September 11, 2003
Hair Color Sales: the Marketing Perspective
In my previous post I disproved the notion that blond hair dye sales indicate that there is a preference for blond hair. In summary, blond hair dyes sell more because most people are brunets and hence the buyng habits of brunets (who change their hair color to blond) dominate the hair dyeing business.
But all of this is based on the assumption that people choose their hair color independently and based on their desire to be more attractive. Even this assumption is false, since hair dye sales are driven largely by the hair dye companies/hair stylists and the fashion industry who create the role models which ordinary women aspire to look like.
At first glance it would seem that hair dye companies wouldn't have any interest in taking sides in favor of blondeness. After all, a bottle of brown hair dye is presumably sold at the same price as one of blond hair dye. Why would they take sides in favor of blondes?
Imagine that you are an employee in such a company, thinking: "Should I market blonde hair shades or dark hair shades?" The answer is of course that you should market blonde hair shades, because the potential customers for blonde hair are many more than those for dark hair. Most people have naturally brown hair, so you can't sell them what they have. Thus, blonde hair is agressively marketed because selling the "blonde ideal" is more profitable than selling the "brown ideal" (*)
Or, think that you are a hair stylist. Most of your clients are brunettes, hence you have an interest in using your influence in convincing them to turn into blondes.
In conclusion:
1. Hair dye sales do not (in themselves) provide evidence for a preference for any hair color
2. In the hypothetical case that there is a preference for blonde hair, we must be aware of the fact that this is not necessarily due to the biological factor (i.e., to a preference for blonde hair), but also to the entire industry that stands to profit more by "blondening" women than by "darkening" them.
(*) This also explains the aggressive marketing of the "blond ideal" in places like East Asia. Hair dyes are used either to mask greying hair, or to change one's hair color. Sales from this latter use of hair dyes can only be generated by promoting the "blonde ideal" since in East Asia hair is naturally black in the vast majority of the population.
Posted by Dienekes at September 11, 2003 08:05 PM | PermaLinkYou make an interesting point, but I am forced to disagree with you on this one.
First of all, you assume that there is only one type of brown dye and one type of brown - that of course, corrupted the whole process. Brown haired women (particularly the darker haired ones) are much more likely to dye their hair of a different brown (usually light brown, though in some cases black is also an option). Blonde women usually go with an even "blonder" colour, with red dye, or with brown or black hair if they are trying to do something radical.
Your theory is probably correct when it comes to East Asia (asian kids - particularly Japanese with pink hair - are particularly fashion-blind), but I don't think that you can apply it in Europe. Not everyone can "hold" blond hair without looking ridiculous, and the same goes for every other colour. That is something that most young women find in their 20s - they usually end up staying with their real colour, or with something close to that. In conclusion:
1) The dye sellers will sell what has better odds of being liked by the buyer (in some cases it is blond, in some cases it will be different shades of brown or even red)
2) Women with blondish shades, will usually go with real blond; women with dark brown hair won't (they will probably never become usual dye buyers until they reach their late 40s)
3) Women are more likely to choose a hair colour that is similar to their own, rather than going for something completely crazy (like going from black hair to peroxidized blond)
4) If blond dye is the best selling dye in absolute numbers, that can be assumed to:
a) there are less shades of blond than shades of brown (thus the brown dye buyers have more to choose from)
b) people that want blond dye become regular users more often (the blondish types that want to become real blondes)
c) most dark brown haired women are likely to use dye very sporadically until they reach their late 40s
As you can see, you have to many variables to draw a single (and simple) conclusion. What you would need would be a study that separated women in their 20s from women in their 40s, and that also separated women by their original hair colour and that would then relate these two variables with the type of product they would buy.
Posted by: alex at September 12, 2003 02:59 AM>> First of all, you assume that there is only one type of brown dye and one type of brown - that of course, corrupted the whole process.
Specify how that has "corrupted the whole process". The argument depends only in the fact that the mean hair pigmentation is to the brunet side, hence hair dye companies have an interest in marketing products to the blond side.
>> The dye sellers will sell what has better odds of being liked by the buyer
The dye sellers will sell everything. But they'll market what will bring them most profits. And, given the distribution of natural hair color in the population, marketing blond will bring them more profits than marketing dark.
