Unpacking the beauty industry’s enduring use of outdated, non-inclusive language…

Language and thinking are intrinsically tied, helping to form our understanding of society throughout our lives. Nowhere is this clearer than in beauty marketing. Think about the use of ‘anti-ageing’ and ‘age-defying.’ These words have long convinced consumers that 1) aging is something to be feared rather than embraced, and 2) overruling the natural aging process is not just a speciality of Peter Pan; it is possible. Is it any wonder that the global anti-aging market was worth an estimated $58.5 billion (over £43 billion) last year, or that all generations — even Gen Z — are flocking to Botox in a bid to hide and prevent signs of aging?

Or take the language used to describe period products. ‘Sanitary protection’ and ‘feminine hygiene’ have consistently promoted the notion that periods are dirty, shameful and solely restricted to cis women. It has contributed to the stigma surrounding periods, leaving those who menstruate — including trans men and non-binary people — feeling that they have to hide their periods, whether that means not taking menstrual leave from work or hiding pads and tampons when going to the toilet. Even as a girl at a single-sex secondary school, where you would expect open conversations around menstruating, I followed the lead of everyone else and hid my period: scared to open the packaging of my pads too loudly in the toilet.

If we look back in history, we can understand the roots of this language. By the 19th century, concerns about bacterial growth from poor cleaning of homemade menstrual cloths had created a market that capitalised off ideas of hygiene. But that was two centuries ago. Since then society has modernised – and not just in terms of Always Ultra becoming a thing. And yet language has not modernised alongside, enduring as an indicator of shame, inadequacy and exclusion within the beauty world. Even after campaigns like the natural hair movement, encouraging the Black community to embrace their natural, afro-textured hair, language in beauty marketing still reflects historical beauty standards that favour European features and discriminate against afro hair as a marker of Black racial identity.

Journalist Nateisha Scott recently wrote a piece for Stylist to mark World Afro Day 2021, in which she describes how language used to market products for afro hair needs to change. Restrictive terms like ‘smooth and tame’, ‘anti-frizz’ and ‘sculpt and stay’ “serv[e] as evidence of the subconscious definitions and rules that we still apply to afro hair in order for it to be considered acceptable within both the Black and wider communities,” she explains. “We need to create a new love language that celebrates the movement, texture and raw beauty that is afro hair. Instead of a language devoted to the taming of afro hair, the gears should be shifted towards a language that focuses on care and conditioning.” Scott gives ‘curl-enhancing’, ‘curl-liberating’ (used by hair care brand Imbue), and ‘richly conditioning’ as examples of this love language.

A move away from language encouraging control of afro hair is something that Amicia, one of our FACES, also wants to see. While she acknowledges inclusivity problems with language used to describe makeup (“I feel like in other words it’s saying that Black women either don’t need makeup or it’s just not for them,”) she sees hair as the least inclusive beauty category when it comes to marketing language. “With hair adverts, I always see ‘if your hair’s unruly or if it’s matted, try this straightener.’ It’s like no, I don’t want to straighten my hair,” she says. “You don’t need to straighten your hair, you [should] have such a product that works perfectly with your coily hair, your curly hair, your tight hair.”

But even when she finds a product that is marketed to nourish curly and afro hair, Amicia tells me that a lot of the time it just feels like empty words are used to sell the product, without any real research on what will benefit her hair type. Yes, language used to market products for curly and afro hair does need to be less restrictive to change attitudes. Except using this language as a marketing tool does nothing to truly recognise the Black community. Especially when Black British women spend six times more on hair care than their white counterparts – something that Amicia sees in her own life – the beauty industry is missing out on gaining the love and trust of a huge consumer base.

So what needs to be done to make this language more genuine?

Amicia believes that Black-owned beauty brands are the answer to creating more understanding of curly and afro hair, explaining that a lot of her hair products are not actually from Black-owned businesses. “There needs to be more [Black-owned beauty brands] and they need to broadcast their adverts and stuff,” she says. “That’s to get people educated and then the message will get passed on and high-end brands will do the same thing and everyone, in the end, should feel included.” The same is true for influencers. “I think if you get some influencers who actually influence Black girls then the message will get passed on,” explains Amicia. Currently, white influencers dominate Instagram. Research shows that they are chosen more and paid more by companies to market products in comparison to Black influencers, making it apparent why Amicia does not feel catered to as a Black consumer on the app.

The importance of Black representation is clear and that is something that is slowly improving. The ‘Fenty Effect’ is still evident today: brands extending their makeup lines to be more inclusive, after Fenty Beauty’s release of 40 foundation shades in 2017. And we see the definition of ‘nude’ no longer solely referring to a white person’s skin colour in fashion, beauty, the dictionary and beyond. Yet inclusion in terms of skin doesn’t just mean colour: there are also different skin types that are marketed to. This in itself reflects an understanding of the diversity of our skin, but the language used is problematic. Take the ‘normal skin type’ for example. With oily, dry and a combination of the two making up the other skin types, it begs the question what does ‘normal’ even mean? It was only this year that Unilever, the owner of Dove, Simple, Vaseline and St. Ives among other brands, scrapped ‘normal’ from its packaging and advertising. This came after a global study they commissioned found that seven in ten people agree that the word has a negative impact. For younger people, aged 18-35, this rises to eight in ten.

Esthetician, skin and body positive influencer and creator of the hashtag #poresnotflaws Joanna Kenny tells me that she is noticing a move away from ‘normal’ as a skin type – “because what is that anyway?” ‘Suitable for all skin types’ is a term that she sees more today, which while better still deters people with sensitive or blemish-prone skin. What Joanna finds the most issue with is skincare products marketed towards those who struggle with spots and acne, describing the language as alienating to the average consumer. “Despite my professional background, I had severe adult acne from the age of fifteen to my early thirties and found it both hurtful and embarrassing to buy products labelled 'teenage skin' or 'problem skin',” she says. It shows that as much as the skin positivity movement is pushing the message that all skin is beautiful, attitudes have not changed within the beauty industry. If they had, skin that does not conform to unachievable, flawless standards would not continue to be a ‘problem’.

In February, skincare brand Glow Recipe announced that it would stop using words like ‘flawless’ and ‘poreless,’ saying that “for far too long, the beauty industry has perpetuated the idea that we should all strive for skin void of common realities like breakouts, pores, texture, wrinkles, and hyperpigmentation. But the reality is that skin that looks *exactly* like a pane of glass or porcelain wouldn’t be skin.” It is a promising change, but it also raises questions. Like with hair care, is this language genuine or is it capitalising on Gen Z’s demands for brands to be more inclusive? And why have we not seen more beauty brands following Glow Recipe’s lead? Joanna explains that as much as it is up to brands, law is part of the problem too. “The reason my skin concern has to be creatively named is due to laws in the UK preventing the use of medical terms on cosmetics,” she says. “This means any acne-related products arriving from the USA that are FDA approved are legally allowed to market their product as acne treatments, creating an illusion of a superior product.”

Unfortunately, solving issues of inclusivity within beauty marketing language is not as easy as Ctrl+H to replace a piece of text. Changing established attitudes and laws is challenging, but it is necessary when language has such a profound impact on how we see ourselves and others. When we call for more inclusive beauty marketing, the focus should not just be on who is cast in adverts, as important as this is. We need to demand and support language that authentically speaks to us like the human beings we are: diverse but equal, worthy of respect, and beautiful.

credits

voice — amicia fidalga, joanna kenny

words — rebecca hitchon

design — sade popoola