Search results

The purpose of this paper is to consider the use of beauty blogging selfies in conveying consumer authenticity. The authors used an under-researched consumer-based authenticity approach.

The authors adopt a practice theory approach to selfies as both objects and practices. The study combines depth-interviews with a review of the participants’ blogs and selfies.

This research shows that bloggers use selfies as records of product trial, success and failure via specific sub-types. These selfies function as authenticating consumer acts, intertwined with key life narratives and as records of communal events, where bloggers identify as a community.

This research is limited to beauty bloggers. Further research on consumer authenticity could be extended to other product categories and other media channels. The widened definition of selfies proposed enables further research on self-representational practices in consumption contexts. Likewise, the practice theory approach could be extended to other online contexts.

As social media and peer endorsement become ever more important to marketers, brands are seeking to leverage bloggers as brand ambassadors as well as the authenticity they convey. Maintaining this authenticity and credibility among peer networks and audiences is crucial for influencers and for marketers.

This study contributes to the understanding of consumer-based authenticity, self-representational practices using selfies and beauty blogging communities. Practice theories are applied in an online context, suggesting an opening for further research into mediated practices.

Discussion around authenticity has grown in marketing and consumption discourse in the last two decades. Consumers are viewed as seeking authenticity, and brands have responded to this. This chapter identifies three foundational categories of authenticity: personal, expressive and material. The main elements of each category are outlined. Key tensions are identified between authenticity as experienced by consumers and authenticity as leveraged for instrumental purposes by the marketplace.

Despite its stated intention to be independent, impartial and thorough, the 9-11 Commission was none of the three. The Commission was structurally compromised by bias-inducing connections to subjects of the investigation, and procedurally compromised, among other reasons, by (1) its failure to take up promising lines of inquiry and its failure to try to force the release of key documents that were closely guarded by the Bush administration, the FBI and various intelligence agencies; (2) its distortion of information about pre-9-11 military preparedness, foreknowledge of the attacks or attacks of like-kind; and (3) omissions of information related to the funding of the plot and the specific whereabouts of key officials on the morning of September 11, 2001.

These structural compromises and procedural failings converged to assure that the Commission would not challenge core elements of the “official story” of the 9-11 attacks. This failure was compounded by the Commission's desire to produce a final report that would read as a “historical narrative” rather than as an exhaustive set of findings on the critical unanswered questions that arose after the attacks. The Commission's unquestioning acceptance of the official narrative also meant that it missed a perhaps larger opportunity to challenge key myths associated with American exceptionalism. Thus, the 9-11 Commission ultimately functioned as an instrument of cultural hegemony, extending and deepening the official version of events under the guise of independence and impartiality.