Sonia Kashuk Undetectable Foundation Stick Review & SwatchesNew for
Price $10.99 for 3.4 grams
I was meandering through Target
It comes in an assortment of shades, 8 to be exact and they start very pale, but I don't know how dark since they are sealed up very very tight. Luckily, I did manage to swatch two open sticks in Target because I would have been totally buying blind if I hadn't see the shades and Target has one of the stricter return policies of the big box stores. I tried out Almond and Latte which are the 2nd & 3rd shades in the line (going from light to dark.) I bought Latte but I'm thinking I should have bought Almond too.
Almond was a very light yellow, there was not a spec of pink to be seen. It actually was very similar to Mac Studio Stick in NC20 and just a hair darker than Flower SkinCognito Foundation Stick in SF1.
Latte is a hair more peachy which is why I bought it. It was a toss up on whether the next shade after Almond would be Olivey or Orangy and it was a nice peachy color so I went with that. I figured if it was a tad too dark I could always use it for contouring (ha, like I'd actually spend time contouring. I'm delusional.)
Anyways, I could have gotten away with either shade for my True NC15 skin which I wear NC20 to hide some of my unnatural paleness.
It gives a light to medium coverage and will definitely not satisfy the needs of those with oily skin. It is a TRUE EMOLLIENT (Creamy), non-setting formula. It is NOT a cream-powder finish, so you may have some creasing if you apply heavily but you can always just put it back in place with a finger!
It's not a bad product by any means, but honestly, for the money, you're better off with the Flower SkinCognito stick by Drew Barrymore. That is also cruelty free and is virtually identical to this in every way. I have skincognito in SF1, SF3 and SF4. I found SF1 to be a little patchy blending like some reviewers have said, but the other two shades are fine. Both of the Sonia Kashuk Sticks I swatched had that slightly blotchy consistency, nothing major and most people wouldn't notice it, but the real tie breaker is the price! Both are around $10, but with Flower you get almost 3x as much at 9grams veresus the measily 3.4 offered by Sonia. The average lipstick (high end or drugstore) gives you 4.4 so you have an idea of what you're getting for your money.
***Note: The one video on this I was able to find on YouTube with the SK stick, commented that most foundations are 1oz/30ml. This is true, but only for LIQUID foundations. Typically cream based foundations are 1/3oz or 9 grams. You are NOT getting ripped off. This is because they are much more concentrated than liquid foundations and have no/minimal water content. Keep this in mind when figuring out quantities. Revlon Colorstay Whipped for example has .8oz which stands to reason it has 20% less water than a typical liquid. This is a general rule only, but most companies stay reasonably in the realm of this formula. Sonia Kashuk however, is just attempting to go crazy with her $3/gram in a drugstore formula. MAC Studio Tech is less than that!!! (although they test on animals)***
.jpg "Sonia Kashuk Undetectable Foundation Stick Review Swatches")
.jpg "Sonia Kashuk Undetectable Foundation Stick Review Swatches") |
.jpg "Sonia Kashuk Undetectable Foundation Stick Review and Swatches")
Please don't open makeup that you haven't paid for. You can usually return things if they're not your shade. By opening makeup you won't buy, you are essentially stealing from the store--that product has to be thrown out. If you want to swatch, then pony up for the higher end brands at Ulta or Sephora. Otherwise, don't destroy things that don't belong to you.
ReplyDeleteHi Aubrie. Thanks for commenting. If you read up top you will see that I only tested sticks which were already opened.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get in to a big ethics debate with you because I do largely agree with you that opening products in drugstores is grimey, however, it simply defies logic to suggest that someone should purchase multiple products with the intention of returning one or more, when there is already an open product right in the aisle. The former scenario leaves the company with the same amount of damaged product that they would have had regardless of if I had come along, and the latter scenario (assuming one is returned), leaves the company with double the damages they would have incurred if the already "destroyed" product was swatched.
