Summary:
Jillie Clark criticizes Mecca's '50 cent cost per wear' campaign as misleading.
The campaign is labeled as false advertising during a cost of living crisis.
Jillie demonstrates that the suggested product usage is impractical for a full makeup look.
Consumer backlash highlights concerns over exploitation and misleading claims.
Mecca defends its marketing strategy but faces scrutiny in the current economic climate.
The Makeup Community's Power
If there’s one thing businesses should fear, it’s pissing off the makeup community. Influencers like Jeffree Star, Mikayla Nogueira, and James Charles have sparked significant backlash against brands in the past. This time, Jillie Clark, a beauty influencer from Sydney, has taken a stand against Mecca’s recent “50 cent cost per wear” campaign, calling it misleading and false advertising, especially during the ongoing cost of living crisis.
Jillie is a makeup influencer (Image: Jillie Clark)
Jillie's Analysis
In a TikTok video with over 140k views, Jillie critiques Mecca’s claims, stating, “Mecca, how exactly did you quantify this?” She challenges their math, showing that the idea of achieving a full face of makeup for only 50 cents a day might be unrealistic.
It sounds too good to be true. (Image: Mecca)
Jillie points out that for some products, the amount suggested to achieve a complete look is so small that it’s impractical. For instance, she measures out the Off Duty Serum Skin Tint and finds that only 0.08 ml is required to meet their claim, which is hardly enough for a full application.
Cost Per Wear Breakdown
She provides a cost per wear analysis for the products mentioned by Mecca, revealing that even with daily use, the products would likely expire before consumers could validate the claimed cost of nine cents per wear. Jillie emphasizes that this marketing strategy relies on consumers not questioning the validity of the claims made.
Consumer Reactions
The video has ignited significant outrage, with viewers commenting on Mecca’s tactics as exploitative and misleading. One user remarked, “Sounds like they’re exploiting cost of living concerns for financial gain.”
Mecca's Response
In response to the backlash, a Mecca Max spokesperson clarified their methodology, stating they consulted internal product experts to determine average usage amounts, but acknowledged that individual usage may vary. They also reassured that all products have a ‘period after opening’ (PAO) date, which is not the same as an expiration date.
Despite these explanations, Mecca’s efforts to position itself as a budget-friendly beauty brand have faced significant scrutiny in these economically challenging times.
Comments
Join Our Community
Create an account to share your thoughts, engage with others, and be part of our growing community.