Beauty Dupe

Thanks to a throwaway comment on a blog I follow, I learned of the recent mumsnet furore. Off I went to read it (naturally.) I don't spend much time on mumsnet, indeed my mumsnet knowledge thus far had been limited to the historic "penis beaker" episode. I found the thread fascinating (ahem, talking about the beauty thread now...) it was originally titled something regarding Caroline Hirons as the whole chat had been triggered by an innocent reader asking whether the blog posts had been sponsored or not. A character named Iamnina had proceeded to spill the beans. Allegedly, this Nina works in PR and had an axe to grind. Soon enough the bloggers being discredited got wind of this mumsnet thread, and in addition to the usual outrage and denial, they have apparently managed to get mumsnet to not only edit the title of the thread, but also completely delete every post by Iamnina and no doubt ban her. I find these draconian tactics really repellent and as I had been toying with the idea of writing a post, this made my mind up.

I wish I'd copied and pasted every post by Iamnina. I had actually thought at the time that I should do it, but I decided: I don't blog anymore - what's the point? If anyone reading this has a copy then do please get in touch and I'll incorporate her points here, hopefully blogger is a safe platform (cue MI5 suspenseful music.) And, reader I know you guessed it, as this is such a hackneyed tale, but one of the reasons I stopped blogging was because it had started as a hobby and then it became a duty. I was beginning to get sent products. Getting what feels like "presents" tumbling through your letter box every day is very different to documenting what you spend your own clutched pennies on. Knowing your blog post will be read by the PR who sent you the "present" and might get angry or upset, or told off by their boss, all because of your post... It's nothing like a blog anymore. Not that getting samples was unpleasant, far be it for me to imply, as I have read many times - that getting samples is a chore/ or a workload/ tiring - or anything like that. But all the same, it does constrain you; it gives the whole enterprise a different spin. My relationship to beauty (I am a dinosaur for saying this) was ambling over to the beauty counters, chatting to my friends (erm, I mean, the beauty counter staff) and seeing the posters and the shiny new display cases and picking out the delectable new treats. Then testing them, either loving my new purchases, or feeling angry that I'd wasted my money. And the blog would be the channel within which to record these innocuous findings.

This is what beauty blogs and YouTube channels were in those days... I'm harking back to 2007 or so. Now the popular channels and blogs are to be viewed with suspicion and there is an 'us' and a 'them' which didn't exist at the outset. I remember Zoella's blog when she wrote about working in a post office. Every entry was her little Superdrug haul or her Primark haul, or so it seemed to me (I was not a regular follower but such was the gist at the time.) Incidentally, I find it amusing that bloggers and youtubers call their PR spoils a "haul". Although far nearer the mark than they intended, the general understanding of a haul is that which they have bought themselves. But this is a side note. Of course the legacy of these humble beginnings is mercilessly and unnaturally sustained, and naive youngsters do still think of the content as independent. But a long time ago, the puppet masters arrived to take the reins. The only bloggers and YouTube popular channels who can afford to be truly independent, well, that's the word: afford. They have to be rich (£200 serums and £35 lipsticks do take their toll) either from their own pockets or from the adverts on their sites which pay by the sheer scale of readership or viewing figures and not by the content as such. As Iamnina put it, ironically these adverts allow the content maker to be independent.

But the real money comes from the euphemistic "consultancy fees". What is it that the brands consult bloggers about, what mystery? As with all Law ('the Law is an ass') there follows a loophole. And here is the loophole to the FTC. As the mumsnet discussion made clear, to any untainted mind, 'reviewing' a product and taking a consultancy fee for, mais bien sur, a wholly unrelated consultation, is quite clearly a conflict of interest. There isn't any need to expand on such an obvious point.

When the FTC first came to upset the party, many blogs and youtubers (I would say the very ones who are now at worst fault) would put resentful, falsely jesting disclaimers. Something along the lines of: 'These were sent to me by little fairy elves at X brand towers but they didn't put a gun to my head, I just happen to absolutely love these products and I wouldn't lie to you my lovely cherry buns as you're the ones I answer to not them!' Occasionally they would adopt a more hostile jokey demeanour, well how can I pastiche or better the eponymous Caroline Hirons who was criticised on the mumsnet thread for her advice after just such a disclaimer, to "chill your tits." Making light of the product being sent for free, to my mind, was never a solution. There is nothing inherently wrong with getting samples, but trivialising the disclaimer is almost akin to an admission of guilt. Misplaced guilt, but still guilt - aggressively defensive.

Iamnina's posts laid bare all the agency business dealings.Blogger and YouTube stars know their worth and will not allow brands a free ride (and hurrah for that!) but to keep their audience on side, they have to pretend to not know their worth. They have to apologise for new houses, new handbags, new noses and breasts. They have to pretend or at least force friendships in line with who belongs to their agency. British Beauty Blogger piped up with characteristic journalistic nous, why don't you write a few posts on my site and see what it's really like! Iamnina scathingly told her that she was not referring to mid tier but to what were the select few bona fide "influencers": Bloggers and YouTube stars who can merely allude to a product for it to sell out instantly. I think she also meant by implication, blogs with less discerning readership. In other words, young impressionable minds who are made to feel that if they don't buy this then they have forfeited their allegiance.

