ARCHIVE: Should just *anyone* be allowed to influence?
You can guess what my answer is, can't you?
Some things you should take as fact before you read this piece:
I think beauty influencers of all kinds are, for the most part, legitimate and great
I am fully in support of influencer marketing as an industry
I don’t partake myself for various reasons but am happy for those who do
This piece is written out of frustration at seeing people being misinformed in subtle but potentially harmful ways by people online (both traditional and new media) who just don’t CARE and will shill anything to make money
This is mostly focusing on beauty, but a similar argument could probably be made by other genres I just don't have expertise in
We move on!
I got a T-shirt sent to me recently as part of a press pack. Crisp, white cotton with small black lettering sewn on that read ‘Informed, not influenced’.
I stared at the short statement for longer than I expected to, and the genesis of this Patreon piece was born therein. It was admittedly helped along by this post by Caroline Hirons, where she – quite rightly – absolutely drags Gwyneth Paltrow and Vogue US for platforming… a heap of shite, frankly, about SPF and how much one should wear.
I recalled the MANY times over recent years where I’ve rolled my eyes listening to people on social media with a considerable following rabbit on about some product or other, extolling its virtues, licking the brand’s arse and then dropping an AF link or a #spon a week later for the same brand/product.
BY ALL MEANS, get that cash, gal, yes. By all means. Someone’s making it, it might as well be you.
But when does responsibility come into it? And why does it seem that no one is trying to police that? Even US Vogue let a non-expert (Gwyneth) spout total and potentially dangerous crap to their massive follower number. For what? Clicks, I suppose?
Before I go on, I’ll say this: Yes, I’m a print journalist first and foremost, trying to make myself relevant in front of a digital audience. It’s a challenge that I don’t often succeed in.
And yes, I am a die-hard magazine lover who will always believe and trust editorial content. I buy into (having seen it firsthand) the hierarchy of writer → editor → publisher → publishing company’s broader history and heritage, particularly when it comes to taking responsibility for content published.
I acknowledge entirely the bias that can emerge within print titles – I’m not blind to the fact that gifting, press trips and free bars have been a mainstay of the magazine journalism world for decades and longer – I’ve benefited directly from that exact thing many times over. HOWEVER, and this is what I see a big difference between ‘traditional’ beauty media and ‘new’ beauty media:
If I went on a glamorous press trip, or was sent some extravagant gift alongside a product for review, I had someone to answer to about my filed copy thereafter. I couldn’t – wouldn’t – be unfairly in favour of a brand, a product, a founder or whatever based on being wined and dined. Not because I wouldn’t be tempted to, more so because I had an editor always, or a CEO, or an editorial director, and a publishing company with a reputation and a standard to uphold, who would pull me back from fangirling based on a lovely press trip I’d been on or gift I’d been given.
There were people above me who were responsible for the content published. It wasn’t just a “I had this thought and so now I’m writing it and that must mean it’s true and worthwhile”.
Within magazines, even advertisers (who are to be pandered to somewhat) had to adhere to in-built standards. They had to be fairly reported upon and put alongside rival brands. Ridiculous claims about product efficacy would be checked. Notes would be included in pieces about consumer trials versus clinical trials. Contraindications would be pointed out. A back-story, a context, experienced and nuanced views would be insisted upon by editors. It wasn’t enough, ever, to just “LOOVVVE this product, OMG…” and expect that to count as great content.
I think influencer marketing is an incredible thing. A powerful and impactful way for brands to remove the middle-man and talk directly to their potential consumer. When I see a beauty influencer with a genuine passion for beauty doing legitimate comparisons, talking honestly about the good versus bad of a product, I enjoy the content. I was that person, many years ago.
Everyone (myself included) cannot possibly be an expert, and sometimes you just want to see a ‘real’ person experiencing a product the way you yourself would. I am also painfully aware of the beauty missteps made by ‘big’ beauty journos from time to time – we’ve all seen the likes of India Knight say some eye-roll worthy things, in spite of her massive experience and background in beauty. No one is infallible – see the aforementioned Vogue US x Gwyneth dumpster fire.
