Weird I know but apparently when there’s any kind of national crisis people start buying more lipstick, a theory once propounded by “Professor” Leonard Lauder, the chairman of, er, Estée Lauder Companies.
“After the terrorist attacks of 2001 deflated the economy, Mr Lauder noticed that his company was selling more lipstick than usual. He hypothesized that lipstick purchases are a way to gauge the economy. When it’s shaky, he said, sales increase as women boost their mood with inexpensive lipstick purchases instead of $500 slingbacks,” reported the New York Times back in May.
I hope Gordon Brown knows about the Lipstick Endogenous Decline Thingy: perhaps Ruth Kelly walked out on him to spend more time with her lipstick.
Now an email pops into my inbox titled Credit Crunch Beauty on behalf of Tesco: “It's well regarded that the trend for red lips in the 1940s was a reaction against economic downturn and a means for boosting morale - but it seems that even in the modern day, we could be turning back to lipstick as a means of guilt-free indulgence.”
Can this be true? In my experience, most women and all trannies wear lipstick whatever the economic weather. The streets are a blur of carmine gashes and dashes, sometimes true to nature’s lip contours, sometimes not. It would be interesting to study before and after pictures of Eva Braun; before disaster was inevitable and after realisation. If lippie is evident in the after pics and not in the before then the idea’s sold on me.
However, should you bother to read the New York Times piece in all its fill-space lengthiness you will halt at this: “Lipstick sales for the first 12 weeks of this year ending March 23 (2008) don’t validate the lipstick theory. Sales of lipstick in supermarkets and drugstores have decreased 3.3 percent compared with the same time period in 2007, according to Information Resources Inc …”
Nice try Leonard Lauder.