# MAC's biggest competitor?



## Kels823 (Jan 26, 2007)

Who do you think is MACs biggest competitor? Just wondering what you guys think.. I honestly dont know.


----------



## poddygirl (Jan 26, 2007)

I'll take a stab and say Smashbox ... only because they are MA driven as well and their products have an art-sy feel. I can't think of any other company that has the high turnover of collections that MAC does though!


----------



## prinzessin784 (Jan 26, 2007)

Maybe NARS or Smashbox?  NARS has similar bright colors and products but Smashbox is really popular.  Smashbox is my person second favorite


----------



## tinagrzela (Jan 26, 2007)

I'd say Smashbox, and maybe a bit of Stila...just because Stila has fun colours and highlighters


----------



## Katja (Jan 26, 2007)

*Every makeup company OTHER than MAC. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I would honestly say any drugstore brand because there's a lot of young consumers out there that aren't makeup savvy, and they usually start out with the least expensive makeup first.  

I have a bathroom book located in my (bathroom) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that states the 2005 top 10 makeup brands.  MAC isn't on the list. *


----------



## lah_knee (Jan 26, 2007)

we have competitors for different items we sell... like we are number one in foundation powder. we compete with lancome with the topselling lipgloss (lipglass vs juicy tubes) clinique still has the top selling lotion/cream (dramatically different lotion) but they are EL owned anyway. 

as far as gigs for runway and fashion show stuff, smashbox is probably the "other" guys.


----------



## KeshieShimmer (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:

  I would honestly say any drugstore brand  
 
I agree


----------



## d_flawless (Jan 26, 2007)

probably nars, though MAC is cheaper...shu uemura, maybe...for artistry and range of colors. urban decay is even comparable in color selection and range of texture/mediums.
i think MAC takes the cake with publicity, even though they seldom advertise (except viva glam), because of their icons and LE collections, people are always like, "what's next"...thus our addictions...


----------



## stellarx1587 (Jan 26, 2007)

I'd probably say NARS. They have a wide color selection as well (not as wide as MAC's, but comparable) and I'd say that the quality of their products are I would almost say better. Such as the pigmentation/color payoff. But NARS lacks that MAC allure.


----------



## sandsonik (Jan 26, 2007)

I'd be very surprised if it's Nars.  Nars is not readily available to me at all.  I think the drugstore brands - Revlon, Maybelline and CoverGirl and at least half a dozen others - would all have a bigger market share than Mac.

Among dept store lines, I'd think Bobbi Brown, Clinique or Smashbox would be Mac's biggest competitors.  At my Macy's the biggest crowds are at the Mac Counter and Clinique is fairly busy too, while I often feel I should check out Elizabeth Arden someday just because they look sooo lonely at that counter!    I think Bobbie Brown USED to be in my Macy's and seemed like they were always busy but now I'd have to go to Nordstroms further away to check them out.

I think we overestimate how many people buy higher end cosmetics, but I also think the popularity of Mac with younger people is having an effect in driving up drugstore prices. I can't believe some of the prices I'm seeing at the drugstore lately - particularly Loreal which I think (?) is also EL owned.  I can't help but think it's because they've learned that it's not just rich "ladies who lunch" who will pay $14 for a lipstick and they're tyring to grab that market with some Mac-like packaging, and Mac-like products like pigments.


----------



## ledonatella (Jan 26, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *sandsonik* 

 
_I'd be very surprised if it's Nars.  Nars is not readily available to me at all.  I think the drugstore brands - Revlon, Maybelline and CoverGirl and at least half a dozen others - would all have a bigger market share than Mac.

Among dept store lines, I'd think Bobbi Brown, Clinique or Smashbox would be Mac's biggest competitors.  At my Macy's the biggest crowds are at the Mac Counter and Clinique is fairly busy too, while I often feel I should check out Elizabeth Arden someday just because they look sooo lonely at that counter!    I think Bobbie Brown USED to be in my Macy's and seemed like they were always busy but now I'd have to go to Nordstroms further away to check them out.

