Month: January 2023

“Owned by the public, for the public” – Channel 4 has long prided itself on being a platform that encourages diverse and radical voices, which mainstream broadcasting wouldn’t typically offer. 

Founded in 1982 by the Thatcher government, the platform is publicly owned and funded by its commercial activities from advertisers. Its business model as a non-profit company means it invests revenue into smaller creative production companies across the UK to create different, unique programmes, such as the Great British Bake off or Derry Girls. This accounts for over 338 production companies across the UK’s broadcasting landscape, demonstrating the importance of the platform in creating jobs for small TV producers within the sector. 

However, in April of 2022, Boris Johnson’s government revisited the plan of privatising the network for increased profit, which received extreme backlash from the public and politicians alike. Channel 4’s former head of news argued that:

“[Channel 4] is there to provide a public service to the people of Britain with really important programmes like Channel 4 News or Unreported World, which Netflix or Amazon would never make.”

Professor of communications Steven Barnett similarly agrees how:

“Quotas and obligations” [under privatisation] would “inevitably result in fewer jobs, fewer programmes for UK audiences, less diversity of content, less innovation, and less new talent.”

Furthermore, the public circulated a petition to stop its privatisation, with nearly 500,000 signatures. Although the government reversed this decision as of late, I wanted to reflect on the potential changes that would’ve happened if privatisation had occurred and why there was such extensive criticism. 

What Changes would happen with Privatisation? 

Privatisation is the process of selling public communication assets to the private sector. As many of the comments above reflect a concern for Channel 4’s creative output, what would this mean for its content?

A foreseeable issue with privatisation is that programmes would solely be profit-driven, meaning certain shows seen as commercially “unprofitable” for the shareholders might not survive. For example, current productions such as One Moonlit Night, a non-English opera, and The Unique Boutique, a fashion show for disabled people, probably would not have fit the profit margin of a privatised network. 

Channel 4’s role in giving under-represented groups a voice has also been significant, as demonstrated by its commitment to covering the Paralympics, which helped change attitudes towards disability. Programmes such as It’s a Sin, which BBC and ITV rejected, helped spread awareness of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the 1980s, showing Channel 4’s unique dedication to appealing to a wide range of groups. So privatisation would not only adversely affect the livelihoods of those working in the production sector but further impact the diversity of content on shows and marginalise minority groups or narratives on the platform.

This led me to think about other shows like The Great British Bake Off, which showcases a diverse range of amateur bakers from across the UK and is Channel 4’s most lucrative venture with a turnover of £85 million. Privatisation could potentially impact the content it produces by moving the production of the show in-house, which would limit its creative diversity and change what makes Bake Off so popular: its eccentricity and focus on ordinary people. 

Overall, privatising Channel 4 has more consequences than benefits, which explains why many were initially concerned. Its profit-driven model can potentially undermine under-represented and diverse viewpoints in film. This would further affect the employment opportunities of those from minority backgrounds and heavily impact independent production companies, negatively affecting the UK’s creative economy on a broader scale. At least for now, Channel 4 is safe from the hands of privatisation and can continue to prioritise public service over profit.

For more information on the future of Channel 4, check out this video:

When I started using social media, the first thing I noticed that changed was how I perceived beauty. I was constantly subject to the white beauty standard, with slender, blonde-haired girls receiving the most airtime on my feed. 

Even now, as a young adult who feels more secure, sometimes it’s challenging not to compare yourself to what you see online. Especially as more than half the world uses social media, with 732 million people on Tik Tok alone, it is vital to consider the pop culture we consume and how the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes impacts women of colour. This brings us to today’s topic: algorithmic bias. 

How are Algorithms Biased?  

In Algorithms of Oppression, Safiya Noble investigates how Google Searches sexualise and demonise women of colour. She argues that whiteness as the default is not a “glitch” but a byproduct of existing white power structures that create these technologies. Similarly, Ruha Benjamin elaborates on a “New Jim Code”, which is a renewal of past discrimination during the 20th century in present-day technology. 

In a way, this reflects an ideology imposed by racial capitalism, the process where “racism helps capitalism expand while capitalism, in turn, keeps racial hierarchies in place”. Historically, whiteness has consistently been ranked on top of a racial order, relegating everything outside of that to an inferior status. This Eurocentric logic remains in society’s perceptions of beauty, which social media clearly reinforces through its algorithms. 

