Week 5 blogs - ‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide

 Week 5 blogs - ‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide

‘Not ugly, just poor’: how the beauty industry is widening the class divide | Dazed

The ‘Dazed’ article “Not Ugly, Just Poor: How the Beauty Industry is Widening the Class Divide” looks into beauty, economics and social inequality in society. Looking at the current beauty industry, the article says that the beauty industry is not just selling products or services but they are now making class divisions worse. The article reveals how beauty has become a way to show privilege and how those without the financial means are going to be overlooked.

The article starts with the assumption that beauty has always been a way to show social status. This started when having pale skin meant you were rich and didn’t go outside, and if you had tanned skin, it was a sign you were lower-class and worked outside for the higher-class people. The beauty industry now pushes an expanding range of cosmetic procedures, skincare routines, and aesthetics, showing these as ways to self-improve. However, the article suggested that only certain people can afford the cost. The article also suggests that beauty is no longer for personal preference or fun, but it is financial. It is saying how those who can afford to pay for these treatments get advantages and privileges, and those who can't are left behind.

The article highlights “beauty tax”. This is forced on many individuals, mainly women who invest in their appearance to be seen as employable, desirable or competent. The article suggests that attractiveness connects with higher earnings and greater opportunities. In a way beauty is about looking your best and sometimes it can cause better treatment. However, that is based on personal opinions and not what actually happens.  

The article also talks about how class links with beauty. As procedures have become normalised, the need for cheaper alternatives has pushed some individuals to find unsafe and unregulated places that do the treatments cheaply. This shows how financial inequality has an effect all around. Individuals who struggle to afford these feel compelled to find a way that can potentially harm them, but because it is how they view the norm, they will take that risk. The article suggests that the poor may be compelled to take greater health risks to approximate elite beauty standards, while the wealthy can access safe, professional care.

The article has some good points, but it would benefit from a more intersectional approach. Factors such as race, gender, and disability also influence access to beauty capital and experiences of aesthetic discrimination. The article was very sexist and sounded like the writer had an alternate motive behind what the article said. 

Group discussion

During the group discussion, there were many interesting points. The article spoke about how if you are "pretty", you get privilege, but what if someone does not like having any form of treatment done to them? They could feel pressured to start having treatments done because they feel like it is what the rest of the world wants. However, it can also have an effect on the people who do want to have these treatments done because the prices are increasing, and it is becoming so expensive that someone who would get weekly treatment can not afford to have them done anymore. It was discussed how this could have an effect on mental health because if someone was used to having a treatment done at the same time every month, they have something to look forward to. However, if they can not afford it anymore, it could affect them and make them feel down. In the article, there was a comment about how the lower class can not afford to get treatments, and only the middle and higher classes can. This was disagreed with straight away because that is not true. Each individual is different because people will make the money if they want a treatment done. Anyone can afford what they want if they really put their mind to it. Someone could say they dislike treatments that change the way you look, like Botox and fillers, but then have their hair coloured or be covered in tattoos. These are all ways that can change your appearance, it is just personal preference. Someone who is wealthy can still be untidy or unhygienic and someone who is lower class can still be clean and have had treatments done. It is not about what class you are in, it is how you view yourself and others. Some people only get treatments sometimes because they need them or it could improve their mental health. For example, if someone was missing a few teeth and they went to get Turkey teeth because it made them feel more confident in themselves and how they looked. During the discussion, the article sounded like it had a different motive behind the article. It was very sexist and against treatments. Overall, the article was not very fair-minded and was one-sided to the reader, which could make the readers think differently because of one person's opinion. Getting treatments done is each person's preference. There is no one rule in this industry, it is all about what each individual wants. 

Week 4 blogs - Why disability remains the beauty industry’s next inclusivity frontier

Week 4 blogs - Why disability remains the beauty industry’s next inclusivity frontier

Why disability remains the beauty industry’s next inclusivity frontier | Dazed

The article “Why disability remains the beauty industry’s next inclusivity frontier” talks about the continuing lack of accessibility and representation for people with disabilities within the beauty industry. In recent years, there has been progress toward racial, gender and size inclusivity. The article talks about how the biggest gap in inclusivity is disabilities.

The article talks about how over 1.3 billion people live with some type of disability. They talk about how this creates a massive customer base who are being ignored. Even with this massive range, beauty brands still aren’t doing what they should be. The industry is still missing products that are suitable for different ranges of people. Every day struggles for people with disabilities often include products that are difficult to open, products that aren’t labelled properly, such as braille or tactile markings and tools that haven’t been created to suit their needs. The article looks into how even though inclusivity is talked about in the beauty industry, nothing is done to fix it.

