Fenty Beauty by Rihanna prides itself in creating “Beauty for All”, which was the central message we aimed to convey through our brand film. Fenty’s core values consist of being an inclusive, universal and diverse platform that empowers all who use her products. Her approach of representing people of colour challenges the beauty industry’s predominantly Eurocentric standards, which has successfully cultivated a cult following and broad customer base. For our film, we feature the lip gloss “Gloss Bomb”, one of her signature products with a universal shade intended to flatter all skin tones.

We planned to depict Fenty’s tagline “Beauty For All” by having four characters with individual styles, conveying the brand’s multicultural approach. Our film’s concept is that four characters are getting ready to meet at a bar for a night out. During the edit, we used different cross-cuts between characters to make the story flow more cohesively. Our first character, Farah, is an “it girl, ” applying makeup and getting ready in the mirror, which is our first camera angle. Our second character Nicole is a typical “girly girl” with floral accessories who is taking selfies before heading out. We planned to have her walk out the door, which cuts to our third character, Su Wen, who is a direct contrast to the first two with a darker aesthetic. Finally, our first three characters are at the bar, where they meet our fourth character, Shamit. We included a male in the film as it aligns with the brand’s mission to make beauty accessible to all.

Throughout the film, these distinct characters wearing the lip gloss reinforce Fenty’s intent to foster greater inclusivity in the industry. Most importantly, our four characters bonding at the end reflects the company’s goal to unite consumers regardless of race and gender.

TikTok is one of the leading social media platforms with a huge following among younger people, with many of them between the ages of 16 and 24.  To keep user interest in a competitive and increasingly crowded space, the platform uses sophisticated algorithms to curate content that reflects user interests. When dealing with ableism, which reflects discrimination against people with disabilities, the TikTok algorithm reveals that white people are clearly against ableism whereas Black people are more interested in addressing instances where white people come up short in their desire to challenge this discrimination.

These four videos were the first to appear after I used “ableism” as the only search term.

The two videos featuring African Americans were meant to criticize white people who fail to challenge ableism or unknowingly promote it. In the video on the top left, the young Black man mocks white people who claim that it is difficult to function in a “neurotypical society,” adopting a stereotypical white British accent. In the video on the top right, the Black woman argues that “white people weaponize safe spaces” and use them to harm people with disabilities. As for the two videos featuring white people with disabilities, they both center on ways that society advances ableist practices, compromising the commitment that many have made toward promoting a more inclusive society for all people.  

The content is clearly different, and yet the same search term produced these disheartening results. As an Arab Muslim woman who suffers from her own disability, I have no interest in seeing anti-ableism rhetoric in a racialized light. Therefore, I am left to conclude that the TikTok algorithm does not know me all that well despite the fact that I have been on the platform for several years already. I am also left wondering whether the algorithms really knows any of its users.

I am also led to wonder about the biases coded into the TikTok algorithm. Programers are just people with explicit and implicit biases, though they have an outsized role in today’s technological society, as they can promote these biases in the products they develop. Along with programer biases, TikTok also relies on collaborative filtering, which involves the platform recommending videos based on a user’s followers. None of my followers, I would like to believe, have this racialized sense of ableism. But, then again, I have followers whom I do not know and who do not even have profile names beyond the standard USER with countless digits afterwards.

Whether TikTok is interested in changing how it recommends videos to its users, I am not sure. Given its enormous popularity around the world, I doubt it is. Nevertheless, I am sure that if it does not make any changes to its algorithm, then I will likely continue to see important social issues divided into racial categories. The same is true of countless other users. While I am aware enough to recognize this situation and avoid racializing these issues, not everyone is. And this, I know, is a serious problem that can really jeopardize how potential allies and others see themselves and others in the fight against ableism and other forms of discrimination.  

Only a couple of years ago, in the wake of George Floyd’s death, Amazon embarked on an antiracism advertising campaign, showing its support for Black Lives Matter (BLM) and vowing to advocate for police reform. Its support was visible on its homepage, streaming platform, Twitter, and elsewhere. As the image below, which featured on the company’s homepage, shows, Amazon was unequivocal in its support for antiracism. 

Antiracism is about bringing attention to privilige that is rooted in skin color and taking steps to dismantle systemic inequalities. Amazon communicates these values by showing that it will serve as a reliable ally to the Black community, using its corporate muscle to bring attention—and fight against—social injustice. Amazon’s reach makes it a formidable ally, as Amazon is a global company with resources that exceed those of even the wealthiest corporations.

Amazon also made a point of partnering with other antiracism organizations such as the MLK Memorial Foundation’s Social Justice Fellows Program. As part of this support, Amazon donated an unspecified amount of money to the Foundation, showing that it was willing to use its resources to help promote equality, inclusion, accessibility, and other aspects of social justice.

In word and in action, Amazon put its values on display, though we must be skeptical of these values when commercial interests dominate the corporate position on any issue. A single question to answer: Can corporations ever care about anything other than making money?

“Amazon Web Services (AWS) is supporting the Memorial Foundation’s Social Justice Fellows Program by providing participants with free training and certification in cloud and STEM training. AWS
is also providing mentorship opportunities—which is where you come in.”

