The Battle of the Beauty Brands

by Bianca LaBelle

Blogs, social network sites like Facebook, and “microblogging” platforms like Twitter are technologies that facilitate communication, sharing and collaboration. They make information travel further and faster. These are the tools that empower individuals and explain the growing number of overnight phenomena in the world. It’s hard to imagine the Arab Spring taking hold without Twitter; Kony rise to notoriety without YouTube, or breast cancer awareness skyrocketing among youth without the “I like it on…” Facebook handbag campaign. Here’s a big reason why these tools are so effective: they give individuals the power to share information with friends and other like-minded individuals. Consider this simple question: how would you prefer to absorb information - from an ad - or via dialoguing through a community centered around a brand you are interested in? Companies recognize how powerful these tools are- and the benefits that can accrue from them. If a company can harness the “social networks” then they have an army of customers who act as their marketing departments!

Like many women, I love cosmetics and keep up-to-date with the online world of beauty-via the beauty community on YouTube. It's through this community that I interact with, and share my passion for brands and their products with other cosmetic lovers around the world.

While catching up on beauty blogs one day, an interesting discussion arose in the community forum: Which cosmetic brands have the biggest online followings? I decided to investigate this question beyond which the members that the community forum had. This question is particularly interesting because it also leads to other insightful questions: Do higher end brands have more followers because of their aspirational nature? Do more youthful brands have more followers because the online world skews to younger audiences? Would the best selling cosmetics brands in the world (L’Oreal/Estee Lauder) have their sales leadership extend into the online community world? To gain some perspective, I tracked mainstream cosmetics brands (L’Oreal, Maybelline, Revlon, Covergirl, Rimmel) and higher end brands (Estee Lauder, Lancome). I tallied their online following by checking a variety of metrics: YouTube subscribers, YouTube views, Facebook likes, and Twitter followers. Today, I’ll share my findings- some of which are surprising!

The first observation that I will make is that Maybelline is the clear YouTube subscriber winner.

There could be a lot of factors explaining this. Perhaps, Maybelline was the first to be listed on YouTube. This is not the case. It turns out that most of the brands (including Maybelline) developed their YouTube channels around 2006. Maybe, Maybelline posts more content? Not true. Several brands (including the parent L’Oreal) have posted more videos. In fact, a lot of the YouTube content posted by each brand is similar. For instance, you can find a lot of expert advice on the application/ uses of cosmetics from each brand. Perhaps, Maybelline’s YouTube success is due to its younger audience (in keeping with people who surf the web more)? Once again, this is not the reality. Rimmel, like Maybelline, also targets the younger audience (RMG Agency). So what is the explanation for Maybelline's subscriber supremacy?

I believe that the answer lies in what differentiates Maybelline as a brand. There are two reasons.

First, Maybelline is uniquely positioned as the young, trendy, fashionista brand with an edge. It’s the brand for the girl that goes out on the town. She knows the hottest spots and gets VIP entrance because she’s connected. She’s socially connected in the real world and online. She's ultra-linked with YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. This "social connection" is endowed on the brand and is the magic behind the Maybelline YouTube subscriber leadership.

Second, unlike other cosmetic brands, Maybelline links its brand to trendy fashion. Case in point, Maybelline Canada recently sponsored fashion week in Toronto. If you take a look at Maybelline ads (see left), Maybelline is more likely to incorporate full body shots (rather than just head shots). In doing so, the brand is suggesting that Maybelline is a vital accessory to complete a look. The brand's online content (web site, YouTube channel etc), then reinforces this positioning: “We are Maybelline and we are the brand that ties your entire look together – from shoes to mascara; from handbag to lip gloss.”

Similar stories hold true for Maybelline in the other key metrics. The brand holds the leadership position for number of YouTube views (1,779,544), Facebook “Likes”(2,552,102), and “most talked about” (58,882). In fact it takes the lead in all metrics that I looked at except for one-Twitter followers where it is ranked #2 with 40,415 followers to date. In my opinion, what is most impressive is that Maybelline outshines higher end brands in these categories. The brand gives evidence that its not always the highest end brands that have the strongest online community followings.

I’d like to conclude my post with one thought. As the world moves more and more into social media (and the online world), there are going to be more of these socially connected girls. The future looks bright for Maybelline.

The Communications Phenomenon of Kony 2012

Over the period of one week, Joseph Kony went from world-wide obscurity to household name. Kony, of course, is the Ugandan warlord who is responsible for the abductions of thousands of African children and forcing them to become child soldiers. Invisible Children, the not-for-profit charity that seeks to put an end to the practices of groups which abuse children and force them to serve as solider slaves, is responsible for Kony's sudden infamy. They allege that Kony (and his Lord's Resistance Army) has done this more than 30,000 times. The allegations are shocking, horrific, and disturbing - and supported by UN research. In 2005, Kony was convicted of war crimes by the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands but has since evaded capture.