But my bugbear is this: Content being produced without the requisite responsibility to the consumer. There’s a sliding scale, where the resulting content ranges from being just a bit silly (I saw recently someone recommending putting Sudocrem on spots, and also saw someone refer to a years-old product as “this new moisturiser from It Cosmetics that I’m dying to try”) to being quite problematic (like the massive Irish influencer who promoted a retinol product aggressively without ANY mention of sun care in the days following retinoid use).
WHERE IS THE LINE?
I am absolutely bitter and twisted about the shift away from magazines and towards online influencers – I can hear you thinking it and it’s so obviously true. I’m sucking on a lemon and the distaste seeps out of me. But here’s why:
I've been a beauty writer for 15 years. I started with a blog, too. My passion for beauty at that time wasn’t back with much expertise, but it was genuine and enthusiastic, without even the VAGUE notion that it could be a money-maker, nevermind an entire career.
I was incredibly lucky to land a column in a national paper – the Irish Independent Weekend magazine – when I was 21 as a direct result of my blogging. I wasn’t the only one thinking WTF?! Am I qualified for this? But my editor (see? Layers of accountability, early doors) at the time assured me she wanted someone with a passion for writing about beauty who wasn’t yet bathed in industry cynicism. Me!
After that, I worked as beauty editor in U magazine for five years, I was the beauty writer (and editor) at Xposé magazine for three years. Since then I've freelanced and covered beauty for Irish Tatler, Image, 2fm, The Irish Times, Confetti magazine, Brown Thomas’ customer magazine and Irish Country Magazine, as well as on my own social channels and here on Patreon. I realise you didn't ask for my CV, but here we are.
For years, I’ve worked hard to know about brands, founders, ingredients. I've spent years attending events, listening to the science behind launches, developing a keen bullshit detector, trialling and testing what works, what doesn't, what's going to do well and what'll likely flop. I've met and spoken to some incredibly talented beauty writers and editors from different countries.
I’ve got an almost boring level of historical brand knowledge combined with the ability to remain impartial in the face of – let’s be honest here – piles of freebies. (On that front, I’ll say this: After 13 years, I still get giddy opening packages. I still SCREAM my gratefulness to every brand who sends me something to review. I know exactly how much of a beauty-based privilege I enjoy and never, ever take it for granted.)
Whatever about my ability and my work ethic, I know I've been very lucky to do something I love for so long and to have enjoyed every second. Talking about and writing about beauty is something I really love. I do it for free, I do it when no one is interested in hearing me do it, I do it in my spare time. Importantly, though, I do it professionally because those who hire me know all of the above. (Sorry if any or all of that sounded like an ad for **MYSELF**, but I’m trying to put context on the rest of the rant.)
So why, at least once a week, do I throw my eyes to heaven and hands in the air and swear that I'm giving up writing about beauty? That I'm fed UP? That I'm just not doing it anymore?
I think it’s that aforementioned bugbear. Seeing unresearched, irresponsible content being produced, seeing trusting consumers believing it as gospel, seeing people make bags of cash and the presence of no standards or repercussions in terms of quality or reliability of content.
My personal and invisible line is drawn when the following happens:
Someone is paid by a brand to say great things about their product based SOLELY on their follower number. A background in beauty doesn’t seem a priority at times. Clicks and views are the required KPIs, and sure feck it if the conversion to actual loyal customers isn’t high – the PR/marketing firm have done their job. Eyeballs.
It used to be: Brand launches product, print/digital media learn about product, media write in magazines or online about the product, with a general basis of knowledge, interest and expertise. Or at the very least, some accountability from higher-ups. Public learns about product, maybe they buy the product, and the cycle starts again.
Then bloggers and influencers started to enter the equation in increasing number. It was no longer just the media, it was everyone. Anyone! The only requirement was that you could throw a caption together.
