De-influencing: The Trend Putting Authenticity First“反種草”浪潮：真實(shí)至上

杰斯·比奇/文　王香格/譯

Be honest： how often does your social media scrolling lead to shopping？ And how many of those things that TikTok made you buy did you actually need？ Enter de-influencing， the TikTok trend flipping1 influencing on its head—and aiming to save our bank balances in the process.

老實(shí)說(shuō)：你在瀏覽社交媒體時(shí)，有多少次是刷著刷著就去購(gòu)物了？TikTok促使你買下的東西里，有多少是你真正需要的？“反種草”浪潮應(yīng)運(yùn)而生——這是TikTok上的趨勢(shì)，旨在顛覆“種草”，力圖在顛覆的過(guò)程中挽救我們的銀行存款。

There’s been an influx of TikTok beauty mishaps of late that have fueled a growing frustration at creators promoting products online that are misleading or， to put it bluntly， inconsiderate in light of the ongoing cost of living crisis. Take， for example， the “mascara gate” debacle2. US-based influencer Mikayla Nogueira posted a TikTok using the L’Oréal Telescopic Lash Lift Mascara but was accused of using false eyelashes in her review as part of a paid partnership. Neither Nogueira nor L’Oréal has commented on the post. Tarte Cosmetics was also criticized for treating influencers to a lavish， all-expenses-paid trip to Dubai， which sparked debate among fans as the sponsored posts felt unrelatable to many.

近來(lái)，TikTok上的美妝帶貨博主頻繁翻車。他們?cè)诰€推廣具有誤導(dǎo)性的產(chǎn)品，或者，說(shuō)穿了就是在目前的生活成本危機(jī)下，無(wú)視消費(fèi)者利益的產(chǎn)品。人們對(duì)這類博主的不滿情緒加劇。以“睫毛膏門”這一“塌房”事件為例，美國(guó)網(wǎng)紅米凱拉·諾蓋拉在TikTok上發(fā)布了一條付費(fèi)合作的測(cè)評(píng)視頻，測(cè)評(píng)的產(chǎn)品是歐萊雅的纖長(zhǎng)提拉睫毛膏，但觀眾指責(zé)她在視頻中貼了假睫毛。諾蓋拉和歐萊雅都沒(méi)有對(duì)此作出回應(yīng)。美妝品牌Tarte還因給網(wǎng)紅免費(fèi)提供奢華的迪拜之旅而受到抨擊。此舉之所以引發(fā)粉絲熱議，是因?yàn)槟侨壕W(wǎng)紅發(fā)布的付費(fèi)合作內(nèi)容令許多人感到無(wú)法認(rèn)同。

As a result， social media users have taken it upon themselves3 to rebel against the wave of mass consumption in a bid to reclaim control over their feeds. This has spread outside of the app， too， with Reddit threads4 popping up where users share the products they don’t think are worth the hype. But what actually is de-influencing， how is it different from influencing， and will it last？ We ask a content creator and marketing expert to break it down.

由此，社交媒體用戶開(kāi)始自發(fā)地反抗大規(guī)模消費(fèi)浪潮，試圖奪回對(duì)推送信息的控制權(quán)。這股反擊熱潮也蔓延到了TikTok之外。Reddit網(wǎng)站上突然涌現(xiàn)出許多相關(guān)主題的討論帖，很多用戶分享了他們認(rèn)為名不副實(shí)的商品。那么，“反種草”究竟是什么？與“種草”有什么區(qū)別？這股浪潮會(huì)持續(xù)下去嗎？我們請(qǐng)一位內(nèi)容創(chuàng)作者兼營(yíng)銷專家來(lái)解析一下。

What is de-influencing？

“反種草”是什么？

De-influencing is the TikTok trend with hundreds of millions of views that’s challenging the hype around so-called cult products by telling you what you shouldn’t buy， instead of what you should. It’s a response to a few different things， including a general feeling of overconsumption （you don’t need more stuff just because TikTok says you do） and the cost of living crisis.

“反種草”是TikTok上瀏覽量數(shù)以億計(jì)的熱門話題，通過(guò)告訴你什么不該買而不是什么該買，抨擊圍繞所謂網(wǎng)紅產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行的炒作?！胺捶N草”還對(duì)幾種現(xiàn)象作出了回應(yīng)，比如人們普遍感知到的過(guò)度消費(fèi)（TikTok推薦消費(fèi)者購(gòu)買超出實(shí)際需求量的商品）和生活成本危機(jī)。

“People are experiencing a general social media fatigue at the moment，” says makeup artist and beauty content creator Rose Gallagher. “Originally， user-generated content was so popular because people tended to share thoughts on things that they had purchased themselves with no real connection to the brand. Now， with so much to be gained from giving a rave review， it has become harder to tell the genuine reviews from those influenced by the potential for earning.”

“人們現(xiàn)在普遍對(duì)社交媒體感到厭倦?！被瘖y師兼美妝博主羅絲·加拉格爾表示，“一開(kāi)始，用戶原創(chuàng)的內(nèi)容之所以如此受歡迎，是因?yàn)槿藗兇蠖喾窒淼氖亲约簩?duì)所購(gòu)商品的主觀想法，與品牌本身沒(méi)有實(shí)際的聯(lián)系。如今，人們能從發(fā)表熱情洋溢的好評(píng)中獲得不少收益，于是從受潛在收益影響的評(píng)論中分辨出真正的好評(píng)已經(jīng)變得越來(lái)越難。”

This isn’t the first time there’s been a backlash against promotional content. “I think de-influencing is in some ways similar to when ’90s magazine editors started to editorialize content and not always write about their advertisers，” says CEO of the British Beauty Council and cofounder of PR agency Brandstand Communications， Millie Kendall. “Content creators with integrity， whether that’s magazine editors or influencers， will always try to set their content apart from what they deem to be lacking in honesty. I think it’s important because it sets a level playing field for brands that can’t afford to convince someone to feature their content without paying for the privilege.”

這已經(jīng)不是推廣內(nèi)容第一次受到強(qiáng)烈抵制了。英國(guó)美容協(xié)會(huì)首席執(zhí)行官、公關(guān)公司Brandstand Communications聯(lián)合創(chuàng)始人米莉·肯德?tīng)栒f(shuō)：“我覺(jué)得‘反種草’在某些方面類似于20世紀(jì)90年代雜志編輯開(kāi)始發(fā)表評(píng)論，而非總寫有關(guān)廣告商的內(nèi)容。無(wú)論是雜志編輯，還是網(wǎng)紅，只要是以誠(chéng)信為準(zhǔn)則的內(nèi)容創(chuàng)作者，總會(huì)盡力將自己的創(chuàng)作與他們認(rèn)為不夠誠(chéng)實(shí)的內(nèi)容劃清界限。我認(rèn)為這一點(diǎn)很重要，因?yàn)槿绱吮銥槠放铺峁┝艘粋€(gè)公平競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的環(huán)境，讓花不起特約費(fèi)用請(qǐng)人專門為自己推廣的品牌也可參與其中?！?/p>

How is de-influencing different from influencing？

“反種草”與“種草”有何區(qū)別？

It sounds progressive， but once you scratch the surface5， there isn’t a huge difference between influencing and de-influencing. “De-influencing is a bit of a false commodity，” says Kendall. “It’s still influence but it’s telling people what not to buy.” While TikTokers may be warning consumers away from expensive or well-known products， some continue to influence by telling consumers what they should buy instead. For example， buying a heated roller set on Amazon over the Dyson Airwrap—this is still suggesting products with sweeping6 promises.

“反種草”這個(gè)概念聽(tīng)起來(lái)標(biāo)新立異，但只要略探究竟，你就會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)它與“種草”并沒(méi)有多大區(qū)別?！啊捶N草’有點(diǎn)名不副實(shí)?！笨系?tīng)栔赋?，“‘反種草’也是對(duì)他人施加影響，只不過(guò)是告訴大家什么不該買罷了?！彪m然TikTok博主們可能是在“勸退”消費(fèi)者購(gòu)買昂貴或熱門的商品，但其中一部分人依然在通過(guò)推薦替代品來(lái)影響消費(fèi)者。例如，不要購(gòu)買戴森多功能美發(fā)棒，但可以在亞馬遜網(wǎng)上購(gòu)買加熱卷發(fā)筒套裝——此舉仍然是用籠統(tǒng)的承諾向消費(fèi)者推薦商品。

Cynically speaking， de-influencing is a good strategy for influencers and brands. Rising living costs mean consumers are less likely to splurge7 on big-ticket8 items， which means the influencers promoting them are less likely to generate affiliate revenue. Pivoting to promoting cheaper products plays into the so-called “Lipstick Effect9，” where people treat themselves to little luxuries， instead of indulgences， during times of economic uncertainty.

