Few people are going anywhere that requires makeup, and if they are, they’re wearing a mask that covers their mouth. But that’s not the only reason the lipstick index has lost its luster.

Christened in 2001 by Leonard Lauder, then-CEO of makeup company Estée Lauder, the index was inspired after his own company’s lipstick sales reportedly spiked during that year’s recession. Some trace the idea back even further, to a boom in makeup sales during the Great Depression. A 2012 study corroborated the idea, though its authors attested the phenomenon to “women’s desire to attract mates with resources.”

Sexist rationales aside, the lipstick index seems real—or, at least, maybe it did at the time of its creation. But in recent years, journalists and economists have debunked the metric: The data simply didn’t corroborate it. In 2009, the year after the start of the Great Recession, lipstick sales declined by nearly 10%, according to Fortune, instead of rising as the index might have predicted.

Some analyses have suggested that nail polish, or mascara, or face masks, or candles, have become more popular as inexpensive pick-me-ups during an economic downturn. This is especially true during the pandemic, during which lipstick has become less relevant than ever.  The items people use to indulge in self-care are now too varied to offer a single indicator of economic health, though spending on some other products, such as cheap groceries and fast food, might be more revealing.

So maybe, finally, it’s time for market analysts to let the lipstick index go. Overall consumer spending may be a less sexy metric, but it’s a better real-time economic indicator.

📬 Sign up for the Daily Brief

Our free, fast, and fun briefing on the global economy, delivered every weekday morning.