Sleek makeup has been around for nearly two decades. It started off as a brand that catered to non white women. It was mostly sold in Afro hair shops and was a budget brand. The brand then launched in Superdrug. It got a lot of online fame with its pallettes which lead to it rebranding itself to be for "everyone" whilst discontinuing many shades of lipstick and foundation that suited darker skins.
They began to change their advertising to include this new demographic of "everyone" aka white, by using more and more "ambiguous" models and catering to beauty bloggers and collaborating and certain events.
Was I becoming bitter then? To be honest it left a sour taste in my mouth, but its something that has happened is happening now and will continue to happen. The only British brand to cater to dark skins became "mainstream" which often means us darker skinned people get in a word shafted. Whatever. It happens. Its business. I see many non white women buy from the likes of Rimmel, Bourjois and Max factor etc and they neither advertise with anyone with skin darker than white and certainly do not create any products for us! But i suppose their reasoning is white women will not buy from a brand that heavily features ethnic minorities.
I had already said see ya to Sleek after their ridiculous "natural collection" where the blush did not even show up on my skin. But today i stopped dead in my tracks.
As you know 2012 has been the Queen's Jubilee and the Olympics. The best of British etc etc etc. Well Sleek have a 2012 collection to coincide with this. A pout polish named glory, an eyeshadow palette named pride and a blusher named Glory.
Hmmmm.
Anyway nothing wrong with that. What i find disconcerting is the choice of Imagery in conjunction with the language used with this.
The model is blonde and blue eyed ( her eye colour is actually "enhanced")
she has the British flag in the background. A crown on and Jewellery entwined on her wrist with royal imagery as well. The blusher has a statute on it and a little cute button saying "i love GB". With Glory, Pride and Honour is the tag line.
Now i have no problem with patriotism or Nationalism.
What i dislike is this. Britain is a nation full of different peoples. Due to the UK's Policy of empire building and Imperialism. For a Brand that claims to be for "everyone", that was even able to expand due to ethnic minorities lining its pockets, this collection's imagery and language is a farce. In a time when Devolution is a hot topic, where the riots of last summer actually revealed things that people did not want to see, where we even have a 2012 Olympic team that is multicultural, this is what Sleek Makeup have come up with. Really??? Sleek. Really? You couldn't show all the peoples that makeup this Sceptered isle?? Coming together in a positive way?
I guess you're not really British unless....................... *giggles*
I'm not even going to go deeper down the Rabbit hole with what i could say.
Suffice to say me and My sister will never purchase another product from Sleek.
Damn, this is really annoying- I like Sleek, they make the only make up that's olive-y and I looove their pallets- I'm ostensibly not the same ethnicity as the models they originally used and it never put me off; I hate this as an advertising idea, like a white woman's never thought they'd quite happily steal Beyonce's eyeshadow or whatever.
ReplyDeleteI really hate the idea that British people are blonde and blue eyed and pale- aside from anything else, it's a total fallacy; people whose genetics go back to ye olde England are usually dark haired or ginger so the sort of idiots going 'oh yes, everyone is a blonde Anglo Saxon' are off their heads even by their own totally ludicrous theories. URGH.
I really liked Sleek for catering to a range of ethnicities and for using non-white models. I guess I'll have to join you in the boycott now, though.
Sleek has narked me off for sometime now.I have no problem with them using models from various ethnicities but they are completely overshadowing the whole point they existed in the first place: to cater for black women as there was a gap in the high street market. Ridiculous!
ReplyDeleteMog and anonymous I agree with you. I have no problem with them using in their pr's own words "ambiguous" models, i just feel as a company that started out for non black women that is based in London they could have a group best of British with a mixed group of models photo!
ReplyDeleteI just feel that not one person all through the process, thought hang on a minute, lets look at this again.
Its bizarre to me
I too have been miffed at Sleek's demographical change - talk about forgetting ones roots but alas its a business and business's are concerned with making money. Although black women make up a certain percent around the world their numbers are low in comparison to their white counterparts in places like the UK. Part of me felt like boycotting Sleek from when I found out about the ingredient DMDM in their liquid foundations - emailed them and in a roundabout way they told me said ingredient was just a preservative (I know that), only a small amount and basically that in spite of its formaldehyde releasing properties they'll still use it in their products e.g. we don't care what you think.
ReplyDeleteI'm tired of product companies aimed towards black women (hair/skin companies) using DMDM or Hydroquin and other harmful ingredients in their products. Like seriously you'd 'think' they're trying to kill us off in the meanest way possible (making you spend your own money on products that will aid in your eventual and speedy death).
Truthfully I haven't purchased a Sleek product since I heard about their companies new focus - I mean just because your broadening your scope why do you have to suddenly cease having dark beautiful faces on your campaigns and make your products so un-pigmented that it looks ashy on darker skin. Pigmented products are a win for all shades apart from those who like a soft natural look but use a heavy hand.
All in all I think their excuses are lame, they could have chosen to be an all encompassing multicultural brand that represented all shades of beauty together at the same level and value. However, they have chosen to stick with what's on-trend and century old prejudice. I totally understand a boycott but Sleek's not even on my radar nowadays I choose companies who choose me :) e.g. Black Opal, Becca, Dorris Michael, Mac, Ellis Faas, Milani, Kiko etc.
oh and speaking of the lame - I emailed Bourjois once about why they don't make darker foundation shades - they said it was something in progress for them and told me that they had made darker shades before (Bio Organic Foundation Brun ?). I give them credit on emailing me (some companies never emailed me back) but it's still a very lame excuse because they've been around from 1863 (how long is it going to take you? lol) oh and haven't they made a cream bronzer recently with all that dark brown pigment - it must've come from somewhere lol... I do like their Santal blush and I've been tempted by their eye-shadow pots many a time but until I see my shade on that foundation rack I refuse to invest a fair deal in them. Ok rant over for now ... (sighs) Just some of my thoughts :)
M+F i hear you. I try to buy from companies that cater towards me as much as possible. Bourjois are nuts, i give them credit too because they do donate items to charity and i'm happy they emailed you back ( rimmel, sleek and L'oreal never got back to me)I mean rimmel did a darker shade that guess what they didn't publicise so shelved it. The old stock still does the rounds on market stalls.
ReplyDeleteLMAO at "cream bronzer recently with all that dark brown pigment - it must've come from somewhere "