Glow’s stockkeeping units consist of a 1.7-oz. eau de toilette for $39.50, a 3.4-oz. eau de toilette for $53, a $25 body lotion and a $20 shower gel. Still’s price points could be significantly higher than those of Glow, although its sizes and ancillaries are expected to be similar.
At least in early versions of Still’s ad, Lopez was more covered-up than she had been in ads for Glow. The visual for Glow featured Lopez’s ostensibly nude body — complete with a steamed-up outline of that famous derriere — in the shower.
The ad for Still contains a more elegant Lopez, clothed this time. The advertising positioning is one of high glamour, with a very blonde Lopez leaning into the frame.
“I looked at it and saw Marilyn Monroe,” said one retailer, who said she was concerned by the parallel. “It’s very pinup-y,”she said, adding that it’s quite possible that Still could outsell Glow. The biggest problem with the first fragrance, she added, was staying in stock. “For all the business we did, we could have done more.”
Keeping the popular Glow in stock has proven to be a challenge for a number of retailers, especially right after its launch last fall. Beetz said in December that, while it was a challenge to keep up with demand, it was a nice problem to have.
A not-so-nice problem the original scent is facing, however, is a lawsuit filed last August by Glow Industries, the Los Angeles-based beauty brand owned by Terri Williamson. The suit, which alleged trademark infringement, trademark dilution and federal, California statutory and common-law unfair competition, had not been settled at press time, although a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was scheduled on the calendar of the Hon. Margaret Morrow in the U.S. District Court, Central Division of California, Monday. Results were not available at press time and calls to Williamson’s attorney and the court had not been returned.