>> Women with blondish shades, will usually go with real blond; women with dark brown hair won't
I've seen no data to back up this conclusion.
>> Women are more likely to choose a hair colour that is similar to their own, rather than going for something completely crazy
Transitions from jet black->blond and vice versa are not frequent but otherwise women often do drastic changes to their hair color.
>> a) there are less shades of blond than shades of brown (thus the brown dye buyers have more to choose from)
That does not follow. The comparison is not between individual shades (in which case the brown hair dye sales would be split among many options), but rather between blond and the rest.
Posted by: Dienekes at September 12, 2003 09:10 AMSpecify how that has "corrupted the whole process". The argument depends only in the fact that the mean hair pigmentation is to the brunet side, hence hair dye companies have an interest in marketing products to the blond side
It corrupts your line of thought because many brown haired women will choose brown dye rather than blond dye. Hair dye companies have an interest in selling their products. They couldn't care less if they sell blond dye or brunet dye - as long as they sell. They will make a lot more money if they turn an unhappy dark brown haired woman into a happy (and loyal) light brown hair dye comsumer. Few dark brown haired women opt to dye their hair blond. Why? Because few dark haired women have the necessary skin complexion to look well with blond hair. The ones that dye their hair blond are the ones you see at the street and comment "There goes another fake blond". The brown dyed ones you don't even notice.
The dye sellers will sell everything. But they'll market what will bring them most profits. And, given the distribution of natural hair color in the population, marketing blond will bring them more profits than marketing dark.
Not necessarily so. Like you said, they will sell everything - particularly things that turn skeptic buyers into loyal consumers. While your theory about existing "more brown haired women -> implying more blond dye" would be essentially correct, you forgot that brown haired women can also choose to buy other shades of brown dye. Thus, your line of thought is incorrect.
Transitions from jet black->blond and vice versa are not frequent but otherwise women often do drastic changes to their hair color.
Correct. But these changes will not last long -> therefore these "radical" women will not become regular buyers. On the other side, a moderate "light brown dye" buyer, will be more likely to like her new "non radical" hair colour.
That does not follow. The comparison is not between individual shades (in which case the brown hair dye sales would be split among many options), but rather between blond and the rest.
Fair enough. The rest of my opinion still stands, though.
Posted by: alex at September 12, 2003 04:58 PM>> It corrupts your line of thought because many brown haired women will choose brown dye rather than blond dye.
Alex, the argument does not depend on the number of distinct classes of hair colors that are used (e.g., dark/light, or dark/medium/light, or dark, medium dark, medium light, light, etc.) . It depends on the shape of the distribution. E.g., the distribution for Portugal may look something like this (dark->light from top to bottom):
*****
*******
*********
*******
***
**
**
*
*
If you wanna make money, you'd better convince the top part of the curve to go towards the bottom and not the other way around, because there are more ***'s there.
You are perhaps taking the "blond", "dark" distinctions too literally. What is happening is that "light" hair dyes outsell "dark" hair dyes, because more people are "dark" haired than "light" haired.
Don't forget also that hair dye companies have an additional reason to promote light hair dyes: if a woman dyes her hair a slightly different shade than her natural color, then she can keep it for a long time. On the other hand, artificial blonds need to dye their hair relatively frequently to conceal their roots. Convincing a brown-haired woman to become one shade lighter will generate less sales than convincing her to become two shades lighter.
Incidentally, this is also why women don't dye their hair black (unless they are dark-haired, Goths, or in a profession that requires it). Naturally, hair strands are darker at their base and lighter at their edges. So, someone who lightens their hair will "look good" even when they have dark roots for some time. On the other hand the combination light roots/dark edges is dysharmonic (since it is not found in nature) and thus requires too frequent intervention (= it's a big fuss).
Alex, the argument does not depend on the number of distinct classes of hair colors that are used (e.g., dark/light, or dark/medium/light, or dark, medium dark, medium light, light, etc.) . It depends on the shape of the distribution. E.g., the distribution for Portugal may look something like this (dark->light from top to bottom)
True. Very well, what you must have into account is simply this: many (most actually) brown haired women will not choose blond. To tell you the truth, I can't remember A SINGLE ONE of my girl friends with brown hair that has "gone" blond.