A few brands that the article talked about are Lancome’s HAPTA. This is a computerised makeup applicator that is designed to help individuals with limited hand mobility. Another brand is Unilever’s deodorant prototype. However, this article also talks about how most of the time, products only stay in the design process or are discontinued before they are known and used by the people who actually need them. This shows how the industry can be all talk and not actually focused on reaching other audiences. 

Smaller brands are becoming the leading brands that are more inclusive. The article talks about Guide Beauty, they were founded by a makeup artist diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. They developed tools that help with getting a better grip and improving control for users with tremors. Another brand the article spoke about was Human Beauty. They are a UK-based brand that was created specifically to address the inaccessibility and lack of representation for people with disabilities. The examples that the article provided show how smaller brands are catering to everyone’s needs and are finding the gaps in the industry that need addressing.

A key point the article made was how the industry needs to do better in creating products and tools. Brands are always discussing that they are inclusive and how they are meeting everyone's needs, but they never actually create them. While featuring a model who has a disability in a campaign or advertisement is inclusive, it isn’t enough. Real inclusivity is having the products on the market and being inclusive to all and not just talking about it. Brands need to start being inclusive throughout the whole development process. The product development, packaging, marketing and retail environments. The article highlights that individuals with disabilities should be included in the research, testing, and creative processes of beauty creation.

Group discussion 

During the discussion, there were many interesting points. There is a massive gap in the industry that needs to be fixed. Being an inclusive brand should be one of the most important factors when creating that brand because everyone can use it. When discussing how a brand doesn't meet everyone's needs and is not inclusive, is it because the brand can not afford it? Brands know what products are going to do well and if they have a big enough audience to get money back into the business. However, as not many products have been created and developed in this industry yet, the brands might not have the finances to create something that has never been seen before, to then launch the product, and no one actually purchases it. This could be a reason for the gap in this industry. However, if they could not do that, the brands could add braille or symbols to the packaging that they already have. This alone is a big step toward inclusivity and would gain a bigger customer base. Another point discussed is how, in inclusivity, a small group is being listened to and the rest are being pushed aside and overlooked. In this day and age, this should not be happening. Everyone should feel included and that there are products out in the industry for them. If all a brand can do to be inclusive is to show different people in their advertisements and campaigns, then they aren't doing enough. Overall, the industry needs a change, and if the brands do not realise this, they will lose business, smaller brands will come out on top, and the industry will come to a stop. 

Week 3 blog - Future of Beauty: 2025 Cosmetic Industry Trends Shaping the New Era

 Week 3 blog - Future of Beauty: 2025 Cosmetic Industry Trends Shaping the New Era

Future of Beauty: 2025 Cosmetic Industry Trends Shaping the New Era

This article was hard to read and follow along with. It was very disorganised and there was a lack of a clear focus. This made it increasingly difficult to follow along when reading the article. As the article caused these problems, it was difficult to follow the author's chosen argument. Although the article attempted to discuss the potential effects of chemicals in beauty products and their link to hormone imbalances, it felt forced. The article was saying that if a certain chemical were used, it would have caused effects on the body. The article failed to show one main theme. This article was a perfect example of what not to do because just by reading the article and looking at the overall layout, it was easy to tell that it had been generated by AI. The use of excessive headings, subheadings, emojis, and drop-down sections is what made this assumption. These are features commonly used with AI-generated work rather than academic or professional writing.

The article's content was lengthy but lacked information. It often jumped between unrelated topics, making it hard to explore the topics it was talking about. The language was repetitive and overly complicated. The article used advanced vocabulary to express simple points, which added to the confusion. After realizing that this was AI generated, to see if it was true, we researched the author. The author claimed to hold a PhD, but there was no verifiable academic record, published thesis, or professional background that could be found. This, along with the lack of references or citations, weakened the article's reliability as a credible source. The claims were based solely on personal opinion, without supporting evidence from scientific studies or multiple viewpoints.

While the article did have several interesting points regarding the environmental impact of ingredients in beauty products, these ideas were not suitably developed or backed by data. The suggestion that businesses should prioritise recyclable and sustainable materials is valuable because eco-friendly practices can appeal to consumers and boost sales. However, the article did not consider the challenges that smaller brands might face in adopting such practices, including financial strain and the risk of bankruptcy. This created an important question about whether the beauty industry can realistically strike a balance between economic growth and environmental responsibility.

The article shows an awareness of environmental and ethical issues in the cosmetics industry but lacks academic language, coherence, and reliable sourcing. The article shows that using AI to write an article is not the best approach. It lacks a clear point to discuss, the layout is unreadable and does not make sense and it shows the need for references to support the points. The article talks about the ongoing tension within the beauty sector between producing sustainable, high-quality products and maintaining customers. The discussion was about how balance remains challenging to achieve, even for well-intentioned brands such as Lush, whose shift towards vegan and cruelty-free products has reportedly impacted product quality.