I think we overestimate how many people buy higher end cosmetics, but I also think the popularity of Mac with younger people is having an effect in driving up drugstore prices. I can't believe some of the prices I'm seeing at the drugstore lately - particularly Loreal which I think (?) is also EL owned.  I can't help but think it's because they've learned that it's not just rich "ladies who lunch" who will pay $14 for a lipstick and they're tyring to grab that market with some Mac-like packaging, and Mac-like products like pigments._

 

I agree somewhat with what you are saying about MAC being a factor in driving up drugstore prices. L'oreal (not EL owned but L'oreal is the parent comp. of Lancome), Revlon, Cover Girl etc.'s prices are ridiculous for the poor quality, my opinion of course not everyones gonna agree. 

Around here MAC is not a younger girls thing, more like 21-45 years old, most high school/younger girls are into Clinique & Lancome because they are readily available. MAC's harder to come by.


----------



## drea2447 (Jan 27, 2007)

I would say that MACs biggest competition would be Make up Forever.  They have a great range over well pigmented colors.


----------



## Tash (Jan 27, 2007)

MUFE would definitely be one.  Most MUA have moved over to them instead of MAC.


----------



## giz2000 (Jan 27, 2007)

Another vote for MUFE, at least among some MUAs.  Consumer-wise, I would say Lancome (just because it's readily available).


----------



## pixichik77 (Jan 27, 2007)

I would agree with Smashbox, and I would disagree on Bobbi Brown.  They sell to different audiences ( a Bobbi customer isn't as likely to want Studio Fix or vibrant purple eyeshadow.)  It doesn't surprise me that MAC is not on of the top ten companies for 2005 because their success isn't tied up in being THE number one company.  MAC just needs to do what MAC does better than other companies that offer similar things.  And they usually do.


----------



## Krasevayadancer (Jan 27, 2007)

Honestly, I think its Urban Decay. Even though its available in sephora only. UD also has a lot of the high intensity eye shadows etc


----------



## MiCHiE (Jan 27, 2007)

IDK....I think it's drug store lines, also. I was makeup ignorant and a lot of my friends are also, but everybody knows CG and Maybelline and A LOT of women are not hip to spending MAC kinda money...


----------



## Juneplum (Jan 27, 2007)

i'd say MUFE, Nars, smashbox.. in that order


----------



## lah_knee (Jan 27, 2007)

uh uh... u all arent understanding COMPETITION. its not the companies that have similar pro products (like makeup forever) nor is it the others with "Bright colors" too... MAC wants to have the number one lipstick, gloss, eyeshadow, EVERYTHING! like i said they have a different competitor for each thing. they want to beat lancomes top selling juicytube because that has been number one. they want to beat diors show mascara... etc etc


----------



## pixichik77 (Jan 27, 2007)

I disagree.  I think the spirit of "competitor" in this sense would be on who it ismarketed to.  A lot of other posters mention young girls; the MACC demographic is different than the Chanel one; they can't be a "competitor" if they aren't even going after the same peope.


----------



## geeko (Jan 27, 2007)

I agree with pixchix...

To look at who your competitors are, you have to first identify your target segment and then see which other companies are also targeting the same target segment as u.


----------



## a914butterfly (Jan 27, 2007)

maybe lorac, smashbox, makeup forever, and i am starting to really like (but not as much as MAC) lola cosmetics


----------



## lah_knee (Jan 27, 2007)

uh but mac is going after ALL demographics. all ages all races all sexes. thats who they want to market too. not all "young" people buy mac. they dont even have the money to buy it (high school girls) women of all ages come in (and even men i might add) thats a HUGE demographic. ya more of a mid 20s early 40s is a bit more dominant but they dont JUST target those ages. i think theres a bit of a misconeption that mac is only for young people and i think once they realize thats not true, more and more will buy. and thats whats happening...


----------



## geeko (Jan 28, 2007)

To add on, MAC targets da ladies/men who wants to be in trend with the latest colors...and these fashionistas may not neccessarily be girls in their sch or early 20s. They may be older women who want to be in trend with the latest colors/ make up or simply just to be seen as "hip"  purchasing MAC.


Judging from their counter design and the clothes/make up that the MAC MAs wear, it might alienate some customers who prefer to go for something more toned down  such as Lancome or chanel or Dior. So i disagree that MAC is trying to capture the whole market. The whole market is simply TOO BIG for MAC to capture!

Although they do try to capture customers who like toned down make up by the release of lighted colored collections such as danse, ultimately their main target segment is fashionistas - people who love  colors, People who want to be in sync with the latest make up trends, people who want to be hip. I don't think one needs to be of a certain age or race to be a fashionista.


