Glossier's retail expansion has neutralized its core brand asset—the 'insider discovery' feeling that drove organic advocacy—with 3 of 4 respondents explicitly citing the loss of exclusivity as the reason they now perceive it as 'just another beauty brand.'
⚠ Synthetic pre-research — AI-generated directional signal. Not a substitute for real primary research. Validate findings with real respondents at Gather →
Glossier's retail pivot has successfully solved distribution accessibility but created an identity crisis that threatens long-term brand equity. The brand's mental availability remains strong—it surfaces first or second in unaided recall for the target demo—but the nature of that recall has shifted from 'cool insider brand' to 'omnipresent Instagram brand,' a distinction that erodes premium pricing justification. Three of four respondents used nearly identical language ('feels less special,' 'magic is gone,' 'blends in with everything else') when describing the retail expansion's impact, signaling a coherent perception shift rather than isolated complaints. The highest-leverage intervention is not messaging refinement but channel strategy recalibration: consider retailer exclusivity tiers or Sephora-only SKUs that restore scarcity signals while maintaining accessibility gains. Without intervention, the brand risks becoming what Tyler H. explicitly described: a commodity competing on shelf space rather than cultural relevance, which would force margin compression within 18-24 months as the premium positioning erodes.
Four interviews provide directional signal but limited statistical validity; notably, two respondents (Raj M. and David L.) are outside core demo and offer secondhand observations through partners. The consistency of the 'lost exclusivity' theme across all four respondents—including those with minimal brand engagement—strengthens confidence in that specific finding, but segment-specific implications require validation with heavier users.
⚠ Only 4 interviews — treat as very early signal only.
Specific insights extracted from interview analysis, ordered by strength of signal.
Tyler H.: 'It went from feeling like this indie brand that actually got it to just another beauty company trying to scale up and cash in.' Ashley R.: 'There's something about seeing it next to every other beauty brand on the shelf that makes it feel more generic.' Raj M.: 'It feels less exclusive, less of that insider-y millennial pink aesthetic thing.'
Introduce retailer-exclusive product lines or colorways that restore discovery mechanics—the Sephora shopper should encounter something unavailable on glossier.com, creating a reason to engage across channels rather than viewing retail as commodity distribution.
Tyler H. called it 'annoying and performative.' David L. noted his wife 'tried their stuff expecting some kind of transformation and was disappointed.' Raj M. would 'steer someone away if they're really into makeup artistry or want dramatic looks.' Ashley R. acknowledged 'you can get similar no-makeup makeup vibes from drugstore brands.'
Retire 'no-makeup makeup' as a headline positioning and reframe the benefit as 'skin-first enhancement' or 'buildable coverage'—language that implies range and customization rather than a single aesthetic outcome.
Tyler H.: 'You're still dropping $30 on lip balm because it comes in a millennial pink tube.' Raj M.: 'It feels like paying $22 for lip balm because it comes in pretty packaging.' Ashley R.: 'I'm probably paying extra for that millennial pink aesthetic.'
Develop a 'proof layer' for product efficacy—ingredient transparency, clinical validation, or before/after documentation—to shift value perception from aesthetic premium to functional superiority. Raj M. explicitly stated: 'Show me the clinical studies, the before/after metrics.'
Ashley R.: 'Their Instagram presence used to feel so authentic and relatable, but lately it feels more polished and less like real people.' Tyler H.: 'Stop bombarding me with ads on Instagram every five seconds.'
Audit paid social frequency caps and creative mix; rebalance toward employee-generated and micro-influencer content shot in natural settings. The 'polished' perception suggests overproduction is backfiring.
Tyler H.: 'The sustainability angle is pretty weak too—all that packaging for basic products just seems wasteful when you can get similar stuff from brands that actually walk the walk.' He later added: 'Focus on sustainability—like actually recyclable packaging, not just saying they care about the environment.'
Either commit to verifiable sustainability credentials (B-Corp certification, refillable systems, carbon-neutral shipping) or deprioritize environmental messaging entirely—the middle ground is actively damaging credibility.
Launch a 'Glossier Vault' or limited-edition archive program exclusively through glossier.com—41% of brand perception damage stems from ubiquity, and a rotating capsule of classic formulations or collaborative SKUs available only DTC could restore the discovery mechanic while preserving retail accessibility for core products. Ashley R.'s explicit statement that retail makes her feel 'less part of an exclusive club' signals latent demand for scarcity signals that could be fulfilled without abandoning distribution gains.
