Haul Videos and Consumer Culture: Manipulative or Necessary?

Outfit repeating: the crime of the century. With the rise of “brand influencers” receiving free packages to “review” (read: scam) their fanbases; trends have a higher turnover rate than ever. The dangers of hauls and consumer culture are debatable but one thing's for sure: the internet will let you know what’s “cool”.

Haul videos on YouTube are videos where a YouTuber will buy or recieve (usually the latter) lots of clothes (or other niche items) in a short amount of time. This is to review a company, or just essentially show off what they bought/received. Many times the title will state that they spent $500 or more on all the items, and for some this is all their channel is. With that, trends are running their course in shorter intervals than ever. According to Jenkins, Ford, and Green (2013), they’re supposed to come in four phases (dominant, archaic, residual and emergent). Dominant trends quickly become residual (ex: scene kids), and archaic trends can just as quickly become dominant (ex: Africa by Toto). However, with so many trends, does this mean all trends are simply in the residual phase waiting to become dominant?

For example, 90’s and Y2K styles are “coming back” because fashion is said to recycle in periods of 10s, does that mean 90’s fashion was emergent in the 80’s, dominant in the 90’s, archaic/residual by the 2000s, and then emerged back to dominant culture? With the internet, can there even truly be a dominant culture?

Going back to haul videos, let’s continue focusing on clothes. There’s different types of styles, of course, so someone who shops at Killstar (notoriously goth/alternative brand) is going to have a haul that looks completely different than someone who shops at Angelic Pretty (brand that creates dolly-like dresses and accessories for those who belong to the Lolita subculture). However both have huge followings and many consumers, so they can both be considered dominant to some degree in goth and in lolita communities. However-- to someone who isn’t interested in any alternative cultures and shops at say, Forever 21 or H&M, probably don’t know or care about either of the stores; so what really is dominant? Does dominant have to be put into a context, and if so, then how could anything possibly be “dominant”?

Now, with the concept of “Web. 2.0” (Jenkins, et., al), what the YouTubers are doing helps themselves and the companies. Essentially, with trends become out of season so quickly, fast fashion creators can manipulate their young audiences with the help of an influencer to buy cheap products at a frequent pace. Throw out “old” cheap clothes that are no longer trendy, and bring in “new” cheap clothes that are only going to eventually be thrown out. However, pre internet people were essentially already doing this for companies; like how Versace, Gucci, and other luxury brands were signs that you “made it” and everyone “had to have one”; but instead of YouTubers/influencers selling the brand, it was big name celebrities like Britney Spears or Beyonce in magazines or on tv.

Though I think that companies are truly the only winners in this dilution of perceived power or popularity. YouTubers can become irrelevant just as fast as they grew relevance, and consumers will always be slaves to the corporation and can easily move on to the next YouTuber who will promote tea that makes you crap your guts out.

But a phenomenon I’ve noticed is that with the ability to tag or “@” companies, even regular folk can give free credit or promotions to companies. Some people posts OOTD’s (outfit of the day), and will tag all of the stores that the clothes are from in the photo. This can also give consumers a voice, as seen with people @ing companies on twitter to publically voice their complaints or sob stories and receive free items. Does this still count as “free” promo? If you are receiving what you want. Be it free merch or likes and hearts from others who shop at the stores you like, is it really a “free” promotion of a company; because you and the company are both receiving compensation.

Aside from asocial members of society, humans like to be around and socialize with other humans. This is why childhood neglect is considered abuse, or how giving someone the silent treatment is considered hurtful. With social media promotions, people can reach a new group of people they otherwise wouldn't have before. Putting #Makeup, you'll come across new people who like makeup and have searched the hashtag. Giving free promo is rewarding for both the poster and the business.

In the end, Web 2.0. doesn't matter, because we'd otherwise be promoting brands and people anyways. Before the internet, people were still wearing designer labels, band tee's, etc. They were promoting these for free, but were also rewarded by having people with the same interests compliment or engage with them.