MAC's biggest competitor?
- Thread starter Kels823
- Start date
prinzessin784
Well-known member
Maybe NARS or Smashbox? NARS has similar bright colors and products but Smashbox is really popular. Smashbox is my person second favorite
tinagrzela
Well-known member
I'd say Smashbox, and maybe a bit of Stila...just because Stila has fun colours and highlighters
Katja
Well-known member
Every makeup company OTHER than MAC.
I would honestly say any drugstore brand because there's a lot of young consumers out there that aren't makeup savvy, and they usually start out with the least expensive makeup first.
I have a bathroom book located in my (bathroom)
that states the 2005 top 10 makeup brands. MAC isn't on the list.
I have a bathroom book located in my (bathroom)
lah_knee
Well-known member
we have competitors for different items we sell... like we are number one in foundation powder. we compete with lancome with the topselling lipgloss (lipglass vs juicy tubes) clinique still has the top selling lotion/cream (dramatically different lotion) but they are EL owned anyway.
as far as gigs for runway and fashion show stuff, smashbox is probably the "other" guys.
as far as gigs for runway and fashion show stuff, smashbox is probably the "other" guys.
KeshieShimmer
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree
| I would honestly say any drugstore brand |
I agree
d_flawless
Well-known member
probably nars, though MAC is cheaper...shu uemura, maybe...for artistry and range of colors. urban decay is even comparable in color selection and range of texture/mediums.
i think MAC takes the cake with publicity, even though they seldom advertise (except viva glam), because of their icons and LE collections, people are always like, "what's next"...thus our addictions...
i think MAC takes the cake with publicity, even though they seldom advertise (except viva glam), because of their icons and LE collections, people are always like, "what's next"...thus our addictions...
stellarx1587
Well-known member
I'd probably say NARS. They have a wide color selection as well (not as wide as MAC's, but comparable) and I'd say that the quality of their products are I would almost say better. Such as the pigmentation/color payoff. But NARS lacks that MAC allure.
sandsonik
Well-known member
I'd be very surprised if it's Nars. Nars is not readily available to me at all. I think the drugstore brands - Revlon, Maybelline and CoverGirl and at least half a dozen others - would all have a bigger market share than Mac.
Among dept store lines, I'd think Bobbi Brown, Clinique or Smashbox would be Mac's biggest competitors. At my Macy's the biggest crowds are at the Mac Counter and Clinique is fairly busy too, while I often feel I should check out Elizabeth Arden someday just because they look sooo lonely at that counter! I think Bobbie Brown USED to be in my Macy's and seemed like they were always busy but now I'd have to go to Nordstroms further away to check them out.
I think we overestimate how many people buy higher end cosmetics, but I also think the popularity of Mac with younger people is having an effect in driving up drugstore prices. I can't believe some of the prices I'm seeing at the drugstore lately - particularly Loreal which I think (?) is also EL owned. I can't help but think it's because they've learned that it's not just rich "ladies who lunch" who will pay $14 for a lipstick and they're tyring to grab that market with some Mac-like packaging, and Mac-like products like pigments.
Among dept store lines, I'd think Bobbi Brown, Clinique or Smashbox would be Mac's biggest competitors. At my Macy's the biggest crowds are at the Mac Counter and Clinique is fairly busy too, while I often feel I should check out Elizabeth Arden someday just because they look sooo lonely at that counter! I think Bobbie Brown USED to be in my Macy's and seemed like they were always busy but now I'd have to go to Nordstroms further away to check them out.
I think we overestimate how many people buy higher end cosmetics, but I also think the popularity of Mac with younger people is having an effect in driving up drugstore prices. I can't believe some of the prices I'm seeing at the drugstore lately - particularly Loreal which I think (?) is also EL owned. I can't help but think it's because they've learned that it's not just rich "ladies who lunch" who will pay $14 for a lipstick and they're tyring to grab that market with some Mac-like packaging, and Mac-like products like pigments.
ledonatella
Well-known member
Quote:
I agree somewhat with what you are saying about MAC being a factor in driving up drugstore prices. L'oreal (not EL owned but L'oreal is the parent comp. of Lancome), Revlon, Cover Girl etc.'s prices are ridiculous for the poor quality, my opinion of course not everyones gonna agree.
Around here MAC is not a younger girls thing, more like 21-45 years old, most high school/younger girls are into Clinique & Lancome because they are readily available. MAC's harder to come by.
Originally Posted by sandsonik
I'd be very surprised if it's Nars. Nars is not readily available to me at all. I think the drugstore brands - Revlon, Maybelline and CoverGirl and at least half a dozen others - would all have a bigger market share than Mac. Among dept store lines, I'd think Bobbi Brown, Clinique or Smashbox would be Mac's biggest competitors. At my Macy's the biggest crowds are at the Mac Counter and Clinique is fairly busy too, while I often feel I should check out Elizabeth Arden someday just because they look sooo lonely at that counter! I think Bobbie Brown USED to be in my Macy's and seemed like they were always busy but now I'd have to go to Nordstroms further away to check them out. I think we overestimate how many people buy higher end cosmetics, but I also think the popularity of Mac with younger people is having an effect in driving up drugstore prices. I can't believe some of the prices I'm seeing at the drugstore lately - particularly Loreal which I think (?) is also EL owned. I can't help but think it's because they've learned that it's not just rich "ladies who lunch" who will pay $14 for a lipstick and they're tyring to grab that market with some Mac-like packaging, and Mac-like products like pigments. |
I agree somewhat with what you are saying about MAC being a factor in driving up drugstore prices. L'oreal (not EL owned but L'oreal is the parent comp. of Lancome), Revlon, Cover Girl etc.'s prices are ridiculous for the poor quality, my opinion of course not everyones gonna agree.
Around here MAC is not a younger girls thing, more like 21-45 years old, most high school/younger girls are into Clinique & Lancome because they are readily available. MAC's harder to come by.
pixichik77
Well-known member
I would agree with Smashbox, and I would disagree on Bobbi Brown. They sell to different audiences ( a Bobbi customer isn't as likely to want Studio Fix or vibrant purple eyeshadow.) It doesn't surprise me that MAC is not on of the top ten companies for 2005 because their success isn't tied up in being THE number one company. MAC just needs to do what MAC does better than other companies that offer similar things. And they usually do.
Krasevayadancer
Well-known member
Honestly, I think its Urban Decay. Even though its available in sephora only. UD also has a lot of the high intensity eye shadows etc
lah_knee
Well-known member
uh uh... u all arent understanding COMPETITION. its not the companies that have similar pro products (like makeup forever) nor is it the others with "Bright colors" too... MAC wants to have the number one lipstick, gloss, eyeshadow, EVERYTHING! like i said they have a different competitor for each thing. they want to beat lancomes top selling juicytube because that has been number one. they want to beat diors show mascara... etc etc
pixichik77
Well-known member
I disagree. I think the spirit of "competitor" in this sense would be on who it ismarketed to. A lot of other posters mention young girls; the MACC demographic is different than the Chanel one; they can't be a "competitor" if they aren't even going after the same peope.
