It seemed like such a great idea.
Shein, the Chinese fast fashion brand which got insanely popular on TikTok and Instagram, invited a bunch of influencers to tour some of its factories, in an apparent move to counter labor exploitation accusations that plague the company.
Flew them to China, put them up in swanky accommodations, paid them.
So, little surprise when the Shein video had clips like this in it:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CtkiXsZO1w5/
But when the influencers came home, and Shein’s videos started rolling out, the backlash started. And many of those influencers, who seemed so impressed by the brand and its apparently ethical practices, changed their tune.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CuDQsCVusYD/
The creators’ explanations were not well received. Some of the comments on that video included:
Users even started sharing parody videos about the whole thing.
When brand trips turn into brand slips — especially as big of a slip as this one — it has a bigger impact than just this campaign.
👀 Industry Watches for Rippling Effect
Indeed, Digiday reports today that Shein’s influencer controversy could change how brands work with creators across the entire industry.
Quoting the report:
The whole kerfuffle has agency executives questioning the benefits of using creators and influencers to restore brand image and it remains to be seen what ripple effects, if any, will take hold of the influencer marketing space after the dust has settled.
For the most part, consumers trust influencers… However, consumers are more savvy than they’ve ever been, scoffing at inauthentic partnerships in which influencers are accused of selling out for ad dollars.
📈 Analysis: A More Human Approach
Marcus Collins is a marketing professor, former head of strategy at a large New York agency, and author of the book For the Culture, which looks at how influencer marketing is shaping our world.
I spoke with him this afternoon:
It’s not good to manufacture truth.
However, as marketers, we often find the nice silver shiny part of the object to highlight that. Even though it also means obfuscating the five other things that may not be so good.
I think that to be much more human about our marketing communications about the products we bring to market requires us to say, “Hey, how would I want a human being to talk to me about this? Not me as a customer or consumer, but real life human beings. How would I want someone to tell me about this thing?”
That requires us being much more human to think about interacting with humans, not companies communicating with customers.
TOD: I think what you’re describing is an ideal world, but is ideal something that marketers can realistically do when they’re also dealing with sales targets and market pressures?
We’ve seen marketers do it.
Patagonia is a great example of this. Patagonia used to do a good and bad project where they would show the good they were doing to live up to the precepts of their brand about minimizing the invasiveness of humans on the earth. They also show “these are the parts we’re not doing so well, and these are the parts we need to get better at. This is where we have issues.”
And it’s that level of transparency that people [think]: I trust Patagonia. I trust them.
