The Lipstick Lesbians: A Study on Innovation vs. Success

The only thing they innovated was rebranding market research to make a profit

Substack: https://junkdrawercommentary.substack.com/

We have breaking news: a new influencer makeup brand has launched, and as promised, it comes with all of the messiness you expect. In the pursuit of individuality and innovation, The Lipstick Lesbians have seemingly lost the plot. The once-beloved content creators, known for their thoughtful makeup reviews and recommendations, have built a following of over 1.2 million on TikTok based on educating their viewers about the behind-the-scenes of the beauty industry. As with most beauty influencers, they thought they could create a brand to “fill a hole in the market,” and that went just as badly as everyone expected.

Alexis Androulakis and Dr. Christina Basias-Androulakis have been together for over a decade. In 2023, they decided to create a TikTok page, The Lipstick Lesbians, to give viewers insights into the beauty industry, recommendations, and tutorials. Alexis has more than 17 years of experience in product development and uses her knowledge to share how products are created, designed, and developed. Christina has a PhD in education and uses her background to make the beauty world more accessible and understandable for all. Together, they are committed to pulling back the curtain on the beauty community, and as expected, many people were excited for this new perspective

Their strategy of being selective with brand deals and product promotion, along with their honest reviews, has not only given them a massive following but also an immense trust between them and their audience. And this had only further secured their long-term success and led to the creation of their brand, Leaked Labs, and as most influencer brands go, this is where the problems started.

Before I get into the brand launch, I want to make one thing clear: this is a critique of their brand rollout, not them as people. The focus here is Leaked Labs, specifically their strategy and product decisions. This is not an attack on these women personally, and I want to be very clear: I will not tolerate any hate directed at them based on their gender or sexuality. The criticism remains focused on the brand, not personal identity. Please keep that in mind when engaging with this piece. With that said, let’s get into it.

On February 27th, 2026, The Lipstick Lesbians announced the launch of Leaked Labs. The brand was advertised as a home for innovation, where Alexis and Christina would bring unreleased “innovative” products to consumers in “leaks.” According to their process, their network of chemists and innovators would develop experimental formulas using “never-before-seen technology,” then they would release the product to consumers in limited quantities, consumers would purchase and evaluate the product via surveys, and based on that feedback, they would determine where these formulas go next (if it becomes a mainstream product or remains a limited item).

​Something important to remember is that most of the time, brands do not have their own labs. In most cases, labs create a product and shop it around to see if a major brand picks it up. That is essentially what is happening here: Alexis and Christina are going around to labs, learning about products and attempting to sell the ones they find to be innovative.

The first leak dropped on March 6th, 2026, and the product went viral, for all the wrong reasons. They released their Amplify Flexi Powder, advertised as a water/setting spray-activated powder disk. This product was made to be picked up and directly applied to the face as eyeshadow, highlighter, or anything else you can do with a regular eyeshadow. It retailed for $34 USD and has four shades in a tin.

While some were excited, the tides quickly turned once customers started receiving the product. The complaints ranged from the brand strategy to the price and even the quality. Now this is a lot, this whole rollout has been a disaster and trust me, the response is no better.

​Beginning with the brand concept. Alexis and Christina marketed their brand as very consumer-focused, where the customer determines the fate of a given product. To many, this sounded familiar, almost like market research. When most brands release a product, they pay product testers to test the product and give them feedback, which they use to make necessary changes to the product before it hits store shelves.

Leaked Labs is essentially making customers pay to do market research. Their followers and makeup lovers alike are paying $34 to be a part of this “unique experience,” where they have “control” over where this product goes through feedback. This feedback is equivalent to a product tester reviewing a product and a brand taking that feedback into consideration before releasing the product in its final form.

Some may argue that this is simply a company taking customer reviews into consideration. You can believe that if it helps you sleep at night, but when a brand releases sample-sized products and states that consumer feedback is determining their future, it’s market research. The only difference is that the customer is paying to test these products, which is ridiculous.​

As a brand, you cannot use your audience to guarantee success. You cannot sell them experimental formulas and then force them to make the decisions for you. I understand wanting your audience involved in the process, but why approach it like this? They could have easily involved their followers in a focus group, where they are compensated for testing the products and giving feedback. Instead, they chose to profit off of their audience and use them to do the work they do not want to pay for.