The article created a feeling that if someone were to use a particular product with a certain chemical in it, it would cause problems, whether that be an illness, reaction or something else. It felt like the article had an alternative motive behind what they were actually talking about. This was created because the article didn't actually have a main point to talk about. As it was written by AI, it was all over the place and didn't actually make sense. 

Week 2 blog - Deinfluencing: Is the end nigh for beauty influencers?

Week 2 blog - Deinfluencing: Is the end nigh for beauty influencers?

Deinfluencing: Is the end nigh for beauty influencers? | Dazed

The article discusses how beauty influencers, who used to be the authoritative voices promoting must-have products and perfect tutorials, are now focusing their cameras and algorithms on what not to buy. This is now called “deinfluencing”. This appears to be a new change.

This article begins with a clear explanation of the trend. Instead of showcasing highlighters and new palettes, some creators are now filming videos where they say “don’t buy this” or “skip that”. During the cost-of-living crisis, many consumers are growing tired of seeing influencers promote products that exceed the cost of basic necessities. The article suggests that the root of deinfluencing lies in a mix of consumer pushback and influencer fatigue. People are tired of being told what they must own, and influencers are tired of being treated like walking billboards.

A key point that the article talks about is what’s known as “MascaraGate.” A popular TikTok beauty influencer reviewed a mascara in a sponsored post, only to be accused of wearing false eyelashes while saying the effect came from the product itself. This was seen as a symbol of a bigger trust crisis. When consumers believe influencers aren’t being honest, the base of “influence” begins to break. The article talks about how the fallout wasn’t just reputational.

The article argues that we are be witnessing not just a change in influencer behaviour, but the possible problem of the “beauty influencer industrial complex”. The market is oversaturated, consumers are sceptical, and now influencers themselves are changing their tone. From “buy this” to “don’t buy that”. But that doesn’t make it more honest. Deinfluencing is still positioning itself as your guide, still prompting you toward choice, it’s just shown differently.

The article mentions research indicating that negative or critical reviews receive more engagement than positive ones. This is because viewers now assume that product approvals are sponsored. When someone says, “This didn’t work for me”, that feels more trustworthy. The article doesn’t agree with that because it says that negative content can be just as monetised as positive content, with influencers sometimes paid to put down other competitor brands.

The influencer era is not ending but it is evolving. Brands, creators and consumers are all shifting their expectations. For creators, being “anti-hype” becomes a way to stand out in a crowded space. For consumers, the power dynamic changes. They will not only praise the good they do but also critique when something needs changing.

Overall, this Dazed article shows how the beauty industry is at a crossroads. The growth of influencer culture is showing signs of strain. The rise of deinfluencing may be less about rejecting influencers and more about evolution, “buy this to look like me” to “this didn’t work for me, maybe this will”. These changes could end beauty influencers in their current form. The audience has gained more power, which could be the change the beauty industry needs.

 

Group discussion

The group discussed the article and its issues, focusing on how sales targets and KPIS in retail can drive overconsumption. At beauty counters, employees are briefed on product sales and targets at the start of their shifts, which can pressure staff to persuade customers to buy unnecessary products. The group agreed that honesty and integrity are vital in the beauty industry, emphasising transparent communication and selling based on genuine needs rather than targets. They noted that overconsumption affects not only consumers but also professionals like makeup artists, who may over-purchase to keep up with trends. Social influence, especially through social media, was identified as a major reason for impulse buying, creating a “fear of missing out” and resulting in excess products. Overconsumption varies, from owning multiple versions of the same item to collecting entire ranges never used. The group discussed how brands rebrand or update packaging to attract consumers and how influencers influence habits. Dishonest reviews and overly positive sponsored content can get rid of trust, making transparency essential. The discussion decided that overconsumption stems from corporate pressures, social influences, and consumer psychology. Promoting responsible consumption and honesty is crucial for industry integrity.

Overall, the article showed the evolving influence in the beauty sector, highlighting trends like “deinfluencing” and their impact on trust and authenticity. It shows the importance of integrity and transparency in influencer culture and daily practice. The discussion shows that professionalism in beauty involves prioritising honesty, sustainability, and consumer awareness, reflecting on the industry's adaptation to social and economic changes in the digital age. 

