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.

Forensic Beauty

There has always been something very unsettling about 'eyes are the windows to the soul' and by extension the Disney-esque tendency to link mortal looks with moral virtue. Every time a mugshot of a celebrity or an unexpectedly good looking criminal surfaces, it causes excitement for the implied schism. But truly aren't both traits equally as random and dictated by fate as each other? Looks more so, but even criminals - usually it is their sad circumstance and 'There but for the grace of God...' etc etc. Well Dove are at it again, this quest to convince us that "real beauty" is in all of us (barf) and as their earliest campaign was severely blighted by the 'revelation' that in fact these dogmatically 'real' images were as retouched as the best of them - perhaps they should be applauded for their tenacity. Yes the advertising campaign to supposedly promote us insecure women that we truly are "more beautiful than you think" has struck again. It seems to me in some ways that this patronising tactic actually serves to entrench insecurity and normalise feelings of inadequacy. But maybe I am resisting their liberating, ground-shattering message... Nonetheless: this is an interesting experiment and a good idea. A forensic artist, more accustomed to capturing felons by a skillful recreation of testimony, is appointed to demonstrate the contrast between our own perception of Self, and the Self we project to Others.







Yes, as is inevitable with any self-righteous advert, it is ripe for parody and the second video is brilliant! It is a very true and rather perplexing point: Why is it, that as women we are always worried at some level about our looks - yet men, however gloomy, do truly believe that with the right lighting or circumstance, they could absolutely get that model! Even though men nowadays are more subjected than ever to the pressure of looking good (in addition to having a powerful position in society) there is still a very identifiable difference in the vulnerabilities between the genders. This advert would simply not work if it was aimed at men. I am torn as to whether I think the advert makes a great point (albeit a banal one) or whether it is very old fashioned and insulting to keep stabbing at the idea that as women we should be more resigned and then people will love us for our acceptance.

What do you think??

The strategy used to sell us Beauty seems to rest alternately on empowering women with the promise of instant improvement, or comforting us that we are just splendid the way we are - and that by buying this brand we are proving just that.

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.

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?