The Don't Buy List: Spon-Con, Sunscreen, & A Meticulous Messy Bun
Plus, a 4-inch washing machine for Beauty Blenders.
Hello, dewy dust bunnies, and welcome to another edition of the The Don’t Buy List! The other day, a skincare company sent me an email with the subject line “BOGO because YOLO,” and I haven’t known peace since. “Buy a bunch of discounted products you otherwise wouldn’t want, because you only live once”? What planet is the beauty industry operating on?? Surely not the one where consumerism is contributing to a climate crisis that threatens the very existence of humanity (and you know, by extension, human skin).
Speaking of the environment!
Katie Mather interviewed me about the (un)sustainability of celebrity beauty brands for In The Know by Yahoo! Honestly, this headline just fuckin’ delights me: ‘WE DON’T NEED THIS, WE DON’T WANT THIS’: CELEBRITIES KEEP LAUNCHING BEAUTY BRANDS BUT DON’T ADDRESS EXISTING ISSUES, EXPERT ARGUES. If my words keep just one person from purchasing Scarlett Johansson’s new Firming Vegan Collagen Prep Serum, I’ll be happy.
Alright, time for a big ol’ rant: In an investigation for Gawker, Tarpley Hitt explored “the ethical and material gray areas” of fashion brands paying fashion journalists to create sponsored content (AKA, spon-con) for their personal social media accounts. I read the whole thing while screaming, “DO BEAUTY NEXT! DO BEAUTY NEXT!” Every point that Hitt raises — that “endorsing a company you have covered betrays a fairly basic rule of reporting,” that journalist spon-con is “a clear conflict of interest” — applies to the beauty space, too. Maybe more so. I’ve written a bit about this before: In “beauty journalism”, a large portion of reporters, writers, and editors make extra money as brand consultants, ghostwriters for brand blogs, and general influencers (I’ve done this in the past, too). They’re paid to participate in public marketing campaigns for the same cosmetic companies they’re meant to impartially cover at their “day jobs.” Many receive a cut of the product sales they generate (not to mention, truckloads of free products). From my own experience behind-the-scenes, the bias born out of these brand-reporter relationships is to blame for so much misinformation — and missing information — in beauty media. (Worth noting: Bias isn't always conscious! In fact, it's usually unconscious! Which is precisely why these behaviors aren’t allowed in any other type of reporting, beyond fashion and beauty.) While these kinds of conflicts of course pose a problem in fashion reporting, I think they pose an even bigger problem in beauty reporting, and that is: