How much stuff is actually in a lip gloss or liquid lipstick tube?

In case you're not already familiar, I wanted to give you all a link to a video by Beauty News from their series The Makeup Breakup, where they destroy makeup products to see how much stuff is in there. (Some people are horrified by the "waste," which doesn't bother me. If you buy a product in order to use it on your face, or in order to let it sit in your drawer until it expires, or in order to crack it open and look at what makes it tick--what difference does it make? I try to use things up that I have in order to avoid buying more, but once the money's spent, it's spent, regardless of how it's used. The waste has already been created. I think The Makeup Breakup is a totally noble makeup sacrifice, myself. Plus they seem to try to save things so they can use them if possible, anyway.)

I'm linking here to a specific video in which they empty out some tubes of Colourpop lip glosses and liquid lipsticks. The sizes are fairly standard, but since I'm not used to seeing the product outside of the tube, it really struck me how little is actually in one of those things. I mean it's still 50+ applications or whatever, so you probably wouldn't be able to use more product before it went bad. Nevertheless, it's a good illustration to me that when you are buying makeup, you are not paying for the value of the product itself--instead you're paying for all the peripherals like advertising and displays and packaging, etc. There's no way that those few milliliters of a $30 lipgloss have ten times the value of a few milliliters of $3 gloss.

(This, you might say, is also an argument against Beauty News' criticisms of products like the Guerlain Meteorites for being made of just "cheap" ingredients like corn starch and mica. Well, yeah. There are limited ingredients out there for cosmetics manufacturers to choose from and brands at all price points tend to use the same basic things. The Meteorites are an extreme case, perhaps, but you are absolutely paying for the pretty packaging, the fact that the powder has been formed into a bunch of little balls, and--above all--the prestige. You're not paying for some kind of magical, unique, fairy dust. I assume most of us know that.)

Review: Paula's Choice Berry & Bright Lip Pencil Collection + Giveaway!

Disclosure: Affiliate links.
Because people click my Paula's Choice invite link here on my blog, I've been able to try some things from the brand that I ordinarily wouldn't buy for myself. One such thing is this set of four lip crayons for $45. At $11.25 a piece, they're not too much more expensive than most drugstore lipsticks, but I haven't been especially impressed by PC makeup in the past, so I probably wouldn't have gambled. Since I had some credits, however, I figured I would give them a shot--turns out I like (most of) these! And since I got them because of the blog, it seems right to review them here. As further thanks, there's also a giveaway at the end of the post.

Paula's Choice Berry & Bright Lip Pencil Collection (top to bottom): Winter Berry, Currant, Plum, and Sugar.

These four lipsticks in crayon format are described as "satin matte." There are two reds, a dark berry, and a sheer, pearly shimmer. They apparently all have names, but I threw out the box, and the pencils themselves aren't labeled, so I am getting these names from the Paula's Choice website and hoping I assign them correctly: Winter Berry, Currant, Plum, and Sugar. 

Sugar is the sheer shimmer. I'm sure of that, at least. In trying to sort the others out, we come to something I found slightly disappointing about this set, i.e. that it contains two reds. In fact, the labels of all three colors look so similar, that I usually have to hold them side by side to figure out which one I want. My guess is that Paula's Choice probably intended to create a set that included a pink, a red, a berry, and a sheer shimmer. That would make sense, right? Instead we have a pink-red, a true red, a berry, and a sheer shimmer. The colors are lovely, but the variety is a bit lacking.

Paula's Choice Berry & Bright Lip Pencil Collection: Winter Berry, Currant, Plum, and Sugar.

The differences are clearer when you look at the lipstick itself, but obviously we are dealing with two different reds here, not a pink and a red.

Another lipstick size comparison: Bite Beauty Mix and Mingle Duo ($14) vs. Tarte Lipsurgence Lip Creme ($24)

Disclosure: Affiliate links.
Here's a supplement to my previous post on this topic. I bought myself one of the Bite Beauty Mix and Mingle mini lipstick duos a couple of weeks ago as a reward for completing some especially horrible job applications. Not without a lot of dithering, however--they just look so small! They're basically two "deluxe" sample-size lipsticks attached back to back, with a total weight of 0.1 oz. (Note: The Sephora listing is incorrect, because it says that they weigh 0.5 oz x 2. In fact, they are 0.05 oz/1.55 g x 2, as labeled. BIG FUCKING DIFFERENCE. A 0.5 oz. lipstick would be huge.)

According to Sephora, the duos are a $24 value for $14. Since they are Bite's Luminous Crème lipsticks, that's not completely accurate. A full size Luminous Crème does cost $24, but it weighs 0.15 oz., not. 0.1 oz. The Bite High Pigment Pencils, however, are 0.09 oz. and also cost $24, so I suppose they are calculating the cost as somewhere in between these two.

And that is what actually persuaded me to buy the tiny lipstick duo (in Scarlet/Mulberry). By weight, it's about the same size as a typical lipstick crayon, so it's not outrageously small. In fact, it's exactly the same weight as the hideously expensive Tarte crayon that I used as a comparison last time.

Since those Tarte crayons cost $24, that makes them $240 per oz. This Bite lipstick, then, is a more reasonable (ha!) $140 per oz. But are they really the same size?

I just don't see it. What do you think? Maybe there is something going on here with the components of the different lipsticks weighing different amounts. After all, we're measuring these by weight, not volume. Is it better for a lipstick to be heavier or lighter? That is something I just don't know at the moment. It would depend what ingredients weigh more, and if those are the things you want more of (pigment or moisturizing ingredients, etc.). Will a heavier lipstick last longer than lighter one--or vice versa?

The Tarte crayon is a bit sheerer than the Bite lipsticks, if that tells you anything. I am quite happy with the little Bite lipsticks, in any event. I'd been wanting to try this lipstick formula, and this was a relatively inexpensive way to do so. I'll write more about the formula (etc.) in a future post on dark/vampy lipsticks, but here are some quick swatches, in case you're interested! Scarlet on the left and Mulberry on the right.

If you have any insight on the weight/size problem, please share!

Tricky Tricky! Which lipstick package holds more product?

Disclosure: Affiliate links.

(This is the time of year when the light gets progressively lower and consequently my photos get progressively worse. I experimented with different lighting and a new background here, and I don't think either of them are winners. Grainy as shit. But since we are just looking at sizes and packages, this ought to suffice for now. Back to the drawing board next time.)

This is a long one, so get comfortable.

I'd been thinking about writing about lipstick packaging ever since my first "tricky tricky" post more than two years ago, but I kept putting it off. (See the others in the series here.) The reason I hesitated is that with most of these lipsticks, I don't think the packaging is deliberately designed to trick you into thinking you're buying more product - at least not in the same sense as some of the packaging I've discussed before. Nevertheless, one of the moments of inspiration for the series was when I realized that the actual product that twist up lip crayons contain is only a small fraction of the length of the tube. That fact came as a bit of a surprise to me, because I hadn't thought carefully about it before and simply assumed, sort of subconsciously, that I was getting a bigger lipstick in this format than in a traditional bullet. Maybe it was obvious to everyone but me that this was not the case. But that is really the goal of a tricky package - you get the impression that you're buying more without ever being prompted to look closer.

In case you think I am just being paranoid (fair enough, because who spends so much time thinking about this shit?), there have been cases where companies have been fined for using deceptive packaging, like Unilever in Europe recently (for Axe body spray). Paying close attention to how much you're paying per unit is especially important this time of year, when a lot of holiday gifts sets are coming out. If you're like me, you probably assume that buying a set or palette is more economical than buying individual products, but that's not always the case. For instance, the new Hourglass palette costs significantly more per unit than if you were to buy individual powders or blushes, and LORAC has managed to decrease the weight of the eyeshadow in the Mega Pro 2 palette while charging the same price as the first palette (whether less weight means less product in this case is debatable - a whole other issue to consider!). Check out these reviews (Hourglass and LORAC) from Temptalia for more information. Bastards!

That said, I think in the case of some of the packaging I'm going to compare today, there is an actual advantage to making it larger. That means it's not necessarily deceptive in a troubling way. But if you're like me and you hadn't thought much about different types of lipstick packaging and how much actual lipstick they contain, you might also find this interesting.

Let's start with traditional lipstick bullets. For each of these comparisons I chose three lipsticks at different price points. I also chose examples from my hoard that I had used infrequently so that the comparison photos are a accurate as possible. I've used each of these only 3-5 times (with the exception of the Revlon crayon below, which I will explain there).

Here we have Maybelline Creamy Matte lipstick in Divine Wine (average price $7) (reviewed here), Wet N Wild Megalast lipstick in Rose-bud ($2), and Lipstick Queen Jean Queen ($22) (reviewed here). Which do you think contains the most lipstick?

Is e.l.f. Essential Hypershine Gloss ($1) a dupe for Stila Lip Glaze ($8)?

