The New York Times published not long ago an article that tried to probe Leonard Lauder's theory of how patterns in lipstick buying could forecast an economic downturn :

But the next day at Sephora, she made a substitute purchase. "I could buy one or two lipsticks for about $40," she said. "That's far less than $280."

Ms. Stein's rationale for buying lipstick echoes a theory once proposed by Leonard Lauder, the chairman of Estée Lauder Companies.

After the terrorist attacks of 2001 deflated the economy, Mr. Lauder noticed that his company was selling more lipstick than usual. He hypothesized that lipstick purchases are a way to gauge the economy. When it's shaky, he said, sales increase as women boost their mood with inexpensive lipstick purchases instead of $500 slingbacks.

The article actually revolves around the push for lipsticks that several companies are making in order to cash in Lauder's theory. Now, it's left me pondering several things :

1. How women's common shopping patterns are usually NOT part of the leading economic indicators that show the health and wealth of an economy.

2. I find interesting how they are putting importance on the psychology of compulsive buying to show how consumers not necessarily spend disposable income but justify using some of their income as disposable.

3. Related to point #1, wouldn't it actually be logical to see shopping patterns for fashion "basics" : jeans, t-shirts, cardigans and jackets, little black dresses, skits and slacks. Then correlate that to seasonal accessories? If times are hard, women are going to spend money on basics they can fashion up with accessories, not with pieces that'll go out of style in a few months.

4. Last but not least, I would have thought gloss was an indicator of further economic downturn since you can use lipgloss to extend the life of a tube of lipstick. So the more lipgloss bought, I would have assumed that the worse the economic conditions.

What do y'all think?