This production study utilizes postfeminist theory as a lens for seeing ‘beauty work’ on YouTube via the multi-channel network (MCN) ICON Network, a collaboration between the production company Endemol Shine and beauty YouTuber Michelle Phan. By bringing to focus the unique year of 2015–2016 when YouTube beauty production was largely produced within MCNs, the study sets the stage for the proceeding professionalization of YouTube content creation under legacy production and distribution companies in the 2020s. In-depth producer interviews with ICON management and YouTubers illuminated MCN business practices and producer perceptions of YouTube beauty production. Interview data was analyzed for its articulation within ICON as a postfeminist media culture (Gill, 2007) through (a) work conditions of beauty video production and (b) best practices of beauty video production. Results indicate that ICON is a site where the markers of feminism, postfeminism, and transnational feminism intersect and collide. These intersections contextualize today’s beauty influencing landscape which pushes for independence from MCNs, transparency, and authenticity.
AbidinC (2016) Visibility labor: engaging with influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia161(1): 86–100. DOI 10.1177/1329878X16665177
AlexanderMJMohantyCT (1997) Introduction: genealogies, legacies, movements. In AlexanderMJMohantyCT (Ed.), Feminist Genealogies, Colonial Legacies, Democratic Futures (pp. 13–42). New York: Routledge.
4.
AndrejevicM (2013) Estranged free labor. In ScholzT (Ed.), Digital Labor: The Internet As Playground and Factory (pp. 149–164). New York: Routledge.
5.
ArthursJ (2003) Sex and the City and consumer culture: remediating postfeminist drama. Feminist Media Studies3(1): 83–98. DOI: 10.1080/1468077032000080149
6.
Banet-WeiserS (2012) AuthenticTM: The Politics of Ambivalence in a Brand Culture. New York: University Press.
BartkySL (1988) Foucault, femininity and the modernization of patriarchal power. In QuimbyIDL (Ed.), Feminism and Foucault: Reflections on Resistance (pp. 61–86). Boston: Northeastern University Press.
9.
BengtssonM (2016) How to Plan and Perform a Qualitative Study Using Content Analysis. NursingPlus Open. DOI: 10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
10.
BerrymanRKavkaM (2017) “I guess a lot of people see me as a big sister or a friend”: the role of intimacy in the celebrification of beauty vloggers. Journal of Gender Studies26(3): 307–320.
11.
BerrymanRKavkaM (2018) Crying on YouTube: vlogs, self-exposure, and the productivity of negative affect. Convergence24(1): 85–98.
12.
BirdSE (2011) Are we all produsers now?Cultural Studies25(4–5): 502–516. DOI: 10.1080/09502386.2011.600532.
13.
BishopT (2013) Tori Locklear [Television series episode]. Lasner A, The Ellen Degeneres Show. Warner Brothers Television Distribution.
14.
ChildsKM (2022) “The shade of it all”: how Black women use Instagram and YouTube to contest colorism in the beauty industry. Social Media + Society8(2): 1–15. DOI: 10.1177/20563051221107634
15.
CodyK (2012) “No longer, but not yet”: tweens and the mediating of threshold selves through liminal consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture12(1): 41–65. DOI 10.1177/1469540512438155.
16.
CohenL (2003) A Consumers’ Republic: The Politics of Mass Consumption in Postwar America. New York: Random House.
17.
CoulterN (2021) “Frappes, friends, and fun”: affective labor and the cultural industry of girlhood. Journal of Consumer Culture21(3): 487–500. DOI: 10.1177/1469540518806954.
18.
DekavallaM (2020) Gaining trust: the articulation of transparency by YouTube fashion and beauty content creators. Media, Culture and Society42(1). DOI: 10.1177/0163443719846613.
19.
DeuzeM (2007) Media Work. Cambridge: Polity.
20.
EisensteinH (2010) Feminism seduced. Australian Feminist Studies25(66): 413–431. DOI: 10.1080/08164649.2010.525210
21.
EsterbergK (2002) Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
22.
Evans HawkinsJ (2018) The practical utility and sustainability of email interviews in qualitative research. Qualitative Report, 23(2): 493–501. DOI: 10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3266.
23.
FreemanC (2001) Is local: global as feminine: masculine? rethinking the gender of globalization. Signs, 26(4): 1007–1034.
GuoLLeeL (2013) The critique of YouTube-based vernacular discourse: a case study of YouTube’s Asian community. Critical Studies in Media Communication30(5): 391–406.
29.
HineC (2013) The Internet: Understanding Qualitative Research. New York: Oxford University Press.
IsonNL (2009) Having their say: email interviews for research data collection with people who have verbal communication impairment. Interview Journal of Social Research Methodology12(2): 161–172. DOI: 10.1080/13645570902752365.
32.
KellerJ (2015) Girl power’s last chance? Tavi Gevinson, feminism, and popular media culture. Continuum29(2): 274–285.
33.
KhamisS (2010) Islamic feminism in new Arab media: platforms for self-expression and sites for multiple resistance. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research3(3): 237–255.
34.
KilbourneJJSRabinovitzDMediaEducation Foundation (2010) Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising’s Image of Women. Northhampton, MA: Media Education Foundation.
35.
KimEViallL (2010) When Ordinary Citizens Produce Media Content: A Comparative Analysis of Most Popular and Random YouTube Videos. St. Louis, MO: Paper Presented at the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Conference.
36.
LindlofTTaylorB (2010) Qualitative Communication Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
MicklesMWeareA (2020) Trying to save the gam(er): understanding self-disclosure of YouTube subscribers surrounding mental health in video-game comments. Southern Communication Journal85(4): 231–243.
Nunez PuenteS (2011) Feminist cyberactivism: violence against women, Internet politics, and Spanish feminist praxis online. Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies25(3): 333–346.
44.
OpieA (1992) Qualitative research, appropriation of the “other” and empowerment. Feminist Review40(1): 52–69.
45.
PeissK (1998) Hope in a Jar: The Making of America’s Beauty Culture. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
RamazanogluCHollandJ (2002) Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices. London: Sage.
48.
RancilioA (2015) YouTube Star Michelle Phan Brances Out with ICON Network. Associated Press Newswires.
49.
RiboniG (2017) The YouTube makeup tutorial video: a preliminary linguistic analysis of the language of “makeup gurus.” Lingue e Linguaggi21: 189–205. DOI: 10.1285/i22390359.
50.
RogersTF (1976) Interviews by telephone and in person: quality of responses and field performance. Public Opinion Quarterly40: 51–65. DOI: 10.1086/268267.
51.
RossieA (2020) “Pinning” down time: post-feminist pregnancies on Pinterest. Feminist Media Studies19(8): 1079–1095.
52.
SenftTM (2008) Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang.
Soto-VasquezADJimenezN (2022) A dramaturgical analysis of Latina influencers’ use of props and settings to signal identity. Journalism and Media3(3): 407–418. DOI: 10.3390/journalmedia3030029.
57.
StaceyJ (1987) Sexism by a subtler name? Postindustrial conditions and post-feminist consciousness in the Silicon Valley. Socialist Review17(6): 7–28.
TorjesenA (2021) The genre repertoires of Norwegian beauty and lifestyle influences on YouTube. Nordicom Review42(2): 168–184. DOI: 10.2478/nor-2021-0036.
62.
van ZoonenL (2006) Feminist Media Studies. London: Sage Publications.
63.
WhiteM (2018) “Beauty as an act of political warfare”: feminist makeup tutorials and masquarades on YouTube. Women’s Studies Quarterly46(1/2): 139–156.
