People Are Obsessed With Beauty Dupes Being Made in the "Same Factory" As Premium Counterparts—That Myth Doesn't Hold Up

“When you dupe, you dupe the consumer,” Charlotte Tilbury told BBC News when asked for her thoughts on other brands making similar products to her own for a fraction of the price. “I have looked at those dupes and they do not perform the way that my products do”.

If you search “Charlotte Tilbury dupes”, you’ll find a £4 drugstore lipstick, housed in a rose-gold ribbed tube almost identical to Tilbury’s now-iconic lipsticks. There’s also a £12 pressed powder that not only looks similar to Tilbury’s Flawless Filter Powder but also uses the same “Flawless” name. These are just two of the examples I found.

As a beauty editor, I understand Tilbury’s frustrations, but by speaking out, Tilbury has sparked a hot debate on the Internet. Creator Nina Pool posted a video on Instagram that has over 1 million views, claiming that she researched the manufacturers of Charlotte Tilbury products and found that her lip liners are “made in the same factory” as Kiko Milano's. However, while Charlotte Tilbury’s bestselling Lip Cheat Lip Liner is £22, Kiko Milano's is £7.99. You might jump to the conclusion that Kiko is duping Tilbury—after all, the cheaper product is the dupe, right?—but Pool goes on to say that Kiko Milano launched in 1997 and is decades older than Tilbury’s brand. So, who’s duping who?

The answer, however, isn’t so black-and-white. First, it requires a debunking of the age-old ‘same factory, same formula’ myth. While it is true that there are only a certain number of cosmetics factories in the world, and many brands use the same ones, it doesn’t necessarily follow that their products are identical.

“If you’re an affordable brand and you’ve been given a specific cost to stick to, there’s only so much you can do to truly replicate the performance and durability of a high-end product from a luxury brand, which likely has a higher cost price to work with,” an industry product developer tells me, who also asked to remain anonymous.

“Imagine you’re trying to recreate the performance of a premium eyeshadow palette, but you can only sell yours at retail for £15,” they say. “If your version lacks pigment or smoothness, you can make adjustments, but it almost always increases your manufacturing cost. As your cost price goes up, your profit margins go down, which isn’t sustainable for most brands unless they’re willing to increase the retail price”.

Whenever we think of profit margins, we often associate them with luxury brands, but every company has one, and those margins are going to be incredibly tight when your retail price is just £4. However, is every premium-priced brand really spending all its money on formulas to give the best possible product, rather than maximising its profit?

Sadly not, as my insider knows too well. “After overseeing a production line, I can say there are definitely cases in which some brands are charging higher prices for low-cost formulas. You’re paying for the name rather than an innovative or prestige product”.

I have to agree. My job requires me to trial multiple brands, and there have been many times I’ve swatched a highlighter or tested a foundation and immediately known there is a drugstore product that performs way better. It’s also happened at the other end of the spectrum, like when makeup artist brand Pat McGrath Labs first launched their eyeshadows and I willingly paid over £100 for a palette because the sparkle and sheen were truly like nothing I had ever seen before.

Makeup artist Katie Jane Hughes is adept at using brands at all price points to achieve premium results, but now that she has her own brand, KJH, she has even more insight into the dupe industry. “I think dupe culture is fine when you are inspired by a formula, and you want to bring a slightly different version to market to fill a void, because there are tweaks you can make on things like finish, texture or shade range, to make that formula more affordable,” she says. “I think in Charlotte Tilbury’s case, however, it is often unfair because there are all these brands that are ripping off her packaging. They are mimicking her brand identity and trying to dupe the customer into thinking they’re actually buying a Charlotte Tilbury product.”

This raises an important distinction between products from different brands that are made in the same factory, and a brand that is outright (sometimes shamelessly) copying another brand’s entire DNA, from its formulas to its product names to its packaging. Surely, that’s duping?

Something that I think encompasses this point is one of Tilbury’s most beloved products: Hollywood Flawless Filter. At its launch in 2018, there was initial confusion. Is it a foundation? Is it a primer? Is it a highlighter? Turns out, it can be all of the above. In fact, this multitasking glow booster became so popular that it created an entirely new product genre. Fast-forward to today, and every drugstore brand has its own version. The clear distinction is that none of these products positions their value by pretending to be Charlotte Tilbury products. Yes, they may have drawn inspiration from Flawless Filter, but they have their own identity, names and marketing.

Take Rimmel’s Multi-Tasker Better Than Filters. The bottle and graphics are different to Tilbury’s and the language used to describe it is unique. Rimmel’s gives a really natural, sun-kissed glow, but I also find its consistency much thinner, which means I use more product. However, at around £10, it’s definitely a more affordable alternative to Tilbury’s £40 original.

Ultimately, perhaps we've become too quick to label everything a dupe. There's nothing wrong with brands taking inspiration from one another - that's how innovation evolves and competition only benefits consumers. But there's a huge difference between creating an affordable alternative and profiting off another brand’s success.