What made me a blogger, and I dare say all the original early bloggers and YouTube hosts, at that point all ignorant of the freebies - let alone wealth and fame and privilege that now can be reached (I nearly said 'achieve', but frankly some of those terribly written blogs and some YouTube channels which have to lay bare every tiny detail, and to my mind are mind numbing, I don't consider enviable or worthy of the term...) - well what made us want to engage with an audience, was a camaraderie. For its own sake. Sharing favourite makeup purchases and saying why other makeup was horrid. Now nothing is without repercussion. The makeup has a PR person who is a new friend. What would happen to her if I slate the product? Will she be blamed and I'll have ruined her day? Or more accurately perhaps, it's the agency PR who is the friend, or more than friend, the employer? We, the audience, become the gift to this new friend. We are the currency for the friend who can open doors, doors not only to new makeup and dresses and plastic surgery and anything in between ("pah! chicken feed!") but holidays and all sorts of bonuses which lead to real opportunities.

One of the accusations which this Iamnina levelled, was that charities have big budgets. She added a wink face emoji to intensify this point. This must have touched a nerve because some bloggers at this point became incensed. (Sali Hughes I believe, but I didn't read her rebuttal which she linked to on mumsnet, because I found her tone very patronising and unduly harsh.) I know charities do have budgets and pay huge salaries (but this is another tirade entirely which I shall not fall into) so it's not incredible to assume some blogger charity posts are indeed paid for. It's not very nice to think of a post which talks about losing friends or family members and beseeches the reader to go and donate generously, all whilst the post has been paid for. But such is the world and it's become a case where unless expressly written "I waived a fee for this post and I have never consulted with their company or affiliated brands" we can't be chastised for assuming they have! Anyhow, this is the way the world works - if you think celebrities advising us where to put our meagre pennies aren't being paid themselves, or benefiting from the exposure for their own ends, then that's something you should really wake up to. It might be sad or cynical but that's capitalism for ya. In fact these people truly believe that their fee is merely a token, and they are still being very charitable... Later posts came and said perhaps this Iamnina was a charlatan. But each Iamnina post had had the unmistakeable ring of truth. Not only that, but she predicted every blogger retaliation; every move just as if these bloggers were robots. 

Successful bloggers and YouTube channels need to start representing themselves as what they really are: a business. No longer, a girl next door. This doesn't mean they lose their value. Although to an extent, that is what happens in that they dissociate. But in theory they could continue to be useful. Instead of being a like minded consumer, they could become a reference library and you choose the voice you feel resonates with you. The trouble is, with everyone's pay packet at risk, they all inevitably sing from the same hymn sheet at the same time, so pick one you've picked them all. Their original voice has been quashed. In this agency led tribe war system, the only way to be independent is to have faith to just allow the ad revenue to fund you and continue your own purchasing and reviewing, and hope the brands in turn feel that regardless of bad reviews they might get, not to be featured on your blog is an unimaginable offence. But for a real millionaire lifestyle, I suspect that only a seasoned agency with all the right contacts can get you there. Bloggers and YouTube hosts have become amazingly proficient at social media so who knows how long a middleman will be needed? Although every PR seems to be interconnected; one wrong move can provoke a domino effect. Presumably an agency limits such blunders. And there is always the thinly veiled suspicion that your appeal can be obliterated overnight, so better to invest via a puppet master who can keep you on the leash and avoid any ill advised opinions or photos and such.

I remember buying a highlighting powder on the recommendation of a YouTube video. It had been sent to them for free and I realised that implicitly, but I didn't think that had to compromise them. Well, the powder was horrible and chalky. The betrayal was genuinely upsetting. A pleasure in reading blogs and watching videos, is the unbridled contempt for a poor performing product. With freebies, or even more deceptively, gift vouchers, if a product isn't good, and if the blogger is 'honest', we just won't hear about it. It won't do to criticise a freebie after all. And arguably, it isn't quite right to criticise something if you didn't suffer paying for it. Reading a very measured criticism which hastily recommends another same brand product, is almost as bad as not having mentioned it. It's this guarded, measured and bland reporting which we'd celebrated blogs for avoiding. No more shall I buy magazines, we had all chanted jubilantly. Well, as the adage goes, the revolution eats its own children.

UPDATE: IMATS 2010

                                     ### STOP PRESS!!!####

As I mentioned, I will be attending IMATS on Sunday 31st. I am very excited to meet everyone, and of course bask in the glory of ALL THAT MAKEUP! 

But the reason to update is... I have been asked by our esteemed mentor Koren (Enkoremakeup) to be his model as he works on the "Naked" counter. No no my friends, fret not, I will not be flagrantly shedding all my inhibitions on stage (those days are gone). However going bare faced, if that is what will happen, is virtually as distressing to be quite honest. Koren will be working his magic - as best he can with this canvas- for Naked Cosmetics from 10.30am on the MAIN STAGE. Let me know if you will be offering your moral support..... Please!

