Debby asks…I use skincare products from Lush. I love their moisturizer “Gorgeous” but it is rather expensive. Lush claims that this cream is expensive because the ingredients are really expensive. Other companies would sell it at a much higher price. Is this true?
The Right Brain Responds:
From a Marketing perspective, we agree that Lush is a terrific brand – their products have a cool and funky look and feel that you don’t see anywhere else. It’s hard NOT to love this stuff! However, from a scientific perspective, we don’t think that Lush is doing anything that technically special. Let’s look at the example of the moisturizer you gave us:
Lush Ingredients:
Olive Oil, Stearic Acid, Cold Pressed Evening Primrose Oil, Cold Pressed Avocado Oil, Glycerine, Coconut Oil, Fresh Lemon Juice, Cold Pressed Wheatgerm Oil, Triethanolamine , Fresh Pineapple Juice, Orange Flower Absolute, Neroli Oil, Myrrh Resinoid, Cetearyl Alcohol, Perfume, Methylparaben, Propylparaben
Based on the ingredients, this looks like a good, lightweight moisturizer. The Stearic Acid and Triethanolamine combine to form a soap that emulsifies the natural oils and allows them to form a stable mixture with the water.
Water and oil?
Speaking of water – where is it? Is this product better because it doesn’t have any water and it’s more concentrated? No, because you couldn’t make a product like this without water. So, Lush has made it with pineapple and lemon juice instead, so water doesn’t show up on the ingredient list. Does this make it a better product? Not really. Pineapple and lemon juice don’t have any specific skin benefits when used in this way.
What about the natural oils? Well, Olive Oil is a good moisturizer (not as good as Petrolatum or dimethicone, but it will work.) Same is true for the Coconut Oil. Primrose Oil does contain natural Essential Fatty Acids which are good for skin, but lots of other products use Primrose Oil too.
The other stuff in the formula, like glycerine and the parabens are pretty much standard ingredients you’d see in any skin moisturizer.
The cost of living lush
And what about the price? According to Lush, this stuff sells for $72.00 for 1.5 oz. Does the cost come from the ingredients? Based on what we know about the price ingredients, the cost of ingredients for 1.5 oz of a formula like this would be about $1.00. Ok, maybe it’s $2.00. But it couldn’t be much more than that. That doesn’t mean the company is being dishonest, or any thing like that. As with most cosmetic products the ingredients don’t usually cost that much. The majority of the cost of the product is in packaging, shipping, advertising, manufacturing overhead, etc etc. For what it’s worth, Lush’s ingredients are probably a bit more expensive than most other “regular” brands.
The Beauty Brains bottom line
Lush does a nice job of formulating “natural” products but that doesn’t mean that these products work any better. If you really like the way the products feel on your skin and you can afford them, then they’re probably a good deal for you. But don’t spend more money on Lush just because you think the natural ingredients are superior.
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m sorry Brain but there is no way that it cost $1/$2 to make!
I purchase large quantities of raw oils and it is VERY expensive.
I imagine since LUSH buys in bulk it’s quite alot cheaper and even then there is NO WAY!
I’ve never used Lush but if they do care about the source of their raw materials as the asker states then the moisturizer’s production cost is ATLEAST 20X that!
Why oh why do people buy LUSH? Parabens and chemical fragrances are so gross and toxic, and there are many sellers on Etsy making vegan, non-toxic bath bombs, moisturizers, and soaps. The cost alone is enough to turn me off, but the chemical ingredient list seals the deal. Yuck.
H – because people are not fooled by that “parabens are toxic” crap. That’s why we come here. Because we bother to do research rather then believe the lies of those whom would foist non-working “green” products on us.
Esmi – True story. My brothers used to work for a movie theatre. They informed us that the containers for a large popcorn only cost 15 cent each. It was filled with about 3 cents worth of popcorn. Yet they charge nearly $5 for a SMALL. (Remember it was a large I was talking about first.) It is totally possible for a company to make a product for $1 and sell it for $70. That’s why they can also sell it at close out stores and the like for $2 a bottle and still make a profit.
What? C’mon brains, this is an old post. I don’t care if you put up an old post, just admit that it’s from the past. Esmi, just because you buy oils doesn’t mean you have the power of a large company. Please, get some reality.
I’m sure the ingredients can be bought for the price mentioned, but not from the suppliers that LUSH uses. It’s not ingredients themselves that are expensive, it’s paying the people that make the ingredients (and those that make the product) a fair wage that is.