----------



## quinntastic (Jan 28, 2007)

In my department store I would say it's Bobbi Brown.  Hands down.


----------



## EmbalmerBabe (Jan 28, 2007)

I really want to try Makeup Forever star powders.
That is interesting Juicy Tubes are right after Lipglass or right together.
Is Lancome a Estee Lauder brand too?
Where I live there biggest competitor is the Lancome counter.


----------



## geeko (Jan 28, 2007)

nope. Lancome is under L'Oreal not estee lauder

honestly speakin though, i don't fancy lancome's stuff. I had a couple of their e/s once...and the pigmentation can't be compared to MAC's.


----------



## YvetteJeannine (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Katja* 

 
_*Every makeup company OTHER than MAC. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I would honestly say any drugstore brand because there's a lot of young consumers out there that aren't makeup savvy, and they usually start out with the least expensive makeup first. *

*I have a bathroom book located in my (bathroom) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that states the 2005 top 10 makeup brands. MAC isn't on the list. *_

 

*Well...do share
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*


----------



## coachkitten (Jan 28, 2007)

I don't know if this is much competition but it sure seems like L'Oreal HIP is trying to be a lot like MAC.  I would say for department store brands that it would be Make-up Forever.


----------



## amethystangel (Jan 28, 2007)

Personally, I think the Sweden company, Make Up Store, will become a strong competitor of MAC. Their products are lush! And the colour range is just awesome!!


----------



## coachkitten (Jan 28, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *amethystangel* 

 
_Personally, I think the Sweden company, Make Up Store, will become a strong competitor of MAC. Their products are lush! And the colour range is just awesome!! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
I have never heard of Make Up Store.  Do they have a web site?


----------



## geeko (Jan 28, 2007)

the make up store has pretty pigmented and nice eyeshadows...

it's comparable to MAC...but they have less variety of shadows though..


----------



## user79 (Jan 28, 2007)

Are we talking competitor in an actual economic sense, or as in quality/likeness of other products. Because I think those are pretty different.

I bet L'Oreal and Maybelline are far more popular makeup brands and make larger revenues than MAC, but I don't think their products can be compared.

On a quality level I think MAC is competing with Lancome, Dior, MUFE and Nars cosmetics.


----------



## SARAHluvsMAC (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MissChievous* 

 
_Are we talking competitor in an actual economic sense, or as in quality/likeness of other products. Because I think those are pretty different.

I bet L'Oreal and Maybelline are far more popular makeup brands and make larger revenues than MAC, but I don't think their products can be compared.

On a quality level I think MAC is competing with Lancome, Dior, MUFE and Nars cosmetics._

 
I agree...

maybe MUFE can compare to MAC quality but the average person doesn't even know what it is... therefore I don't think economically they are any competition at all


----------



## kaliraksha (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Juneplum* 

 
_i'd say MUFE, Nars, smashbox.. in that order 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 

I agree with the first two... especially the first for colors, packaging, pricing... but also throw in urban decay for their eyeshadows/price


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jan 29, 2007)

If we're talking about who's doing better business, I think Clinique does a ton of business. I'd argue that they're a better known name to a lot of people; my hometown didn't have a MAC counter until Macy's came along, but they've always had a Clinique counter. You have to remember not everyone does the LE buying and many choose the less wild shades of MAC to wear, so Clinique would be comparable in color to that customer.

In terms of wild, bright shades, I'd say Nars, MUFE, or Urban Decay.


----------



## shriekingviolet (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lah_knee* 

 
_uh but mac is going after ALL demographics. all ages all races all sexes. thats who they want to market too._

 

If that's true though, why don't they do a better job at making sure they're as widely available as some other brands?  I don't think you can say that MAC is looking to get their foot into every marketshare when they are plenty of cities, hell a few whole _states, _that have little or any MAC presence.  Areas where Lancome, EL, and Clinique may have multiple counters, but that MAC has maybe one counter if it has one at all.  Demographics are just age, gender or racial, they're geographic and economic too.  And it seems on that level, MAC has opted not to compete in more aggie states or less urban communities in the same way a few other highend brands have.  And it doesn't supplement that lack of face to face interaction it gains through having a physical presense in a community but having a more aggressive ad campaign so that more people will find their website and shop with them there.


----------



## LMcConnell18 (Jan 29, 2007)

i would go with smashbox. just because im a pest at any cosmetic place.  i ask all the girls what they wear, why, how the apply, blah blah blah.. EVERYTIME!! and i cant tell you how MANY of these girls have said that they used to wear mac and switched to smashbox. iknow thats a small percentage of women, but still. i used to see girls in HS with smashbox palettes, foundation, etc. after smashbox i would say grugstore brands. i used to wear them before i ever heard of mac, and most younger girls do as well. [i have a younger sister! lol]


----------



## amethystangel (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *coachkitten* 

 
_I have never heard of Make Up Store.  Do they have a web site?_

 
Hey CoachKitten, they do have a website, but its not the greatest. 

Here is the link: http://www.makeupstore.se

I have 2 of their eyedusts, 2 shadows and the brown cake liner.

There is only 1 MUS in Australia! A 5 hour flight away from me... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but... I have MAC a 5 min walk from my work!


----------



## Katja (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *YvetteJeannine* 

 
_*Well...do share
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


*_

 
*Ok, I apologize for my err!  I was on the john this weekend, and I looked more into it...

All I can recall is based on 2005 consumer reports for cosmetics, L'oreal came in #1 at 21+%, and in no particular order because I can't remember the percentages specifically, were Lancome, Proctor & Gamble, and the 'Other' (which MAC would fall under) was 41+%.*


----------



## Katja (Jan 29, 2007)

*The only problem with those statistics is that the 'other' brands is a vague description of what those other brands are.  I'm assuming it's all the OTHER brands on the market, but who knows...  Also, the records are from 2005. I'm sure the popularity of certain brands have increased since then.*


----------



## merleskaya (Jan 29, 2007)

I agree w/ coachkitten that L'Oreal is going after girls/women who like the MAC look but can't afford (or won't shell out for) it with the HIP line.  The logo, the colors, the makeup on the models...it just seems very MACspirational.  Max Factor, with the revamped packaging, and Carmen Electra as spokesperson, seems to be following a similar tack.

merleskaya


----------



## geeko (Jan 29, 2007)

I Won't be won over by other marketing tactics by LoReal ...(I don't know why...i just DON'T LIKE LoReal as a cosmetic company...and i feel their products...are over rated.)

M.A.C is still the best for me...MUFE and MUS can compete with MAC in terms of quality ....i've never tried NARs so i don't know...there's no NARS in my country unfortunately.


----------



## lah_knee (Jan 29, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *shriekingviolet* 

 
_If that's true though, why don't they do a better job at making sure they're as widely available as some other brands?  I don't think you can say that MAC is looking to get their foot into every marketshare when they are plenty of cities, hell a few whole states, that have little or any MAC presence.  Areas where Lancome, EL, and Clinique may have multiple counters, but that MAC has maybe one counter if it has one at all.  Demographics are just age, gender or racial, they're geographic and economic too.  And it seems on that level, MAC has opted not to compete in more aggie states or less urban communities in the same way a few other highend brands have.  And it doesn't supplement that lack of face to face interaction it gains through having a physical presense in a community but having a more aggressive ad campaign so that more people will find their website and shop with them there._

 
but mac is opening hundreds of doors every YEAR because they are growing. they werent around nearly as long as the others. and considering they were even MORE exclusive when EL didnt own them, they have definately grown and expanded, trying to reach to people everywhere. and its global too. its growing at a fast rate... i dont think people realize just how much mac is growing. theres not many other brands where you can find community after community and forums and blogs DEDICATED to one brand that people rave about. its big.


----------



## pinkstar (Dec 4, 2007)

I really don't think that MAC has competition... They're on a level surpassing everyone else..lol

Although, I agree with the other girls; companies like Nars and Smashbox are definitely trying to appeal to MAC fans.


----------



## xbrookecorex (Dec 4, 2007)

If it's going by what the majority of people (not us) buys, definitely drugstore brands. Like.... every man woman and child of any age knows what Cover Girl is, but not everyone knows what Mac is. It's affordable, available, and well established through generations.


----------



## Willa (Dec 4, 2007)

I would say MUFE, not because I love this brand, but if you go to    a store in Mtl where you can find MAC, you can also find MUFE and they sell pretty well. 

But the biggest competitor I would say any drug store products, because its less expensive and common people (who don't really have an interest in makeup as we do) will go for those, at first.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Dec 4, 2007)

Loreal is. They're really into mimicking the MAC stuff, and let's face it. A lot of people don't want to spend MAC prices.


----------



## Karen_B (Dec 5, 2007)

For me personally, NYX is probably the biggest competitor to MAC, or they would be if I could buy it in my country (Sweden). They have such a great array of colours, the quality is as good as MAC and the prices really can't be beaten. 
Makeup Store is OK too, although for some reason I never fell for their products the same way I fell for MAC's.

In a larger perspective, I have no idea who is the biggest competitor to MAC. I don't know the other brands well enough.


----------



## CaraAmericana (Dec 5, 2007)

I was thinking NYX too and wondering why no one brought it up before I read your response.


----------



## jd-jd (Dec 5, 2007)

Dept. Store: Stila or Bobbi Brown
With younger gals: Urban Decay (trendiness)
Older gals: possibly Lancome (range of colors, lip products, etc)


----------



## urbanlilyfairy (Dec 5, 2007)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lah_knee* 

 
_uh uh... u all arent understanding COMPETITION. its not the companies that have similar pro products (like makeup forever) nor is it the others with "Bright colors" too... MAC wants to have the number one lipstick, gloss, eyeshadow, EVERYTHING! like i said they have a different competitor for each thing. they want to beat lancomes top selling juicytube because that has been number one. they want to beat diors show mascara... etc etc_

 

GOod luck to MAC on beating diorshow lol ... or any other mascara imo ..diroshow + lancome FOrevererererer =P


----------



## ndn-ista (Dec 5, 2007)

I would say Makeup Forever.


----------



## Macnarsandlove (Dec 5, 2007)

I think it would be Loreal. I know someone metioned it before but the regular and hip line are aimed to be a MAC alternative. The pricepoints are the most similar. The difference between their gel eyeliner and fluidline is $2 if u dont buy it on sale. I would buy MAC anyday. 
The only reason why I think nars cant compete is the availiblity is limited in most areas, the price is much more, and the most ppl arent going to buy the rated R duo for everyday wear. 
MUFE is limited too, trust me I wanted to try the matte foundation they came out with a while ago and I had to wait until I could drive 150 miles to sephora. 
Bobbi Brown's target is definiatly an older client that likes a neutral palette 10 types of "mauve" lipstick.
Lancome is pretty close but their ads are so blah and they have great e/s colors but dont put enough into expanding products. Their foundation is blah and eyeliners and blushes are antiquated. New lipgloss is great just wish they had more neutrals and a wider range of pinks. And I know its french and stuff but sometimes I have to stare at a bottle for a min to know what it is. Just annoying.


----------



## ambidextrous (Dec 5, 2007)

everyone who serves the same customer needs as MAC... (economics definition lol)


----------



## jillianjiggs (Dec 5, 2007)

i have to agree with beauty_mark in saying clinique. it is in every department store i have ever been to, and they are very approachable. it was the first place i got real makeup, had all my school dance makeovers there, and i still continue to buy their facial lotions. 

it really used to be the "in" place for people i knew, and i think it's appropriate for the 12-13 year olds who want to begin wearing makeup (colour range and selection and it's a less intense/scary experience for the parents! going to an MA in a white lab coat putting on a soft shimmery peach eyeshadow rather than an edgy looking MA wearing all black and electric eel on her eyes trying to sell the same soft shimmery peach!)

but also, i would have to say drugstore brands. i have been basically sneered at when asked what makeup i use, saying they "get the same look using covergirl applied with a finger" 

a lot of people are not heavily into cosmetics and have heart attacks thinking about spending $15+ on a lipstick, and just want their maybelline 3-shade palette and a loreal mascara.


----------



## kokometro (Dec 5, 2007)

I do notice that drugstore prices are going up. I still just can't stand L'oreal or Lancome. I wonder if the VS makeup line is getting some of the market.

I think Mac is a resonable price compared to Nars and Dior. Even Smashbox (which is sort of like) is pricier than Mac. Mac spends a fortune on their image. Think of those hot mailer cards. It seems like they are sucessful at creating repeat business rather than new customers with their campaigns. I always wondered if other brands have  the cult following that MAC does.


----------



## seymone25 (Dec 15, 2007)

Another for MUFE and Uban Decay


----------



## darkwater_soul (Dec 15, 2007)

Heads up - EL doesn't own Loreal, Lancome does.