I have met Koren before when he came to London about a year or two ago and he was so generous with his time and such a very kind person. I am happy to be helping him out the little bit that I can. Though it is slightly terrifying.

FTC Guidelines: F* This Crap?

From December 1st, FTC (US Federal Trade Commission) guidelines have been put in place. The reaction amongst bloggers and YouTubers in our beauty community has been that of panic, usually disguised as flippancy. Let me first preface this by saying that the UK has one of the most stringent legal systems when it comes to business online. Most of its laws and regulations are similar to those in Europe, but in contrast, the US the rules were very much dependent on the state you happen to be in. Therefore the FTC is arguably applying a level playing field. Many of the FTC guidelines are already Law for UK and Europe based bloggers who fall foul of the disclosures required. But the waters are muddy and moreover Guidelines are not Law: This is acknowledged by the FTC...

"The Guides are administrative interpretations of the law intended to help advertisers comply with the Federal Trade Commission Act; they are not binding law themselves. In any law enforcement action challenging the allegedly deceptive use of testimonials or endorsements, the Commission would have the burden of proving that the challenged conduct violates the FTC Act."

In addition, the outrage and confusion of bloggers, particularly those who felt the new strictures and penalties violated their right to the sacred First Amendment, have provoked this soothing assurance from the FTC:

"Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it. If people think that the FTC is going to issue them a citation for $11,000 because they failed to disclose that they got a free box of Pampers, that's not true. That's not going to happen today, not ever."

In addition, Richard Cleland (assistant director, division of advertising practices at the FTC) addressed individual blogger concerns and reiterated this point:

"That $11,000 fine is not true. Worst-case scenario, someone receives a warning, refuses to comply, followed by a serious product defect; we would institute a proceeding with a cease-and-desist order and mandate compliance with the law. To the extent that I have seen and heard, people are not objecting to the disclosure requirements but to the fear of penalty if they inadvertently make a mistake. That's the thing I don't think people need to be concerned about. There's no monetary penalty, in terms of the first violation, even in the worst case. Our approach is going to be educational, particularly with bloggers. We're focusing on the advertisers: What kind of education are you providing them, are you monitoring the bloggers and whether what they're saying is true?"

So, the widely reported instant $11,000 is inaccurate, and moreover the onus is on the word of mouth marketeer or advertiser. Now, I have often thought that bloggers accepting money for promoting a brand is in many ways less unethical than those brands getting free publicity, but this FTC rule seems rather patronising to bloggers. Wheras an old media publication can review a free book (for instance) with no risk of breaking the rules, the same does not apply to blogs. This seems incredibly arbitrary. If I print out my blog articles and hand them out for free as a newspaper, suddenly a different set of rules apply:

"The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. Accordingly, such reviews are not “endorsements” within the meaning of the Guides."

If my day job is as a journalist for print media, is my blog independent, or is it addressed as within my capacity as a "traditional media" employee, is it me held liable, or my employer vicariously liable? In any event, how will bloggers' lapses be monitored?? Will FTC employ people, at the public's expense, to police the myriad of blogs out there - or will snitches and rivals use the muddy rules to threaten the competition? Well, the latter apparently: "Competitors are very quick to turn people in. I've never suffered from a shortage of competitive complaints."

This seems a recipe for disaster. It is not newsworthy to suggest that there is a lot of victimisation and vindictiveness around as it is, without giving people scope for serious dobbing in and invoking a penalty.

Now onto the fraught issue of whether a blog is akin to journalism, or a personal conversation. i.e Should government interference be viewed as justified to protect an innocent consumer, as the FTC maintains, from being tricked into purchases; or should a blog be allowed to maintain its image of being independent and indeed the very embodiment of free speech? A comment on an article made me laugh... "Government interaction is always the best answer. Just look at communist China - the people love it over there. They don't have to worry about that silly 'freedom of speech' stuff." It does rather beg the question, how long before the internet and its content is policed... recent issues such as illegal file sharing and downloading have also been presented as a threat to us as users and terrorism laws can be twisted to suit allegations of suspect community forums; IP addresses could well in future be replaced by an internet passport, with all our ID viewable to the government and the nanny state controlling our every move. But wait, this isn't the Daily Mail. Nevertheless, the point is: from being a soft touch, there is now a reversal. Companies who once took advantage of essentially free publicity will now have to ask themselves, whether the blogger can bring a profit greater than the potential thousands of dollars fine to the company. Very few of us can do that. They take the risk:

"The Commission recognizes that because the advertiser does not disseminate the endorsements made using these new consumer-generated media, it does not have complete control over the contents of those statements. Nonetheless, if the advertiser initiated the process that led to these endorsements being made – e.g., by providing products to well-known bloggers or to endorsers enrolled in word of mouth marketing programs – it potentially is liable for misleading statements made by those consumers."

