Scandal

Colourpop and UD Recycling Packaging

There have been a few ‘scandals’ rolling around the interwebs lately and they have me scratching my head.

Recently, You had me at Hello was released by Colourpop, and a redditor had noticed that the front of the packaging had “lights” on it, and for some reason that triggered them to try and peel the “You had me at Hello” sticker off the front of it. Low and behold, the palettes original name was “Lumina” and was a collab with Kathleen Lights. SueU3tfDQNZr1HJ8bXU4kEtCRRkiTQLRCmW51BaEKJY.jpg

Photo credit goes to original poster on reddit.com/makeupaddiction. Here is the original thread if you are interested in the general makeup mind’s thoughts. 

There are now videos being released, saying that ColourPop ‘dropped” Kathleen off the collab, but that doesn’t add up in my opinion. People may be making something of nothing. There is still a KL/CP collaboration out, under the name Dream St, and it’s doing incredibly well. IMG_3058

Not to mention it’s been wildly successful. So I am going to chalk this one up to a repackage. There is something to be said for a collaboration not working out or the timing not being right. Perhaps there was a contractual obligation for the palette to be released at a certain time, and “Lumina” was not ready. Either way I love Dream Street as it is now, and perhaps we will still see a Lumina in future. This is not a witch hunt it’s just makeup.

Scandal #2 released yesterday, and exploded all over Twitter. I have to hand it to Urban Decay because their PR team was ON IT.

Tati Westbrook got wind that the Velvetizer by Urban Decay had been repackaged using the Naked Skin High Definition Powder container. The kicker with this one? Both of these products are still for sale. Consumers were tweeting furiously about owning both products and having paid more for one while it being the same thing. Both product weights are the same, and it definitely looks like similar packaging.

30429240_10156393846994853_2011341922_nHowever hours after this scandal breaks, Urban Decay released the statement seen below. I can appreciate the message, and I certainly agree. I do believe there are ways to have had better due diligence in business than to have consumers find out about these repackaging foibles. There is nothing wrong with what either company has done, but best to not leave us to our own devices on deciding what has really happened. It really shows how we feel as the product purchasers, that we immediately assume we have been duped, and that the products are the same. Let’s just look at the ingredient lists people. Let’s do a comparison first before we assume the worst!

What are your thoughts on these two issues? Are you bothered by the repackaging, or do you agree that it’s a good business practice with a lower environmental impact?

Thanks so much for reading!

Youtube Instagram Twitter Facebook

Affiliate and Referral Links: Ebates | Boxycharm | Erin Condren | Glossybox

 

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Colourpop and UD Recycling Packaging”

  1. I think its good that they use unused package and not generate more plastic waste for the environment! Maybe they can add a note at the point of release stating the same and the Scandal can work for them instead of against them.

    Btw, funny how your article is called Scandal I just thought of airing my own today! 😀

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I don’t get why this is an “issue”…
    Like literally if UD was going to make all new packaging for the Velvetizer it would still be in that pot form because it’s a powder, so why NOT just use the same packaging.
    And as for the ColourPop palette, the Lumina palette was never even released so as far as I’m concerned, the packaging is new.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Agree! I had people messaging me to tell me about both issues… and all I could think was… why does this matter? YES if the packaging was reused and the ingredients were identical then yes it’s a problem, but outside of that…no issue from my end

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I didn’t think of that, but yes! If the ingredients were exactly the same but they slapped a different name on it, then that’s an issue. Also if Kathleenlights had come up with that design of the palette and they used it on the new palette without her permission, then that’s also an issue. But she hasn’t said anything about it, so who are we to say it’s wrong?

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The Colourpop thing is interesting- I’m curious to know what happened but it’s possible that it was just the previous name/packaging for Dream St because they’re obviously still working with Kathleen.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s