If they wanted to take a risk and do what no brand has done before, why not release the full-size products? If they were so confident in these innovative products, then they should have been willing to come out and say, “Hey, we thought this was innovative and decided to take a risk and bring it to the market.” Even if it failed, people would have appreciated that more than whatever this is.

Moving deeper into the storm of detrimental decisions, why are they charging $34 for four shadows? An experimental product should not be sold for that much. They claim you can get roughly 70 uses out of each shadow, but when the product looks like thin sample-sized sheets, it’s hard to believe they’ll last that long. And when you are paying this much for innovation, you should be getting a sure thing that has already gone through rounds of market research and testing to ensure you are getting quality.

If you take a look at other brands, they sell similar shades for much cheaper; you can’t pick them up and wipe them on your face, but I think you can give that up to save some money. ELF Cosmetics sells its 10 shade palette for $14. On the higher end, Dior sells a 9 shade palette for $70, while Tarte’s 12 shade palette goes for $68. So, who would you pay $34 for for a sample-size product that has no clear direction, when you could spend your hard-earned money on a more reliable product? Consumers deserve better, especially with the current socio-economic state of the world.

Now, price isn’t everything; if the product delivers, people will overlook it. But alas, as the reviews started rolling in, it became clear that this was not the case. Numerous reviews went viral on social media with influencers, makeup artists, and everyday makeup lovers coming to the same conclusion: it’s not worth it.

Their complaints ranged from sanitation to shade range and quality. People didn’t hold back, and honestly, why would they? When you spend your hard-earned money on a product from creators you trust, and it falls short, criticism is more than fair; it’s expected.

Cleanliness and sanitation are clear concerns when a product is living on your face. The Flexi Powders come stacked on top of each other in a small tin. Considering that this product’s key feature is its versatility, being able to be picked up and rubbed on your face, people began to question its formula for preventing bacterial growth. Alexis and Christina did address this in a TikTok where they had a chemist explain how the product was designed with preservatives that prevent bacterial growth. Despite this, people were rightfully skeptical.

When you have a product that is designed to be picked up, sprayed with water/setting spray and stored in a small container, there has to be some room for bacteria to build a home. And I’m not the only one to think this, as many makeup artists have taken to TikTok to question the cleanliness of these powders.

Early in the rollout, professional makeup artist Jocelyn (@smilingjoce) described the powders as “not MUA-friendly.” She explained that most cosmetology and salon boards would not approve them for client use, as simply relying on built-in preservatives is not considered an acceptable sanitation practice. In a professional setting, that explanation wouldn’t pass inspection; it would get you shut down immediately.

I’m sure the keyboard warriors will argue these products are meant for everyday makeup users, but that raises a bigger question: if they wouldn’t meet professional or regulatory standards, why should the average consumer feel comfortable using them?

Even if you overlook the price and sanitation concerns, you’re still left with the most important question: Is the product actually good? Based on the flood of reviews across social media, the answer seems to be no. From shade range to pigment to overall quality, the issues are endless.

MannyMUA, a popular beauty influencer, reviewed the Flexi Powders, and even though he is a friend of The Lipstick Lesbians, he couldn’t put a positive spin on these new “innovations.” He began his review with a critique of the price, stating that it was “a little pricey for just four shadows.” He went on to question the packaging and why the products were stacked on top of one another. But the real complaints came when he actually used the products. He reported that he had to press very hard to get any pigment when the product was dry, and when it was wet, he claimed that the dry side actually offered more pigment, which is a problem because the product was advertised as a “more pigmented when wet” situation. Final thoughts painted the product as gimmicky and overall not worth it.

