Is makeup oversexualized?

[MJDisneygirl]

Imagine a top grade high quality makeup product, but was practically labeled and packaged, with it's literal colors as the labels. Would it sell?

[WinglessOne]

@MJDisneygirl  These days, it’s often “beauty influencers” who sell products, regardless of packaging/branding. If an influencer raves about a product, their followers will rush to buy it. I’m not sure how much weight sexualized vs. practical packaging has in the game anymore, aside from an influencer maybe mentioning it and creating bias among their followers. 

I’m curious, though: what product packaging, branding, and/or marketing do you consider practical vs. oversexualized? The line between them is kinda subjective. I know someone who thinks Pat McGrath’s lipsticks are oversexualized simply because all the ads show glitzy photos/videos of people’s lips and the tubes have gold lips on them. 

Most NARS products have very practical packaging: simple black or red casing that just shows the brand name, with occasional special casing for limited releases. It’s some of their shade names and marketing copy that raise eyebrows. I don’t think Orgasm is too sexed-up of a name, especially considering there’s another blush shade called Deep Throat. 😂 You can blame Mr. Nars for most of that. But I’ve always liked how NARS walks and occasionally crosses the line. 

Folks have mentioned Viseart, another good example of very practical packaging. They also have less racy shade names, though I suppose someone with a very low tolerance of sexual expression might have a problem with some shades in the Tryst and Liaison palettes. Viseart seems to be doing well—as they should, given the high quality of most of their products—so yes, practical packaging, branding, and marketing sells. 

[MJDisneygirl]

Orgasm and Climax by Nars, and Better Than Sex by Too Faced are just a few of the hyped up racy names I come across. I don't have a problem with it, but just because a product name is racy doesn't make it good.

[WinglessOne]

@MJDisneygirl  I’m not sure anyone bases a product’s quality purely on its name.

I hate Better Than Sex, but not because of its name. That mascara stings my eyes. It makes my lashes look amazing! But it performs terribly for me. A product name change wouldn’t fix that. 😄 I doubt many (if any) folks love BTS simply because of its name. I do like Climax—again, not because of its name, but because of its performance. 

[nche]

I would say that actually most brands don’t sexualize their products in its naming or packaging. From Lancôme to Chanel to Natasha Denona to Laura Mercier to whatever, most are pretty tame. 

Even the ones that do use sex, it’s only for a limited selection of their products. Like most Nars products have normal names (foundations, eyeshadows, etc). Only a handful are referencing orgasms or whatever. Same with Tom Ford or Urban Decay. 

As for literal color descriptions, it’s actually really hard to do. One lip gloss could come in 5 different pink shades. Naming them after flowers is as arbitrary as pink I, pink II, etc. 

[IttyxBittyxMe]

Of course. 

There are more brands that have...non sexual themes and names for their products then there are that do. There are some brands where having 'edgy' or 'sexual' themes is common without them like NARS, Urban Decay, and Too Faced - but for the most part their exceptions. Brands like MUFE, Viseart, and ABH typically have just numbers, color names, places, etc as their product names. 

[suzyo]

@MJDisneygirl  I think the brand Viseart would be an example of how the product is more important than the packaging.