Week 1 blog - Estee Laundry and Beauty’s second wave of accountability culture

 

Week 1 blog - Estée Laundry and Beauty’s second wave of accountability culture

Estee Laundry and beauty’s second wave of accountability culture | Dazed

The article from Dazed, "Estée Laundry and Beauty's Second Wave of Accountability Culture", arrived at a crucial moment for the beauty industry. Over the years, brands have made progress in being more inclusive, but the conversation surrounding these topics seems to have quietened. The article explored the journey of Estée Laundry, a once-anonymous Instagram account that shook the industry by calling out its numerous shortcomings.

Back in 2018, Estée Laundry made headlines by exposing the hypocrisy and unethical practices that surround the beauty world. Moving on to 2023, the account had gone silent, calling burnout and frustration with the nature of “call-out culture.” Now in 2025, Estée Laundry has returned with a fresh approach that feels more reflective and needed than ever before.

Despite progress, there has been a dip in diversity and inclusivity within the beauty industry. Foundation shades are becoming more limited and many campaigns are lacking in representation compared to previous years. Estée Laundry's return serves as a reminder that these issues are still relevant and that the demand for accountability is far from over.

Dazed shows that Estée Laundry is still one of the only independent voices that are willing to challenge and advocate for necessary changes. Without people like them, the beauty industry risks self-regulation that rarely leads to significant change.

The article shares some essential statistics: 45% of Gen Z and 50% of Millennials claim they would stop supporting brands that lack inclusivity or ethical practices. This statistic shows the importance of honesty, which is what Estée Laundry offers. By calling out negative behaviour and uplifting those who take positive steps, they help consumers to make informed, ethical choices.

Dazed isn't just sending out gossip, it is a wake-up call. The industry is at risk of relapsing at a time when diversity advocacy seems to have quieted. Watchdogs like Estée Laundry remind us that inclusivity isn’t a trend but an ongoing responsibility.

The article creates a conversation about representation and inclusivity, which in an ideal world should be a given, not a privilege. However, brands continue to fall short in areas such as diversity in shade ranges, campaign representation, and leadership diversity.

Some argue that the need for watchdogs like Estée Laundry feels outdated, claiming that the industry has improved thanks to social media and consumer awareness holding brands accountable. After all, many companies now advertise themselves as inclusive, sustainable, and ethical.

On the other hand, the piece argues that despite the public efforts and claims of progress, many hidden issues still persist. Brands often tokenise diversity rather than embracing it. Claims of sustainability are sometimes exposed as mere greenwashing. When left unchecked, companies inevitably revert to prioritising their image and profits over genuine change.

Overall group discussion

In our group discussion, we looked into the article and the challenges of inclusivity and diversity within the beauty industry. Despite social awareness, many brands still struggle to offer a big enough shade range or cater to various people. We collectively agreed that all beauty brands need to stock a full range of skin tones, from the lightest to the deepest. Brands like Fenty Beauty, Maybelline, and Haus Labs show inclusivity with their wide shade ranges, showing that catering to diverse consumers boosts both appeal and success. Many affordable brands now provide broader shade ranges compared to some high-end brands, showing that inclusivity is led by brand values more than price points.
Several brands appear to be stuck in outdated practices, offering limited product ranges that cater to a narrow audience. We pointed out Estee Lauder as a prime example of a brand that has historically targeted middle-aged white women, showing little willingness to adapt over the years. This one approach not only limits potential clientele but also distances younger consumers who are eager for representation. A few brands have taken constructive steps in response to critiques. For example, TIRTIR was initially criticised for its limited shade range but later expanded its line to include a more diverse range, showing the positive change possible when brands listen to their audience. It’s hard to see a decline in diverse representation in marketing, as many brands revert to showcasing mainly young, slim, white women with flawless skin. This lack of diversity in campaigns reinforces narrow beauty ideals, excluding many consumers. Real inclusivity should involve not only accessible products but also an accurate representation of all identities, body types, and skin tones in promotional materials. The discussion showed that embracing inclusivity and diversity should be a baseline expectation for the beauty industry. Brands that neglect these principles risk losing relevance and consumer trust, while those committed to genuine inclusiveness in both product offerings and advertising are likely to succeed. The beauty industry must align with society's progress, making sure everyone feels seen, represented, and valued. The revival of Estée Laundry shows how quickly progress can fall when the public’s focus shifts to different topics. Their commitment to thoughtful accountability, moving beyond quick judgments to meaningful dialogue about inclusive practices, aligns with what the industry desperately needs right now. Through the discussions about the article, it’s shown that brands often talk about diversity without genuinely delivering on their promises. Shade ranges are becoming shorter, and marketing is becoming less inclusive once again, despite prior advances. Inclusivity is not just about product offerings but also about visibility, respect, and the genuine feeling of being acknowledged. Real change occurs when companies heed feedback and adjust accordingly. In contrast, brands that cling to outdated practices risk their relevance in an increasingly aware and diverse market.