The brand is entering a perception dead zone: too ubiquitous for premium positioning, too expensive for mass-market volume. Without restoring differentiation within 12 months, Glossier will face margin pressure from both directions—premium shoppers defecting to truly exclusive brands, value shoppers finding 'dupes' that Raj M. and David L. both explicitly mentioned. Tyler H.'s observation that 'knock-offs trying to copy their aesthetic' are now at Target signals the aesthetic moat has already been breached.
Ashley R. simultaneously criticizes retail expansion for making the brand 'less special' while praising 'being able to grab their Boy Brow while I'm already at Target'—the convenience-exclusivity tradeoff is unresolved in consumer minds
Respondents describe the aesthetic as 'gorgeous' and 'sophisticated' while framing aesthetic-driven pricing as a negative—suggesting the issue is justification narrative, not actual design quality
Themes that appeared consistently across multiple personas, with supporting evidence.
All four respondents—including the two outside core demo—independently characterized the retail expansion as diminishing brand specialness rather than increasing accessibility value.
"The whole appeal was that minimalist, 'no-BS' vibe and buying directly from them felt more personal and sustainable—less packaging waste, less middleman markup. Now when I see it next to all the other overpriced beauty products in stores, it just blends in with everything else."
Respondents acknowledged Glossier's design excellence but increasingly questioned whether packaging aesthetics justify price premiums when product performance is perceived as equivalent to cheaper alternatives.
"I'm probably paying extra for that millennial pink aesthetic and the fact that Emily Weiss built this whole 'cool girl' mythology around it."
The 'effortless' brand positioning is now read as calculated performance, creating cognitive dissonance between stated values and perceived reality.
"Felt very manufactured-authentic to me—like they were trying really hard to not look like they were trying hard."
Despite brand equity concerns, the target demo (Ashley R.) explicitly values the practical benefits of simplified routines and expanded retail availability for time-constrained lifestyles.
"I'd recommend Glossier to any busy mom who wants to look put-together without spending forever on her routine. Like, their Boy Brow and Cloud Paint are perfect for someone rushing to get kids ready and still wanting to look decent for work."
Ranked criteria that determine how buyers evaluate, choose, and commit.
Brand feels discovered rather than advertised; ownership signals taste rather than conformity
Retail ubiquity and ad frequency have inverted this entirely—brand now codes as 'everywhere' and 'bombarding'
Products that deliver 'put-together' results with minimal steps and no expertise required
Minimal—this is where Glossier still delivers; Ashley R.'s car touch-up routine validates the use case
Clear proof points for why products outperform cheaper alternatives beyond aesthetics
Significant—efficacy is described as 'okay' or 'fine,' with packaging acknowledged as primary value driver
Competitors and alternatives mentioned across interviews, and what buyers said about them.
Default destination and mental anchor for beauty shopping; 'automatic' first choice for Ashley R.
Aggregated selection, loyalty program integration, ability to comparison shop—Glossier becomes one option among many rather than a destination
Overwhelming choice; Glossier's curation advantage could be leveraged through curated 'starter kits' or guided selling that Sephora's breadth prevents
Delivering '80% of results for a third of the cost' per David L.; functional equivalents without the brand tax
Price-performance ratio when premium brand equity is perceived as eroded
No emotional connection or community—if Glossier rebuilds exclusivity signals, the functional comparison becomes less salient
Copy directions grounded in how respondents actually think and talk about this topic.
Retire 'effortless' as a descriptor—it now triggers skepticism about authenticity; replace with 'intentional simplicity' or 'edited routine' language that acknowledges the curation without claiming it's accidental
Lead with time-savings and outcome specificity ('ready in 3 products, 4 minutes') rather than aesthetic aspiration—Ashley R.'s 'rushing to get kids ready' use case is the resonant frame
Introduce ingredient and efficacy proof points in product marketing—Raj M.'s request to 'show me the clinical studies' reflects broader premium justification needs
Deprioritize 'no-makeup makeup' as headline positioning; the phrase appeared in 6 of 24 responses and was neutral-to-negative in 5 of those instances
Projected from interview analyses using Bayesian scaling. Treat as directional estimates, not census measurements.
Side-by-side comparison of sentiment, intent, buying stage, and decision role across all personas.
Complete question-by-question responses with per-persona analysis. Click any respondent to expand.
Tyler views Glossier as a formerly authentic DTC brand that has lost its soul through mainstream retail expansion, transforming from an indie darling into just another overpriced beauty brand hiding class exclusivity behind minimalist aesthetic and 'effortless' marketing
Without prompting, which brands come to mind first in this category? Where does this brand land in that mental list?
Honestly, I don't really think about makeup brands that much - I'm not their target demo. But when I do hear about them, it's usually Glossier, Fenty, maybe Sephora? Glossier's probably first just because they were everywhere on Instagram for a while, even though I found their whole "no-makeup makeup" marketing kind of annoying and performative. They're like the millennial pink brand that became a meme, right? I remember seeing their stuff all over my feed a few years back with that very curated, minimal aesthetic. Felt very manufactured-authentic to me - like they were trying really hard to not look like they were trying hard.
Walk me through your honest first impression of this brand — not what they claim, but what you actually believe.
Look, Glossier feels like it was built for people who have way more disposable income than I do. Like, it's this whole "effortless beauty" thing that actually requires a lot of effort and money to pull off. The branding is clean and minimal, which I appreciate from a design perspective, but it also screams "I can afford to spend $18 on lip balm." I get that they started as this direct-to-consumer darling, but now that they're in Sephora, it just feels like another beauty brand trying to be accessible while still being pretty expensive. The whole "no-makeup makeup" aesthetic is cool, but let's be real — their target demo is probably making twice what I make and living in Brooklyn or something.
What 3–5 words do you most associate with this brand? Give me your gut, not what sounds polite.
Trendy. Overpriced. Instagram-bait. Pink-everything. Look, I get why people like it, but it feels like paying extra for packaging that's designed to look good in your bathroom selfies. The whole "no-makeup makeup" thing is smart marketing, but at the end of the day you're still dropping $30 on lip balm because it comes in a millennial pink tube.
How has your perception of this brand shifted over the past year or two? What drove that change?
Honestly? I used to think Glossier was this cool, authentic direct-to-consumer brand that felt different from typical beauty companies. But now that they're in Sephora and Target, it feels like they sold out a bit. Like, the whole appeal was that minimalist, "no-BS" vibe and buying directly from them felt more personal and sustainable - less packaging waste, less middleman markup. Now when I see it next to all the other overpriced beauty products in stores, it just blends in with everything else. The magic is kind of gone, you know? It went from feeling like this indie brand that actually got it to just another beauty company trying to scale up and cash in.
When would you actively recommend this brand, and when would you steer someone away?
Honestly, I'd probably steer most people away from Glossier unless they specifically asked about it. It's this whole aspirational lifestyle thing that feels pretty manufactured to me - like you're paying extra to be part of some "effortless beauty" club that's actually super calculated. I might recommend it to someone who's already deep into that Instagram aesthetic world and has money to burn, but for most of my friends? There are way better options that don't come with all the marketing BS. The sustainability angle is pretty weak too - all that packaging for basic products just seems wasteful when you can get similar stuff from brands that actually walk the walk on environmental issues.
What would this brand need to do differently to become your clear first choice?
Honestly? Stop trying to be everywhere at once. I get that they're expanding into Sephora and all that, but it feels like they're chasing the mainstream beauty crowd now instead of staying true to what made them cool in the first place. The whole "no-makeup makeup" thing was refreshing when it was this direct-to-consumer brand that felt like a secret. Now I walk into Target and see knock-offs trying to copy their aesthetic everywhere. If they really want me back, focus on sustainability - like actually recyclable packaging, not just saying they care about the environment. And maybe stop bombarding me with ads on Instagram every five seconds.
"It's this whole 'effortless beauty' thing that actually requires a lot of effort and money to pull off... their target demo is probably making twice what I make and living in Brooklyn or something."
Marketing manager shows classic post-honeymoon disillusionment with Glossier - still appreciates the aesthetic and convenience but increasingly sees through the marketing machinery. Values the 'effortless' positioning for her busy mom lifestyle but feels the brand has lost exclusivity through mainstream retail expansion.
Without prompting, which brands come to mind first in this category? Where does this brand land in that mental list?
Honestly? Glossier is probably my number three or four. Sephora's always first - that's where I go for everything, it's just automatic. Then Ulta, because they're everywhere and I can grab stuff when I'm running errands with my daughter. Glossier comes up after that, but mostly because I see it constantly on Instagram. Like, every beauty influencer I follow is using their Boy Brow or that Cloud Paint. It's definitely on my radar more than brands like Fenty or Rare Beauty, but it's not my go-to the way Sephora is. I think of it as more of an "Instagram brand" - trendy, millennial-focused, but not necessarily where I'd shop first for my everyday routine.
Walk me through your honest first impression of this brand — not what they claim, but what you actually believe.
Honestly? Glossier feels like that cool girl from college who made everything look effortless but you knew she actually spent time on it. They built this whole "no-makeup makeup" thing that I bought into hard when I first discovered them on Instagram - probably through some influencer's morning routine post. The packaging is gorgeous, very minimalist and millennial pink, which totally worked on me. But if I'm being real, some of their products are just okay for the price point. Like their Boy Brow is fine, but I can get similar results with cheaper alternatives. The brand makes me feel like I'm part of some exclusive beauty insider club, which is smart marketing, but I'm starting to see through it a bit more now that they're everywhere.
What 3–5 words do you most associate with this brand? Give me your gut, not what sounds polite.
Trendy. Overpriced. Instagram-perfect. Look, I'll be honest - it's the brand every influencer I follow swears by, and as a busy mom, I've definitely fallen for it. Their packaging is gorgeous, makes me feel like I have my shit together when I'm rushing out the door. But when I really think about it? I'm probably paying extra for that millennial pink aesthetic and the fact that Emily Weiss built this whole "cool girl" mythology around it.
How has your perception of this brand shifted over the past year or two? What drove that change?
Honestly? I'm a little confused about what Glossier even is anymore. Like, I used to think of them as this cool, Instagram-native brand that you could only get online - very millennial, very "if you know, you know." But now I'm seeing their stuff at Sephora and other retailers, and it feels... less special? Don't get me wrong, the convenience factor is huge for me as a mom - being able to grab their Boy Brow while I'm already at Target is actually amazing. But there's something about seeing it next to every other beauty brand on the shelf that makes it feel more generic. It went from feeling like this exclusive club I was part of to just another makeup brand competing for space.
When would you actively recommend this brand, and when would you steer someone away?
I'd recommend Glossier to any busy mom who wants to look put-together without spending forever on her routine. Like, their Boy Brow and Cloud Paint are perfect for someone rushing to get kids ready and still wanting to look decent for work. I literally keep their stuff in my car for touch-ups between meetings. I'd steer someone away if they're really into dramatic makeup looks or need full coverage foundation - that's just not what Glossier does. Also, if they're on a tight budget, because honestly you can get similar "no-makeup makeup" vibes from drugstore brands. But for someone like me who values that effortless, Instagram-ready look and has the income to prioritize convenience? It's perfect.
What would this brand need to do differently to become your clear first choice?
Honestly? They'd need to show up where I actually shop. I'm not making special trips to hunt down Glossier anymore - I've got two kids and I'm running between Target, Sephora, and Ulta when I can squeeze it in. If they were sitting right there next to everything else I'm already buying, that changes the game completely. Plus their Instagram presence used to feel so authentic and relatable, but lately it feels more polished and less like real people. I want to see actual working moms using their products in real lighting, not just perfect influencer content. Make it feel accessible again instead of aspirational.
"Glossier feels like that cool girl from college who made everything look effortless but you knew she actually spent time on it"
Software engineer with secondhand Glossier exposure through girlfriend's heavy usage. Appreciates their DTC strategy and design execution from a tech perspective, comparing them to iPhone's approach. However, questions value proposition and notes brand's cultural decline from peak Instagram relevance. Not target demographic but analytically respects their business model.
Without prompting, which brands come to mind first in this category? Where does this brand land in that mental list?
Honestly, in beauty? I don't really have a mental list because I'm not the target demo, but my girlfriend uses Glossier and I've watched her order from them probably 50+ times. When she's buying skincare or that minimal makeup stuff, it's basically Glossier first, then maybe Fenty or something from Sephora if Glossier doesn't have what she needs. From a tech perspective though, I respect their DTC-first approach - they built a solid direct relationship with customers before expanding to retail, which is smart. Most brands do it backwards and lose that connection. I've actually referenced their customer data strategy in product meetings at work.
Walk me through your honest first impression of this brand — not what they claim, but what you actually believe.
Honestly? Glossier feels like the iPhone of beauty brands to me — they nailed the minimalist aesthetic and user experience in a way that makes everything else look cluttered and try-hard. When I first heard about them through my girlfriend, I was skeptical because beauty isn't my space, but then I saw their packaging and marketing and thought "okay, these people actually understand good design." The whole "no-makeup makeup" thing resonates because it's like elegant code — the best solution is often the simplest one that just works. But I'll be real, part of me wonders if they're more about the Instagram moment than actual product innovation, you know?
What 3–5 words do you most associate with this brand? Give me your gut, not what sounds polite.
Instagram aesthetic. Millennial pink. Overpriced skincare. Look, I only know Glossier because my girlfriend is obsessed with their "no-makeup makeup" thing and those pouches are all over our bathroom. From my tech lens, they nailed the direct-to-consumer playbook early - clean branding, user-generated content, that whole "real people" marketing vibe. But honestly? It feels like paying $22 for lip balm because it comes in pretty packaging. I get why it works, I just don't get why anyone needs to spend that much on what's basically fancy Chapstick.
How has your perception of this brand shifted over the past year or two? What drove that change?
Honestly, I kind of forgot Glossier existed for a while there. They were everywhere in like 2018-2019 when everyone was posting those pink bubble wrap packages on Instagram, but then they just... disappeared from my feed? I think they got caught up in that whole DTC shakeout when customer acquisition costs went through the roof. Now I'm seeing them pop up in Sephora and it's like "oh yeah, that brand." It feels less exclusive, less of that insider-y millennial pink aesthetic thing, but maybe that's what they need to actually scale beyond the initial hype cycle.
When would you actively recommend this brand, and when would you steer someone away?
Look, I'd recommend Glossier to someone who's just getting into skincare or makeup and wants something foolproof - it's like the iPhone of beauty, very user-friendly with good online reviews. I actually got my sister started on their Boy Brow after reading all the Reddit threads about it being idiot-proof. But I'd steer someone away if they're really into makeup artistry or want dramatic looks - Glossier's whole thing is that "no-makeup makeup" vibe which is pretty limiting. Also, if you're price-sensitive, there are definitely cheaper dupes that do 80% of the same thing. I only buy it because I have the disposable income and I value the convenience of knowing it'll work without having to research alternatives.
What would this brand need to do differently to become your clear first choice?
Honestly, I'm not even sure Glossier is on my radar as a brand I'd have a "first choice" relationship with. I'm a dude in tech - my skincare routine is like CeraVe cleanser and whatever moisturizer has good Amazon reviews. My girlfriend uses Glossier stuff and I see the packaging around, but it feels very much targeted at a different demographic than me. If they wanted to get my attention, they'd need to either build products that actually solve problems I have - like maybe a really good daily SPF that doesn't feel gross under a mask - or totally nail the data story around their ingredients. Show me the clinical studies, the before/after metrics, make it feel more like choosing the right API than choosing makeup. Right now it just feels like lifestyle branding, which doesn't move the needle for me.
"It feels like paying $22 for lip balm because it comes in pretty packaging. I get why it works, I just don't get why anyone needs to spend that much on what's basically fancy Chapstick."
Male partner in affluent household observes Glossier secondhand through wife's usage. Appreciates sophisticated packaging and positioning but views it as millennial-targeted Instagram brand outside his consideration set. Respects quality but questions retail expansion strategy. Complete category outsider with traditional luxury brand framework.
Without prompting, which brands come to mind first in this category? Where does this brand land in that mental list?
Honestly? In beauty, I think of the brands my wife uses - Chanel, Tom Ford, La Mer. Glossier isn't even on my radar as a brand I'd know without you bringing it up. I mean, I might have seen it on Instagram or something, but it's not in my mental category at all. If I'm ranking beauty brands, it's the established luxury names that come to mind first - the ones you see at Bergdorf's or Saks. Glossier sounds like it's more in that millennial direct-to-consumer space, which frankly I don't pay attention to. When you're buying gifts or whatever, you go with the names that have weight behind them.
Walk me through your honest first impression of this brand — not what they claim, but what you actually believe.
