snatch stick controversy

Tarte faces backlash for Snatch Sticks marketing beauty trends are constantly changing, one minute it is minimal looks and the next it is highly defined sculpted features. contouring has become one of the most recognizable techniques and brands are continuing to develop these products. the snatch stick is just an example that people want a snatched appearance. when does a trend stop being fun and become a pressure for people to look a certain way. Is this suggesting people aren’t naturally beautiful? is it promoting surgery? what if this is just a way of promoting makeup artistry? why has the snatch stick faced so much backlash? me personally i didn’t mind the advert and i can see the fun side, i can see it as a teaching method but i also get why people found it insulting. I think this company has known what its been doing rage baiting people as it as a way of getting people to talk about the product. when more people are commenting on a product it is likely to go viral so is this all a marketing scheme to keep people talking? i think so yes, all publicity is good publicity. perhaps the issue is not whether the snatch stick is good or bad but todays beauty culture. a product can be practical and enjoyable but how far does the advertising have to go to get the product seen. is the drama and controversy really necessary to see a product? look at the work of Alexis stone his work demonstrates how make up artistry can be more than traditional makeup looks. make up is all about the illusion of change through contouring and technique but prosthetics allow the artist to create new features. yes this is different from contouring but surely its the same principal. why has this article triggered such a strong response. is it putting pressure on people about their appearance? is it telling people they aren’t good enough, why cant people be happy with what they already have? The beauty industry is constantly changing and competing to create new products that stand out, is this just a brilliant marketing strategy to get people talking as all publicity is good publicity. or has this crossed a line and where should the line be drawn between playful and insulting? This controversy demonstrates how important marketing is within the industry what makes some of us think this is humorous and harmless and other people find it insulting and offensive. another question is does controversy benefit the brand. people who have never heard of snatch stick have now become familiar with it causing discussion and debate about the product. tartes response was that the campaign was intended to be playful and show make up artistry to be fun, assessable and creative. the company stated the reference to cosmetic surgery was to show that make up can be a sculpted appearance temporarily without the need for an actual procedure. the campaign was not suggesting customers change their appearance. some social media users accused tarte of rage baiting as a marketing but as a make up artist this creates a interesting debate about how far brands should go to create attention, is controversial marketing an effective way to start conversation about a product, i think this campaign demonstrates that todays social media driven beauty industry, controversy itself can become part of a marketing conversation. In conclusion i think this controversy demonstrates how playful marketing can be taken out of context. it can be viewed as fun and playful but in this case the reaction was stronger than the original advert was their really any need for the reaction.