10 MEN’S GROOMING
Makeup: challenging the final frontier
n Richard Scott – Editor, Personal Care
Given the scale of the cosmetics industry, it is incredible that it has become this size with large sections really only marketed towards 50% of the population. Male grooming was valued at $57.7billion (£44.6billion) in 2017 and is steadily growing according to Research and Markets. The market research company estimated that male grooming will reach $78.6billion (£60.6billion) by 2023.1 This has been achieved with one of the key pillars of the overall personal care industry, color cosmetics, remaining a niche area for men.
But this major dividing line that has traditionally separated products for men and women appears to be crumbling as more makeup product lines designed specifically for men appear on the shelves. It is another surprise that it is such a niche sector at the moment, as there have been many times throughout relatively recent history when makeup for men was commonplace. From 4000 BCE until Victorian times (mid-19th Century), men were frequent makeup users.2
Certainly in
Europe during the 17th and 18th Centuries, makeup was commonly applied by high status men. Skin was whitened (extremely dangerously) using lead, while cosmetics were also used in hair and in the form of ‘beauty spots’.2
In general, the trend was
towards a pale face with red lips and cheeks. This look suggested an elevated social status, but was practiced by the middle classes upwards. The sterner Victorian values and strict
adherence to religious scriptures left makeup as a female-only pursuit, and this remained largely unchanged, until recently. Over the past 40 years, youth culture has regularly brought along trends, often
PERSONAL CARE NORTH AMERICA
a far more powerful way than music-led trends did in the past. Although images of glam rockers are firmly imprinted in our collective consciousness as a visual shorthand of the 1970s, this was primarily a youth trend, with a very narrow bandwidth of
engagement. Social media has a far greater reach and is less tied to fashion’s whims; it has dominated the conversation surrounding gender identity and been instrumental in
circulating striking images of individuals challenging society’s norms to mass audiences. This has been heightened by the fact much of national news, particularly online sites, are populated with stories concerning ‘viral’ social media.
aligned with pop music (glam, punk, new romantic), which involve men wearing makeup, but these trends can be considered short-term reactions against societal norms, rather than examples of a genuine wholesale shift in attitudes. Perhaps what is happening now will be a longer lasting change in the way society responds to male makeup, and there are signs this is the case, with big brands such as Tom Ford and Chanel recently unveiling men’s makeup lines.
Shifting values
Movements such as ‘Me Too’, trans rights, gay marriage equality, among others, have changed attitudes to gender identity quickly and across many countries simultaneously thanks to the globalization of communication since the use of the internet became widespread. Social media has enhanced and focused the message in
Male makeup ‘stars’ People such as James Charles, Jeffree Star and Thomas Halbert have utilised YouTube to great effect and James Charles became the first male CoverGirl ambassador.3
The
onus with many of these individuals is on makeup tutorials, often with a highly stylized ‘glamorous’ approach. However there is also a move towards a more natural look, mirroring trends in the female makeup sector and this once again has assistance from the music industry. K-Pop has been a global phenomenon, and the aesthetic for the male superstars emphasizes a flawless, youthful complexion over dramatic colour; the so-called ‘chok-chok’ look.
The natural look
Central to the natural ‘chok-chok’ look is the BB cream, which dominated women’s cosmetics several years ago. The aim of this look is to achieve a uniform, clear, almost ‘dewy’ glow and in South Korea, this look
March 2020
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72