Observations of my Own

I tailor my Tik Tok feed to ensure that it is more diverse by following more creators of colour and blocking content that makes me uncomfortable. However, that doesn’t mean Tik Tok is exempt, as any program that learns from users’ behaviour almost “invariably introduces some kind of unintended bias”. It is essential to consider how algorithms create echo chambers, where individuals are only exposed to content that confirms their biases. So my feed may look entirely different to someone else’s as the algorithm caters to our subconscious prejudices, which is reinforced by Tik Tok’s highly visual platform. 

For instance, while scrolling through Tik Tok, many of the videos that appeared were of white women. Even the females of colour I did find all adhered to aspects of the white beauty norm, which were either tall, skinny, doe-eyed or light-skinned.

Searching up “makeup tutorials” or “fashion” inspiration yielded similar results, with white faces and particularly skinny bodies mostly appearing. Makeup tutorials I found on the platform, specifically from Asian women, had tips on how to create bigger eyes or were extremely fair – typical Western features.

Lastly, the more I followed white creators and watched their content, the algorithm started recommending similar profiles, demonstrating how collaborative filtering creates bubbles that can strengthen prejudices about beauty. To back this up, a study conducted by Marc Faddoul on Tik Tok’s “beautiful algorithm” shows how the platform employs facial recognition technology to rate users’ faces based on attractiveness which mainly adheres to white features. These observations strengthened my original dislike for the app and heightened my awareness of the content I consume daily. 

The Future of Social Media Bias

Diversity and under-representation remain pressing issues on social media, which can negatively impact impressionable teens if algorithms continue to encourage a specific image of beauty. The promotion of unrealistic, racialised standards over time can damage anyone’s self-esteem as it endorses the message that beauty only exists in proximity to whiteness. Although challenging, it is crucial to diversify the creators and teams behind social media AI to deconstruct this hierarchy of white superiority that still dominates our perceptions. 

Feminism, in recent years, has become increasingly popular in brand marketing and pop culture. We see it everywhere, adorned on t-shirts to catchy slogans on social media, particularly with companies who want to uphold an image of “wokeness” to the public. But inevitably, does this have the potential to become performative and unrealistic? 

Recently, reading Sarah Benet Weiser’s book, Empowered: Popular Feminism and Popular Misogyny, brought this specific issue into question. In summary, she describes how modern-day feminism reinforces capitalist power structures rather than challenges them. Promoting characteristics like “confidence, self-esteem and competence” are influenced by neoliberal values, which emphasise individuality and entrepreneurialism. Instead of being helpful, this personal responsibility projected onto women to become successful completely ignores the systemic nature of patriarchy and its barriers. 

This relates to another concept she mentions – the economy of visibility, which is when companies maintain an image of “wokeness” to appear more progressive. So instead of implementing genuine change, feminist messaging prompts the consumer to believe that they can attain whatever they want by being persistent in their hard work and having more ambition. 

How does Amazon Fall into this Narrative?

An ad I recently saw from Amazon India in 2021 as part of International Women’s Day, #ChallengeChampionChange, had similar ideas of empowerment that focused on the confidence and perseverance of women in achieving their success. Throughout the video, multiple Indian businesswomen and entrepreneurs recount their narratives of accomplishment, reiterating a stream of inspirational messages. Quotes such as “a woman can do anything if she believes in herself” and “by achieving her dreams, she can become a champion” appear alongside clips of these females hard at work. Rather than being motivational, this fixation on “being confident” reinforces a neoliberal idea that cultivating these qualities will guarantee success. It also implies that women can only achieve empowerment through economic profit, which once again, maintains a capitalist standard.

Although this campaign has the right ideas for celebrating these individual women’s achievements without discrediting them, its underlying message does not consider the structural and ideological disadvantages many other females face. No amount of confidence can do away with the reality of sexism and socio-economic barriers, considering that India still has one of the lowest female labour force participation rates globally. Being confident isn’t a quick fix for systems of oppression. 

