Our continued existence as a species depends on the sale of lip-gloss. Every marketer lately seems to be blogging about the 'Lipstick Index'. You know, the idea that when the economy takes a dive sales of cosmetics invariably climb. They say it’s due to a realignment of priorities and values, the desire for small luxuries when the big ones are out of reach. They say that we as marketers should exploit this opportunity. Not only does this strike me as overly simplistic, it's sexist.
Let's view this through the lens of evolutionary theory 101. Many women would agree that the stock market isn't the only thing that's flaccid these days. Males in our society have been emasculated by the distraction that is our current economic situation. It's affecting their sex drive. The female of the species, because her sexual needs aren't being met, attempts to increase her desirability in an instinctual effort to ensure the survival of the species, hence the bullish outlook in the rouge market.
You could also view it another way. Where the female is increasing her desirability and signaling her availability to other suitors. It's a back-up plan - in case her mate loses the ability to 'bring home the bacon'. Again, the survival of the species is assured, happy endings indeed.
Much like the US Constitution and Maslow's hierarchy, Darwin's theory has been tested under load. It's one of our society's beautiful constructs and tests of truth. It's a handy, and useful tool when trying to determine root causes. Often, we need look no further than to our cousins in the animal kingdom to find analogous behaviour, and inspiration.
So, long story short: Lipstick will save humanity, and, as always, sex sells. -Luis V

Interesting theory…
I do buy more lipstick/gloss in these times…more so because I can’t make the big purchases…(shoes, clothes…etc.)
An amazing overpriced lipgloss can go a long way to making a girl happy…as long as it’s the right shade.
It’s an affordable luxury – there really aren’t that many. Couldn’t it be said that the male version of this would be beer?
And what about the theory that as times are good hemlines rise – as they fall they lower? There goes your idea about women
Trying to attract ‘back-ups’!
I would say that the desire for a great new lipstick for our cosmetic bag is more for us than them….
Posted by: jjones | January 28, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I wouldn’t be so sure. The debate between free will versus determinism continues to rage and free will seems to be losing.
Beer could be the male equivalent. There is indeed an increase in alcohol consumption by males during economic downturns. Though, I think the reasons are different.
I’m certainly no evolutionary anthropologist, but could it be the fight or flight response? It’s an ancient adaptation, maybe even our first one. In times of acute stress, like today, you need to act.
The easy route, and sometimes the right one, is to cower and flee. There are worse places to flee to than a pub; but depression and stress make bad drinking mates. I much prefer to fight, like we are now, we’re fighting by engaging one another in conversation, by not being afraid to post our ideas publically. We’re fighting with our curiosity and dare I say optimism.
As for the hemlines – maybe this has more to do with the opportunism of the fashion industry. When times are good charge more, offer less – deliver exclusivity. When times are not so good - deliver value. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Thanks for the post JJONES. Looking forward to more of your insights.
Posted by: Luis Vieira | January 28, 2009 at 04:34 PM
Luis, thanks for the killer post, and the quick response to the wicked add,
can't wait for the next nugg of wisdom to drop from your giant greyzone.
Posted by: Bennett | January 29, 2009 at 06:01 AM
It's not sexist to report a fact.
Economy down, lipstick sales up. Fact.
It's also not sexist to understand and exploit those facts to your client's advantage.
That's marketing.
What IS sexist, is your interpretation of said fact.
Your assertion that women are doing this as 'back up' to the male's bringing home 'of the bacon' is archaic.
Please, for the sake of ALL (male or female) 'bacon bringers', study some statistics from the last FIFTY years and educate yourself on how many women now make a significant contribution to the household income, how many women are the sole providers, how many women out-earn their husbands, and how many women are successful entrepreneurs.
Further I fail to see the connection between a lovely lipstick and income generating prowess.
I believe that intelligence, expertise, hard work, competitiveness, creativity, the pursuit of excellence, preparedness, and professionalism cause success in the 'bacon bringing' arena.
And those traits will always outperform the latest Viva Glam colour.
Regardless of what gender is wearing it. Or not wearing it.
~ heidi
Posted by: Heidi Ehlers | February 14, 2009 at 07:54 AM
i think Luis just got spanked :)
Posted by: Bennett | February 14, 2009 at 10:08 AM
“Economy down, lipstick sales up. Fact.”
Yes, but why? Why the lift in lipstick sales during recessions?
If we don’t know the “why” then we’ll never consistently “exploit” the facts to our “client's advantage.” We need to understand root causes in order to ever stand a chance of modifying behavior – as marketers, like it or not, it’s what we strive to do.
I find the media’s over-simplification that ‘she just needs a little bit of lipstick and all will be better,’ not only sexist, but paternalistic and condescending to boot.
Beyond the socio-political baggage, there’s very little that’s controversial about evolutionary theory. Depending on how much of this baggage the reader brings to the table, my comments upon first blush may appear to be sexist. Yet they are no more sexist than if I’d have made similar observations about the mating rituals of the Bar-tailed Pheasant or the Red-eyed Tree Frog.
From women’s suffrage to wage equality in the West, when it comes to gender relations within our species we’ve made some big strides in the last 100 years. We still have a long way to go. It will be a happy day for myself, and my daughter, when we can stop mandating, legislating and ‘politically-correctifying’ behavior, and equality just ‘is’. A deeper understanding of who we are as a species will get us there faster.
We’re the glorious product of 60 million years of primate evolutionary development. Buried within us are countless vestigial behaviors we have yet to begin to study. We’re extraordinarily complex, but discernable. If we look beyond the facts and search for root causes, not only will we consistently sell more lipstick, but we may also take a bite out of the ignorance that fuels many ‘ism’s. Unfortunately, cracking the Genome may have been the easy bit.
Until another dear reader provides a more compelling point of view I’m sticking to my original postulation about why the lift in lipstick sales during recessions.
Luis
Posted by: Luis | February 15, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I agree it's important to look at the root causes to understand behaviour. Your view that the decisions are based in evolution may well be valid - but is it about ‘attracting males’ for the purposes of survival?
What if buying the lipstick is about asserting ourselves and our power and our independence through our potential for wage earning. A way of congratulating ourselves, of rewarding ourselves and a way of being more powerful at a time when we feel powerless to government and economics.
Maybe it's a war cry more than a mating call.
It may have nothing at all to do with attracting the opposite sex [for whatever reason] but more to do with being the stronger sex and being ready to fight.
That would require a very different marketing campaign.
Posted by: JRoss | February 16, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Maybe North American recessions typically occur in the winter months?
Posted by: Chas | February 18, 2009 at 04:30 PM
Luis
I just came across this and thought I would share.
I, although I busted your chops on the sexist part, could completely understand why lipsticks would sell more (and cosmetics) during weak economies.
But have a look at this graph from The Wall Street Journal.
In particular look at the Other Industry, marked in Grey, look at who two of the four companies are.
Wow. Makes no sense.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/LAYOFFS0903.html
Posted by: Heidi | March 04, 2009 at 06:10 PM