In word and in action, Amazon put its values on display, though we must be skeptical of these values when commercial interests dominate the corporate position on any issue. A single question to answer: Can corporations ever care about anything other than making money?

Perhaps, but anyone with a smidgen of awareness knows that Amazon is a for-profit company whose devotion is to shareholders, not antiracism activists. When viewed through the prism of commercial interests, it is safe to say that Amazon’s antiracism campaign likely reflected its desire to demonstrate its social awareness and expand its consumer demographic to those wanting to see corporations use their power to address social ills. Amazon never really had any choice but to acknowledge Mr. Floyd’s death and take a stand against racism since doing otherwise would have elicited backlash, possibly causing it to lose old consumers and alienate new ones. Not a winning strategy for a capitalist company looking to continually boost its share price.

Let us also not forget the opportunity to market the movement, which Amazon was quick to do with BLM shirts, posters, music, and more. For some time, Amazon even carried shirts depicting Mr. Floyd’s crime. Eventually, the company removed them. It did not disclose how much money it made off their sale, however. In the meantime, it has kept up countless other items depicting BLM and Mr. Floyd, undoubtedly profiting from them.

Profits before people, the corporate mantra. It appears that nothing can flip this equation, not even the death of an innocent Black man whose windpipe was crushed by a rogue officer sworn to protect and serve. In the corporate quest for profits, however, it is sometimes easier to position people first, especially when corporations worry about how the public will respond. After all, no corporation wants to give off the impression that it is profiting off tragedy. Fortunately, they do not have to provided that they utter some choice words about antiracism and throw some money toward a social justice organization.

Then, profiting becomes much easier.

Dove’s Men+Care Advertisement Campaign

Want to sell body soap and other related products but struggling to find an angle that evokes emotions and sends some sort of message? Try fighting the patriarchy with Dove’s Men+Care advertising campaign, which guides expectant fathers on how to act when they learn that they are about to become fathers—that is, loving, caring, and, above all else, teary-eyed.

The Dove Men+Care campaign epitomizes the branded wisdom concept, Naomi Klein’s term intended to explain the intermingling of corporate compassion and its concern for social well-being. Fathers matter, and fathers who play active and loving roles in the lives of their children matter even more. None of this is disputable, though it is intriguing that Dove, best known for selling body soap, would care so much about fathers. Reasons must exist for why it does.

To start, promotion, as the campaign is not as much about soap as it is about fatherhood. A new definition of fatherhood at that, the “caring masculinity” that subverts the machismo that once led fathers to believe that showing emotion or vulnerability was a sign of weakness. Yet, viewers cannot divorce the new, caring masculinity from the soap, even though one has nothing to do with the other.

Unfortunately for Dove, selling soap on its own is boring. It is also difficult when most men do not care all that much about moisturizing skin and the quality of the hair products that they use. Better, then, to tie Dove to fatherhood, masculinity, and the patriarchy, as these concepts elicit emotion and nothing better to connect viewers to a campaign than emotion. Even if Dove cannot reach men, it can always reach their womenfolk, as they are surely concerned about moisturizing skin and, oh, defeating the patriarchy.

The result: sales.

Further, the advertisement slyly plays to consumer empowerment, positioning Dove at the center of broader social change. Imagine being an expectant mother worrying about whether the expectant father will play an active role in his child’s life. No need to worry with Dove, as it has helped redefine men with its #RealStrength campaign. Now, all men have to do is listen.

But what if men don’t listen? Or, what if they listen, but a soap commercial is just not enough to overturn outdated modes of masculinity? Well, at least Dove can sell some soap, which really is its purpose for existing. Moreover, it can always appeal to the idea that it tried, pointing to the time and resources that it invested in its campaign designed to bring consumer attention to issues like unequal power structures and male-female relations.

The brand voice in a non-commercial space, in other words, does not have to actually yield any real and tangible, though the campaign is not all that interested in results anyway. More important is displaying the compassion that humanizes the corporation and gives consumers the appearance that it is interested in doing more than fattening corporate coffers.

Plus, how would results even look? It is not like Dove is doing sophisticated social science, tracking changes in beliefs and attitudes regarding masculinity. Convenient for the company also, as it can take an important issue, neatly insert it into some bottle or cannister, brand it in the commercial space, and wash its collective hands, no pun intended.

Before I talk about the Kuwaiti media and any possibility that it helps move the country toward democracy, let me give you a general overview of its organization. Once a monopoly with a few powerful families in charge, this changed in 2006 when the Kuwaiti Parliament eased licensing restrictions and stripped the government of some power to close media outlets.

Democracy at last! Well, not just yet. While Kuwait allegedly has an independent media, its independence only really exists in theory. Practically, the Kuwaiti media is an extension of the state, a powerful mouthpiece that prioritizes official thinking and limits any voices that the government may find threatening. 