I think that is the main appeal of LUSH, the business has green and ethical practices which are good for the world, which our skin resides on.
http://www.lushusa.com/shop/about/ethical-sourcing/
Everyone knows popcorn is cheap (anyone with a brain) and we know that not just movie theaters, but any business overprice sodas, pizzas, ‘text messages’, jewlery… we both can go on.
Please use relevant examples.
My point here is simply that if they are using ‘real’ materials then it would not be $1/$2. If the brains quote was made to dramatize the fact that it’s really cheap to make, then I could understand. But people take anything written on here at face value.
I try to get a the source of my oils from the best quality I can find, and I pay a price for that. Many wholesale raw ingredients websites products are refined or overprocessed.
Is there a true remarkable difference between refined/raw/etc? Many people believe there are, and we pay a price for it. Whether its true or not does not discount the fact that they may pay more at an attempt to have a better product. One day I will analytically asses the difference, that’ll be a fun day.
Also, Lets not forget the price of containers, labeling, store/site maintenance, and employees.
Tanya- please reread what I wrote, I already noted the buying power of large companies.
Esmi – it is relevant because all businesses are deep down, the same. They CAN make a product that costs them one dollar to make and sell it for $70. Accept the facts.
I have to agree with Esmi on this one. I worked for major cosmetic company and yes some of the products cost very little to make. But anything with high quality or that followed a more “natural” ingredient route did cost more to produce. An ingredient i.e., a gallon of mineral oil is about $16 while a gallon of fractionated coconut oil is $46. You can compare prices yourself by browsing cosmetic ingredients supplier sites.
@Tanya – to keep up with the writing demands, our Saturday posts are always re-posts of older questions. We try to update and correct them to keep them fresh. This helps give us a little time off and also lets new people see some posts that they wouldn’t have seen before.
@Esmi & Aesthete – The $1-$2 quote was not an exaggeration.
If coconut oil is $42 per gallon (and a big company could get it for a bit less money), the cost of making a 1.5 ounce pure coconut oil product is $0.53.
$42 / 128 ounces per gallon = $0.35 an ounce * 1.5 = $0.53 per product
In reality, the product is more complicated than just coconut oil but the smaller amount of raw materials used means they will contribute even less to the formula.
The bottom line is that a skilled formulator could make this product with raw material costs between $1 and $2. And probably for even less.
Well, I was going to rip on Lush for being overly perfumed. The store was nice, the clerks were really nice, but the products I purchased for my daughter, I wrapped in bags, sealed in a ziploc, packed in a cardboard box and the scent still leaked through and caused me to have an allergic reaction – congestion and watery eyes. I have since sealed it even further in a garbage bag completely encased in packing tape wrapped in bubblewrap and placed in another cardboard box again with all seams taped. So far, so good. Now if said daughter will pick it up…
Ahh, I wish you said like, “reposted” or “re-vamped from xxx date”. Ah, well. But thanks for replying to – and fighting cosmetic ignorance from – other comments. That doesn’t go unnoticed, even it it (often) feels like you’re fighting a tidal wave.
That’s true I bought an 12oz bottle of coconut oil for around $2.99 at my local health food store. If you price the contents per oz. , it comes to about .25 per oz. Add some other ingredients to that to make “whatever” and it’s still cheap. The cost adds up when you divide paper for labels, cost of shipping, etc…as stated previously by the brain it adds up and you start paying more for the additional stuff (advertising,packaging, blah, blah, blah) rather than the actual ingredients you’re getting in that lil’ container. I can attest to that because I make products for sale myself. So yep. Tis’ true.
Petroleum-based and synthetically developed cosmetics are rarely more “unhealthy” or less tolerable for a human body than their “natural” counterparts (and are, sometimes, superior in that they may not prompt allergic reactions as severely as “natural” ingredients), but the environmental standards and ethical performance of the companies that produce these products (or those that dredge-up the needed raw materials for production) may be something to consider while making the choice between purchasing “natural” vs. The alternative. The makers and distributors of the raw materials used in these products, or the companies that produce the final products, may operate in ways that seriously compromise public and environmental health. It’s not that topical application of a pure petroleum additive or ingredient at the appropriate amount (as determined by boards) is damaging to human skin, but the waste dumpings, poor management of shipping and distribution—the often higher levels of output of pollution from the companies that create these products, is.
I suppose it’s all accumulative and some could argue that if only a handful of companies produced all cosmetics, the level of pollution output would be the same than if these same services were diversified across smaller farms and companies. However, environmental disasters or long-term miscalculations about the environmental burden of land use or production is something that can be isolated and even contained when the production activity is small-scaled and diversified; even though all Earth’s environmental systems are interconnected–”all rivers lead to the sea”–people are more likely to have the available resources to quickly respond to smaller-scale environmental problems, than larger ones. “Organic” isn’t always nutritionally or cosmetically better (it may taste or feel better; it may not) and in fact, it can be argued that organic farming can pose unique public health problems when the pests and vermin that keep company with tomatoes and peanuts are not controlled, but what consumers are really paying for when they buy “natural” products is the way of creating them; with a sense of environmental responsibility, even if the cost is higher and profits are lower. So, if a “natural” company behaves exactly like a massive corporate giant and is shown to have a shoddy environmental track record, than their claims of moral superiority are bogus nomatter what they claim or imply their products can do. Their products do not have any magical qualities; if they did (and, you know, discovering the presence of magic would probably stir things up, anyway) massive moneymakers would’ve taken advantage of that sort of thing, already. The potential money flow for any cosmetic company that did discover a true “fountain-of-youth” ingredient, one that could actually slow or halt aging or seriously change its definition forever, would be overwhelming.
“Lush” can certainly be said to have some unique and distinctive fragrance blends and, as you’ve mentioned, quirky brand dress and “personality”. Consumers might prefer how these “natural” products smell or look, to that of “grocery store brands”. If a soapmaker/cosmetist is local, the perfumes added to their products or ingredients used, are likely to be chosen based on an olfactory catalogue, one that includes a memory of scent that represents sentimental ties to the area. There might be lavender fields in a place, where locals played as children. Maybe a goat farm down the street produced dairy products and the accompaning tastes and smells of their products have lingered in collective memory. Local consumers will likely find comfort and pleasure from “local” smells and textures, if their memories of the area are pleasant. And a non-local might be interested in experiencing the smells and textures of place, through the products made in that area. Even if a “natural” product isn’t particularily superior in how your skin wears and responds to it, there may be other reasons for choosing “natural” that has everything to do with public health and well-being and less with risks to long-term, individual health.
…of course, paying an outrageous price for something, only to discover you’ve “been had”, certainly tests notions of personal “well-being”. There’s nothing like seeing a product directed towards a female audience priced at $23.00, sitting next to an exact equivalent (and sometimes, a superior product) marketed towards men, that’s been priced at $6.99. I wonder if these same companies produce a topical cream that soothes blood boiling, since I’m willing to pay for that novelty while witnessing female consumers being virtually kicked in their collective chest and head.
Not to knock The Ladies (I happen to be one) but you have to hand it to male consumers when it comes to buying cosmetics; they don’t seem to suffer bunk well. Sure, this is likely the result of a long tradition of social expectation towards women, where they are constantly pushed to “do” femininity to maintain their social status and value—and this has resulted in a history of marketing strategy that’s long tied “hope” with cosmetics—but it often seems men refer to the old Abe Lincoln adage while choosing to make a purchase: “Fool me once, it’s your fault. Fool me twice, it’s mine.” Products that don’t deliver are quickly given the boot; there also seems to be a limit to how much cash male consumers will fork over for the possibility and how much of a time commitment will be allowed to see if a product will “work” as advertised. Ladies, don’t be suckers. It had better be a dam*@d special fragrance additive to justify paying so much more for the “girly product”.
What is appealing abt LUSH is that they do not allow and buy ingredients that have been tested on animals and their products are also free of all animal testing. This doesn’t mean that animal based products such as honey aren’t used, its just derived ethically.Therefore in this respect, LUSH is a better choice than many other non-ethical companies such as Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Clorox,Beiersdorf ,Colgate ,Johnson & Johnson,L’Oreal ,PZ Cussons,Reckitt Benckiser. If you’ve noticed some of these companies like Procter & Gamble, don’t only produce beauty care products, they also produce many household products.
Even so called ethical companies such as the Body Shop which was bought over by L’oreal and Burt’s Bees which was bought over by Clorox, are not comparable to LUSH.
But it is true that LUSH is expensive! I’m not sure how much of a consumer base they have. Though 9 dollars for a bar shampoo doesnt seem so bad, their soaps on the other hand are quite expensive!
oh! did i mention LUSH products are handmade and that some of their ingredients come from other parts of the world. perhaps their pricy products have something to do with this? also, do they follow fair trade standards, if so this would explain it even more? for eg, fair trade coffee costs a bit more than non-fair trade coffee…..because its more ethical in the sense that the actual market price is given to farmers for the coffee they grow, as opposed to being paid less and hence exploited.
Lush claims their products are hand-made. Many handmade products are oftentimes more expensive.
Lush doesnt claim that their products are handmade, THEY ARE. Ive been to the factory, I’ve met the little faces on the stickers. Yes they do source a lot of their products through fair trade deals just ask a staff member or check their youtube page. there is so much information about these dealings.