I stumbled across a thread on Emelle’s make-up board about MAC and I wanted to share it.

I personally don’t own any MAC in my kit what so ever. Never have done and mostly likely never will. As a plus model I’ve had it applied to me – and well I would say the artist showed great talent and it was nothing to do with what they used.

I’ve never felt compelled in my ten years or so in this industry either in a sales capacity or independent artist to be drawn to MAC. I have no idea why.

If you can’t be bothered to read right through the thread then let me explain the gist. (the thread is here)
MAC is owned by Estee Lauder now. As some of you may or may not know Estee Lauder Companies owns quite a lot of different companies – have a look at their site to see who they own.

It goes without saying that MAC would always be enticing for Lauder to snap up because it used to be the main brand make-up artists used to swear by. When make-up artists swear by something it causes quite the snowball effect – next thing you know models and celebrities are wearing it all over the place and then it goes to the consumer level. It’s safe to say MAC is now pretty much mainstream although I am always surprised when I remind myself it doesn’t sit in every department store as you’d think it would.

Anyway MAC (or Lauder depending on how you look at it) have been using quite under hand tactics in order to push their brand forward and undermined the work of independent make-up artists. Back in the day Make-up artists used to be booked independently or through an agency for fashion shows or music videos – but  the Emelle board explains that they now do deals with the designers/celebrities/record companies to offer MAC make-up artists top gigs for free as long as the people they are doing business with use MAC products exclusively.

It’s very telling that this year MAC returned as the official make-up sponsor for London Fashion week.
Supposedly they aren’t paying their make-up artists a special fee (the going rate) either nor are they giving them individual credit for shoots or gigs. They are just paid their normal wage for the days work.

Anyone who’s done fashion shows knows that’s hard work and hectic and to not be even credited for the work is a bit much. *gulp*

The face slap is that independent MUA’s that were paid the correct going rate for fashion shows etc are not being booked because the work is going to MAC make-up artists.

There are of course those that say that independent make-up artists should just shut up and stop being bitter – but I feel they do have a point. As an independent you can only under-cut so much. Working for free (unless you’re testing) isn’t really a good business move.

I was talking to an artist on a shoot a couple of months ago and we were discussing the economy and its effect on independent make-up artists. Baring in mind this was a woman with way more contacts than me (particularly in the magazine circuit) – she said if it wasn’t for her husband working she’d probably have lost her home by now.

It’s always been the way that being an independent make-up artist is not the most stable of jobs – but what is cutting many make-up artists to the quick is the fact a major company they once raved about is now undercutting jobs and pushing these independents to the curbs.

In no way am I slagging off MAC’s products because I really don’t know anything about them. But I do think that they need to take a step back and look at the negative impact this could have on their ‘cool brand’

The consumers probably don’t care and they are the key buyers now – but sooner or later the snowball effect will happen again and I’d wager that MAC will not be hailed in the best of lights by many independents.

Any thoughts?

Vx