Am I the only one who thinks the 'lived-in color' trend is just lazy work?

Last month in my chair, a new client showed me a photo from three years ago where her colorist gave her perfect, even blonde highlights. She said, 'I want that again, but my last stylist just called it lived-in and left me with patchy roots.' I spent four hours fixing it with a full highlight and a shadow melt. Are we calling poor blending a style now, or should we just do the job right?

2 comments

2 Comments

wyattbennett3d ago

Tbh, evayoung is spot on about it being a money grab. I had a client come in with the same story, wanted a full highlight but got a "lived-in balayage" that was just a few foils on the ends. It looked grown out the day she left the salon. Ngl, it feels like some stylists just don't want to do the detailed work of a proper root melt or a full set of highlights. They call it a trend, but it's just bad color that needs fixing in a month.

evayoung3d ago

Honestly, this whole thing feels like a money grab from some salons. They charge for a full highlight but only do a partial, then slap a trendy name on it. The client ends up paying for a service they didn't get, and the look falls apart in a few weeks. It's not a style, it's a shortcut. Good color work should grow out gracefully, not look messy from the start.