A truly excellent development, I think, and a wonderful democratisation of beauty content creation. Most of these people have a genuine passion for beauty and have spent more money than they should on product for research and review purposes. Honest opinions, coming from a place of intelligent, considered trialling and taking into account the bigger picture.
It would make me think, should the responsibility come from brands?
Because for some brands, the priority is sales and return on investment rather than building trust and loyalty and ensuring return custom. WHAT, I hear you exclaim. A brand looking to MAKE SALES?! Surely not?
I know, I know. Capitalism etc.
But if we can’t rely on brands to be gatekeepers, how to we avoid the following:
Beauty Brand X getting in touch with and paying influencers who tick one of two boxes:
The high follower count box, or the 'this person will look really beautiful in an artfully taken picture wearing/using this, thus providing us with both coverage and reusable content' box.
Do they have to have any particular involvement in the beauty industry? Not necessary.
A passing interest in beauty, surely? A non-essential.
Some expertise in ingredients, some knowledge of formula? Absolutely not needed.
But SURELY their audience have to be engaged and interested in buying beauty? Naaaah, not really.
It can be said that sometimes broad exposure is the only thing a brand wants, which is fine – is there a place for traditional static advertisements on people’s channels, versus things they have to personally advocate for, in that case?
And all that is before I even get into brand loyalty – we’ve all seen it. One week, influencer X saying “this is the ONLY tan I wear” and the following week, a new tan pops up on their shelfie. Or the old “I’ve been using these skincare products for months now” – meanwhile I sit there listening, aware that the products only landed in the person’s lap days beforehand, and waiting for the day the contract expires and they go back to other brands, nothing said.
I’m not saying I’m not the most disloyal gal in the history of hyaluronic acid – I’m very much open to and used to brand hopping – but *key difference* – I don’t take anyone’s money to swear up and down that a product is “gaaame changing” only to drop it like a hot snot moments after the reel stops recording.
But for me, when making statements about skincare, cosmetics, haircare, whatever, I have a very real sense of ‘someone may part with their hard-earned cash for this’ – I feel the weight of the purchasing power on me and I feel, you guessed it, responsible.
Maybe that’s the difference? There’s a huge chasm between loving beauty, being makeup and skincare obsessed, and being trustworthy and impartial enough to inform and influence people in their (often expensive) purchases. Lots of people love beauty. It’s easy to love! Lots of people have lots of opinions on beauty. Again, it’s not hard to form an opinion.
My question is: Where are the gatekeepers? Where are the editors, the people not being paid to ‘LOOOVEE’ a product, who will think critically, give honest feedback and protect consumers from the constant sell, sell, sell?
OUTRAGE: REWARDED
Charlotte Palermino (co-founder of skin-care company Dieux) commented to The Cut recently in a piece that “social media rewards outrage”, and she’s bang on.
Her comments continued: “As we’ve seen, whether it’s politics or skin care, outrage is not necessarily a good thing. Nuance is good, but social networks never reward nuance. It’s scary how a person with a megaphone can have so much impact. I’m seeing people say that massive sun exposure prevents skin cancer. I’m like, I’ve had shit cut out of my body. No, it doesn’t.”
And while something like skin cancer is among the more serious issues misinformation in the beauty sphere speaks to, there are people out there making reputations, money and livelihoods based on their opinions on products.
Is it right that people without relevant background experience can influence to such a degree, without repercussion? Without someone reading their caption before it’s live? Without someone monitoring their transparent brand-hopping?
TRUST IS LOW – STANDARDS ARE TOO
In Ireland, the ASAI (advertising standards crowd) are ramping up their efforts to control the advertising content posted on social media with ever-expanding guidelines. But it seems to me to be a mostly money-focused campaign they’re on: Like, they don’t care what you’re pushing or how you’re pushing it, once it’s clear you’ve made money and are declaring that fact to your audience.
According to a piece by Ad World last December, research carried out by the Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland (ASAI) shows that 80% of people believe that digital advertising should be regulated in the same way that traditional advertising is. Agreed.
When it came to influencer marketing, the research found that 59% said content that appears false or not authentic, annoys them. In addition only 7% have trust in what influencers post, and that just 19% believe influencer content is responsible. Trust is, unfortunately, low. Standards are too. Maybe there’s a correlation there?
And with that in mind… Surely there are moves that can and should be made to bolster and support trust in the growing industry? It’s not going anywhere, it’s worth literal billions and is clearly and by far the preferred way for brands to reach and sell to customers at the moment. It has the potential to be an incredible resource, and to please all sides of the purchase-driving trifecta: The brand, the influencer and the follower.
MEASURABILITY
One way influencer marketing in beauty outstrips magazine or print potential is in metrics. How can you know, really, how long a reader’s eye lingers on a printed page while they sit having a pedicure and flicking through a copy of Cosmopolitan? There’s no way. But with online, everything is readable data. A total advantage for brands and influencers alike. A piece by Ian Samuel on Mediatel.co.uk said the following:
“Another reason marketers are putting their ad spend behind influencers is because of the growing levels of measurability you can now achieve, from literally reading the comments, likes, click-throughs and views which show how well the ad is doing, and how consumers are responding to your product.”
ADS IN CONTEXT
Another point Samuel made on Mediatel was the following:
“When you flick through a magazine, you aren’t appalled when you find adverts between the content you’ve paid for. We are slowly getting to the place when this is true for influencers. Followers now expect to view a certain amount of sponsored posts in return for high quality content.”
I think this is absolutely true – but there are key differences to be examined to correctly contextualise that position. Holy hell, that’s the most “I’m trying to impress my politics lecturer” sentence I’ve written since the halcyon days of DCU 2008. Soz. Anyway, the key differences:
In a magazine, the editorial content is not paid for directly. It’s impartial, an educated opinion, researched and read over by editors, and puts purchasing encouragement and decisions into a big picture context for readers/future consumers. In between those pages, there are ads, of course.
They are ready-made print ads coming directly from brands, billboard style, and don’t require personal or enthusiastic endorsement from the publication in which they are placed. When an ad is placed with an influencer, it quite often requires some kind of vocal involvement (or at least a supportive caption) from the influencer in question. It’s not just sitting there, waiting to be skipped over or subliminally taken on by the reader.
Another type of ad is the advertorial, which quite often uses the magazine’s editorial aesthetic and maybe even a staff writer, to promote and present a brand to the reader. These (in any responsible publication) are marked as advertorial, making sure the reader knows that it’s a paid feature. This, to my mind, is the closest resemblance to a #ad or #spon post on an influencer’s channel, but still doesn’t quite line up: Even in an advertorial, a responsible publication will fact check, research and contextualise. Not always the case with influencer marketing. Some brands insist on it, many don’t.
TL;DR: I am a print journalist in a digital age, lost somewhere between ‘traditional’ media and new media. I’m in the desert. I’ve got the weight of editorial responsibility on my shoulders while trying to navigate a world where money is being made hand over fist by beauty influencers who emerged a wet Wednesday ago and immediately positioned themselves as experts. #NotAllInfluencers, of course: The people I trust regarding beauty buys are as likely to be influencers like Karen Constantine of Lovely Girly Bits as they are to be old-school beauty journalists like Sali Hughes.
The entire time I was writing this needlessly extensive manifesto, I was in an internal dialogue with myself about which of my past colleagues or editors I might run it by as a first reader. Why? It’s my personal Patreon page! Why would I need a second eye on something I have eVeRy RiGhT tO tAlK aBoUt?!
Well, you see. This is the whole thing: I’m trained that way. I’m conditioned not to just write and post willy nilly, assuming that whatever notion I’ve cooked up in my head is automatically worthy of being read. I respect and appreciate anyone who reads what I write, how they might be influenced or informed, and I know the value a second eye can bring. Enforcing my own standard, particularly with a piece like this, feels like the responsible thing to do.
TELL ME ALL OF YOUR FEELINGS IN THE COMMENTS
A.