----------



## darkwater_soul (Dec 15, 2007)

I think, to answer the main topic - Loreal, Maybelline, and Clinique corner the market, in approachability, ability to obtain product, and ease of use. There's no technique really needed with these brands, you don't need a lot of expensive applicators (brushes) and probably a good 50% or more of women love these brands and keep going back for that reason. 

Now - on lah_knee's point of MAC trying to reach all sexes, all ages all races - probably a good 90% of MA's I have met (and I have met a LOT working in the industry) all LOOK THE SAME. Some are bigger, there are some men, some are smaller, some are black/white/hispanic/etc., but they all look edgy, artsy, what have you. I think that this is MAC downfall right now, is in the hiring. They need a wider demographic if this is what they want to achieve. Like, seeing a mid 50's woman with a small brush roll, in a black pantsuit and nicely coiffed hair, with some pretty simple makeup on, would be refreshing to me, and probably bring in a lot of clients closer to her age range. For example, how well do the icon collections REALLY do for the younger age set? Probably not as well as, let's say, Barbie for MAC. I'm not saying that ALL MA's look the same, I'm just saying (and I probably speak for a lot of people) that I generally see the same kinda look from the MAC MA's , with little variation here and there. And it shows in the clientele they attract.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Dec 15, 2007)

I feel like MAC's target audience is like avant-garde makeup, at least when you go the store. Rare if ever I see someone who's looking very natural.

I don't know if it affects their clientele. I don't think I've seen a darling elderly women there like I have at Lancome or Clinique, but I have seen women there who are looking to look natural


----------



## reesesilverstar (Feb 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *darkwater_soul* 

 
_I think, to answer the main topic - Loreal, Maybelline, and Clinique corner the market, in approachability, ability to obtain product, and ease of use. There's no technique really needed with these brands, you don't need a lot of expensive applicators (brushes) and probably a good 50% or more of women love these brands and keep going back for that reason. 

Now - on lah_knee's point of MAC trying to reach all sexes, all ages all races - probably a good 90% of MA's I have met (and I have met a LOT working in the industry) all LOOK THE SAME. Some are bigger, there are some men, some are smaller, some are black/white/hispanic/etc., but they all look edgy, artsy, what have you. I think that this is MAC downfall right now, is in the hiring. They need a wider demographic if this is what they want to achieve. Like, seeing a mid 50's woman with a small brush roll, in a black pantsuit and nicely coiffed hair, with some pretty simple makeup on, would be refreshing to me, and probably bring in a lot of clients closer to her age range. For example, how well do the icon collections REALLY do for the younger age set? Probably not as well as, let's say, Barbie for MAC. I'm not saying that ALL MA's look the same, I'm just saying (and I probably speak for a lot of people) that I generally see the same kinda look from the MAC MA's , with little variation here and there. And it shows in the clientele they attract._

 


I will hafta agree with everything you said.


----------



## geeko (Feb 10, 2008)

I would have to say that MAC's edgy image can be a double edged sword.

Although it would put some people off from buying M.A.C (esp those who are looking for natural looking make up), it attracts consumers who are lookin for something that's outstanding and different from other make up brands.

Look at most of the make up ads e.g. Lancome, Dior and other counter brands, they all have the same "Natural" looking ads 80 to 90% of the time.

If MAC were to ditch its "hip" image and go for the natural and coifed and clean look, they would lose the clientele that wants to look "hip", "edgy" and "trendy". In fact, they would be no different from other make up brands like chanel, dior, lancome etc where the emphasis is natural and flawless looking skin rather than on colors.

What attracted to me to M.A.C was the hippy image it gave me (the MAs and the postcards/posters). 

Every cosmetic brand has its own target market. And M.A.C's target market is probably people who love experimenting with colors and make up, regardless of age, gender, sex and race.

The opportunity cost of M.A.C differentiating itself greatly from others is the lost of a certain clientele. But, I feel that the benefits outweights the costs. And they have done a great job in trying to satisy everyone's needs/preferences by releasing various collections - Some with bold colors, Some with natural nude colors. 

How many make up brands have fans like M.A.C that are always waitin for them to release their next collection and even have a dedicated forum jus for the discussion of their cosmetics? 

Just my one cents worth.


----------



## frankenstain (Feb 11, 2008)

Of course I'm no expert but I'd agree with drugstore brands. 

