Katie Mulligan Thinks Changes in Beauty Aren’t as Drastic as We’re Led to Believe

Looking at the beauty category today and comparing it to even a decade ago makes clear that a lot has changed. That change, led by shifting consumer demographics and brands’ evolution, is in a paradoxical flux. More calls than ever are made to ban retouching, do away with the high-glamour aspiration represented by voiceless models, and showcase a diverse cast of people in line with our diverse populations. So how are brands and agencies navigating this shifting and complex landscape? LBB – in association with SHORTFILMS, a production company with a beauty specialism – is looking into it in an ongoing series: The Beauty Spot. We will be asking some of the industry’s experts the burning questions surrounding the new rules of beauty marketing and the strategy they’re using to lead – not follow – in this space. 

SHORTFILMS’ director Stephen Mead and producer Holly Hartley add, "Teaming up with LBB has given us the opportunity to explore what other industry leaders feel about the portrayal of ‘beauty’ in the changing world we are now working in. It’s a time of flux with conflicting ideals sometimes leading to some messy compromises. It’s time to appraise the successes and failures of the past and develop a new path forward.”  

Today, LBB is speaking to Brave Spark’s strategy director Katie Mulligan. Katie is seeing in real time, as a professional and a consumer, how fast the beauty category is changing; from TikTok’s seamless shopping experience and gen z and alpha’s rejection of traditional gender roles to the affordability of non-invasive procedures like Botox. With experience working on SK-II and Avon, Katie intuitively understands how beauty brands must function in the market today to reach audiences across markets and demographics, creating trends where relevant and reacting to them when necessary. She’s also unafraid to question beauty brands’ foray into purpose when the move appears surface-level at best (like Charlotte Tilbury’s partnership with F1), saying that “audiences have probably become a little bit tired of big brands who have stood on very strong social purpose platforms and have then let them down in some way.”

Below, LBB asked Katie whether beauty is really embracing diversity as much as it wants us to believe, how consumers are turning away from inauthenticity, and why she wants the industry to take a stand against the use of AI in the creation of beauty images.

LBB> Katie, you’re part of the target audience in the beauty category and conversation. Have you noticed a difference in how you’re shopping and/or responding to this new style of beauty marketing?

Katie> Well, I just seem to be buying a lot more! And a lot of that’s down to the TikTok shop. For me, the TikTok shop is one of the biggest changes in how people are shopping online right now. It’s successfully removed a lot of the friction that Meta was putting into the process with its own attempt to revolutionise digital retail. TikTok has made the purchasing journey so easy and accessible.

For example, if you look at Korean cushion foundations, which is one of the most popular items at the moment, if you want to buy it you can do so in seconds via the TikTok shop. And the fact you can do it with Apple Pay, meaning you don't have to deal with going on an Asian website for example, removes a huge barrier. You’re getting these K-beauty and J-beauty brands more quickly and easily, and I’ve really noticed the difference in my purchasing habits!  

LBB> The beauty category has – until very recently – used fantasy and aspiration in order to sell. When did this start to change and what was behind the change, in your opinion? How should beauty brands be responding to the period of redefined aspiration?

Katie> I think women are keen to see products being used on faces that feel more familiar to them. And Instagram and TikTok have opened that up. People are tired of seeing make-up artists painting beautiful faces, they want to see the actual application of the product.

But whilst there’s an attempt to change things, I feel like the change isn’t as drastic as we might be led to believe. We may not be showing models or celebrities like Gwen Stefani and Katy Perry – who were the faces who used to sell beauty – but she still looks a certain way, she’s probably filtered or conforms to some classic ideas of beauty. A lot of the influencers who are now receiving money from the beauty companies following this ‘shift’ will still have their content checked and vetted, because that’s how it works. So there’s a veil on this ‘new reality’.

LBB> You wrote an excellent thought piece questioning Charlotte Tilbury’s tie-in with F1. Do you think the positive response to the tie-in refutes narratives about authenticity and a call for beauty to be more than skin deep?

Katie> I think to some extent the beauty industry and the way it’s changing suggests that people are tired of inauthenticity – and that’s starting to come through in the way it’s marketed. Audiences have probably become a little bit tired of big brands who have stood on very strong social purpose platforms and have then let them down in some way. So beauty has started to move back towards being a bit more superficial, a bit more fun and more aesthetically driven, in the way it once was.

A lot of the exciting new brands I’m intrigued by haven’t broken through because of a social movement or by standing for something, in the way we may have expected brands to have done so in previous years. Made By Mitchell, for example, isn’t standing on a social purpose platform, it’s all based around him as a person. Now he’s a young gay man, so that might have some purpose built into it – but I don’t think that’s played as much of a part as the products themselves. I don’t think it's what his audience is looking for.

LBB> The beauty category is always going to be led by and associated with images – can the industry ever get to a point where the beauty image isn’t in some ways normative and/or idealising?

Katie> Yes I think it can, but I think from a diversity perspective, there are still some massive issues. If you think about Youthforia’s ‘jet black’ foundation release and the subsequent backlash – these issues suggest we haven’t moved on as much as we think we have. The industry is littered with these types of bad calls, which reinforces normative ideals.

And taking that further, you simply don’t see anyone with a visible difference represented, certainly not in proportion with the population. We work with Changing Faces, and we’ve seen first hand how the beauty industry has massively shied away from this issue, beyond token partnerships from big influencers. I’d like to see that change.  

LBB> Can you share a little bit about your own work within the beauty category - how are you helping brands navigate this space? What kind of considerations do you have in mind when you’re working with beauty brands?

Katie> I think one of the most interesting learnings I’ve had is the need to understand how different markets approach similar brands. When I worked on Avon, the overriding response to the brand was ‘oh my God is that still going!?’. But if you look in other countries, in some European markets, it’s a top three make-up brand. So even cultures that seem very similar have very different approaches to and understanding of beauty.

And when you go to a more different market still, like Brazil, Avon is seen as the number one beauty brand. It’s the dominant force in leading beauty trends and it has the confidence that comes with being number one. The difference in standards across markets is quite challenging. So my biggest considerations, especially when you’re working on a global brand, is that it’s really important to get to know your markets really well, because attitudes and brand expression can differ from country to country far more than you’d think. And you can learn from them.

LBB> In the past, beauty brands – and the creatives behind them – were instrumental in creating and disseminating beauty ideas and narratives but the landscape has changed to include more of a user-led angle. Are brands and agencies creating aesthetic/beauty trends today or are they responding to trends?

Katie> I think trends are coming from more places than ever. I don’t think it means a brand or agency can’t do it – if you look at the work Uncommon did for The Ordinary, I would say that was different from what we’re seeing in the category at the moment and that should be celebrated.

But the reason some agencies struggle working on beauty brands is that you have to work at the speed of content at all times – just because the pace in which people can get products out is incredibly quick. So you have to be able to respond before a trend dies, and knowing how fast (or slow) most agencies work, by the time you get something out, the trend is guaranteed to be dead.

Whether you create or respond to trends also depends on what part of the market you’re talking to. When I worked on SK-II, the work we were doing was less trend reactive because it was more of a high-end brand. And similarly when I worked with Avon, as the audience was a little older, it was on a slightly slower trend cycle. If you’re working with slightly slower, older brands, you can probably respond to trends. But if you’re working with a younger, digital-first brand, then you need to be setting them. 

LBB> Gen z and gen alpha have a very different attitude towards beauty and its representation in media to other generations. Do you think that that is the case and the perception of beauty is really shifting for them?

Katie> I’d say gen z are at a bit of a tipping point. Gender is obviously a massive talking point – and gen z have obviously been a lot more open-minded to the boundaries of gender, but they also have a hangover from millennials and gen x-ers who are still very entrenched in what a man and a woman should look like. So as much as gen z are trying to escape this, I don’t think you’re seeing stigmas changing full tilt.

With gen alpha, there’s a potential for them to completely escape that. And then the beauty landscape changes dramatically. Are we going to then have massive swathes of people being brought up with a completely gender-neutral view on beauty? Does it mean you’re going to massively grow the category, because males are going to feel a lot more liberated and get involved with fake nails and eyelashes? Equally though, we know how generations work, and as they age out, they may possibly turn to traditional forms of beauty again.

The other shift I think is really interesting is that we’ve had a huge shift to non-invasive aesthetics. Things like Botox have suddenly become accessible and affordable. Whereas it used to be a major life moment for someone, and your average person would have to save up all year for it, your standard 25-year-old is able to get Botox pretty easily and cheaply now. So that challenges the idea – are we rejecting beauty, or are we rejecting some ideas of it?

LBB> What do you think the future holds for beauty advertising? Are there any changes you would like to personally see?

Katie> I think AI is quite scary. I worry that in the rush to get rid of airbrushing, there could be an alternative ‘we’ll just use AI because it means no airbrushing’ attitude. Rather than cause offence by doctoring real images, why not avoid using real images at all?

I’d like the whole industry to say that it’s absolutely not right for brands to use AI to generate photographs of women. I think that’s something that the industry needs to get a grip on, because the images are only getting better and more believable.

I think that’s quite scary for advertising. Do I have faith in people at the top to genuinely stamp that out? Possibly not. It’s going to take a collective of really strong brands – you look to the likes of L'Oréal – to completely put a stop to it. If we don’t stop it in its tracks now, it becomes a runaway train.