But wait, what is an endorsement?? What if a blogger confines herself to stating demonstrably proven facts? Does the FTC consider that an endorsement? What if one confines oneself to stating such facts and includes links to an ecommerce site? Has the writing somehow been transformed from a statement of fact to an endorsement? And what if I describe a product I genuinely love and recommend, and have google automated ads on my blog, which are prompted by the article, and thus I make money from my recommendation? This point amongst others was eloquently made here:

"I have been writing nice things about my treatment at Sloan Kettering. This has caused ads to come up on my blog, via Google, from the hospital. Presuming someone clicked on them, I’ve made money from the hospital. Does that taint what I say or me if I don’t disclose the payment? That’s the level of absurdity this can reach."

In fact, where to draw the line - what if a product was received as a gift from granny, or you're a millionaire who buys YSL everyday just for something to do, of course your review will be inflected by your situation. There seems a deep suspicion of the government's need to intercept and determine when a disclaimer must be made. Do the FTC just want to control advertising and shut up any mouthpiece other than their own controlled and approved (ahem, $$$$) outlets?

However I have seen increasingly, many popular bloggers have irritated me with their high blown opinion of themselves. They address companies with the assumption that their word can make or break the product on a global scale. It really does make me think, "It's only a blog/ It's only YouTube!" However popular it gets, surely it still is small fry? But perhaps it can compete, as I have said before, the blogs and videos do cut straight to the core of makeup enthusiasts. Seen in this light, maybe the time was ripe for FTC intervention?

Ultimately, here in the UK there are laws in place which will protect consumers from deliberate scams and astroturfing, but on the level of reading blog and YouTube reviews, it ought to be merely regulated by the individual's own conscience, and taken with the viewer/ reader's own judgment. People who abuse the trust instilled within them will hopefully become a victim of their own destruction. I recently got an email from a company which was so clearly a cut and paste job (Dear... [space] oogle makeup .... etc) and what with my bad experience with a ruthless word of mouth company I value my blog and individuality more than I value the novelty of a freebie. (Chanel, if you are listening, I don't mean that really, haha) but by the same token there is clearly no harm in accepting and reviewing a freebie that genuinely is of interest to you and your readers. It can even be the veritable lifeblood of your blog, and to great acclaim.

"And there is the greatest myth embedded within the FTC’s rules: that the government can and should sanitize the internet for our protection. The internet is the world and the world is messy and I don’t want anyone – not the government, not a newspaper editor – to clean it up for me, for I fear what will go out in the garbage: namely, my rights. "

Beauty underbelly

It's hard to sustain a beauty blog, without it evolving into a marketing bulletin or a tiresome photo montage or a blog sale. I write posts so sporadically because I try to grapple with issues I notice arising, and exploit them with the aim to eventually see this blog as a collection of essays... (pretentious, moi?!)

Seeing an explosion of blog sales, with many popular personalities charging the lion's share of what they paid originally, and moreover had originally praised as magnificent, can make one feel slightly taken aback and rather shatters the veneer. However, with beauty buying getting out of hand, and a willing audience, who can cast blame? In any event, this is not the "underbelly" I speak of. It merely adds to the insipid state I found myself in, the lack of inspiration if you will. But recently I read a popular blogger's post, in which she denounced Sigma for jamming up her inbox with their latest contest challenge. Within moments, comments waded in, vowing to avoid Sigma brushes. Before long, the owner of Sigma arrived on the scene, assuring all that as of now the rules and contest were over, and apologies for the inconvenience. I asked in the comments why this unkind attack on a small company had been dealt publicly (rather than addressed as a private email). Afterall, this person had been one of numerous YouTube partners given a load of Sigma to give away and enjoy. Was it, I ventured, because she objected to Sigma expanding their contests and thus undermining the elite Super Gurus??

This got me thinking (haha insert Carrie Bradshaw voice)"How vulnerable are small companies?" and "How ugly is beauty's underbelly?"

Recently there was another minor scandal, Lime Crime were accused, again as far as I can see, by a lone ranger blogger with determined conviction, of simply repackaging cheap mica and plastering it with slogans and promises of, as they boasted, "illegal" levels of outrageous colour. Again the owner of the company was forced to emerge in staunch defence of her company. She made a YouTube video but disabled comments, thereby preventing any right to reply and avoiding escalating the debate. In her video she made a show of being emotional and gave a brief outline of a hard life through which she had toiled and triumphed. Clearly with popular YouTube Gurus being able to look forward to launching their own ubiquitous makeup/skincare ranges (Lauren Luke, Enkore makeup, Michelle Phan to name the most obvious) it is clear that this 'personal touch' is paramount... but, how much do we value that above all else? Even Gurus who review too many 'freebies' come under attack, so how much more so one who is exposed or simply accused - however reliably - of having ripped us off?

