Connect with us

News

China’s start-ups take on big global beauty brands

Published

on

China’s start-ups take on big global beauty brands

When Chinese student Yeva Zhang first started to dabble in make-up, she only had eyes for “Japanese and South Korean brands” but now the 18-year-old student has stocked her “vanity case with Chinese ones”.

Tempted to buy by social media advertisements and livestreamers, she says she can “hardly tell the difference” between cheaper local brands and some of the biggest names in global beauty.

Local companies are nipping at the heels of global names such as L’Oréal, Estée Lauder and Shiseido in China, the world’s second-biggest beauty market by sales. Their savvy use of social media and concentration on less affluent cities overlooked by foreign firms has helped them gain ground.

Domestic labels’ share of 40 top beauty brands’ online sales in China rose to 47.9 per cent in the first 10 months of 2023 from 43.6 per cent a year earlier, according to data from Euromonitor. It forecasts that China’s colour cosmetics market, which includes products such as foundations, lipsticks and nail polishes, will hit Rmb111.3bn ($15.6bn) in 2028, up from Rmb71.6bn in 2022. 

“It is the best of times for Chinese brands, as consumers’ level of openness for them has never been higher,” said Miro Li, founder of Shenzhen-based marketing consultancy Double V Consulting.  

Advertisement

TikTok’s Chinese app “Douyin has successfully approached a wider range of consumers, particularly younger people in lower-tier cities, who are out of reach of traditional ecommerce sites such as Tmall”, said Stefan Huang, head of strategy at Shanghai-based Joy Group, which is backed by General Atlantic and owns two local cosmetics brands — Judydoll and Joocyee.

“A number of foreign companies didn’t catch up with the trend, but Chinese brands did,” he said. L’Oréal, for example, only started ramping up its marketing on Douyin in 2023. 

Sales on social media are set to become even more important, with Goldman Sachs calculating that a combined 37.5 per cent of China’s total ecommerce cosmetics transactions will take place on Douyin and its rival Kuaishou in 2025, up from 25 per cent in 2021. 

“Many foreign brands, including [those in] cosmetics, took a hit during the zero-Covid years as many decision makers based outside of China became increasingly disconnected to a fast-changing China,” said Mark Tanner, managing director of Shanghai-based branding agency China Skinny.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

The other advantage local companies have on foreign brands is domestic marketing teams and close access to factories, said Huang.

“If I spot a lipstick shade that is losing momentum or a new trend that is about to take off, I can get to the factory within two hours and adjust the production within a month,” said Huang. “It normally takes a foreign brand four to six months to respond [to consumer preferences change].”

There is still room for foreign brands to grow. Shiseido, which made 26.4 per cent of its sales in China in the first half of 2023, said in a written reply that it would increase its investments in both “promotional activities” and “brand value building” in China. Estée Lauder and L’Oréal did not respond to a request for comment. 

L’Oréal’s sales in North Asia, which is dominated by China, totalled €11.3bn in 2022, about a third of its sales that year, and up 6.6 per cent year-on-year despite harsh zero Covid lockdowns denting sales in the last quarter. Their premium luxury division in China in particular has been steadily gaining market share. Though sales in their most recent quarter in North Asia declined 4.8 per cent compared with the previous year due to changes to China’s rules about offshore daigou shopping, in the mainland they grew 7.7 per cent over the period.

You are seeing a snapshot of an interactive graphic. This is most likely due to being offline or JavaScript being disabled in your browser.

Advertisement

“We’ve gained very strong market share for luxury in China. The anecdote is that right now we have a market share for L’Oréal luxury in mainland China, which is above 30 per cent which is equal to the sum of its two next contenders — which is not bad,” L’Oréal chief executive Nicolas Hieronimus told the Financial Times in an interview last year.

Even as Chinese cosmetic companies gain ground, they risk becoming trapped in a “vicious cycle” of being a cheap substitute for foreign brands, said Li from Double V Consulting.

Florasis, a Hangzhou-based cosmetics start-up and the country’s largest local beauty brand with a 6.8 per cent market share, has made some inroads into the premium market. It has been helped in part by influencers such as Li Jiaqi, known as the “lipstick king”. But it suffered a backlash last year after livestreamer Li criticised a viewer for not earning enough to buy Florasis’s eyebrow pencil worth Rmb79. He later apologised.

The company says its prices are justified by its more than Rmb10bn investment into R&D infrastructure and high-cost packaging. “There’s no copycat of us in the market because it’s too expensive to make [our products],” said Gabby Chen, president of global expansion at Florasis.

Florasis hopes to replicate its formula of vast social media presence and traditional Chinese motifs in overseas markets including the US, Japan and south-east Asia. Joy Group has also set up operations in countries including Japan, Malaysia and Canada. 

“They have been raised in China’s hyper-competitive marketplace” so they may have an advantage in a “slower moving marketplace abroad”, said Tanner from China Skinny. “We saw this with [fast fashion brand] Shein, which didn’t do anything special by Chinese standards . . . There is no reason Chinese beauty brands couldn’t do this too.” 

Advertisement

Additional reporting by Adrienne Klasa in Paris

News

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

Published

on

US planning to seize Iran-linked ships in coming days, WSJ says | The Jerusalem Post

The US is planning to board and seize Iran-linked oil tankers and commercial ships in the coming days, according to a Saturday report by The Wall Street Journal.

The report noted that these actions would take place in international waters, potentially outside of the Middle East.

The US “will actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran,” US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine said. “This includes dark fleet vessels carrying Iranian oil.”

“As most of you know, dark fleet vessels are those illicit or illegal ships evading international regulations, sanctions, or insurance requirements,” Caine continued.

Caine was further quoted as saying that the new campaign, which would be operated in part by the US Indo-Pacific Command, would be part of a broader US President Donald Trump-led campaign against Iran, known as “Economic Fury.”

Advertisement

 White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told the WSJ that Trump was “optimistic” that the new measures would lead to a peace deal.

The potential US military action comes as Iran tightens its grip on the Strait of Hormuz, including attacking several ships earlier on Saturday, the WSJ reported.

The report cited CENTCOM as saying that the US has already turned back 23 ships trying to leave Iranian ports since the start of its blockade on the Strait.

The expansion of naval action beyond the Middle East will provide the US with further leverage against Iran by allowing it to take control of a greater number of ships loaded with oil or weapons bound for Iran, the report noted.

“It’s a maximalist approach,” said associate professor of law at Emory University Law School Mark Nevitt. “If you want to put the screws down on Iran, you want to use every single legal authority you have to do that.”

Advertisement

Iran claimed earlier on Saturday that it had regained military control over the Strait, intending to hold it until the US guarantees full freedom of movement for ships traveling to and from Iran.

“As long as the United States does not ensure full freedom of navigation for vessels traveling to and from Iran, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz will remain tightly controlled,” the Iranian military stated.

In addition, Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei declared on Saturday in an apparent message on his Telegram channel that the Iranian navy is prepared to inflict “new bitter defeats” on its enemies.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Published

on

Video: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

new video loaded: The Origins of the Supreme Court’s Shadow Docket

Secret memos obtained by The New York Times illuminate the origins of the Supreme Court’s shadow docket. Our reporter Jodi Kantor explains what these documents reveal about the court.

By Jodi Kantor, Alexandra Ostasiewicz, June Kim and Luke Piotrowski

April 18, 2026

Continue Reading

News

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

Published

on

What’s it like to negotiate with Iran? We asked people who have done it

A Pakistani Ranger walks past a billboard for the U.S.-Iran peace talks in Islamabad on April 12, 2026. The talks, led by Vice President JD Vance, produced no concrete movement toward a peace deal.

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Advertisement

Farooq Naeem/AFP via Getty Images

Despite stalled talks with Iran and a fragile ceasefire nearing its end, President Trump expressed optimism this week that a permanent deal is within reach — one that may include Iran relinquishing its enriched uranium. However, experts who spent months negotiating a nuclear agreement during the Obama administration say mutual mistrust, starkly different negotiating styles make a quick truce unlikely.

Referring to Vice President Vance’s whirlwind negotiations in Islamabad last week that appear to have produced little beyond dashed expectations, Wendy Sherman, the lead U.S. negotiator on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal finalized in 2015, says the administration’s approach was all wrong.

“You cannot do a negotiation with Iran in one day,” she told NPR’s Here & Now earlier this week. “You can’t even do it in a week.” To get agreement on the JCPOA, she said, it took “a good 18 months.”

Advertisement

The talks leading to that deal highlighted Iran’s meticulous style of negotiation, says Rob Malley, who was also part of the JCPOA negotiating team and later served as a special envoy to Iran under President Joe Biden.

Summing up the two sides’ differing styles, Malley said: “Trump is impulsive and temperamental; Iran’s leadership [is] stubborn and tenacious.”

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry speaks during a news conference on the Iran nuclear talks deal at the Austria International Centre in Vienna, Austria on July 14, 2015.

Pool/AFP via Getty Images


hide caption

Advertisement

toggle caption

Pool/AFP via Getty Images

In 2015, patience led to a deal

The talks in 2015, led by Secretary of State John Kerry and Iran’s Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, culminated with a marathon 19-day session in Vienna to finish the deal, says Jon Finer, a former U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Biden administration. Finer was involved in the negotiations as Kerry’s chief of staff. He said his boss’s patience “was a huge asset” in getting the deal to the finish line, he said.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister during the negotiations for the Obama-era nuclear deal, speaks on April 22, 2016 in New York.

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement


hide caption

toggle caption

AFP/via Getty Images

Advertisement

“He would endure lectures … ‘let me tell you about 5,000 years of Iranian civilization’… and just keep plowing ahead,” Finer said, adding that a tactic of Iranian negotiators seemed to be “to say no to everything and see what actually matters” to the U.S.

“They’re just maddeningly difficult,” he said. “You need to go back at the same issue 10 or 12 times over weeks or months to make any progress.”

Even so, Finer called the Iranian negotiators “extremely capable” — noting that, unlike the U.S., they often lacked expert advisers “just outside the room,” yet still mastered the details of nuclear weapons, nuclear materials and U.S. sanctions.

“They were also negotiating not in their first language,” Finer added. “The documents were all negotiated in English, and they were hundreds of pages long with detailed annexes.”

Vance’s trip to Islamabad suggests that the U.S. doesn’t have the patience for a negotiation to end the conflict that could be at least as complex and time-consuming. “The Trump administration came in with maximalist demands and actually just wanted Iran to capitulate,” Sherman, who served as deputy secretary of state during the Biden administration, told Here & Now. “No nation – even one as odious as the Iran regime – is going to capitulate.”

Advertisement

Distrust but verify

Iran was attacked twice in the past year. First in June of last year, as nuclear negotiations were ongoing, Israel and the U.S. struck the country’s nuclear facilities. Months later, at the end of February, Iran was attacked again at the start of the latest conflict. This time around, “the level of trust is probably almost at an all-time low,” Malley said.

“It’s hard for them to take at their word what they’re hearing from U.S. officials,” Malley said. The Iranians, he said, have to be wondering how long any commitment will last and “will be very hesitant to give up something that’s tangible” – such as their enriched uranium – in exchange for anything that isn’t ironclad or subject to suddenly be discarded by Trump or some future president.

“Once they give up their stockpile … they can’t recapture it the next day,” Malley said.

Even during the 2013-2015 nuclear deal talks, the decades of mistrust between Tehran and Washington were impossible to ignore, Finer said. “Our theory was not trust but verify — it was distrust but verify,” he said, adding: “I think that was their theory too.”

Malley cautions about relying on the JCPOA as a guide to how peace talks to end the current war might go. The leadership in Tehran that agreed to the deal is now gone — killed in Israeli airstrikes, he says. The regime’s military capabilities are also greatly diminished and “whatever lessons were learned in the past … have to be viewed with a lot of caution, because so much has changed,” he said.

Advertisement

Negotiations have a leveling effect

Mark Freeman, executive director of the Institute for Integrated Transitions, a peace and security think tank based in Spain that advises on conflict negotiations, says several factors shape the U.S.-Iran relationship. Going into talks, one side always has the upper hand, he says, but negotiations have a leveling effect. “The weaker party gains just by virtue of entering into a negotiation process,” he said.

Each side is looking for leverage, he adds.

In Iran’s case, it has used its closure of the Strait of Hormuz to exert such leverage, while the White House has shown an eagerness to resolve the conflict quickly. “If one side perceives the other needs an agreement more … that shapes the entire negotiation,” he said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending