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?

3 comments

3 Comments

wyattbennett2mo 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.

evayoung2mo 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.

lily5749d ago

The lived-in color trend definitely got twisted by some stylists who treat it like a free pass for messy work... A proper lived-in look still needs shadow roots blended smooth with a subtle gradient, not just skipped sections and choppy regrowth lines. What gets me is when they charge full highlight prices for what's basically a partial with a bad fade job. Fixing those patchy messes takes actual technique and time, more than just doing it right the first time. If the roots look grown out and uneven from day one, that's not a style, that's a corner cut. Better to tell clients straight up what they're paying for than hide behind a trendy label.