The entire purpose of my blog is to lower the hype. And the vast majority of that hype comes from YouTube personalities that have now come to be called "influencers" because they have that much of an influence on the market.
I've written dozens of posts about the predatory and manipulative nature of "influencer behavior," which is essentially getting paid great sums of money by brands to talk about products, hype products, and get their audiences to purchase. As I stated in the Racked article that I am quoted in, YouTube, in a lot of ways, still has an outward experience of being an authentic experience, and people don't realize that they're being marketed to in the same way as watching Katy Perry talk about CoverGirl.
Fact is, the reason you don't see a commercial for Morphe, Tarte, Too Faced, etc. is because these "influencers" ARE the commercial. And there IS a difference between someone having sponsored content to enable them to fund their freelance lifestyle and this predatory behavior.
The best way I can describe the difference is to look at how sponsorships are done on some of my favorite podcasts. At the start of the podcast—before we get to any content at all—the hosts will say, "Here's a word from our sponsors" and then give the ad. The ad has nothing to do with the content in the podcast. I mostly listen to true crime podcasts, and my favorite ones are sponsored by meal delivery services, hair color companies, and mattress companies. That has absolutely nothing to do with a true crime story. These are companies that want to advertise on the platform and pay the hosts for the advertisement space.
Compare that to a video by Tati, Jaclyn Hill, NikkieTutorials, or any other "mega" YouTube makeup personality where they devote an entire video to one specific product or range of products and then mention at the end that the entire video was sponsored. The video is the ad instead of a company advertising on their platform with their existing content.
In the past few weeks, it has surfaced that a lot of the heavy hitters in the makeup "influencer" industry are, in fact, racist, manipulative, and money/fame hungry. And I'm sure many of you can relate that this came as absolutely no surprise at all.
I often talk about the racist overtones and undertones of the beauty industry, which include:
- The utter lack of representation in foundation shade ranges
- Stores not carrying the dark shades of foundation and making them available online only
- Little to no collaborations with women of color in terms of expanding or creating products
- Eyeshadow palettes clearly geared toward light skin tones
- Eyeshadow palettes containing "brow bone" and "transition" shades for light skin tones, but not equivalent shades for dark skin tones
- Naming products "nude" that are beige and only nude for light skin tones
- Appropriation of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) in product names that are not inclusive
Among many, many others.
It shouldn't be shocking, therefore, that many of these "influencers" don't talk about or advocate for inclusivity.
As an example, here is a smattering of makeup collaborations or original products from several influencers that are ALL geared toward light skin tones.
NikkieTutorials:
Tati:
KathleenLights:
Gwen Stefani (not on YouTube, but the example is relevant):
Laura Lee:
MannyMUA:
Also MannyMUA:
Jaclyn Hill:
Also Jaclyn Hill:
Carli Bybel:
Grav3yard Girl:
Emilynoel83:
Let's talk about this last one, because it truly pains me to put Emily in the same category as many of these other people. Emily very recently came out with two palette launches through Revolution Makeup. One was called "The Needs" (pictured above) and one was called "The Wants" (which I purchased).
I have watched Emily for years and find her to always be a fresh breath of air in the YouTube beauty world. But something that always upsets me about her content is that she never talks about inclusivity. She will tear into a Tarte or Too Faced palette for quality, texture, color payoff, and other factors, but she doesn't address how most of these products are 1. The same And 2. Only for light skin tones.
So for her to make a palette, call it "The Needs," and say that it is filled with all the shades that one would need, is upsetting to me because it is so obviously geared toward light skin tones. These are the shades that Emily herself "needs," but won't work for many, many people.
With that said, her other palette, "The Wants" appears to be inclusive, and I did purchase it for this reason. Emily seems to be a very genuine person with good intentions, but avoiding controversy about race, representation, and inclusivity is also a problem.
As for the other palettes I included above, there may be the occasional shade that could work for deeper skin tones, but it is obvious that they were made with light skin tones in mind. Several of these products were collaborations with major brands, and it's impossible to know how much or how little creative control they had over shade range and inclusivity. Nonetheless, the sheer number of these palettes that look exactly the same is disheartening and really speaks to the persistence of this problem.
When you have a voice and a platform, you need to take that responsibility seriously. Because that's what it is—a responsibility. To publicly tweet a horribly racist statement and try to victimize yourself at the backlash is deplorable. To say a racist word while playing video games, offer no apology on your biggest platform, and then say that you just said "a bad word," is also disgusting. For many of these people, they are not upset because they realize the gravity of what they have done and feel sickened over their own behavior—they are upset because they don't want to jeopardize their income and lifestyle.
When you have millions of people who watch you, trust you, and maybe even look up to you, that is an immense responsibility. There will always be different political points of view, but there are also issues that are completely binary and do come down to "right" and "wrong." Hatred, bigotry, xenophobia, and racism will always be WRONG. And if you're more concerned with how much money you're making instead of how much you're perpetuating dangerous ideals is condemnable. At the same time, as a consumer, if you care more about a makeup item or watching a problematic personality than you do about condoning these ideals, then you are also culpable.
The other side of the drama right now is the lack of transparency and disclosure about which brands are featured in YouTube videos and which are not. And, unsurprisingly, the ones that are most prominently featured are the ones that pay a lot of money to these influencers. So when you see a "monthly favorites" video, you're going to see some products that are only favorites because they came with a huge sum of money.
Again, this isn't surprising. I knew the moment I saw Morphe pop up everywhere that they paid for that to happen. Their best products are mediocre at best, but impressionable people really love being able to buy whatever their favorite YouTube personality used and claimed was a favorite.
This is all just predatory and manipulative behavior, and it's why I started this blog. Marketing in general is incredibly manipulative. Companies want to convince people that they need something that they actually don't. And what companies saw with the rise of the YouTube "influencer" is that people are much more likely to buy something if their "best friend" recommends it than if they see a commercial for it on television. Because one is obvious marketing and the other is built on an established (or perceived) trust.
In my personal life, I am "the makeup person" for most of my friends. If they need to buy a new mascara or cleanser or blush, they will come to me and ask what I recommend. And every single time, they buy literally whatever I say. I've said to a friend, "Oh, I really love this new eyeshadow" and they have gone out that day to buy it for themselves.
Imagine that on a platform with a reach of millions of people. That has the ability to sway an entire market; to make a brand successful; or to create immense financial hardship for a brand.
And the only way to combat it is to be a smart consumer. Marketing tactics prey on vulnerable people. "Having a hard day? Treat yourself to a new mascara!" As I mentioned in my recent post about my former makeup addiction and depression, that entire mindset is how I became so dependent on the fleeting "happiness" that came with the high of a new purchase.
And when you regularly watch these YouTube channels, you always have some product in the back of your mind that someone recommended that you'll inventively buy during a sale, as a celebration, or as consolation for a hard day.
YouTube was once a platform where people would just chat and share. I remember watching tutorials eight years ago when someone would say, "Put a brown color in your crease—any of them will work." But now it's that you have to apply a specific shadow with a specific brush, oh, and by the way, here's my affiliate code.
In a lot of ways it's the equivalent of watching nonstop HSN or QVC. Can you imagine how much stuff you would buy if your main entertainment consumption was a home shopping network? That's what has happened now with YouTube and every social media platform.
In the end, I think it's always important to remember that these people are not our real-life friends, no matter how much we feel like we know them through their content and social media posts. For many of them, they curate a very specific image that they publicly portray and are solely concerned about their own financial success—and will do anything to protect it. As consumers, we need to recognize that behavior and be smarter about our purchasing decisions.
Instagram: @antihaulblog
0 nhận xét: