Do too many black beauty companies lose by focusing on the differences between the races?
By Nana Ekua Brew-Hammond
Almost 100 years ago, Madam CJ Walker became America’s first self-made female millionaire of any race by creating hair products specifically for black people. This brilliant entrepreneur took advantage of the beauty industry’s decision to ignore black consumers by instead serving them well. An economic visionary, Walker also created a beauty school that fed a job market for the black women selling her products. Madam CJ Walker’s acumen in the field of beauty was an overall boon to African-Americans.
In the ‘50s Abram Minis, founder of Carson, Inc., made a grip formulating ubiquitous household products like Dark & Lovely. Black entrepreneurs Edward and Bettiann Gardner founded SoftSheen in the ‘60s, the firm responsible for the infamously greasy Care Free Curl. The early ‘70s saw the birth of Fashion Fair cosmetics, launched by the owners of Johnson Publishing to help black women find make-up that matched their skin. Black businesses have been central to the development of products African-American women need to look good.
But recent moves by mainstream brands make the original need to have our own beauty companies questionable. Revlon and similar entities now shell out millions for spokeswomen like Halle Berry hoping to attract our audience. Mainstream brands like CoverGirl are partnering with stars like Queen Latifah to design lines that target consumers of color. Pantene has created highly popular shampoos and conditioners for relaxed and natural hair.
Black customers may want to support our beauty businesses to reverse years of economic inequality and keep money in the community. Yet, this is an increasingly difficult task, because beauty giants are snapping up black-owned companies, even as they manufacture products for people of African descent.
In our modern beauty era, Joe and Eunice Dudley have become famous for their Dudley’s hair relaxer and education institute. They still own their company, but this is a rarity. Cosmetics conglomerates like L’Oreal Paris have acquired both Soft Sheen and Carson. Dudley’s and Iman Cosmetics are among the few black-owned beauty empires left to African-Americans seeking to support our own. But of note is the fact that Iman Cosmetics targets all women of color, not just black women, in an interesting new trend.
Shockingly, some black-run companies are taking this approach even further, seeking only to serve the multiracial customer. Carol’s Daughter, which came on the scene as a beacon of natural black beauty, has recently announced that it will no longer focus on African-Americans. Company executive Steve Stout told Women’s Wear Daily, “What we’re doing now is moving into a polyethnic space. When I say polyethnic, I mean women who are made up of several ethnicities.”
Stoute further explained: “If you ask them what they are, they’re going to use a lot of different words to describe themselves. That’s in line with the Census data coming out — people are checking much more than two boxes.”
Have times really changed so much that a black beauty company should leapfrog so far from serving African-American women after just a few years of success? If so, the need for separate African-American beauty companies might really be a thing of the past. While black skin and hair is different, perhaps the moment has come for companies to focus less on racial categories, and more on the literal beauty needs of women across a broader range.
Board certified dermatologist Dr. Susan Taylor launched the Rx for Brown Skin line specifically to address this trend. She was inspired to create the line based on her experiences with clients of color, because brown skin in general can be harmed by beauty products created for the Caucasian market.
An example? Taylor told The Atlanta Post that, “[a]nti-aging products do not meet the needs of… the woman of color,” because most age-defying serums tout the ability to erase fine lines and wrinkles. These are not the main concerns of deeply-pigmented women according to Taylor. “Clients with skin of color do not develop those fine and deep wrinkles or sunspots. Rather, they are more likely to develop uneven skin tone as they mature… What is needed are products that address hyperpigmentation,” she says.
Dark skin, ironically, is irritated by the chemicals contained in mainstream skin care products, which cause hyperpigmenation (dark marks or uneven skin tone). By contrast, white skin tends to get red when irritated, which heals faster than dark marks. Taylor helps clients and consumers prevent hyperpigmentation by refraining from using irritating ingredients in the Rx for Brown Skin line. Her products use natural elements like soy and pomegranate, which reduce hyperpigmentation, inflammation, and irritation.
As great at Taylor’s new products are, they are for brown skin in general, not black women in particular. New products for non-white audiences seek to be more inclusive than the Fashion Fairs of the past — and likely have a much brighter future as a result. This logic makes the Carol’s Daughter strategy seem intelligent rather than abandoning. Plus, black women do have more options to enjoy in this new era of beauty integration. Yet there is still more work to be done to ensure that our full spectrum of beauty is being served.
Baze Mpinja, a beauty expert and editor whose credits include Glamour and Vibe Vixen, agrees. “There are a lot of gaps and voids in the marketplace,” she laments. When it comes to makeup, finding shades that match dark skin tones is still a concern as “not all lines offer a wide enough range of deeper colors.” Also, the color ranges might have expanded in recent years, but the undertones of these colors show that many companies still don’t get brown skin.
“It’s frustrating… They find a color that looks like the shade, but then [the undertone is] too red” for them, Mpinja explains about the shopping experience of women of color.
Products that appropriately address hair texture are also hard to find, she notes, because the spectrum of textures that blacks possess is not static. Black hair can be kinky yet fine, or bone straight yet thick. Can one non-race-specific company address them all?
“I think that if things can start to become more oriented toward hair texture or skin tone or skin type, as opposed to race,” Mpinja muses, “it would help people who have trouble finding [products.]” She affirms the theory that beauty solutions today rely less on race and more on acknowledging and addressing variety. Taking the lead, firms like Miss Jessie’s focus more on products that can successfully enhance different curl patterns, rather than on “black” or “non-black” hair. And they have done so with great success.
If black women can share a hair care brand with other women, perhaps we all can get along at the beauty counter. Hopefully the larger companies addressing our market will respond to our influx of dollars with more integration within their ranks.
L’Oreal Paris might have bought Soft Sheen, but was recently found guilty of racial discrimination in its hiring practices. It’s wonderful that general market beauty companies are offering women of color more products. In exchange for our money, we must hold these companies accountable for how they treat us. Increasing black hiring at mainstream entities is certainly one way to keep beauty-related capital flowing into our coffers.
