Unsuccessful copies may demonstrate that the barrier to entry is high (for whatever reason), and may in doing so still improve the efficiency of the market. Likewise, a failed clone may simply demonstrate the copying entity's inability to compete.
Regardless, I don't see how attempts to copy (and improve?) are a bad thing for the market.
BirchBox gets all of their samples for free. Beauty companies are used to giving out free samples and consider it a marketing expense.
BirchBox launched in May 2010 (source: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-11-08/strategy/3037... in which it's already described as a "NetFlix [clone] for beauty", NetFlix having started in 1999).
startupschwag.com started operating in mid-2007, sending startup t-shirts by subscription.
http://testtube.newbeauty.com/ appears to have been running since early 2007 in the exact same market that BirchBox is in.
Wine of the Month Club (.com) pre-dates the Internet, sending wine by subscription since 1972.
Why would you consider applying an existing business model to a new market to be cloning or copying; especially when there's no market overlap? Applying a successful model from one industry to enhance another seems to be the very definition of innovation.