Disclosure: This post does not contain affiliate links.

You may have noticed that e.l.f. regularly makes products that look like more expensive products from other brands. They imitate the packaging, sometimes the name, and the basic type of product in an apparently attempt to attract people who want the higher-end item but aren't willing or able to spend the extra money for it. A good example is the crazy cream blush I reviewed a while ago. Their strategy seems to work fairly well, because you'll often see e.l.f. products suggested as cheaper alternatives to similar-looking higher end cosmetics.

It's important to be aware, however, that often what e.l.f. is replicating is just the appearance of the product - that is, the packaging. They don't necessarily try to recreate the formula of the more expensive inspiration: the texture, pigmentation, scent, wear, finish, etc. That means that they are not necessarily a reliable source of real dupes. It's marketing, not SWFing.

e.l.f. Hypershine Gloss has been around forever and has been a favorite of mine for years. Though there are other brands that sell glosses in this click-brush type of packaging, Stila seems to me like the most likely reference point for e.l.f.'s version. But until just recently, I had never tried Stila's very popular Lip Glaze. I ordered several tubes of it in an attempt to find something to compare with the two e.l.f. glosses that I already had (and also because they were pretty, and so I bought a few that definitely weren't going to be comparable shades). In retrospect, I went overboard, because it turns out that I am not a huge fan of the Stila glosses. Let that be a lesson to you (me) here: whether you're looking for an e.l.f. dupe or a dupe for an e.l.f. product, proceed with caution.

So to answer the question in the title before I go on to a more detailed comparison of these two products: No. They are not dupes.

The oldest makeup in my hoard

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links.

Ancient cosmetic artifacts.

In the last few years, two main things have changed about my makeup collecting habits. First, I have such a ridiculously large hoard of makeup and nail polish that my past selves would be baffled and probably judgmental if they knew what was ahead. (We could psychologize about what has motivated this change in behavior in me - latent hoarding tendencies coming out, the consumerist mentality of blogging, ramped-up procrastination efforts - but let's skip that for now.)

Second, because I have so much of everything, I am much more ruthless about what I discard. I still don't throw things away unless they are absolute garbage, but I have a lower threshold for what I will give away to someone I think would like it better, and a higher threshold for what is worth keeping around "just in case I decide I want to use it some day." That last point is debatable, I guess. I do have a lot of colors of eyeshadow that I almost never wear, for example, but that I think I might want some day. But if they perform poorly and aren't getting use, then they're out.

That all means that if I had done this exercise even two years ago, I would have a lot more old crap lying around to show you. As it is, with one main exception, these are all things I still like and use.

I'll go through the list in chronological order, based on the year in which I think the product was acquired. All dates are approximate! I don't really know exactly when I picked up most of these things. It's based more on a general sense of where I was in my life when I first used it. More relative dating than absolute dating, you might say.

Note: There are lots of photos below the jump.

ca. 1995: Annabelle blush brush and unknown powder brush

I guess these aren't technically makeup, but they're the oldest objects in my hoard at the moment. I "borrowed" both of these from my mother when I moved out of my parents' house to go to college in 1999. I'm sure she bought them several years earlier, which is why I'm putting them at 1995, but they could be even older than that.

Why jar packaging sucks (from Paula's Choice)

It's the worst. (It's mostly cool for lip balm and other things that aren't water-based and/or don't have volatile ingredients, though.)

Update: e.l.f. Studio Cream Eyeliner (9 months later)

Remember when I posted that I liked it? Probably not. It'd actually be slightly weird if you did, although you'd have a pretty fucking impressive memory. Well, anyway, this is what starts to happen after about 6 months:

Nice package! (Or: At least Benefit is upfront about what you're paying for)

You're paying extra for the sexy package, I mean.

Tricky tricky! Which package contains more product? Lip Gloss Edition (PLUS photos and review of L'Oreal Colour Caresse Wet Shine Stain in Infinite Fuschia) (picture heavy post)

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links.

Here is the third (and possibly final) installation of the series in which I look at the tricks packaging design plays to make you think you're getting more product than you really are. You can see the previous editions here. This time I'm going to look at a bunch of tubes of lip gloss, and holy shit, there's a lot going on here. Not one of these is without its illusion - so it took me a long time to choose which products to compare here, because every time I checked the label, I was surprised by the size. Some of these still confuse me, even when I know how much is actually in there. Let's get to it. Which of the two tubes below do you think contains more product?

