Tech & Ethics: Some Economics of Exclusion
In our last post, we discussed how certain decisions when developing film emulsions ended up excluding people with darker skin from being adequately represented in pictures — and, subsequently, media in general. Photographer Adam Broomberg, who held an exhibition in 2013 on the subject of race bias in early color photography, explained that “if you exposed film for a white kid, the black kid sitting next to him would be rendered invisible except for the whites of his eyes and teeth.”
Digital photography was a game-changer in the photographic industry, so the film emulsion discussion is (maybe) no longer current. This post will then look into current industries that have historically catered mostly for lighter tones, such as makeup and ballet shoe manufacturers. In these specific industries, color matching down to the undertone is essential to performance, so the lack of adequate products directly impacts people in this industry.
First, let’s look at the beauty industry, estimated at US 532 billion in 2019. Would the exclusion of darker skin tones be justified by a matter of target audience and economics? WWD published in 2009 studies that proved that the strategy of excluding people of was color probably not financially sound:
“African-American women spend $7.5 billion annually on beauty products, but shell out 80 percent more money on cosmetics and twice as much on skin care products than the general market, according to the research. That difference comes as African-American women sample many more products to find the ones that are most effective on their skin.”
But those numbers are more than a decade old and are theoretical. Let’s see how reality pans out with a more recent case with plenty of data, almost 8 years later: in 2017, in the very competitive makeup industry, Fenty Beauty products were sold only online and in Sephora but still made $100 million in sales in the first 40 days after launching by successfully offering a wide array of makeup that could actually match skin tone (including darker tones).
In comparison, fellow celebrity Drew Barrymore’s Flower Beauty was sold in more places (online, Walmart, and Ulta) and reportedly generated $50 million in revenue per year after nearly a decade of sales. In 2018, Flower Beauty offered around 12 shades of foundation, while Fenty offered 40 (and even more shades later).
But Fenty is minorly owned by pop star Rihanna, which can alone justify these numbers considering her social media, right? Actually, no. According to Vogue:
“While a celebrity might make consumers aware of a brand (they’ll pay close attention if it’s someone they’re a fan of), it’s rare that they would buy a beauty product because of the name alone. On the whole, they remain wary of products, particularly when it comes to skincare, do their own research, and always listen to expert advice.”
As an exercise, let’s compare the Instagram followers of Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty with Kylie Jenner’s Kylie Cosmetics using CheatSheet data on a specific date:
On that date, Kylie and her brand had, at least, twice the followers that Rihanna and Fenty had. Also, Kylie Cosmetics was created in 2015 as Kylie Lip Kits, while its junior fellow Fenty started in 2017, two years later. Nonetheless, according to Elle Magazine:
“New data from online research firm Slice Intelligence claims Fenty Beauty’s sales in its first month of operation were five times Kylie Cosmetics’. In its second month, Fenty sales were 34 percent higher than Kylie’s sales.
(…)
Further data gives more clues as to why Fenty is working: its shoppers spend the most on beauty products, with an average of $471 spent per year (compared to Kylie Cosmetics’ shoppers who spend an average of $181).”
When analyzing the data, CheatSheet estimates that:
“While Rihanna earns less than Jenner from her cosmetics line, her brand makes more. According to research by Slice Intelligence that was shared in WWD, sales from Fenty Beauty’s first month of operation were five times higher than Kylie Cosmetics’ sales.
At the time Coty, Inc. purchased the controlling stake in Kylie Cosmetics, the brand’s revenue from the previous 12 months was $177 million. In 2018, Fenty Beauty made an estimated $570 million in revenue. While Kylie Cosmetics is valued at $1.2 billion, Rihanna’s Fenty Beauty is valued around $3 billion, making Fenty Beauty more successful based off of revenue and value.”
Compared to the rest of the market, in September 2017, only two other brands (MAC and Too Faced Cosmetics) surpassed Fenty’s $72 million as reported by Time when Fenty was named one of the 25 best inventions of 2017. WMagazine estimates that these numbers can be “attributed to the fact that Fenty Beauty’s commitment to a wide range of shades and tones in their foundations and other products has long been a selling point and a highly celebrated aspect of the brand.”