In all honesty my favorite makeup brand is Maybelline. It does the job well and is priced around $8 compared to, say, L'Oreal which is $12. Which isn't as good IMO. 

As for *quality* Make Up For Ever wins. Its a few more dollars but the pigmentation is unreal.


----------



## Sabrunka (Feb 11, 2008)

I would say Nars, Too Faced or Smashbox (similar to other answers) they tend to have similar items with fun lovin' names and colours, whereas many other cosmetic brands just stick to the basics.


----------



## GlamYOURUs (Feb 11, 2008)

I would say Nars to be the biggest and than Smashbox but then again SB is on a whole other level.


----------



## miss_emc (Feb 12, 2008)

In Australia, MAC's main competitor is Napoleon Perdis cosmetics, an Australian brand. Two brands which are relatively new to Australia, The Makeup Store and Inglot Cosmetics are also seen as a bit of new competition. I've had customers tell me they have big colour ranges just like MAC and the packaging is similar.

The main difference between MAC and other brands is A) the colour/texture range B) the simple packaging C) the amount of sponsorship deals MAC gets for worldwide fashion weeks/photo shoots/tv shows etc which really portrays it as a 'professional' brand.

I also think that because it isn't as cheap as drugstore brands, but isn't as expensive as high-end department store brands, the product seems like you are getting good quality product and not paying lots for fancy packaging (ie. likes of Dior, YSL etc..).

I think there will be lots of brands that will try to build their reputation to a MAC standard, but i doubt anyone will go above and beyond. I think there are bits and pieces of lots of different brands which have great products, some even better than MAC's, but as a whole, MAC's range is one that i personally think cannot be replaced from another brand.


----------



## Rubiez (Feb 13, 2008)

Personally, I think MAC is becoming much more popular because of the newer generation teens who has more access to these stores/brands than before.


----------



## anjelik_dreamin (Feb 14, 2008)

I'm going to say Inglot.


----------



## MsCocoa (Feb 15, 2008)

I agree with the low end brands because of the get the look for the less theory, all other department stores mainly target different audiences; while they may have nice eyeshadows (NARS), good lipglosses (Lancome), popular mascara's (Lancome/Dior)...the whole hype around MAC sets them apart.


----------



## chocolategoddes (Feb 15, 2008)

I think if we were to listen in on some corporate MAC meeting the head cheif would say, " Yo, that Urban Decay is our biggest competition."
They have great quality stuff and bright edgy colors. The style is very artsy and fun. Just like MAC. The two brands appeal to the same demographic, therefore they are competitors.


----------



## COBI (Feb 15, 2008)

My perception of Urban Decay is that product line as it stands today is way too limited to be a real competition for MAC.  Sure, some people will add some UD to their kits/bags, but it would hard to maintain as comprehensive a kit with UD as you can with MAC.

But that's just my opinion, and probably a big difference is which MAC audience you are considering: the average consumer or the MA?


----------



## S.S.BlackOrchid (Feb 15, 2008)

I'd go with L'oreal. Their HiP line is definitely trying to compete with MAC, or at least steal a few MAC customers. I'd also think MUFE, because of their range of colours.


----------



## MACJunkie57 (Feb 18, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Katja* 

 
_*Every makeup company OTHER than MAC. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I would honestly say any drugstore brand because there's a lot of young consumers out there that aren't makeup savvy, and they usually start out with the least expensive makeup first.  

I have a bathroom book located in my (bathroom) 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 that states the 2005 top 10 makeup brands.  MAC isn't on the list. *_

 
Wow, seriously? I really would have expected it to be top of the list!


----------



## amethyst_star (Feb 18, 2008)

MAC seems to have many competitors, from the make-up artist lines like Smashbox, MUFE and Nars, to the more popular dept store lines like Clinique and Lancome which are widely available.  I think that I read somewhere that Clinique another EL brand sells more products globally than MAC because of GWP events, Clinique appeals to many age groups and is widely available at almost every dept store in the U.S. Canada and other countries.


----------



## .VivaDiva. (Feb 18, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *darkwater_soul* 

 
_Heads up - EL doesn't own Loreal, Lancome does. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
No actually Loreal owns Lancome.