Suppose we relate this back to Amazon, one of the world’s most extensive e-commerce services whose primary focus is profit and customer satisfaction. It has a historical reputation for maltreating its employees, especially in 2021, when this campaign was released. The company was subject to criticism for poor and unsafe working environments with high injury rates, with strikes occurring globally. Creating an empowerment campaign is a logical step for the company’s commercial interests to deflect from pre-existing claims and prove that they support causes such as women’s rights. However, it is even more ironic that the company, two months later, received five lawsuits from employees regarding gender and race discrimination. These contradictions reinforce how companies often exploit feminist rhetoric for economic advantage rather than inciting change within their work culture. 

The Verdict

Corporate choices to uphold feminist discourse are heavily reminiscent of marketplace feminism, where companies leverage ideas of female empowerment to create profit for themselves. The fact that 70 to 80% of consumers are women, it is no wonder that companies like Amazon are trying to tap into this purchasing power. Regardless, there is a stark difference between virtue signalling and implementing change through activism. Brand campaigns that reference feminism, such as #ChallengeChampionChange, are essential for creating awareness for gender equality but must be followed through by concrete action rather than motivational statements.  

Why is user-generated content (UGC) so fundamental to brands in the digital age? With 4.74 billion social media users globally, it’s no wonder that numerous companies rely on UGC to drive awareness and build a positive image of their business. More importantly, its participatory nature promotes authenticity amongst potential consumers and creates a certain trust with them too. 

Glossier Sets the Standards

Take Glossier’s humble beginnings as an example. The makeup brand, which launched in 2014, quickly succeeded in developing a cult following among the millennial and Gen-Z community within a couple of years. Its founder, Emily Weiss, first recognised that: 

“We’re in an era where people are predominantly looking for peer-to-peer connection and community to make beauty purchasing decisions.”

Emily Weiss, 2014

Giving consumers the power to evolve the brand’s narrative benefits the company and provides opportunities for creators who are part of that community. 

What are the benefits?

For Glossier, this model of consumer engagement led to co-development. This process of consumers contributing to the company’s activities helped them consolidate their identity and strengthen brand awareness. Through Glossier’s Instagram, Tik Tok and Twitter channels, maintaining an influential social media presence meant that 70% of their online sales come from word of mouth. 

Weiss also revealed that nearly 80% of customers were referred to by friends or family, conveying how the consumer’s experience was integral to Glossier’s initial success. Evidently, sharing and engaging with those who use their products enhances customer trust as it reinforces a sense of community, making the brand feel more authentic. Plus, it’s a lot more cost-effective than traditional marketing, as there’s an endless stream of free content! 

What’s in it for the creators? 

Glossier’s birth coincides with the age of the influencer, featuring regular, everyday individuals in its ads and Instagram page. This sense of digital optimism reinforces how the digital economy has the potential to provide unique opportunities for collaboration, connectivity and accessibility for creators.

For instance, fans loyal to the brand can become ambassadors regardless of their following on social media. As of 2022, Glossier has employed 500 ambassadors as part of their representative programme, whereby each rep receives their own links which consumers can buy directly from. As a form of incentive, reps receive discounts on various products and commissions for purchases made through their pages. Furthermore, it also allows them to gain exposure to over 2.7 million followers on platforms like Instagram, which can help them advance their own aspirations of career success on social media. 

And consumers?

Even regular consumers who don’t necessarily share content can feel reassured that Glossier listens to their feedback, as the company uses platforms such as Slack and Facebook to create an open dialogue about the products. The Milk Jelly cleanser is a great case study for this, as it was developed entirely off 400 users’ comments on Weiss’ Blog “Into The Gloss” in 2015. A year later, the “What’s your dream face wash story” became a tangible product in which consumers had a developmental role, demonstrating Glossier’s intimate connection with its audience. 

So who benefits most? 

Although Glossier’s UGC strategy has been for advantageous creators alongside consumers in multifaceted ways, the company definitely benefits most, as evidenced by its rapid growth and success in sales. Their concentration on the consumer cultivated a brand image of relatability, which earned them a 600% increase in sales in 2017 and a customer base that grew threefold. With social media’s ever-growing influence in the digital age, this trust is vital in helping brands to build a loyal following where consumers can feel seen and heard.