Cancel Culture: Modern Witch-hunt On Fleek Or Low-key Marketing Ploy?

In 2023 the beauty world was shaken up by the controversy known as "Mascara Gate" which serves as a fascinating case study on the power of cancel culture to drive publicity and profits.

Within just 24 hours, the drama and debate sparked by a single review, led to a surge in discussions about the product and the credibility of the influencer behind it.

Ironically, the attempt to cancel the influencer only drew more attention to the mascara, resulting in a wave of positive reviews and free clout.

This turn of events raises an intriguing question: was the controversy really an unintentional coincidence, or a calculated marketing ploy?

While Pope Francis has condemned cancel culture as a form of ideological colonization that stifles freedom of expression, others define it as a social media-driven phenomenon that involves publicly shaming, boycotting, or shunning individuals or brands for their perceived socially or morally unacceptable behavior or views.

The rise of cancel culture in recent years has sparked an oxymoronic debate, as it has been both a public enforcer of social justice and a threat to freedom of thought and speech. On one hand, cancel culture can hold influential individuals and institutions accountable for their actions in the court of public opinion. On the other hand, it has morphed in to a modernized instrument of censorship; allowing individuals or groups to be publicly shamed or punished without due process. All under the guise of fostering social justice, this culture leverages fear to coerce individuals to either conform to the opinion of majority or face ostracism for expressing dissenting views.

According to Lisa Nakamura, a University of Michigan professor, cancel culture embodies the desire for autonomy over the content individuals are force fed on social media.

When cancel culture comes for someone on the internet, it's less about who's right or wrong, and more about which side has more supporters. If a lot of people or big influencers say someone is in the wrong and should be canceled, facts often take a backseat. This is due to the "bandwagon effect," where people join in on a trend if they see many others doing it. Once receipts emerges that contradicts the original claims, it's often too late because the loud music of the bandwagon tends to muffle the facts.

It's hard to believe that today's technology and social media have created a platform for history to repeat itself. We are reliving the Inquisition Era or witch hunt trials, with a modern twist. The dark times that are condemned for targeted hate taking precedence over facts, leaving a trail of tragic consequences, have found a new way to emerge in new light - where popularity, masquerading as public opinion, overshadows evidence, reason, and free thinking.

As we dig deeper into cancel culture and compare it to historical equivalents, a consistent behavioral pattern comes to light.

Irving Janis describes it best: even well-bonded teams with the best intentions can gradually lose sight of critical thinking and unconsciously develop a shared worldview. Group members may take this unanimity as a sign that the group's conclusions must be correct.

The concept of groupthink has been rebranded for the digital age as the Wisdom of the Crowds. This idea assumes that large crowds are collectively smarter than individual experts, and that the collective knowledge of a crowd leads to better decision-making, innovation, and problem-solving than any single person could achieve.

Modern ideology has gradually encouraged us to rely heavily on the wisdom of crowds to the point where we can't make any decision without scouring forums or sharing intimate details of our lives in search of others' approval or guidance, often without requiring any professional background related to the issue at hand.

While this phenomenon was promoted as being in our best interest, this reliance on collective opinion appears to be shifting us away from individual thinking and towards a dangerous realm of groupthink. In this realm, our critical thinking is overridden by the so-called wisdom of the crowd.

As we prioritize the collective wisdom of the crowd over our individual thinking privilege, marketers seem to have identified a unique opportunity in this trade-off.

Who would have thought that "Cancel Culture" could be leveraged into turning negative publicity into positive buzz?

As previously mentioned, cancel culture originated as a way to hold individuals and brands accountable for their actions. However, like many noble movements, it has taken a wrong turn at some point. The power of cancel culture to claim justice stems from psychological aspects often used in consumer psychology to shape decision-making. Therefore, it's not a far stretch to imagine that a savvy marketer could identify overlapping patterns and combine them with the notion that 'there's no such thing as bad publicity,' resulting in a new phenomenon.

As risky and controversial as this approach may be, these influencers/marketers seem to have devised a shrewd strategy that minimizes the negative impact on their reputations while maximizing their potential for publicity and growth. This strategy combines a range of tactics, such as issuing apologies or explanations to mitigate backlash, providing new information or context to shift the narrative, or even intentionally stoking controversy to generate buzz and attention. In some cases, they may also choose to avoid direct engagement with the controversy, leveraging the suspense effect to create a sense of anticipation and curiosity among viewers, leading to increased engagement.

While this approach is not without its risks and ethical concerns, it demonstrates a calculated willingness to take risks, even to the point of burning down one's reputation in the hopes of rising from the ashes stronger.

This calculated strategy brings to mind the age-old philosophical dilemma: do the ends justify the means? Can the alluring rewards of leveraging cancel culture for personal gain ever justify the exploitation of a movement that was once a beacon of justice and accountability?

While those who employ this strategy may reap short-term benefits, the long-term consequences for both their reputations and the broader social and cultural impact of their actions remain to be seen.

What are your thoughts on this phenomenon, I'm eager to hear your perspectives and let's keep the discussion going, as I believe it's through open dialogue that we can generate new ideas and find innovative solutions.