A popular YouTube member with a debilitating illness was recently outed as a mass swaplifter and fled her channel, thereby incriminating herself further. Subscribers were understandably horrified and went quite far in their condemntion. Nevertheless, the YouTube member returned with a perhaps feeble explanation, but heartfelt and emotional, and was largely forgiven. YouTube was seen in a new light: even members who seemed so familiar as to be true friends, became strangers. The ease with which one can disappear belied the security of trusting a face. Yet a voluntary return was rewarded and appreciated and the harm was undone. The issue of control is central: The power of the people, in one way or another, as a force.

The popular Guru can command a cause, as when Google AdSense lost Partners money and they made their discontent a subject for a video; or when a company is deemed to have offended - SunLove being an additional example; or when a company dupes their buyers and are attacked - MAC using the recognisable Ben Nye packaging in a promo shot being an indisputable example. Word of mouth is a quick, cheap way to get your brand recognised, but one wrong move and the damage is extraordinarily hard to undo - and usually involves a calculated mix of humble apology, complete retraction and compensation.

Beauty buying has seemed to have changed over the years too, it seems more collections than ever come out, more brands emerging, more folding - and aggressive sales tactics abound. It is virtually impossible to go peruse a makeup stand anymore. The unsubtle way one is speculatively judged, then rounded on, is deeply off-putting. I often feel far happier buying from the company website, and with Illamasqua's new absolute accuracy in online swatches, perhaps this is indeed the future.

Beauty shopping has an immediacy to it: the instant promise of change, the rush we all know so well. Yet blog sales attest to the briefness of that feeling. Perhaps buying online would limit the impulsiveness and allow time to decide rationally between shades?

The companies we buy from all struggle to maintain a personal identity: Bobbi Brown, Trish McEvoy, Benefit, all feature images of their creator at every opportunity. MAC still present themselves in this way too, although they are far removed from those days since being bought out. But seeing Sigma's creator and Lime Crime's creator coming out, and seeing our favourite Gurus extolling their products, puts many of us on our guard. It seems the distance between a personality as an icon rather than a familiar face, is preferable in many ways. Lauren Luke has been careful to only use her products very sparingly, and continues to use mainstream brands in general. I marvel at the way she is so sure-footed in her atttitude, meaning she never alientes her original fans. Many Gurus may not be so wise. And many small companies may find they overstep the line between friendly and personable, and clumsily fall instead into naive and overconfident - and worse. A captive audience can be swayed, and the domino effect can be lethal.

I'm back

Just wanted to mention in case anyone didn't know... I'm back in the game. Please subscribe, as if a tree falls and no one hears it, has it really made a sound?

http://www.youtube.com/user/ooglemakeup

1000Heads will roll...

1000Heads, "the word of mouth people" (I've got a word of mouth for them) have murdered my You Tube channel. God knows this blog post has been festering within me for a long while now, but I had thought the situation had been rectified. I have spent time, money and energy on this nightmare but have come to realise there is no solution other than my channel's suicide. I shall here explain, and hope that Google search results prioritise this for people who might otherwise read 1000 Heads' "Respect" section, in particular Rule No. 6: "We protect privacy and permission". (snapshot above)

In all my previous posts, if I ever mentioned PR and blogging/ YouTube, it was probably with faintly triumphant derision. It seemed to me that the little people were calling the shots - I was rather naive. As uninformed individuals, we are in fact exceptionally vulnerable novices and far more disposable than a corporation.

Not long ago, 1000 Heads were asked to draw up a PR showcase for Aussie haircare, and I and several other randomly selected blogs were chosen as "Aussie Angels". The whole convoluted "treasure hunt" seemed terribly infantile and dreary to me but in any case I was unable to make that event so who knows. A few days later, out of curiosity, I checked out the website and was horrified to see my full name listed. Every other blogger had their stage name, and then, starkly contrasting, there was my full name! And, unlike every other stage name link, mine had linked to my You Tube. I was horrified. It was a catastrophe. No-one in my real life has been told about my channel, no-one. Suddenly it's the very first result if anyone happened to look me up.

I had already written and tried to contact by mobile phone these ["word of mouth"] people, with no luck. However I had the wisdom to go to the organ-grinder instead. Aussie haircare is owned, like so many drugstore household names, by Proctor & Gamble. It was easy enough to find the correct representative. Miraculously, I then hear from the ["word of mouth"] people.

I am confident that from henceforth they did their best, just as I am aware that this whole disaster was highly unlucky - i.e that it hit someone who was determined to keep their channel secret - and that all it took was a lapse of concentration. People are human and mistakes happen, but do not hold yourself up as having sacred rules if you are as infallible as any other PR outfit.

Initially, PR speak was delivered to calm me down and assure me that the google results were certainly not permanent and were being erased with ease. Days passed by with no change, yet still assurances were offered up. My case was pushed from one individual to another, and none seemed aware of what had gone on before. I would phone up (one went on holiday without warning), and I'd ask what was going on. I'd always have to give my reason for calling.

"Oh, a blog", a withering voice would intone.

