Lisa Eldridge - am I the only one...

[spacecupcake]

Has anyone else skipped through her "watermelon and glow look"? I used to go YASSS QWEEEN at every tutorial she posted but that one... the highliter looked muddy (don't know HOW the heck this is possible) and I almost fell out of my chair when she PURPOSEFULLY didn't apply blush, gah! You can even see in her thumbnail, she looks like a carved moon face or something, not flattering at all...

[WORDSALAD]

Don't get me wrong I'd love her to do my makeup but there's not way I'm buying any crap from her

[green_tea]

I like Lisa, too, but her lipstick video did make me raise my eyebrows. First of all, why even mention that shade she is not releasing? That was purposeful. That is why people were drawing a connection to Jaclyn. That was just her way of making a point without calling Jaclyn out. Except...she didn't have to make it. She was just virtue signaling about how good she is and how involved she is in the process and how she looks out for her customers. Does she want a cookie? That is what you're supposed to do.

And in terms of that Audrey Hepburn shade, I think several people here called it when she released that video of her buying that case, and said that she will release her own shade which is why she didn't say the name of the brand.It's not immoral or unethical but it is sneaky. She didn't want to direct traffic to that brand and provide people with an alternative to her upcoming lipstick. Just business but I found it kind of off-putting. I liked the actual shade and wouldn't mind owning it but her refusing to say the name of the brand Audrey used and seeing how expensive her lipstick is to ship to where I am, I'll stick to Sephora and drugstore.

And not really current, but I did read her book. Man, it sucked! Whoever her editor is, should have smacked her. She decided to not go chronologically because why use logic? No, she decided to go by colours, so it is so repetitive and not in line with any social, political, or cultural events which would have been way more interesting and meaningful. It also didn't reveal any new facts about the history of makeup that are not quite commonly known or at the very least easy looked up on Wikipedia. She did nothing new and did not contribute to the collective knowledge of makeup history. It just highlighted her love for celebrities and also kind of showed a resentful side towards men talking about makeup. Like women are the only ones who are allowed to discuss it and men have no say in it...very odd attitude to take. She made that point several times in the book. And very few pictures of her own collection, or pieces found in museums or drawings. A book like that should have been filled with beautiful pictures, but was instead filled with mostly her own work and some of her "makeup muses".

[Guest]

I think maybe people dismissing Lisa and casting her off like any other youtube MUA, maybe are from outside the UK? Lisa has been the creative director for No 7, which is a Boots the chemist brand, the biggest "drugstore' in the UK. She now is creative director for Lancome. Her work basically dominated all the magazine editorials, and most celebrity looks she does on her channel is her replicating her own work, not just copying another artist. She wasn't "made or "reliant" on youtube like someone suggested. She even has had a media presence before youtube was a thing, being the mua for 10 years younger and other bits.

As for private collecting, she is a fan, each to their own. People buy Jaclyn Hill or Jefree star stuff because they are fans too. Maybe more criticism should be made to the relatives who decided to Audrey's stuff off, rather than donate/rent/sell to museum's if people care that much to know the brand or shade. If she put out the brand name, then that would likely mean the brand would use this for profit, or receive a lot of hits, which would maybe commodify what she saw as a fan sharing something that other fans would enjoy.

Ok one this is the trash thread and two:

I don't know why it seems like people who are fans can only name Lisa as the only notable makeup artist, act like the House of Eldridge has no room for critique

Just the criticisms of Lisa here are very uninformed and quite petty. No one is infallible or perfect, but saying she "wouldn't be where she was without youtube" or as viewers we are entitled to know the brand/shade name/expiry date of a product she bought for her own passion and may use it as inspiration for looks/lipstick colours in the future so fans can have their own version is a bit poor. Here we have a professional make up artist, who doesn't do the stereotypical youtube drag makeup that only looks good indoors and heavily photoshopped, uses a diverse range of models, younger, older, skin concerns, different skin colours/hair colours and importantly isn't a drama queen, and you lot are complaining over her love for Audrey Hepburn? As said, moan about the family who sold all of their mum's stuff to private collectors instead of donating it to an museum archive so it would be widely available.

But...who are you to decide whether the criticisms are "petty" or significant? Point is, those cirtisicms are valid enough for some people to decide to make a trash thread about her. And factually speaking, most people wouldn't purchase her lipstick if it wasn't for her social media presense on YouTube. Why aren't the users "entitled" to know the real shade of a product that she has shared a passion for? If Someone like "Hill" did the same thing you would be singing another tune, calling her "elusive" and "dodgy" but Princess Eldridge is above all that. You make another case that Lisa doesn't do stereotypical drag makeup that's only good indoors, but whnever Lisa uploads, we can expect 90 percent of the time it's fairy dusting of foundation, a "rosy, soft" look and a bold lip if we're feeling a little daring A lot of the Lisa stans who claim to be as passionate about makeup as her couldn't be assed to name at least 5 other professional makeup artists but I digress

[Evil_robot]

I bought her book as well, but it's just an ordinary book, a summary, nothing extraordinary, no interesting facts or unusual facts. I am dissapointed with the book.

[spacecupcake]

Oh shoot, maybe I need to get back into the book now that I dropped my rose colored glasses when it comes to Lisa!!! To be honest I never read the whole thing back to back, just random pages when that tickled my fancy from time to time (kinda like I do with "My beauty mark" by Dita Von Teese, my only other coffee table book), so I didn't realize the whole thing could be so blah according to what you guys are saying... now I feel bad for saying it was good!!! I really should make my own mind about it by reading the whole thing, but now it seems even more tedious than before, so no thanks...
Too bad though, the only affordable and widely available "goodie" from her turns out to be a disappointment

The more I look at it, the more she seems like one of those other quircky youtubers, trying so hard to be a special snowflake, "I'm OBSESSED by photography", "I didn't want to write my book in chronological order", "I'm keeping the name of the brand that made Audrey Hepburn's lipstick to my grave", "I'm not outright saying that Go Lighly is that fucking shade with the upgraded formula", wow what a unique individual...

I JUST WANTED MORE DUMBO TUTORIALS, THE RED AND THE BLACK LOOKS, WHERE ARE THEY LISA?? EVERYBODY HAS MOVED ON FROM DUMBO NOW AND ALL WE GOT WERE THOSE STUPID LIPSTICK VIDEOS, AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGG

[EffyStonem]

I like Lisa, too, but her lipstick video did make me raise my eyebrows. First of all, why even mention that shade she is not releasing? That was purposeful. That is why people were drawing a connection to Jaclyn. That was just her way of making a point without calling Jaclyn out. Except...she didn't have to make it. She was just virtue signaling about how good she is and how involved she is in the process and how she looks out for her customers. Does she want a cookie? That is what you're supposed to do.

And in terms of that Audrey Hepburn shade, I think several people here called it when she released that video of her buying that case, and said that she will release her own shade which is why she didn't say the name of the brand.It's not immoral or unethical but it is sneaky. She didn't want to direct traffic to that brand and provide people with an alternative to her upcoming lipstick. Just business but I found it kind of off-putting. I liked the actual shade and wouldn't mind owning it but her refusing to say the name of the brand Audrey used and seeing how expensive her lipstick is to ship to where I am, I'll stick to Sephora and drugstore.

And not really current, but I did read her book. Man, it sucked! Whoever her editor is, should have smacked her. She decided to not go chronologically because why use logic? No, she decided to go by colours, so it is so repetitive and not in line with any social, political, or cultural events which would have been way more interesting and meaningful. It also didn't reveal any new facts about the history of makeup that are not quite commonly known or at the very least easy looked up on Wikipedia. She did nothing new and did not contribute to the collective knowledge of makeup history. It just highlighted her love for celebrities and also kind of showed a resentful side towards men talking about makeup. Like women are the only ones who are allowed to discuss it and men have no say in it...very odd attitude to take. She made that point several times in the book. And very few pictures of her own collection, or pieces found in museums or drawings. A book like that should have been filled with beautiful pictures, but was instead filled with mostly her own work and some of her "makeup muses".

Just watched her new lipsticks video and I agree 100% with everything you said. How weird to talk about a shade you're not bringing out but will work on and bring out later on ...... she just NEEDED a way to basically say "i'm perfect and care"... it's great and all that she does put in effort with her stuff but it was so self congratulatory and weird that it rubbed me the wrong way. Regarding the Audrey thing, if the lipstick shade has been discontinued for as "many" years as she claims, what the fuck is the point in hiding what the damn BRAND is? I just do.not.get.that. I get she is banking in on releasing a shade, very "subtly" by the name of Audrey's character, because now people know she owns the lipstick and knows the colour, but GIVE THE DAMN NAME OF THE BRAND! I'm just curious at this point. Also, anyone else catch that the pouch is a shade of Tiffany Blue? Funny she didn't directly say it was inspired all by Audrey, as if we're not aware how obsessed she is, with her spending like 75k (Canadian) on a lipstick. But hey, that's how the rich stay rich. "I have the brand and (discontinued) colour, but won't tell anyone so I can make a replica and sell it to people who have been dying for decades to get the same shade". How else is she going to make enough money to spend ridiculous amounts on 1 item?

[WORDSALAD]

Also I was gonna buy that book so thanks for warning me off. I'll wait til some someone offloads it at my local charity shop

[milanese15]

Not gonna lie, as someone who doesn't follow her closely, her launch comes across to me more like a YouTuber brand than a makeup artist brand. Like, comparing it to Charlotte Tilbury, who was wise to transition out of the beauty guru role as quickly as possible despite that annoying some people...that established CT as brand early on in her social media career. Is Lisa the next Laura Mercier? I kind of doubt it tbh, but she does have a pretty loyal base, so who knows

[sofetchxox]

I usually enjoy her videos when I watch them, but I find most of the looks/video topics just don’t appeal to me. I find myself never really clicking on her thumbnails... her stuff is just kind of boring and repetitive I guess!

[Matrioska]

Regarding her not giving any info about liptick brand and shade, I saw a comment on her Instagram that made sense to me. Maybe it's all about copyrights and all that stuff. I mean, if she says that it was Chanel lipstick shade #001, and then she comes out with her own range where she makes a dupe for that color, the brand may do something against it. I mean, I'm not a lawyer and have no idea how it works, but still...

[milanese15]

I doubt it. The only trademark or copyright issue here would be around Audrey's name/image or something from Breakfast at Tiffany's. In regards to color, you might be able to trademark a color if it's identifiable to your brand (i.e. Louboutin's red bottoms and Tiffany's blue packaging). But trademarking a lipstick shade would be really difficult to win, especially if she's trying to emulate Audrey's color and not a specific brand's. The lawsuits we usually see in the makeup world are trade dress infringement, where the brand copies the look and packaging, which confuses the consumer.

The concept here is that you trademark a color (not easy to win btw) because it has become an identifiable part of your brand. Infringing upon it would confuse the consumer and lead them to believe they were buying your product and not the duping competitor's, so you trademark it for legal protections.

[Matrioska]

I doubt it. The only trademark or copyright issue here would be around Audrey's name/image or something from Breakfast at Tiffany's. In regards to color, you might be able to trademark a color if it's identifiable to your brand (i.e. Louboutin's red bottoms and Tiffany's blue packaging). But trademarking a lipstick shade would be really difficult to win, especially if she's trying to emulate Audrey's color and not a specific brand's. The lawsuits we usually see in the makeup world are trade dress infringement, where the brand copies the look and packaging, which confuses the consumer.

The concept here is that you trademark a color (not easy to win btw) because it has become an identifiable part of your brand. Infringing upon it would confuse the consumer and lead them to believe they were buying your product and not the duping competitor's, so you trademark it for legal protections.

...ok, but the fact that even in her video presentation for new lipstick she never mentions the fact that Go Lightly shade was inspired/dupe for that color she got in the Cartier case... Looks like she gives us all the hints (timing of the videos, name which leads to the movie, even the color and the style of the beauty bag), but never says it clearly. That's strange to me.

[artheusa]

I doubt it. The only trademark or copyright issue here would be around Audrey's name/image or something from Breakfast at Tiffany's. In regards to color, you might be able to trademark a color if it's identifiable to your brand (i.e. Louboutin's red bottoms and Tiffany's blue packaging). But trademarking a lipstick shade would be really difficult to win, especially if she's trying to emulate Audrey's color and not a specific brand's. The lawsuits we usually see in the makeup world are trade dress infringement, where the brand copies the look and packaging, which confuses the consumer.

The concept here is that you trademark a color (not easy to win btw) because it has become an identifiable part of your brand. Infringing upon it would confuse the consumer and lead them to believe they were buying your product and not the duping competitor's, so you trademark it for legal protections.

...ok, but the fact that even in her video presentation for new lipstick she never mentions the fact that Go Lightly shade was inspired/dupe for that color she got in the Cartier case... Looks like she gives us all the hints (timing of the videos, name which leads to the movie, even the color and the style of the beauty bag), but never says it clearly. That's strange to me.

I don't think she's allowed to drop Audrey's name in any way in a video clearly made to advertise a product inspired by her. She'd have to get permission from Audrey's estate and I doubt that she could afford it.

Edited to add; did you notice that Lisa's been shading jaclyn hill in both her video and some of her instagram shares? The closeup photo of her lipsticks and the caption really stood out to me.

[ga7ba]

I doubt it. The only trademark or copyright issue here would be around Audrey's name/image or something from Breakfast at Tiffany's. In regards to color, you might be able to trademark a color if it's identifiable to your brand (i.e. Louboutin's red bottoms and Tiffany's blue packaging). But trademarking a lipstick shade would be really difficult to win, especially if she's trying to emulate Audrey's color and not a specific brand's. The lawsuits we usually see in the makeup world are trade dress infringement, where the brand copies the look and packaging, which confuses the consumer.

The concept here is that you trademark a color (not easy to win btw) because it has become an identifiable part of your brand. Infringing upon it would confuse the consumer and lead them to believe they were buying your product and not the duping competitor's, so you trademark it for legal protections.

...ok, but the fact that even in her video presentation for new lipstick she never mentions the fact that Go Lightly shade was inspired/dupe for that color she got in the Cartier case... Looks like she gives us all the hints (timing of the videos, name which leads to the movie, even the color and the style of the beauty bag), but never says it clearly. That's strange to me.

I don't think she's allowed to drop Audrey's name in any way in a video clearly made to advertise a product inspired by her. She'd have to get permission from Audrey's estate and I doubt that she could afford it.

Edited to add; did you notice that Lisa's been shading jaclyn hill in both her video and some of her instagram shares? The closeup photo of her lipsticks and the caption really stood out to me.

It's so petty of her but I lowkey love it lol

[Guest]

I doubt it. The only trademark or copyright issue here would be around Audrey's name/image or something from Breakfast at Tiffany's. In regards to color, you might be able to trademark a color if it's identifiable to your brand (i.e. Louboutin's red bottoms and Tiffany's blue packaging). But trademarking a lipstick shade would be really difficult to win, especially if she's trying to emulate Audrey's color and not a specific brand's. The lawsuits we usually see in the makeup world are trade dress infringement, where the brand copies the look and packaging, which confuses the consumer.

The concept here is that you trademark a color (not easy to win btw) because it has become an identifiable part of your brand. Infringing upon it would confuse the consumer and lead them to believe they were buying your product and not the duping competitor's, so you trademark it for legal protections.

...ok, but the fact that even in her video presentation for new lipstick she never mentions the fact that Go Lightly shade was inspired/dupe for that color she got in the Cartier case... Looks like she gives us all the hints (timing of the videos, name which leads to the movie, even the color and the style of the beauty bag), but never says it clearly. That's strange to me.

I honestly don't believe that it's a legal issue. I believe that it's just a way for her to create attraction and awareness to her upcoming lipstick release, because if it really were a legal issue, she wouldn't have used the blue (tiffany blue) for her summertime lipsticks.

[michelle_arizona]

I used to like Lisa but I don't anymore! I wrote a comment on her recent video explaining my frustration at trying to buy Go Lightly and Love of my Life and having it be sold in the first two minutes. I ended my comment positively and congratulated her on her lipstick launch. Lisa hid my comment!! My goodness, the special snowflake can't take any criticism! I agree that her launch is like a youtube launch rather than a brand launch. The amount of product she is releasing is too small given the high demand for them. I'm glad I couldn't buy her products - I don't want to give her any of my money. She's not worth it

[killingxspree7]

Recently I started rewatching Lisa E. My god she pisses me off so much.
I gave up totalling how much money the makeup/skincare in one of her videos cost because it was coming out at +$1000. Wtf??? and I think she is full of shit regarding how her skin is so nice. She has invested a lot in plastic surgery. Comparing her face in her old videos and now, its fairly obvious she has extensive laser and peels, facials, fillers and botox. I don't have a problem with plastic surgery but FFS stop shilling skincare like its the reason you look so nice. The real reason you look so nice is because you've had facials, peels, laser, botox and fillers. There's nothing wrong with that but why promoting wasting hundreds of dollars on eye creams and serums when its never going to produce the results that people want?

[Guest]

I'm anti PS, but it's obvious that she uses expensive ass shit that most people can't afford and she's trying to make it seem like she achieves good skin through facial massages and jade rollers

[Dandelion]

About the lipstick...I think she doesn't want to reveal the brand and color because then that brand could relaunch the shade as the one that Audrey Hepburn kept in her Cartier holder, gaining lots of attention and sales.