And he’s not the only one, as many TikTok users took to the internet to share their opinions on the product. Another user, Monica (monica.raviii on TikTok), shared her unique perspective as a woman of colour in the beauty space (Queen). She raised concerns about the limited shade range of the Flexi Powders, stating that she was curious about how it would look on darker skin. Monica said that the gold shade was her favourite as it looked good on her skin tone. However, when she swatched the other shades, they did not appear as pigmented on her skin as advertised. Monica said that she likes innovation in the beauty space, but this product simply was not practical.

This raises a concern about alienating some of your audience since the shade range limits who can use the product. If darker skin tones are only compatible with one shade, what’s the point of spending your money on this product? If you’re releasing a product, at least make it accessible to all; being an “early access leak” is not an excuse to be exclusive and incompetent.

On top of this, you have friends and the beauty community willing to forgo your friendship and influence to be honest and critical of your product. Usually, you’ll see the community rally around a new influencer brand, regardless of the quality. But when they take it upon themselves to stand up and say, “This is bad,” it tells me that there are no redeeming qualities. At this point, you have to look in the mirror and confront the problem: your product. Instead of doing this, Alexis and Christina took a page out of the influencer playbook and went on the defensive in their update/response.

As with most backlash, an influencer’s apology quickly follows. Your favourite controversial creator pulls out the apology starter pack, throws on a hoodie, wipes off the makeup, and gets ready to cry if necessary. It’s a whole production, and this situation is no different.

Alexis and Christina chose to film their apology in an airport, looking as dishevelled as possible. And before we even get into what they said, it’s worth addressing what this setup is meant to do.

In many cases, influencers believe that showing up unpolished creates the illusion of authenticity. The problem is that this trick has been done to death. Viewers know the formula. At this point, it doesn’t feel genuine; it feels rehearsed. When your “authenticity” starts to look like a calculated decision, it stops working before the video even begins. And this is made worse when the content of your video only serves to defend yourself instead of addressing valid criticism.

In their video, the first thing they choose to “address” is their absence from the internet. They claim that they have “disappeared” due to a conference for beauty innovation. Their excuses quickly fell apart as they were still posting content, and they had enough control to determine when their brand would launch. If you know you won’t have the time or capacity to respond to feedback, then launching a product, especially one that relies so heavily on consumer input, makes no sense. It comes across as poor planning at best, and avoidance at worst.

They go on to explain the purpose of their brand, like we haven’t heard it a million times. And this only makes it seem like they believe that their customers are stupid. They felt the need to essentially say, “Just to be clear, we’re going to explain the brand to you nice and slow.” Everyone knows what you want to do; it’s all “innovation.” What people wanted was an explanation. They wanted these influencers that they put their trust in to do what they claimed they were going to do, address concerns as they come up and listen to their audience, not sit there and explain their brand to us like we don’t get it.

When they were done listing their credentials and brand goals, they finally moved to addressing the criticism, starting with the price (three minutes into the video, by the way). Alexis, who took the lead in this video, claims that “the most innovative formulas cost the most until there are brands, other suppliers, and tools created to make it lower in cost.”

While that may be generally true, it does not address the issue at hand. People understand that innovation comes with a hefty price tag; their real issue is that Leaked Labs was marketed as accessible experimental beauty, and selling four little eyeshadow sheets for $34 does not align with that brand goal.

If a brand’s identity is tied to innovation with consumer input, pricing plays a major role. You cannot market accessibility and brand participation while simultaneously putting up a barrier to access. This creates a conflicting message between your products and brand identity. So no, a simple “it’s just the way it is” is not enough as far as explanations go.

Their dismissive attitudes continued to persist throughout the video when they addressed rumours that they were selling the data they were collecting from reviews to other companies. When your brand is built on listening to consumer feedback, I would assume that you would take more than 30 seconds to address something as important as this. Instead, Christina simply said, “It’s not true,” and they moved on.

I find this response to be disrespectful, because your customers put their trust in you, and when you simply deny selling their data with no further explanation, it only serves to show them that you don’t care about feedback as much as you claim to. Maybe next time they should explain what they’re doing with the data they collect instead of running away from the topic.

The rest of the video is them promising transparency and going into a word salad about their brand and “journey” in the beauty industry; they even pulled out the final tool in the apology starter kit and got emotional, but that doesn’t change anything.

At the end of the day, you can make all of the promises you want, but they don’t mean anything if you aren’t willing to take a step back and truly address the concerns of your audience. Their video seemed more like a “you don’t get it, let me explain,” instead of a video truly addressing the response to their brand. They invalidated everyone’s opinions with their dismissive demeanour because they want to control everything about the brand, including public perception. But you cannot simply lecture people and expect them to see your perspective. At some point, you have to turn down the volume on your ego and listen to people, you know, like your brand claims you do. Because a brand cannot survive like this, you can be passionate about makeup and innovation, but that means nothing if you cannot deliver. And the Lipstick Lesbians will let ignorance get in their way until they destroy themselves.

Leaked Labs is just another instalment in the world of influencer makeup brands. Everyone thinks they’re doing something different; they want to stand out, but maybe the status quo is the norm for a reason. While most can understand seeing something that others don’t, at some point, you have to ask yourself, “ Is it worth it? Are you willing to risk the trust your audience has in you? Can you truly handle the criticism? And can you put your ego aside when you have to? Because at some point, your credibility disappears when each response feels like a correction rather than a reflection. Whether it’s pricing, product design, or communication, the pattern points to two creators who believe they understand their audience better than the audience understands itself. And that kind of approach rarely ages well.

P.S: Alexis has posted a new video. She talked about pausing Leaked Labs for the past few weeks so they could take in all the feedback and make necessary changes. They are currently preparing for their next product release. And that’s about all I got from that, trust me, most of it was the typical word salad and over-explanation.

Thank you for reading!

Sources:

ELF Cosmetics. “Perfect 10 Eyeshadow Palette.” E.l.f. Cosmetics, 2024, www.elfcosmetics.com/en_CA/perfect-10-eyeshadow-palette/300224.html. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Jocelyn. “TikTok - Smilingjoce.” Tiktok.com, 2026, www.tiktok.com/@smilingjoce/video/7617536940039998733?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7600106738884920848. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Leaked Labs. “Leaked Labs.” Leakedlabs.com, 2026, leakedlabs.com/pages/about.

Mac Cosmetics. “Connect in Colour Eye Shadow Palette: Embedded in Burgundy.” MAC Cosmetics, 2026, www.maccosmetics.ca/product/13835/115812/products/makeup/eyes/eye-palettes-kits/connect-in-colour-eye-shadow-palette-embedded-in-burgundy?size=6.25_g_. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Ravi-Conway, Monica . “TikTok - Monica.Raviii.” Tiktok.com, 2026, www.tiktok.com/@monica.raviii/video/7618295240583122207?is_from_webapp=1&sender_device=pc&web_id=7600106738884920848. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Shatzman, Celia . “The Lipstick Lesbians Are Turning the Beauty Industry on Its Head with Leaked Labs.” Forbes, Forbes, 2026, www.forbes.com/sites/celiashatzman/2026/03/06/the-lipstick-lesbians-are-turning-the-beauty-industry-on-its-head-with-leaked-labs/ . Accessed 2026.

The Lipstick Lesbians. “TikTok - the Lipstick Lesbians.” Tiktok.com, 2026, www.tiktok.com/@thelipsticklesbians/video/7623791926193556749. Accessed 6 May 2026.

---. “Unlocking the Science of Beauty: The Lisptick Lesbian’s.” Thelipsticklesbians.com, 2026, www.thelipsticklesbians.com/. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Vilensky, Sophie. “There’s No Gatekeeping with the Lipstick Lesbians’ New Brand.” Byrdie, 2026, www.byrdie.com/lipstick-lesbians-leaked-labs-launch-11919408. Accessed 6 May 2026.

Werner, Kaleigh. “The Leaked Labs Controversy Explained.” WWD, 24 Apr. 2026, wwd.com/pop-culture/culture-news/lipstick-lesbians-leaked-labs-controversy-1238929040/.