Eventually I decided to take matters into my own hands and seek out a professional expert, who managed to stem the tide. However for some reason after a hiatus, the results are now back. I cannot get the expert I paid for to do the job again without paying again, and frankly, I am not going to start this fiasco anew.

I am upset to be deleting my account as it is the one that was once upon a time in the Metro newspaper and also the illustrious Gossmakeupartist gave the channel a priceless 'shoutout'. However I have been left with no option, due to the carelessness of sloppy data input and my own naive decision to not use an alias. I have certainly learnt that as an individual without the force of advertising, your details may be treated irresponsibly and it is wise to have a stage name behind your stage name for protection. Who knows, perhaps even a P.O Box isn't going too far. It seems that for the sake of free shampoo, I have cost myself all the videos I ever worked on and all the subscribers I painstakingly amassed.

I do appreciate that the company belatedly tried to undo the damage, but it is no good: Google results are tenacious, particularly with a YT result. The harm is irreversible and although I was happy that a brief reprieve was attained, allowing me to go on holiday and relax, the fact that it has now resurfaced will hopefully act as a beacon not only to 1000 Heads, who might be more diligent when dealing with personal information, but also to my fellow bloggers and You Tube reviewers - to see past the dazzle of being approached.

With a heavy heart, I will imminently bid adieu to my Ooglegail channel. I will probably be back "O, be some other name!/What's in a name? that which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet". Indeed.

Beauty Blag

Since my recent fame and fortune (well one of those... OK, ok then, a smidge of one of those) I have caught a fleeting glimpse of the mechanics which underpin the 'Beauty Industry'. For anyone wondering, here is the proof of Glory: lil ol me sandwiched between the great and the good! Has to be seen to be believed! P.S This Metro edition came out on my birthday!!


Anyway as I was saying... After the piece, which incidentally was written by the masterful British Beauty Blogger, I was contacted by several PR people, congratulating me and offering to send a few samples for me to review. Although constant blog sales and constant blog reviews - blatantly featuring free gifts - get on my nerves, I am not above getting free stuff myself. Hypocrisy is such an ugly word though.

PR people are as new to this development as we independent bedroom bloggers are; previously there may have been a set list of magazine or possibly TV contacts etc to get in touch with, to organise brand exposure. Yet now, with the proliferation of beauty blogs, particulary those which become required reading for any self-respecting beauty junkie, PR have been swift to re-evaluate their agenda. With YouTube burning up millions of dollars in bandwidth every day by allowing anyone the opportunity to "broadcast" themselves, the potential to gain viewers and subscribers at an electrifying speed is a reality. Do the maths and it's not hard to understand why Google (owners of YouTube), who pioneered AdSense, would develop a similar strategy for their most popular "Channels": the Partnership programme. Introduced in 2007, early Partners such as Pogobat cut great deals which famously meant he earned $2,500 a month. And once the Partnership programme hit UK, Lauren Luke's Panacea81 channel was amongst the first to be rewarded. Finding out how much money Partners make is shrouded in secrecy: contracts with clauses forbidding one to divulge their YouTube earnings mean guesswork is futile. To compound this, different Partners get different adverts with different rates and not all Partners are equal, according to YouTube.

Regardless of the specifics, the very nature of being paid or seduced by companies can surely play havoc with the independent stance of a makeup enthusiast turned 'reporter' or at the very least change the tone of their blog or videos. I will however refrain from debating such a moot point. The YouTube partnership programme, which aside from any financial advantages, carries perks such as a personalised logo banner and the ability to make longer videos, and similarly the popularity measured by "Followers" on one's blog, which is naturally enough how a PR would determine your value, means I am reminded of the recent UK media story of The Archbishop of Westminster who decried the trend for online social networking:

"It's an all or nothing syndrome that you have to have in an attempt to shore up an
identity; a collection of friends about whom you can talk and even boast. But friendship is not a commodity..."1

Is the makeup community on YouTube and within Blogs guilty of this, being as it is reliant on popularity? Or is the unique nature of the beauty community, which has proven itself to be beautiful in a metaphorical as well as a literal way, enough to make it exempt from this scathing attack on the "dehumanising" of community life? And is the immediacy of 'tutorials' and the discursive nature of blogging emblematic of the very skills which he applauds: the "ability to build interpersonal communication that's necessary for living together and building a community". Indeed I would go further and say that far from leading to suicide in young people (for that was the extreme prediction) belonging and following, in a hobby as integral as your makeup routine (which incidentally takes on a religious symbolism if you ask me! - not to be sacriligious!) actually can be very strengthening.

Anyway to put aside these somewhat woolly issues, one of YouTube's biggest success stories has been Lauren Luke. Her journey has involved meeting the Queen at Google HQ, regularly being featured, having the homepage devoted to her makeup launch and indeed the makeup launch itself - nothing short of a modern day fairytale. Lauren's genuine warmth and humility endeared her to countless fans. Her appeal proves irresistable for YouTube to promote. Yet when one considers YouTube was bought for $1.65 billion by Google in October 2006 it is clear that popular users, who after all make the site what it is, have earned about .06 percent of the purchase price. Nevertheless it would be misleading to imply their video making is exploitation, being as it is, a hobby.