If you wanna make money, you'd better convince the top part of the curve to go towards the bottom and not the other way around, because there are more ***'s there.
This is where you fail. By selling a slightly different shade of brown to a brown haired woman, the companies make as much money. Not only that, but the companies themselves are hardly that responsible for their own sales. The beauty parlor employees and hairdressers are, as they are the ones that convince the women on what to buy.
You are perhaps taking the "blond", "dark" distinctions too literally. What is happening is that "light" hair dyes outsell "dark" hair dyes, because more people are "dark" haired than "light" haired.
That is logical. What you do not know, is if a small % of the population doesn't hold a large share of the "blond dye" pie. My blond haired sister dyes her hair a lot more than my younger brown haired sister (that has never dyed her dark brown hair - she is 23, she is no child). My older blond sister has used red dye, and several shades of blond dye to make her even blonder.
Don't forget also that hair dye companies have an additional reason to promote light hair dyes: if a woman dyes her hair a slightly different shade than her natural color, then she can keep it for a long time. On the other hand, artificial blonds need to dye their hair relatively frequently to conceal their roots. Convincing a brown-haired woman to become one shade lighter will generate less sales than convincing her to become two shades lighter.
That is true.
Incidentally, this is also why women don't dye their hair black (unless they are dark-haired, Goths, or in a profession that requires it). Naturally, hair strands are darker at their base and lighter at their edges. So, someone who lightens their hair will "look good" even when they have dark roots for some time. On the other hand the combination light roots/dark edges is dysharmonic (since it is not found in nature) and thus requires too frequent intervention (= it's a big fuss).
Actually, I have seen more than a few blond women going for "light brown".
Here is Jenny McCarthy (blond -> brunet):
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/illinois/jenny1.jpg
http://www.poster.net/mccarthy-jenny/mccarthy-jenny-photo-jenny-mccarthy-6203423.jpg
http://www.lorry.com/scrapbook/new/jenny-mccarthy1.jpg
The truth is that blond women dye their hair much more often than brown haired women (which when they decide to buy dye, go for different shades of brown instead). How many fake blondes do you know? I don't know any.
Posted by: alex at September 13, 2003 01:16 AMJenny McCarthy is not a natural blonde, hence she can darken her hair more easily than real blondes, for whom it's too difficult due to the light root/dark edge effect that I explain more clearly in the newest blog entry.
"I find these quotes to be flawed without even analyzing their shallowness. Firstly, while “Blonde Ambition” is happy to purport that some of our country’s “roots are blonde,” it also contains the extremely offensive anecdote of how Jenny McCarthy became a blonde. She was born with white hair, and according to McCarthy herself, “by eighth grade I was a full brunette. Yuck! Disgusting.” "
Posted by: Dienekes at September 13, 2003 04:35 PMJenny McCarthy is not a natural blonde, hence she can darken her hair more easily than real blondes
That I didn't know. If she isn't a true blonde, than she will be able to darken her hair without looking suspitious.
(...) it also contains the extremely offensive anecdote of how Jenny McCarthy became a blonde. She was born with white hair, and according to McCarthy herself, “by eighth grade I was a full brunette. Yuck! Disgusting.”
She looks much better with dark hair.
One thing I forgot to say: it is much more natural for brunet women to lighten dair hair (say) in America, where the majority (or at least a large portiion) of the caucasian population is of Northern European ancestry, than in a country like Portugal or Spain where brunets are by far, the largest share of the pie. Northern European women with dark hair are able to pull it off much more easily than darker skinned southern Euro women.
Posted by: alex at September 14, 2003 01:16 AM>>
Hey Dienekes, you re starting to sound like an American.....
Posted by: Nikiforos Armatodromos at September 17, 2003 01:42 PMI just have a question for you pofessionals,"What color does a African American dark complexion women about Naomi Campbell color dye her hair without looking suspect?". Can I go Light brown? My hair is actually off black with a funny auburn looking tone to it, naturally. You guys seem to hold a pretty good argument, so could you please help me and give me some insight. comiesha@yahoo.com
Posted by: comiesha at December 21, 2003 02:44 PM