May
2
Lipstick as an Economic Indicator, from Marion Dreyfus
May 2, 2008 |
From the NY Times:
"After the terrorist attacks of 2001 deflated the economy, Mr. Lauder noticed that his company was selling more lipstick than usual. He hypothesized that lipstick purchases are a way to gauge the economy. When it's shaky, he said, sales increase as women boost their mood with inexpensive lipstick purchases instead of $500 slingbacks."
Rather than shoring their mood with inexpensive cosmetics, I believe heavier lipstick purchases is a way to attract men, which is hard-wired in times of loss and stress: Women seek the protection and nurturant love of the male, and lipstick, a red sign of sex, replicates arousal — males respond to red signals on lips and elsewhere on the body. Even without realizing it, the male sees 'aroused female' by certain cues, and instinct starts to take over. Hormones are exchanged and generated.
Thus a surge in lipstick purchases underlines perceived shortage and scarcity, and marks the start-gun of a hard-wired survival strategy. Men for their part would seem to be looking at a revival of females-becoming-more-female in affect, clothing and outward lineaments.
That is much more to the point than a mere 'boost in mood.' It is also a direr indicator of societal dislocation.
Scott Brooks confesses:
I've always been attracted to a women with very little or, preferably, no make up. There's something about a woman who has the confidence to go natural.
Marion Dreyfus replies:
Sure, sure: 99% of men aver they like the natural look. But if you saw most women without make-up, you would be shocked. The subtlety of make-up is that it appears to be natural, yet improved. And it makes a woman feel good, actually, to be enhanced subtly, so her eyes are more defined, or her lips are moisty-colorful. And her partner usually has no idea how it is done.
Comments
2 Comments so far
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- Older Archives
Resources & Links
- The Letters Prize
- Pre-2007 Victor Niederhoffer Posts
- Vic’s NYC Junto
- Reading List
- Programming in 60 Seconds
- The Objectivist Center
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Tigerchess
- Dick Sears' G.T. Index
- Pre-2007 Daily Speculations
- Laurel & Vics' Worldly Investor Articles
"Moisty colorful" might be just the subtlty needed to close the Yahoo deal.
Well, it seems that even "moisty colorful," in this instance, wasn't enough! What a story. Do we attribute this to hubris in Mountain View?