Google is currently defying the recession and making profit, though YouTube itself is burning hundreds of millions of dollars each year. However it is poised to eventually become a "strong revenue business". The company also said that it was continuing to build up its substantial cash pile, which now stands at $19.3bn. The strategy is evidenced by the progressively more invasive pop-up adverts that clutter the site, particularly visible on YouTube Partners. This is complicated by the trend for false clicking - either to support your favourite YouTube channels; or, more menacingly, by competitors who click rival business adverts and cause unjustified expense, and of course makes small emerging companies especially vulnerable to such tactics. Companies like Mally Beauty and Coastal Scents would be wholly unfamiliar to me were it not for YouTube so clearly small companies can use the Beauty community to their advantage. Yet the commercialisation of YouTube has meant that many of the adverts are by huge companies, for whom YouTube costing is more economical than TV, yet can significantly rival its impressive viewing figures. Trying to figure out how the huge cost of bandwidth compares to ad revenue is very difficult, with analysts speculating YouTube loses between $174 million to $470 million though the company denies this and insists on the bigger picture. Plausibly videos on demand and tailored to specific categories and communities is the future, moreover everyone enjoys the tale of the little person who conquers the stage, and what better example is there than YouTube?

Now to address blogging, which has a more analytical advantage. Companies have perhaps realised that some beauty addicts surreptitiously access blogs from work, when they can't risk YouTube, and quickly develop an allegiance to specific blogs. Much like a hybrid between a magazine and a chat, blogs can certainly affect spending habits. It affects an emergent company's image to secure niche advertising. Drugstore makeup may be most suited to TV advertising, but more high end like Lancome and YSL usually aim for glossy mags. MAC's strategy by contrast is to put their ad funding into new designer's backstage shows and propel the image of MAC as the industry favourite. Yet their presence in every department store alongside Lancome makes this distinction rather unconvincing. Illamasqua have exploded on to the scene and are still fairly exclusive, though they have proliferated.

Probably most similar to MAC in terms of colour range and price point, Illamasqua have taken a similar approach to the MAC of ye olde days, before it became spat on by purists for 'selling out' to Lauder. I.e, Illamasqua are befriending the true fanatical experts and expecting a drip-down effect from the top down. I think this is a very shrewd move, and what's more, the Illamasqua blog is a surprisingly good read! Full of tips and interviews, the tone is far less self-serving than equivalent branded blogs and eases you in to the Illamsqua product range in a subtle yet very enticing way. All in all Illamasqua have it seems succeeded in creating not only a stunning and distinctive promo image, but also a respect for the true makeup conoisseur. (It is a shame that some of their Selfridges makeup artists are not quite as welcoming, but they are placed right next to MAC so they have a bad example.)

That Illamasqua, Barry M and Coastal Scents, to take these examples, have shown themselves receptive to blogs and YouTube at a grassroots level is impressive. I believe that individual amateur makeup reviewers will ultimately prove to be at the heart of future customer research. With less people buying magazines (print media is notoriously the first to be hit in times of recession) and more people checking comparison websites and forums, YouTube and blog reviews present a natural resource. And besides, representing the niche market of the makeup consumer who will absently buy 3 blushers and still come back the next week for another - surely those are the customers any makeup business is keenest to attract!

What beauty bloggers and YouTube Gurus must remember is the uncorrupted guilelessness which made them so vital in the first place, which is conceivably difficult if they gain unbridled popularity. Nonetheless many manage just that, and Lauren Luke is a blueprint for how it's done best. So this is my spin on Archbishop Vincent Nichols' dire warning.

How important is it for your makeup to be exclusive and original?

Do you like my new shoes?? I had been on the hunt for a pair that would simaltaneously tick the box 'stylish/original' and 'practical looking/ease of walking 40 minutes a day'. This was harder than anticipated, but these were the closest I could get. I would be devastated to see someone in the same pair, as that would be really embarrassing: it would mean we both went out of our way to be different, and failed in the very harshest way. Like the time I went on camp as a teenager, with a "radical" pink streak in my hair - and another girl had the same, exactly the same streak - same colour and everything ... cringe!

"Nice hair," we both said, trying to make light of it. But inside, clearly we were both seething with rage and humiliation. So, is it better to just go for simple sobriety, black lace ups, brown neutral smokey eye and a little belted blazer? Yes, most times it probably is.

This is a beauty blog, preaching to a beauty addicted community, who probably have all the basic colours covered, yet still yearn for the next big trend, the next big thing, the limited, exclusive or otherwise original new product to be tried and tested. Why do we persist?? This is my latest lemming:

It's the 'cool eyes' quad. And it's a duty free exclusive. Is it too absurd to book a holiday so I can get a MAC quad which has Springtime Skipper, Flashtrack and Water Nymph in? All colours I missed and wish I hadn't... I mean, any excuse for a holiday, right?! I have lined up two people I know who are going abroad anyway, and hopefully at least one of them will get it for me, but if not, I will definitely take matters into my own hands!! I need it!!