What gives? Well, despite some of the more progressive laws, along with other freedoms that Kuwaitis have compared to their Middle Eastern neighbors, the Kuwait government has resisted any attempts to truly democratize its media. For proof, look no further than the Kuwaiti legislature and several laws that it has recently passed:

• Law 8, which demands that any electronic outlet first acquire a license from the Ministry of Information (MOI) Many have criticized the law for being too vague, giving the MOI more expensive powers.
• Constitutional Amendments 17 through 25, which gives the government freedom to prosecute any outlet found to be spreading fake news.Fake news is often just code for anything that goes against the government’s line of thinking.

Nothing in the way of democratization, if you ask me, and if you care to know, a step back for a country that has granted its citizens rights that others do not have. Kuwaiti media is not interested in delivering democracy, and it is not interested in creating the “mechanisms that make the rule of the many possible.” Its interests, instead, are to silence dissent and prevent people from thinking in ways that the government does not find desirable.

Somewhat of a tragic reality, but not entirely unexpected in a country that ranks 158 of 180 on the Freedom Press Index 2022. Any attempts to subvert these laws will end poorly, also. Just consider the case of blogger Masaed Al-Musaileem, who fled Kuwait in 2017 after posting information that was critical of the government. Al-Musaileem currently resides in Bosnia and Herzegovina under house arrest and the fear that authorities will deport him to Kuwait, where he faces trial and possible criminal conviction. Law 8 at work, ladies and gentleman, and Al-Musaileem is hardly alone in attracting the attention of Kuwaiti authorities looking to crack down on anyone using the media to broaden expression and take the power, not out of corporate hands but government ones.

Yet, no time for fretting, folks. Democracy does not exist in Kuwait’s media, but Al-Qabas, one of the country’s primary newspapers, has pushed the envelope when it comes to reporting on issues that other outlets avoid. Some of the issues: government corruption, the political struggles in the ruling Al Sabah family, the need for electoral reforms, and others. Former newspaper editor Mohammed Al-Sager even won the International Press Freedom Award from the Committee to Protect Journalists for his paper’s reporting.

A brave voice in a media landscape that favors elite interests and leaves little room for ordinary people to express their ideas or beliefs. Maybe, just maybe, Al-Qabas can help democracy in Kuwait blossom. Yet, in the face of a repressive media crackdown, imagining a more democratic Kuwait is tough, as the elite have a lot to lose in the face of a media that they can no longer bend their will.

The Art Maker Series by Adobe

Adobe’s Art Marker Series is definitely one of the most compelling examples of a brand harnessing user generated content (UGC) that I have seen. The Art Marker Series was a rather simple idea, and basically amounted to the company asking designers to submit the creative work that they produced using Adobe programs such as Illustrator, Photoshop, and others. Simple, easy, and yet quite effective.  

Adobe.

For Adobe, the UGC presents an opportunity for the company to demonstrate just how applicable its products are to the creative process. For proof, look no further the than the UGC, which transforms consumers into producers. The UGC also helps connect and promote collaboration in the Adobe artistic designer community, which is a great way to give community members new insight into how to use Adobe products.

This insight benefits creators, but I would still say that it benefits Adobe more since it takes the limelight when it comes to the creative process. The reason is that creators could not create if they did not have some Adobe program in their corner. Also, the UGC helps connect artist and brand, creating a stronger connection between the two and, quite possibly, strengthening brand loyalty. Again, Adobe benefits since the loyalty it generates minimizes the possibility that consumers turn to other companies to fulfill their artistic needs.

The Art Makers.

Creators, as you might expect, also benefit, as they have a large platform on which to display their work, drawing eyeballs and potential opportunities. Some of these opportunities may include professional work or the ability to meet fellow artists and embark on some other venture. The digital optimist would agree, and likely argue that the low barrier to entry favors the creator, who would have struggled to avoid the gatekeepers who zealously guard entry into museums, exhibitions, or more formal art establishments.

Even so, creators must relinquish their work to the company, as Freedman states, empowering the capitalist enterprise that Adobe represents. This enterprise extracts value from creativity that it did not generate. Fair enough, and reason why Adobe benefits more than the creator. This counter-narrative does not undermine the benefits that the creator receives from participating in the Art Maker Series, however. To these benefits, yet another, the ability for the creator to see what others have created, provoking inspiration and sending creative juices in new and exciting directions. Going forward, the creator may find that mere participation in the series was enough to motivate artistic growth and development.

The Consumer.

Finally, the consumer, the least benefitted of the group, as the consumer remains at a distance, examining the different creations and formulating opinions about Adobe’s products but little else. These opinions are likely to take the form of feedback, as consumers comment on the work they see, situating them in the larger conversation and encouraging Adobe to listen and respond accordingly. A rather democratic process, I would argue, as it moves power away from corporate hands and into those of the consumer.

Yet, consumer benefits are limited. True, consumers may feel more inclined to purchase Adobe products to possibly replicate the artistry they see, though purchase is an opportunity for Adobe, as it profits. In fact, it is safe to say that the defining purpose of this series is to increase engagement and, purchases. To this, I would add that purchasing does not sharpen the consumer’s actual creative skillset, nor do consumers gain any real insight into product usability or interoperability. In other words, they see the sausage, but not the manufacturing process. Viewing the finished product gives no understanding of the product’s strengths or weaknesses, reducing consumer benefits even more.