諷刺的是，“反種草”無(wú)論對(duì)網(wǎng)紅還是品牌方都是個(gè)不錯(cuò)的策略。生活成本不斷增長(zhǎng)意味著消費(fèi)者不太可能在高價(jià)商品上揮金如土，進(jìn)而使為其帶貨的網(wǎng)紅更難獲得合作收益。網(wǎng)紅們轉(zhuǎn)而推廣更便宜的產(chǎn)品，正符合所謂的“口紅效應(yīng)”，即在經(jīng)濟(jì)不穩(wěn)定時(shí)期，人們會(huì)購(gòu)入低價(jià)奢侈品款待自己，而不是放縱自己大肆消費(fèi)。

Being honest and authentic has the potential to pay off， too. While criticizing big brands may reduce an influencer’s chances of landing a new deal in the short term， it also may increase their long-term reach as they gain a reputation for being trustworthy. Sparking debates over whether a product works or not can also drive sales for brands， as consumers respond by wanting to try it for themselves. It is also important to remember that not all influencers are financially stable enough to be immune to rocketing bills， and all the influencers will need to adapt their content to these changing and challenging times.

保持誠(chéng)實(shí)可信也有可能得到回報(bào)。批評(píng)大品牌或許會(huì)在短期內(nèi)減少網(wǎng)紅簽訂新商單的機(jī)會(huì)，但也會(huì)增強(qiáng)他們的長(zhǎng)期影響力，因?yàn)榇伺e為他們贏得了信譽(yù)。引發(fā)關(guān)于某產(chǎn)品是否有效的爭(zhēng)論也可以拉動(dòng)品牌的銷量，因?yàn)橄M(fèi)者會(huì)想要親自嘗試。同樣重要的是，要記住并非所有網(wǎng)紅都有穩(wěn)定的經(jīng)濟(jì)實(shí)力，能泰然面對(duì)飛漲的賬單，他們都需要調(diào)整自己發(fā)布的內(nèi)容來(lái)適應(yīng)這個(gè)不斷變化又充滿挑戰(zhàn)的時(shí)代。

What is different about de-influencing is encouraging consumers to take a moment to think about whether they need a product and whether it’s right for them versus whether they’re simply being influenced because it’s new， popular， or exciting. This is part of a bigger movement in beauty. “There is also the paring back10 of regimens， the ingredient diet， the skin minimalism， and the stripping back11 of excess linked to sustainability and overconsumption，” says Kendall. “This is a positive approach to marketing.”

“反種草”的不同之處在于，它鼓勵(lì)消費(fèi)者花些時(shí)間來(lái)思考自己是否真的需要某件商品，這件商品是否適合自己，而不能僅僅因?yàn)樗路f、流行、令人激動(dòng)就被“種草”。“反種草”是美妝行業(yè)巨大變革的一部分。“人們還減少了養(yǎng)生的操作，選擇單一成分飲食和極簡(jiǎn)護(hù)膚，摒棄了違背可持續(xù)性和助長(zhǎng)過(guò)度消費(fèi)的無(wú)節(jié)制行為?！笨系?tīng)柋硎?，“這是一種積極的營(yíng)銷方式。”

（譯者為“《英語(yǔ)世界》杯”翻譯大賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)?；單位：上海?duì)外經(jīng)貿(mào)大學(xué)）

1 flip翻轉(zhuǎn)，此處指顛覆。? 2 debacle大敗；垮臺(tái)；災(zāi)禍。

3 take upon oneself主動(dòng)承擔(dān)某項(xiàng)任務(wù)或責(zé)任。? 4 thread（互聯(lián)網(wǎng)留言板上的）系列相關(guān)信息，主題帖。

5 scratch the surface of sth作膚淺的探討；淺嘗輒止；觸及表面。

6 sweeping籠統(tǒng)的；一概而論的。? 7 splurge揮霍。? 8 big-ticket昂貴的。? 9 lipstick effect口紅效應(yīng)，指因經(jīng)濟(jì)蕭條而導(dǎo)致口紅熱賣的一種有趣的經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)象，也叫“低價(jià)產(chǎn)品偏愛(ài)趨勢(shì)”。

10 pare back逐步減?。〝?shù)量或體積）；使縮小。? 11 strip back（特指音樂(lè)等）回歸本質(zhì)，只保留最簡(jiǎn)單的形式。