Share this comment
I can't stop thinking about how "cute" is the descriptor for their account and content (I take no issue with this, and completely agree!) while at the same time there's something unsettling and jarring about how young B&B look and act while also trying to appeal to consumers around their own age? First thing I thought about the engageme…
I can't stop thinking about how "cute" is the descriptor for their account and content (I take no issue with this, and completely agree!) while at the same time there's something unsettling and jarring about how young B&B look and act while also trying to appeal to consumers around their own age?
First thing I thought about the engagement photo was "how old are they, again?" and remembering they're my own age was so destabilizing. Makes me reflect on how B&B and co. have to project/perform youth and innocence while also be eternally prepared for "adult" things like marriage. I also can't help but wonder about how actual real life contrasts so much with all the imagery here, and really have a hard time picturing Bailey and Asa doing normal-people things like managing laundry, cooking, and the less photographable parts of life that are also part of marriage. This is less a criticism of them and more my own struggle to put into words how disturbing this cultural intersection is for me. What a great piece that I'll be thinking about all day.
This makes me want to talk about "cuteness" for a second. (Riffing off of Sianne Ngai's work--good summary of her book here: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-zany-the-cute-and-the-interesting-on-ngais-our-aesthetic-categories/) I think the unsettling and contradictory thing about cuteness as a marketing tool is that, as Ngai says, cuteness is an aestheticization of powerlessness, so it's made to be disarming or innocent. Which doesn't square well with the fact that a hyper-aestheticized entity like these influencer twins is also attempting to sell us, well, something, whether that's a purchasable commodity or, as AHP writes, an ideology and set of received aspirational narratives that go along with that ideology--not that they'd say that's what they're selling; I mean, they, like us, are consumers of that ideology at the same time that they're producers of it. All of this makes the whole thing at once mercenary and helpless along multiple lines, which is what makes it both effective and disturbing.
Also, though, dovetails beautifully with gender norms around owning/running a business (I recommend Meg Conley's recent essay on the Beanie Baby market for a much more insightful version of this point). The cuteness is kind of what allows them to effectively sell anything, because it renders them perceptually powerless. So there's no threat and it declaws the capitalist underpinnings.
Yeah, really excellent point. Makes me think in general about the gendering of capitalist enterprise as a form of obfuscation, like how MLMs are frequently articulated as being about care or wellness or other female-coded transcendent values.
Those girls can sell anything.
Can you link to the article? It sounds fascinating!
https://megconley.substack.com/p/the-beanie-baby-boom-the-influencer
Oh, this is fascinating. Thank you for sharing it! I think there's an some kind of an extension of this in 'hating on things that teen girls like'. I can't quite articulate it, but there's an intersecting track some place -- have you seen Lindsey Ellis' video essay apologizing to Stephanie Meyer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8O06tMbIKh0
This is exactly what I was getting at, but written out better than I could have! (Also want to read her book, have it on my shelf and excited to pick it up soon!) I think it's that under capitalism, they're bound by the very thing they're using to market themselves and supposedly benefitting from, even though ultimately "cuteness" ultimately shrinks/neutralizes their power.
I mean, it's strange how cuteness is so frequently accompanied by feelings of it being fake, or even "icky," right? Someone should write about "icky" as an aesthetic category. It's not the horror show of abjection that "disgusting" is; it's the "cute" version of disgusting.
What you say about "bound by the very thing they're using to market themselves" reminds me that in the last week, when attempting to find a sample scholarly article that I could use with students in a library instruction session, I came across and decided to use one on selfies that articulates them as a form of "conspicuous prosumption" (production + consumption in a single act). Still trying to wrap my head around the layers of prosumption that influencers are engaging in--what they're producing, what they're consuming, all in the singular act of posting.
Oh this is very interesting — do you think that they're still appealing to their own age group? To me they strike me more as appealing to a younger audience, but I know a lot of college students do follow them out of....interest? Fascination?
Honestly, I don't know who the target audience really is, beyond the one you've identified—I would guess they're trying to, seeing as they do wear crop tops/fashionable apparel that 21 year olds would wear, and have really nailed the combo of girl next door/beachy waves/effortlessness/skinniness that white female culture seems to prize, especially in college. So they definitely have the look, and I think fascination is really the right word, because that's what they inspire in me (as I can't relate to a lot of what I'm seeing on their instagram, even though I'm the same age as they are and also a white woman). I think the appeal for women my age could be a specter of relatability, but it's really deeply buried below the way purity culture vibes are much more their thing.
I also think about it in terms of, what is appealing about them to younger women/girls, beyond their conventional attractiveness and fake cheeriness? They're vaguely aspirational for younger girls, perhaps? But what they aspire to is also elusive and complicated by their own ages, partnerships, and clear premium on getting married asap. That's what's so weird about all of this, is that they absolutely look 16 but are definitely not 16 in terms of marriage/outfits/general influencer shrewdness. Which is why it was so freaky for me to see the image and think "is that a 10 year old getting married??" It was the dress and headband that did it for me.
That's it exactly! They look like two children having a pretend backyard wedding.
I teach middle school and I could ABSOLUTELY see my students following/emulating them.
I've recently been really fascinated with how they kept their audience young, yet there were always comments asking Bailey when she was going to get married, which feels like something children don't necessarily talk about?
They've managed to somehow bring the "college" experience to youtube in a 100% PG (probably G) way, while still keeping their close ties to their family and family channel. I think their audience ties in a lot with their mom's channel, which I would consider a family channel. Also I think the fact they've grown up on youtube brings a whole other level of fascination. Just knowing that they've been around on youtube for that long makes me want to watch to try to figure out what the appeal is.
I’m sure anyone here knows more than me, but I’ve seen Tik Tok/Instagram follower ratio that suggests age group of audience. Anyone know how they do on TT? (Sorry to bring in numbers, this is all fascinating.)