Black Outrage Marketing: A Cycle of Anger For Profit

I first heard the term ‘Black outrage’ in 2020 from Youtuber amandabb, whose video “let’s talk about ‘black outrage’” gave a name to a phenomenon that I have noticed from makeup and fashion brands, celebrities, and traditional media companies alike. In her video, she essentially describes the well-established concept of outrage/rage marketing through a Black lens. She asserts that Black outrage occurs when a brand or public figure does “something ignorant or racist with the sole intention of getting a reaction from black people specifically in order to get free promotion.”

She contextualizes the rise of Black outrage marketing by pointing out that it gained prominence as the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement started to gain traction on social media in 2016. In this sense, the trend aligned with a broader cultural shift, in which people began to recognize and call out microaggressions and racism on social media platforms like Twitter. The video provides examples that highlight how the marketing tactic often involves multiple sectors of racial antagonism, including ‘Black fishing,’ cultural appropriation, and brand non-inclusivity. 

Although the line between intention and ignorance is rarely ever explicitly stated by those who engage in this marketing move, her examples truly illuminate its cyclical nature. For instance, she discusses the Kardashians’ consistent and deliberate appropriation of Black hairstyles like box braids for press coverage. She also mentions how beauty brands Tarte and Beautyblender teased very limited shade ranges that excluded darker skin tones. This was done to get the Black and inevitably wider beauty community talking about it online, and get people invested for when they release more shades in the future. Despite this marketing strategy being called out by online creators like amandabb, the practice often proves to garner the desired attention and traction which has sustained its use in 2024. 

Before examining the particulars that inspired the latest wide scale outrage, it is worth looking at the problematic ways makeup debuts continue to operate. As mentioned, it is still not unusual to see a brand launch their newest base product with a shade range that dominantly serves lighter skinned people. But what is interesting is the logic and rhetoric these brands use to justify or “rectify” these situations:

“People were so excited about this product that we launched these for now with the intention of adding more.”

“We did more research and realized we needed to extend our range!”

“We really wanted to get the darker shades right, so they will take a longer time to come out.”

“Thanks to your feedback, we would now like to announce a more inclusive line!”

Though it is somewhat dependent on the size of the company, I find all of these statements to be slightly or completely condescending, especially if the brand is a part of the mainstream market in the US. They all work to signify Black, specifically dark skin, consumers as an afterthought which is harmful and obviously dangerous in the greater scheme of bias and prejudice. The last statement gets at the concept of Black outrage marketing by targeting the same people who were initially left out for their support, promotion, and praise as the companies now appear to be beacons of progressive business to other consumers as well.

Youthforia is among the beauty brands that have been rightfully critiqued on their lack of inclusive ranges for darker skinned individuals. They have recently attempted to correct their oversights by launching 10 new shades including their darkest shade yet: “600.” Online, the shade was immediately met with an influx of criticism from Black users due to its appearance. 

In regards to the specific situation with Youthforia, South Sudanese TikTok creator golloria, who notoriously tests and reviews the darkest shade foundations from different beauty brands, recently did a review of the newest shade of Youthforia’s Date Night Foundation–the now infamous “600.” The shade which is a literal black shade is described in her video as “tar in a bottle,” and  other TikTok users have echoed the sentiment, describing it as minstrel paint, black face paint (double entendre suggested), and much more that are all representative of the problematic nature of this product. 

When looking at the colors used to create the pigment within the ingredients list, the primary colors utilized to make extensive shades of brown and balance undertones tones are absent. Those who have come out in defense of the shade have stated the possibility that it is an intentional ‘mixing shade,’ though it has not been described that way on the website, nor by the founder and owner, Fiona Co Chen, in their promotional videos. In fact, it is described on their website as an “effortless” product, implying direct facial application which is seen throughout all demonstrative uses of the product. Regardless, that theory was immediately shot down when individuals tried to mix the other foundation shades with “600,” and the result was various shades of dull grey.

This made millions of people across numerous videos collectively wonder if the brand was serious when conceptualizing a black pigment to sell as foundation. In line with this marketing strategy, I believe the answer is no, they are not being serious about inclusion. A few days after the reviews began to come in, searches for Youthforia saw a nearly 100 percent increase according to Google Trends. Based on this backlash and all the eyes currently looking at the brand, I anticipate the release of their  “We appreciate your feedback, now announcing[...]” statement to round out this cycle of Black outrage marketing. 

Amongst the criticism, as mentioned, there have been a few (mostly non-Black) users that have come out in defense audaciously claiming they have seen people who would match “600.” These types of comments really highlight how the actions of these brands can really perpetuate ignorance and embolden others to spread falsehoods about the Black community. That is one of the more frustrating things about this situation, and likely why Black creators feel the need to express outrage— because their voices and criticisms are being talked over once again. 

We are meant to be satisfied about any “inclusion” just based on the historic fact that we have been absent from the narratives entirely. Knowing that we will not be elated by bottled black pigment, brands pivot to enrage and profit off of anger with intention disguised as an excusable lack of awareness. This phenomenon always serves to remind me of the Black community's lack of visibility in dominant white society as both consumers and people. It is a reminder to not privilege brands that make a spectacle out of inclusivity— rather to support brands who position it as a given that can be acknowledged. Those that do not force the community to continuously reiterate that Black people are not black, that we do buy makeup, and that we exist not as tools for manipulative marketing practices.