Damages vs. Returns are an ongoing debate in the retail world and one which is largely dependent on each company's buying policy. Some companies require any brands they carry to honor the stores return policy. When a return comes in, those stores will actually ship it back to the manufacturer, but those stores are becoming few & far between. It is far more common nowadays, with low manufacturing costs, and high shipping costs, to simply treat returned products the same way damaged items are treated. Those items are both scanned, and thrown away. Because that is a common practice, returning an item is exactly the same as opening it in store. CVS is a great example. If you return an item you will see that they simply scan it and toss it in the trash. At least if someone leaves an item on the shelf which has already been opened, I dont have to have this debate with myself.
Now, most stores, will purchase cosmetic on consignment. They will pay the cosmetic companies when a product sells. If the store has a return policy, the store will eat the return. If a product is damaged, it is unlikely it will sell, so the store will not have to pay for it, it will instead be sent back to the company or thrown out, like you said, The difference is, the returns cost the stores money, the damages do not. This is the most common arrangement between stores & cosmetic companies.
*Note: Sonia Kashuk is Target exclusive & likely is affected equally by damages & returns*
Sephora & department stores, have samples out for one reason only: It is much harder to convince someone to spend $50 on a foundation they havent tried. Plus, if they didn't have testeres it would be downright sinful. Cosmetic companies have high profit margins than almost any other industry, and high end brands typically have very similar costs to low end brands, The only difference is volume.
Their are so many true victims because of our demand for beauty. The animals we test on, the animal's who by-products we steal, the rain forests & environments we destroy. There are certainly many avenues I would suggest advocating for if you are looking for a cause to take up. The cosmetic companies on the other hand, the ones who kill the animals, put carcinogens on our faces, and rake in $80 billion dollars a year in pure profit, well, they arent the easiest to paint as innocent victims.
Aubrie,
DeleteIf I Was concerned enough about your comments to edit my post, wouldn't the logical thing have been for me to just delete your comments as well and put the whole thing to rest?
It sounds like your store has excellent customer service and has stood by Targets original return policy, and there are a few of those left, however the official return policy changed a few years ago. the new policy states that items have to be unopened to be returned & many stores will only accept cosmetics if they have caused a reaction. you can google targets new return policy for more information but your store is not standard for the country.
I would imagine that it is frusterating as an employee to have customers destroy the store. there is absolutely no excuse for idle destruction & mural painting, and no excuse for opening products in a store like yours which accepts returns. your resentment towards such behavior is a far better reason for protest than saying its "theft" & victimizing cosmetic companies.
I feel much more sympathy for the employees who are left to clean up a needless mess than the owners of the products, even though the employees are getting paid.
as a consumer I also find it extremely upsetting when things are opened, but only if its the last item & packaged poorly or they have opened 4 of the same item. As the person who damages these items out, why don't you suggest after damaging them out, perhaps leaving them on the floor w/out a UPC? that wouldd cost Target $0 additionally and if customers had a tester to try it would likely end the cycle.
As for making cosmetic companies the victim, I too, find this to be an outlandish stretch but that has been your entire argument when you refer to "theft."
Theft is simply one person/group stealing from another person/group. the former is the theif and the latter is the victim. if the cosmetic companies own the product (&most do), they are the alleged victim. if target stores were indepently owned & franchaised than it would be different but they're not.
Maybe I'm an immoral scumbag, but I would much rather see the single mother of two who genuinely wants to make a purchase, open a product in a store to test it than have to waste 3% of her weeks pay on a product she can't use & can't return, (which is the case at most Target stores.)
That's just my stance on it. It sucks that your store failed to adopt target's new, nationally applied & barely legal policies & is still reaping the repercussions but you're store is not the normal. if you are that worried about it, I would make sure every customer knows they can return an item, although that just costs target money instead of the manufacturer....
These are just my thoughts. I think I'm physically incapable of feeling sympathy for cosmetic companies, and aside from foolishly hoping for direct, upfront, non-sneaky sales tactics designed to trick the average consumer, I have nothing to gain from anything I've said.
Love the review AND the comment. Here here!
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for your kind words!
DeleteI am absolutely on board with trying ones that have already been opened for the above reasons (saving resources and time and the company's $). And drugstores should take a hint and have testers on hand, anyways. It's absurd anyone walks out of a store unsure if they have bought the right colors. They have enough trouble with product performance as it is.
ReplyDelete