So, why do all beauty companies (though MAC is the greatest exponent of this technique) insist on bringing out these limited collections, seasonal collections, country exclusive collections, travel editions... why place all these unnatural barriers on your consumer? Yes, clearly it's to appeal to the same two box ticked boxes that I'd looked for in my shoe purchase, roughly: 'stylish/original' and 'practical/ease of use.' How else to achieve this than by limiting its availability, and assembling shades neatly and easily categorized. It works. And for addicts, it's no use debating the 'dupes' either - they're not exclusive, are they?

This extends even further when it comes to niche products. I once tried a sample of the famously expensive Creme de la mer and I was comforted to find that I hated it. I was grateful to be reminded of this in an article I once read, and can agree that it did cause spots. Yet make something shiny enough, or scientific looking enough, and my hopes are raised again. That article in fact argues that we enjoy this runaround, subconsciously or consciously we allow ourselves to be lulled into the hype; perhaps somehow imagining that even a placebo effect can have its advantages. Articles like that however are all too rare, it's no secret that magazines depend on major companies to fund their publications through advertising revenue, and are understandably reluctant to antagonise their sponsors.

Independent avenues like YouTube and blogs can run the risk of being swayed but are clearly less vulnerable. Whatstyleistonikel on Youtube went as fas as saying this sponsorship trend would sound the death knell for the YouTube makeup community, yet his own previous (very reliable and useful) review belied any real threat that this might truly be the case. Nevertheless companies are wise to realise that herein lies a passive, willing, consumer to be tapped.

Before YouTube, aside from the fact that my makeup collection generally has exploded, I had little notion of expert blending brushes, and no notion of eye bases, mixing medium or depotting. Pixiwoo, although also a prime target for sponsorship, has made a point of refusing YouTube partnership to enforce an independent image, and never uses an eyeshadow base as she has said this is pure marketing. Although I would respectfully disagree in the sense that new products can sometimes indeed signal new scientific progress, and none more so than the marvel that is UDPP, her point in general does hold true.

Although magazine articles arguably remain the best way to promote high-end beauty products, consumers now have the opportunity to go to independent sources to see the actual product being daubed; to hear a fellow makeup enthusiast assess its virtues in uncompromising terms.

TV adverts are still flooded by the major brands' drugstore products, afterall these are the easiest to shift in bulk and one imagines make up their biggest revenue, being as they are designed as impulsive purchases. But it seems niche markets with a higher price point, must seek out a more exclusive audience, ripe for convincing.

In terms of appealing to the customer on the shop floor, MAC have positioned themselves as a trend-driven, young brand. Their no-nonsense packaging reflects both the professional theme, and the rebuke towards all those austere "old lady" gold detailing so ubiquitous in Estee Lauder, Elizabeth Arden, Helena Rubenstein et al. Yet even MAC have now decided a "line filler" must become part of their permanent line-up, to appease their dedicated following, who by now struggle to deal with the onslaught of fine lines, and might otherwise consider whether now they too should embrace the more senior beauty ranges.

Clinique similarly taps into the young emergent market by having its very practical sounding 3 step program, and including acne remedies. But its emphasis is on the white coat and plain clinical (even in name) designs, so it avoids being tainted as surely as MAC in its demographic. MAC has deliberately cultivated close ties with fashion, particularly with young new designers, who are obviously delighted to be supported by a major brand.

The MAC promo images too are usually identified by their novel design. This is in stark contrast to simpler promo images aimed at the more senior makeup consumer. Spot the difference:

Top:EL; Bottom, MAC.

And how easy is it to change one's perceived brand image? I suspect it will be easier for MAC to move in line with their established customer base, than it would for a company like EL, HR or EA to convince a younger generation to shake off the image of a frail granny hand carefully twisting up her golden lipstick case.

But if Nivea manage to pull this one off, then anyone can:

... How do you make your beauty choices? And what does your chosen brand say about you? Does it matter to you to whether something is exclusive?

Rational make up discourse

After the recent thunderstorm provoked by one girl and her opinion on Coastal Scents... (gosh, déjà vu anyone??) I feel it is timely to point you in the direction of a few websites which always prove valuable resources when I start to panic.

Make up is created to make you look flawless, young and beautiful... but when you start wondering whether the ingredients will break you out, age you, or, as in this case- cause severe, perhaps fatal! lung disease, then it is time to take stock. Although scaremongering will always prove more exciting than platitudes, I felt unconvinced by the Youtube video. Nevertheless, Coastal Scents are developing a notorious reputation over these scenes, which will undoubtedly cost them dear.

....Knowledge is power, peeps!

Check out http://www.cosmeticsinfo.org/index.php if you ever need to know what's what.

Check out http://datecalculator.googlepages.com/englishhomepage as an easy way to tell how old your make up is!

Check out http://search.caringconsumer.com/ if, like me, you worry about the ethics side of your make up.