I would say MUFE, NARS and UD


----------



## bittersweet-bea (Apr 9, 2008)

First off, I really don't think places like Bobbi Brown count. They're not competition, they're teammates. Half their formulas are identical. The only real difference is range and target demographics.
I suppose I'll go with typical answers here like NARS, Urban Decay, Smashbox.. But its tough. If we're speaking overall sales, obviously there's only a handful with the MARKETING to compete with MAC. But if you get into their biggest competition QUALITY wise... hahaha. 
Someone mentioned how MAC wasn't on the top ten costmetics list? That's probably because it wasn't going by sales.
Seriously MAC fanatics. Walk around your mall and have a colour swatch day like I did. By the end of the day, I had tried on my arm, Two Faced, MAC, Inglot, NARS, Lancome, MUFE, Christian Dior, Smashbox, and a few others.

By the time I left the mall, the only ones on my arm were MUFE, Inglot, one from Two Faced, and a bit of Red Earth. MAC swatches had faded before I had even left that store.

There are very few companies that have EVERYTHING-- right now the only one that comes to mind is MUFE with Inglot as a close second-- and any makeup artist, or even makeup fanatic, with half a brain would NEVER base an entire kit on one company

MAC has its highlight hits, just like every other company, but is FAR from the be all and end all of cosmetics.


----------



## BenefitAddict (Aug 17, 2008)

Smashbox or Make Up For Ever.


----------



## panda0410 (Aug 17, 2008)

I'm not sure about global competition but on a local level here its Lancome. MAC is just too hard to get for the people in my area and they wont surf ebay or look for cp buddies, some of them just dont trust the postal system and many wont order online. One way or the other in my area at least Lancome in the killer! Dior & Chanel are both seen as a brands for older women where I am so they arent generally in the running for the 18-45 bracket, and NARS is not available here either online or from a counter (except in metro locations). Lancome has some great colour ranges and their products are good, I often see plenty of young girls hanging about the Lancome counter. Estee Lauder is up there too - here its primarily because of availability though. In the low end brands Revlon, Rimmel and Maybelline - and I have to say that some of these items are on par in price with MAC. I saw a Revlon blush for $35AU and nearly died....


----------



## KikiB (Aug 17, 2008)

I would probably say that in this area, Bare Escentuals and MAC are the top two brands. Pretty much everybody who I know uses one of those two. Lancome, EL, and Clinique are also on the bigger side. Smashbox is well known as is Urban Decay but a lot of people don't have those. Figure 9 of 10 people have never heard of MUFE. I am talking about total sales, based on what I see people buying. As far as products, I think Urban Decay for the shadows and liners, Clinique or Lancome for lips, and more people use Bare Escentuals than any other brand in this area. Every single girl it seems has used BE (except me) at my store.

kokometro-VS makeup does not seem to be doing terribly great. It is good stuff but I would say it is not comparable to MAC.


----------



## LatinaRose (Aug 18, 2008)

MUFE for the pros. Nars for everyone else.


----------



## rockandregret (Aug 27, 2008)

NARS. I think Smashbox has alot of stuff that doesn't attract a young crowd, while NARS seems to do better with that stuff, especially because of all the hype surrounding the Orgasm blush (which i didn't even like!) & lipgloss and multiple and etc etc


----------



## panther27 (Aug 27, 2008)

Definately MUFE and Urban Decay after that.I love both.


----------



## greeneyes81 (Aug 28, 2008)

Kind of an off note, but i don't think that many companies can compare with MAC in the category of shade _variety_. I noticed that alot of brands stick with one color family -- mostly pinks -- which is frustrating for those who like corals, nudes or any other color family ( i like coral LOL). Alot of companies have a large selection of eye shadow, but don't go into the brighter or less common colors. So for me, MAC always wins based on variety


----------



## pink_lariat (Sep 13, 2008)

I would say Nars and Bobbi Brown.


----------



## slogirl (Sep 13, 2008)

I think STILA could have been but .. it got sold and Jeannie Lobell is no longer there - they  pretty much only sell at Sephora.  Bobbie Borwn but they seem to want to sell to older ladies -- ok ,thats me I am 44 but.... I feel 30ish.. maybe Smashbox but I am not a fan so let's say not.


----------



## 27dots (Sep 13, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *bittersweet-bea* 

 
_and any makeup artist, or even makeup fanatic, with half a brain would NEVER base an entire kit on one company_

 
I agree. You'll always have your favorite brand(s), but your right every company has it's not-so-great products, and I never understand when people insist on getting everything from the one brand.


----------