When examining the numbers, Glamour concluded that “Fenty Beauty’s success is undeniably tied to the fact that it appeals to women of all skin tones, especially those who are often excluded from other cosmetics collections.” This conclusion is backed off by WWD, who concluded in its research that:
“Fenty Beauty also is a big draw for a more diverse consumer base, beating out other brands on this metric. It has the most African-American and Hispanic shoppers, along with a good base of Asian customers, while white customers are the brand’s smallest consumer group”.
Also, the same study by WWD found out that Fenty Beauty has a higher ticket as Fenty shoppers spend an average of $471 per year in the makeup category, compared to shoppers of Kylie Cosmetics shoppers who spend $181.
But why are shades such a big deal to the makeup industry? Because colors are the core of any image-centered industry, including only makeup. The limited range of colors impacts any professional dealing with an image. In fashion, Black models have to carry their own foundation and hair products when working, while this necessity is mostly unheard of for fairer models. In most beauty parlors, stores, and runways, clients with fair skin can usually use one of the many makeup shades already carried by the makeup artists (and generally do not fear having their hair burnt right before a runway). Makeup artist Jaleesa Jaikaran compares the job to painting: “if someone is a painter, they wouldn’t show up without the color paint they’d need.” Black model Duckie Thot adds that having beauty supplies is not enough: sometimes beauty professionals do not have the skills to apply darker makeup correctly.
If this sounds like a superficial or unnecessary discussion, you probably do not make a living out of areas that depend on the availability of the right color fit. In some industries, the professional performance and feedback of a person depend on many factors, including how seamless the makeup/apparel is.
Ballet, for instance, is all about clean lines in the silhouette. Jazz Bynun, a ballet dancer of BalletWest, notes how the right apparel affects feedback:
“Once I did start wearing brown tights in the studio, a lot of people had comments about how great my line looked. (…)
From a staff standpoint, like in the costume department, it’s something just as simple as giving us the wrong nude undergarments for our costume. And then the brown dancer that’s on stage is getting yelled at because something’s wrong with their costume, which is out of their control.”
This situation also creates a hurdle for newcomers in ballet. Ingrid Silva, from the Dance Theather of Harlem, has tweeted that, for 11 years, she had to paint her own shoes to get a close color to her skin.
While her toe shoe and tights are part of an exhibition at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, her ordeal is well known by any aspiring ballerina of darker skin color. Jazz Bynun explains that:
“Dancers that choose to wear brown tights, we have to purchase brown tights, which is not an extra purchase, but we then have to buy a shoe dye for those pointe shoes. I remember even being younger, my mom and I would go back and forth to the store and in one change of season, we could have bought five different shades of a shoe dye until we found a shoe and a tight that matched perfectly.
When you’re preparing for the stage, you also have to dye your straps on your costume. (…) So instead of a white dancer [who] would be able to do their hair an hour prior to the show or 30 minutes prior to the show, mine would have to be done the night before.”
We (maybe) can assume that there was no malice in presenting difficulties exclusively for certain people (especially black people, unfortunately). However, the practical outcome is that the representation of people of color in media (movies, ads, videos, etc.) was made much more difficult. This normalized lighter skin tones as the “normal” standard for almost everything, including media and even crayons. As a result, a recent study by the National Research Group shows that two in three black Americans don’t feel they see their stories represented on-screen, and 67% of Americans across political ideologies and ethnicities feel there is a greater need for on-screen representation for non-normalized people.
But what about the economics of it? Well, the same study also shows that 74% of those polled reported that content being inclusive (representing different cultures or people) is a key factor when choosing content.
Our discussion here is not political. We intend to demonstrate that related industries may be affected in a remarkably similar fashion. We should, therefore, address the controversy and reflect on what can be done to solve — or at least mitigate — the undesired effects that are taking place. Only then will we be able to prevent new industries and technologies from suffering the same flaw.
In our next — and last! — post about the matter, we will discuss how this “tradition” of exclusion from samples and training data affects current technology.