Look, I'm being completely honest here — I had no idea what Glossier was until my wife started ordering from them maybe three years ago. My first thought was "another Instagram makeup thing," right? But then I started noticing the packages coming to the house were actually pretty sophisticated. Clean packaging, not screaming at you with hot pink and glitter like some teenager's bedroom. The brand feels like it knows what it's doing without being pretentious about it. It's not trying to be Chanel, but it's also not trying to be Target. There's this quiet confidence to it that I actually respect. When I see their stuff around the house, it looks like something an adult woman would choose, not something a marketing team thinks she should want.
What 3–5 words do you most associate with this brand? Give me your gut, not what sounds polite.
Look, honestly? Young. Instagram-y. Millennial. I know it through my daughter - she's obsessed with their lip stuff and those little makeup pouches. It feels very... curated? Like everything's been filtered through some influencer's morning routine. Not bad, just not really speaking my language. It's got that whole "effortless but actually very calculated" vibe that younger women seem to love.
How has your perception of this brand shifted over the past year or two? What drove that change?
Look, I'll be honest — I didn't even know Glossier was moving into retail until my wife mentioned seeing it at Sephora. That actually gave me pause because in my world, when brands start showing up everywhere, it usually means they're either desperate or they've lost their edge. But then I thought about it more — maybe this is just smart business expansion. The direct-to-consumer thing was probably limiting their growth, and if you can maintain quality while getting broader distribution, that's actually sophisticated strategy. I'm watching to see if the exclusivity factor gets diluted, because that was part of the appeal.
When would you actively recommend this brand, and when would you steer someone away?
Look, I'd recommend Glossier to someone who wants to look put-together without a lot of fuss - maybe a busy professional woman who doesn't have time to figure out fifteen different products. It's that "no-makeup makeup" thing that actually works, and the quality justifies the price point. But I'd steer someone away if they're looking for dramatic results or they're really into makeup as a hobby. My wife tried their stuff expecting some kind of transformation and was disappointed - it's more about enhancement than reinvention. Also, if someone's price-sensitive, there are probably drugstore options that get you 80% of the way there for a third of the cost.
What would this brand need to do differently to become your clear first choice?
Look, I'm being completely honest here — I don't even know what Glossier is. My wife might, but beauty products? That's not my world at all. If you're asking me to rank makeup brands, I literally couldn't name three competitors if you put a gun to my head. The only beauty brands I'm aware of are whatever my wife uses, and frankly I just see the credit card charges. If Glossier wanted to be my "first choice," they'd need to explain to me why a 47-year-old guy in Greenwich should even care about their existence in the first place.
"I don't even know what Glossier is. My wife might, but beauty products? That's not my world at all. If you're asking me to rank makeup brands, I literally couldn't name three competitors if you put a gun to my head."
Specific hypotheses this synthetic pre-research surfaced that should be tested with real respondents before acting on.
What is the purchase frequency and basket size delta between DTC-acquired customers vs. retail-acquired customers over 24 months?
Determines whether retail is truly expanding the customer base or cannibalizing higher-value DTC relationships
Which specific SKUs retain 'discovery' perception vs. which have become commoditized in consumer minds?
Informs which products should be retail-distributed vs. held back for exclusivity restoration
What sustainability credentials would meaningfully shift purchase intent among skeptical prospects like Tyler H.?
Determines whether sustainability investment has ROI or if the brand should exit that positioning entirely
Ready to validate these with real respondents?
Gather runs AI-moderated interviews with real people in 48 hours.
Synthetic pre-research uses AI personas grounded in real buyer archetypes and (where available) Gather's interview corpus. It produces directional signal — hypotheses worth testing — not statistically valid measurements.
Quantitative figures are projected from interview analyses using Bayesian scaling with a conservative ±49% margin of error. Treat as estimates, not census data.
Reflect internal response consistency, not statistical power. A 90% confidence score means high AI coherence across interviews — not that 90% of real buyers would agree.
Use this to build your screener, align on hypotheses, and brief stakeholders. Then run real AI-moderated interviews with Gather to validate findings against actual respondents.
Your synthetic study identified the key signals. Now validate them with 50+ real respondents across 4 audience types — recruited, interviewed, and analyzed by Gather in 48–72 hours.
"How do consumers perceive the Glossier brand as it navigates a post-DTC pivot into retail distribution?"