budget foundation. Before-and-after comparisons have flooded the likes of YouTube, blogs and social media, showcasing the final glowy finish so consumers can make up their own minds.

A rose by any other name

Cosmetics aren’t the only products being duped in beauty; prestigious fragrance houses are being targeted by the luxe-for-less culture as well. However, unlike MCoBeauty, which has shied away from the obvious replica it manufactured, proud dupe brand Alt.Fragrances creates knock-off perfumes and colognes, boldly marketing each fragrance, which is clearly labelled with its original inspiration. 

Alt.Fragrances isn’t hiding from the fact it produces replicas. It states that the company is ‘reinventing the fragrance industry to benefit consumers and allow (customers) to experience some of the most luxurious scents in the world, regardless of budget.’ Righteous, no?

Then there are the websites devoted to documenting and aggregating the best beauty dupes, so consumers don’t need to trawl through Google themselves, looking for more affordable options. 

Comparison platform SkinSkool uses a product’s list of ingredients to create an itemised inventory of comparable alternatives that may be available at a more affordable price, or may be a more environmentally conscious choice. SkinSkool states that it is the ‘only IP-protected, tech-driven beauty marketplace dedicated to empowering consumer comparison and purchasing decisions, based on objective ingredient and pricing information.’

This raises a question: Is the manufacture and promotion of beauty dupes enabling consumers to be more empowered and less restrained by premium price tags, or is it feeding an industry of uninspired copycats? You be the judge.

The post Beauty dupes are all the rage, but are they ethical? It’s complicated appeared first on Inside Retail.