Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Opinion: MAC Pigment Changes

As most of you are aware, MAC has recently reduced their pigment jar from 7.5G to 4.3G, while still carrying a $19.50 price tag. Naturally, this change has made many MAC collectors quite upset, as who really likes a price increase, especially one so drastic?

I thought I would address the issue from my viewpoint. Please remember this is simply my opinion, and I welcome your thoughts as well, whether you agree or disagree with me. So, here goes:

The "old" 7.5g pigments are too big. After all, that has been their appeal for so long- one could purchase a jar for $20, then split it into "samples" ranging from 1/2 the jar to 1/4 teaspoons, and still have plenty to last a lifetime. In fact, some people even made a business off of this idea. I have never finished a pigment let alone even gotten close; I still haven't used more than is in the lid! :)

That is why I am approaching this from the p.o.v. of MAC, the corporation. Because pigments are unique in that they are the only MAC product that can easily be shared (you wouldn't really share an eyeshadow or lipglass), MAC was very likely losing money, or at least breaking even on the product. Because, if 1 pigment is split between 5 customers, MAC gets $4 per customer. 1 pigment per 5 people using the product, is sold. But if those 5 people each bought their own jar of pigment, MAC would get $20 per person, equalling $100. Obviously, what business wouldn't want $100 vs. $4?

So, it appears that MAC made the pigments small enough to be consumable by one individual, while making the same amount of money, the amount that I believe they originally expected they'd get from the old jars. And, for those who did not split pigments, there will be less waste from product never being used- I look at some of my pigments and wonder how I'll ever get through them!

The success of these new jars also comes down to whether or not people will buy the smaller jars. As we know, the power is often in the hands of the consumer, and if no one buys them, they'd be quickly changed back. However, my guess is that they will sell more pigments than before- the new vial is, for the average consumer, a modern, user-friendly shape, and people love their pigments. We would rather pay more than lose out on having our favorite product in our hand. :)

So, in conclusion, I think that is situation is more than just MAC being greedy, rather them trying to maximize on one of their finest products.

What do you think?

4 comments:

Nongoma said...

You know what I think you're right. But I still think they should have adjusted the price just a little. even if it was by a couple of dollars people wouldnt have moaned as much. oh well. we all love mac so we will make a plan now i guess.

Abby Q. said...

I agree, I do think it should've been at least $2 less, because even if what I stated in the post is true, they are still giving less product. Sigh...

gildedangel said...

I totally agree with you! I can definetly see the reasons why MAC made the change. The problem is that they can't lower the price because lowering a price makes a higher-end company like MAC look bad, even if there is less product in the jar. That is why prices always go up, not down.

Abby Q. said...

True, I don't know any company that likes to lower their price tags :)