L'Oreal Colour Caresse Wet Shine Stain in Infinite Fuschia ($10)
vs. e.l.f. Super Glossy Lip Shine in New York City ($1)

Review and swatches: weird and fun e.l.f. Cream Blush in Vixen (and e.l.f. Studio 50% off today and tomorrow)

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links.

e.l.f. Cream Blush in Vixen (it's a handful)

I've been meaning to review this blush for a while now, because it's really nice. Recently I tried a blush color that I'd assumed wouldn't work for me, but did - this is another one in that category. I didn't have any reddish blushes until I bought this one, which is somewhere between red and fuschia. It's matte (no shimmer). Turns out that it's really flattering on me. I have pale, sort of neutral-tone skin. Looks close to my natural flush.

e.l.f. Cream Blush in Vixen (in natural light)

e.l.f. Cream Blush in Vixen (with flash)

This particular shade is out of stock right now, but there are five others available. I wanted to swatch it anyway, in hopes it will come back, because the swatches on the e.l.f. website are always pretty terrible. But if any of the other colors appeal to you (google swatches!), I'd recommend this based just on the formula. It blends really easy using your fingers, and you can get subtle color or build it up for something more noticeable. It wears really well too. No complaints.

Like sticking your finger into a toxic vagina

Did that get your attention? That's always how I kind of feel using nail polish remover jars, which I love. I won't go into graphic detail, but you know, the dipping, the thrusting, the swirling, the fumes . . . okay, maybe not the last one. Anyway, I feel like this is something Target should have taken into consideration when designing this product. Pink? Really?

I kind of want it, though.

(Also, I am curious what this post is going to do for my search stats.)

Tricky tricky! Which package contains more product? (Eye makeup edition)

Okay, I've got another one for you. This is probably easy to guess, because I have only two products to show you. But let's take a closer look to see how makeup companies use packaging tricks to make you think you're getting more than you are.

Which one of these containers holds more product?

Left: Maybelline Color Tattoo cream eyeshadow; Right: NYX Eyeshadow base

I'm sure you guessed that the NYX pot holds more, because it looks smaller, and you know I'm talking about tricky packaging. If you have ever held these two products in your hands, you will know that not only does the Maybelline pot look larger, it feels much, much heavier. I wish I had a postal scale to weight these, but it's at least twice as heavy. That's because the Maybelline pot is glass and the NYX one is plastic. So by looking at the top of the containers and even picking them up, the Maybelline product seems bigger. That's why you really have to look at the label to understand the amount of product you're getting and its value.

The Maybelline product contains 4 g and the NYX one contains 7 g. It's not just the material the pots are made from that makes you think the first one is more generous - it's also the design of the package. The Maybelline pot has a wider diameter, and both pots are about the same height. But check this out:

Again, Maybelline on the left, NYX on the right.

While the well that the NYX product is in goes halfway to the base of the pot, the Maybelline product only starts at the bottom of the lid. If you look at the Maybelline pot from the side, you can't see any product at all. That's just a big chunk of glass with some shit sitting on top of it! This is a big, bulky pot that is not convenient to store or carry around, designed that way simply to make you feel like you're getting your money's worth. If you stick a pin into each product, it goes down about 3 mm into the Maybelline shadow and at least 11 mm into the NYX base.

These are different types of product, sure, but they both cost $7. I'm not saying you shouldn't buy the Color Tattoo (I happen to like it), but just be aware of how the packaging is designed to fool you, and how much product you're actually getting for your $7. They are nice little eyeshadows, but they are not generous portions. Tricky tricky!

(See the last installment of this series, on nail polish, here.)

What do you think? Would you have been fooled/surprised by these pots?

Tricky tricky! Which package contains more product? (Nail polish edition)

Which bottle contains more nail polish: a mini Zoya or a regular-size Maybelline Color Show?

Mini Zoya Neeka vs. Full-size Maybelline
Color Show Denim Dash.

In the photo, they look nearly the same size, though in person, the Zoya actually looks comparatively tiny. Still, if I were judging only from the photo, I would guess that the Maybelline bottle contains just a bit more polish the the Zoya bottle.

Why I Don't Include Packaging or Product Photos in My Reviews

I've noticed that including (sometimes multiple) photos of product packaging, applicators, and close-ups of products is pretty standard on beauty blogs, but I tend not to do that. Sometimes I include a basic photo that's provided by the manufacturer to make it easier for you to identify something in a store, but that's about it. Why, you ask? Okay, no one asked, but I feet the need to explain myself anyway.

This is as good as it gets around here.