Journalist looking for opinions on skin tints

clairec

Hi there,

I'm a beauty journalist putting together a piece on the new wave of "your skin but better" foundations/skin tints (for example, Glossier: https://www.glossier.com/#!/products/perfecting-skin-tint; Lush: http://www.lushusa.com/Light-Pink/03071,en_US,pd.html). These products are thinner and lighter than tinted moisturizers and very "of the now." 

I'm wondering why these formulations are becoming popular now, or if these products have always existed, but with different branding and marketing (are they the same as tinted moisturizers?)  I'm also wondering if these products are advisable to use alone without some heavier base blended into it. 

If anyone might be interested in emailing or talking, please let me know! Thanks so much; this community is always so helpful for me when I have beauty questions.

Claire Carusillo

clairecarusillo@gmail.com

Bobzchemist

There's no actual difference between these and tinted moisturizers. It's all marketing hype and double talk.

Bobzchemist

Claire asked a follow-up, which I thought would be useful to share with everyone:

"I suspected these are the same as tinted moisturizers and it's all marketing that makes them a "new product." If you don't mind, I have a few follow up questions.

1) If skin tints/tinted moisturizers are the same, then how do their formulations differ from foundation? Are they thinner? Different emollients?

2) Why do you suspect "skin tints" are being marketed as the hot new thing now? Is it just something marketers made up to reinvigorate sales on the same old product? Or is there a movement in the industry right now for more "natural" looking skin?"

My answer:

1) Skin tints and tinted moisturizers, essentially the same thing, have less coverage (opacity, ability to see the skin through the makeup). Because there's less coverage, they also require less pigment, which means that the formula has less powder to suspend. 

Why is this a good thing? Because the suspending agents used in full-coverage makeup need to be stronger, able to suspend more powder, they not only take up more room in the formula, but they don't feel light on the skin. So, a tinted moisturizer can use both less powder and less suspending agent, which produces a lighter feel. Also, a lower powder load can reduce the need for robust emulsifiers, which produces a lighter feel as well. And yes, they can also be thinner, less viscous, since a stronger suspending power tends to be associated with thicker products. And that feels nicer on skin as well.

2) Yes, I think that skin tints are at best a minor tweak to tinted moisturizers. But, it's not just a marketing trick. You see, if someone sells a "Tinted Moisturizer", they still have to prove that it moisturizes. Otherwise, both the FDA and the FTC could go after them for violations. A clinical test to prove moisturization is expensive, and only gets more so every year. But - a "Skin Tint" isn't claiming moisturization, so no claim = no expensive test = more profit. As far as a movement in the industry, I really can't speak to that, but it wouldn't surprise me at all. The re-invigorating sales bit is just a nice bonus.

MarkBroussard

I really get a kick out of Glossier's "Polymer X" super secret ingredient!  That is just too funny!  Take a look at the LOI ... these are standard ingredients.

And LUSH is claiming some of their ingredients are "Safe Synthetics" ...