This video, "Kony 2012",produced by Invisible Children and distributed on YouTube launched a campaign to make Kony famous and expose his war crimes. The video's purpose has worked. There are 85 million plus views on YouTube and Kony 2012 has been competing for top news story billings on National News programs. But why did this video go viral? Invisible Children has made 278 other videos (19 others are on YouTube) and they didn't catch on. All-star reporter Anderson Cooper has covered the Kony story for years - and it didn't stick. On top of all of that, Kony's story is not really time sensitive. After all, he's been doing this sort of thing for 26 years (according to the Kony 2012 video) and was convicted of war crimes almost 10 years ago.

A lot of bloggers and talking heads are trying to explain why this video went viral. Some are saying it got traction because Rihanna tweeted about it. Sure that helps, but I’ve also seen Tweets about celebs liking an Obama speech but those videos have only a few thousand views. Some bloggers have been talking about the high quality production of the video. Yep, that could help too but there are tons of high quality production videos out there that don’t catch on. Forbes posted a shopping list that seems to have assembled 12 of the most common arguments why the video caught on. To me, discussing the most successful viral campaign to date requires some deeper reflection. I’ll share my perspectives on why this video took off by asking three key questions: 1. Who is this video about? 2. What is the message of this video? 3. What kind of news do people tend to pass on?

Who is this video about? “Kony”, right? Actually, I’ll argue that’s not the right answer. The video is really about the viewer: How connected he is to the world; how empowered he is; how he is part of an experiment; how he needs to be aware what is happening to his brothers and sisters in other parts of the world; how he can help bring Kony to justice. Understanding this point lays the foundation for understanding the viral magic of the video: The video is personally relevant to you, the viewer.

What is the message of the video? I’ll bet if you asked a 100 people, you’d get a pretty consistent response: “Kony is a really bad guy and we need to stop him from being nasty to kids.” The message is so simple that even a child (like Gavin in the video) can understand – and communicate it. The message- supported by its simple visuals- is the essence of cognitive ease. In such a complicated world, here is a problem we can understand and tackle together.
Not only is the message simple to understand, it is simple to understand emotionally. What Kony is doing to kids makes me feel “sad" (see video 10:35) but the internet makes me feel empowered. And with the viewer understanding the argument intellectually and being emotionally energized to do something about it, the site leads him/her to a simple action: Click here because you are empowered to bring Kony to justice. This simple action reinforces the notion “I’ve done something good”- which further reinforces the viral aspect to the video (“I feel good for doing something good. I can get my friends to feel good and look good doing that good!” )

What kind of news do people tend to pass on? The Kony story contains very bad news and the information is very extreme. What is interesting here is that this is the opposite kind of news that people tend to pass along.


There is a lot of anecdotal evidence (as well as theory) to support the tendency for people pass on more central (rather than extreme) information. This is something called the centrality hypothesis. Simply put, the information-sharer does not want to look like a moron passing on information that might not seem plausible to the listener. In addition, the information-sharer tends to pass along positive information, rather than negative information. This is the "don't kill the messenger" effect. (Some research by Chip Heath explains these concepts really nicely.) These insights, help to explain why feel-good videos like “Charlie” tend to get passed around but do nothing to explain why Kony 2012 gets passed around. So why was Kony 2012 able to “go viral”? Here's an explanation. The information on Kony 2012 matches the emotional valence of the conversation topic and this makes the video safe to be shared. So even though the information is extreme (child mutilations/child soldiers) and negative (suffering, pain, bloodshed), it is passed on.

The viral success of the Kony 2012 video has hit the record books as being the fastest viral growth video on the internet to date. Congratulations to Invisible Children for such a well-executed campaign. To me, it is especially impressive because it overcomes the natural disadvantage of getting extreme negative information to spread.

While Invisible is tackling a very serious issue by informing people about child brutalities, there is also a much lighter lesson they are inadvertently providing by example: 3 things are crucial for viral spread:

1> The communication needs to be relevant for the audience.
2> The content ought to be designed for cognitive, emotive and action ease.
3> The tone of the content ought to be consistent with emotion of the conversation.

Invisible Children's execution of these 3 points helps explain the communications phenomenon of Kony 2012.

How well can you predict a You Tube hit?

Here are a few videos that have some legs for viral. Which one is going to have the biggest growth curve? Send me your predictions. Keep in mind, they all have different load-dates and the screen captures indicate how many downloads they have had so far.

Just for fun, let's track the number downloads to see what the growth will look like.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cSudpyEU9w (the "no no baby")


2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNkLMrROgSk (spanish live TV)


3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWcV5YwFwKk (abercrombie skit)


The next post will be "the 4th most difficult branding decision".