Dupe Culture in the Beauty Industry

Duping is the action of creating or marketing a product to be similar to another, usually more expensive product. Given the growth in platforms such as TikTok, it has been easier than ever for consumers to discover dupes of their favourite beauty products. This is even more attractive in times of cost of living as many consumers are scrutinising every penny spent.

‘Skincare Dupes’ has 169.7m views on TikTok. Fragrance dupes are similarly prevalent with influencers such as ‘Paul the Fragrance Influencer’ having over 5.5m views on his content comparing fragrances to more expensive leading brands.

The reality is that ‘duping’ has been around much longer than TikTok suggests. Formulation chemists often request a product or texture benchmark, which is essentially what you want to copy. In my buying days we were under strict instructions to use words such as ‘inspired by’ or ‘homage to’ rather than ‘me too’ or ‘copy’ for risk of legal implications. 

Part of the reason that we’ve seen growth in ‘dupe culture’ on platforms such as TikTok is that it is much easier for influencers to speak about brands than ever. Historically, brands were unable to overtly publicise duping for fear of legal implications. It is much easier if an influencer is making this link rather than the brand, however, it’s always difficult to know how much of that content has been organically observed by the influencer or suggested by the brand.

The retail landscape is changing too. Dupeshop is an e-commerce platform that compares a range of beauty products to their more affordable counterparts having tested products versus the product that it is duping. From make-up to skincare and home fragrance, Dupeshop has grown rapidly and amassed a strong social media following.

The fragrance category has recently experienced increased amounts of activity regarding duping. A category historically dominated by prestige and mystery; the price point of leading fragrances makes it an obvious choice for challenger brands to look at alternatives. Some people may be surprised that there are machines that exist in fragrance houses which use Gas Chromatography–Mass Spectrometry (GC–MS) to detect the exact ingredients used to make a specific fragrance, hence taking the science and guess work away from matching a fragrance.

Given the price differential, it is unusual for fragrance dupes to hold a comparable long-lasting effect as their more expensive counterparts. This could be due to lower inclusion levels of fragrance as well as lower quality of raw materials. Top notes and overall scent can be matched very similarly. This like for like offer on scent profile excludes complex packaging and high budget marketing which is a huge contributor to the price positioning of legacy brands, hence the ability to under charge.

Duping in formulated products follows the same principles. The key difference is that formulated products are usually matched by looking at key ingredients in a product and following a trial and error approach to match textures.

In the UK, brands such as Lidl, Aldi, Primark and Revolution beauty have a huge range of dupe products, however as aforementioned, duping is apparent across the whole industry. Major brand houses such as L’Oréal and Unilever share technology amongst their brands franchises so it could be likely that higher positioned brands such as Skinceuticals are using the same technology as lower positioned brands such as La Roche Posay.

The legal rules are around duping are not black and white. Historically, there was a perception that seven points of difference were sufficient to ensure that a product is not deemed to be copying or ‘duping’ another. In UK law, the tort of passing off ‘protects the honest trader from damage to his goodwill caused by a third party’s misrepresentation’.  This becomes subjective as legal parties are forced to each define the definition of goodwill and often a range of aspects will be taken into consideration such as where the product is selling and how the dupe is indeed profiting from this.

It is difficult to answer the question of whether a consumer shopping one of the duping brands is purchasing the products because they think it is the leading brand, are influenced by the duped brand or are in fact, just buying the duped products because they like the presentation of it (which was ultimately influenced by the duped products IP).

Aside from the legal considerations, the bigger question on duping is is it morally correct?

The short answer is no.

However, I believe that there is slightly different moral code if the ‘dupee’ is a small independent brands versus a major player

NB: The Red Tree are experts in the beauty industry; for legal matters, please seek official legal advice.

Duping is not going to go away. Based on the reasons discussed, we’re only going to see more of this activity and consumer demand continue. Beauty brands that are leaning into duping in a large way already have strong legal teams who are solely responsible for maximising the closeness and creativity in imitating products, whilst staying within the rules and this will continue.

Legally, I expect there to be closer views of formulation imitation and brands looking at more sophisticated ways to both protect and dupe each other.

Thank you to Fiona Glen for your invaluable insights.