In the past week I've been hearing a lot of discourse about two separate things

@suhaadada

2.8K followers · usually 2.2K views a post

Views

32.9K

Likes

4.0K

Comments

Selling · Other Product

Meta Glassesseen in 5 videos →

Why it worked

The video likely performed well because it tapped into current cultural conversations about influencer marketing, AI, and the perceived authenticity of online personalities. By connecting the Meta glasses launch with Kylie Jenner and referencing popular commentary from figures like Emma Chamberlain, it provided a timely and relevant analysis that resonated with viewers interested in these topics.

Summary

The video discusses the perceived failure of Meta's strategy in promoting their glasses, particularly through Kylie Jenner. The speaker argues that Meta misunderstands the current influencer landscape, where authenticity is valued and consumers are wary of overt advertising. The video contrasts this with Emma Chamberlain's commentary on the decline of traditional influencing and the public's increased awareness of surveillance and data collection, suggesting that Meta's approach is outdated and likely to backfire.

Structure

1Introduction to the topic: Meta glasses, Kylie Jenner, and the changing influencer economy.
2The speaker's thesis: Meta's strategy is flawed because it doesn't understand the current creator economy.
3Analysis of Emma Chamberlain's comments on the decline of influencer culture.
4Discussion of the Vulture article about Audrey Peters and 'rage bait'.

Original caption

I’ve been reading a lot about meta glasses and surveillance, while also seeing a lot of commentary on the shift in the influencer culture and economy. I think this is exemplified with kylie x meta. I also think the kylie meta glasses shows meta themselevs don’t understand this shift at all. #metaglasses #kyliejenner #emmachamberlain #Tech #ai

More from @suhaadada

Their other posts in the index, biggest breakout first.

On-screen text

Meta Glasses x Kylie Jenner roll out was accidental rage bait and what Emma chamberlain understands about the creator economy that meta clearly doesn't. In the past week I've been hearing a lot of discourse about two separate things that I think are actually more connected than anyone's making them seem. The first, everyone hates meta glasses, and the second is that all influencers and people who participate in the creator economy are talking about how much they think it's right now changing. The common thread is Kylie Jenner and the promotion of the meta glasses using Kylie Jenner as a face. I specifically want to talk about Emma Chamberlain's comments on Emma Grade's podcast that she thinks that influencer culture is dying or the ability for influencers to influence is changing. And the Vox article that featured Audrey Peters talking about how her door dashing her Starbucks every morning was just a bit for rage bait. Let's first talk about the meta glasses. I think meta put Kylie Jenner as the face of the meta glasses because they very transparently want to reach a demographic that tech is not reaching very effectively right now. And definitely the meta glasses are not reaching very effectively right now, which is what I imagine they think is Kylie Jenner's core audience demographic. The young trendy girly pop. Loves beauty, loves fashion, and might be pretty easily influenceable. I think they failed to estimate how much scrutiny anything a Kardashian Jenner gets and how much critical thinking the Kardashian and Jenner's moves invite in from their audience. Not just those influenceable girly pops, but the entire world who look to the Kardashian Jenners to make cultural commentary about where our society is and where our society is going. By splashing out as big as they have on this Kylie Jenner meta glasses collaboration, they have gotten probably just as many eyes as they hoped a collaboration with Kylie Jenner would get them. But not all of those eyes have been complimentary. Actually, instead invited people to have a larger sense of an awareness of everything that is wrong with the meta glasses in today's society. Meta's an unsolicited example. You know the influencer that was filming those lawyers making out in the public park bench? I think maybe even just a year ago, people would have looked at that and said, you know what? That's crazy. Those two are cheating on their significant other. We should try to dog them and cancel them. Because look what happened with that couple at the corduroy concert. But since AI has taken over so much of the conversation in the past year, and obviously four years, but I think to the regular consumer, the last year has been a significant shift in talking about and hearing about AI. Everyone has in their mind the idea that we are being surveilled for data. And I think a new heightened awareness that maybe we didn't have before. So now I'm seeing the comments about those two lawyers in the park like, well, you know what, cheating is not actually a crime. And they should be able to live out their life without fear of being filmed in public. I think that commentary is a direct backlash from the awareness that people now have about how heinous filming in public is because of the commentary around the meta glasses. And I think a lot of that attention came from Kylie Jenner. So then if I talk about Emma Chamberlain and Emma Grade, I would say that Emma Chamberlain's theory is definitely being exemplified in this particular Kylie Jenner meta glasses example. Emma's saying, influencing as we know it is dead because the consumer is aware they're being sold to, and they don't want to be sold to. Or at least that it's less effective than it's ever been to sell things through influencers because everyone knows that they're watching an ad. And they're not believing that the person who's pushing the products that they're showing on their TikTok or Instagram actually cares about that product and actually uses that product. And then the Vulture article about Audrey Peters, that she's rage baiting everybody by door dashing her three meals a day, and that's not actually something that she does. It's part of her strategy to stay relevant. The veil of the relatability of influencers on TikTok, which was a big reason why I think the platform took off over Instagram for short form video was that people felt Instagram influencers were canned and polished, and TikTok influencers were relatable and real. That relatability and realness was discovered to be sellable. Once everything became an ad, it's no longer relatable anymore. Okay, so the veil of influencing has fallen. At the same time, Meta is trying to rely on that same influencing strategy to push a technology that nobody is consenting to and nobody seems to actually want. I'm going to read you a couple of the headlines from Apple News when I type in meta glasses into search. New York says the cursed quest to make meta glasses cool out of meta glasses could be the gateway into a queer dystopian nightmare. Vox says meta glasses are killing the vibe. That, plus their partnership with a bunch of the cool creative people that I at least follow on Instagram shows me that they're still living in a maybe 5 years ago, influencer brand strategy roll out where they think that just by putting the product onto a cool person will make the product sell more. I'm sure it has raised their sale numbers to some degree, but it has also, I think, inflated the scrutiny and the criticism on the product and the technology itself. All that to say, I think one of the biggest social media giants in the game is seemingly failing to understand what a creator like Emma Chamberlain and even a creator like Audrey Peters might already understand. A lot of times, rage will get you the views, which is what Meta seems to want views, not rage. But consumers may not be transacting and relating to ads content on social media the way that they once did. Even if it's Kylie Jenner promoting your product.

Transcript

In the past week I've been hearing a lot of discourse about two separate things that I think are actually more connected than anyone's making them seem. The first, everyone hates meta glasses, and the second is that all influencers and people who participate in the creator economy are talking about how much they think it's right now changing. The common thread is Kylie Jenner and the promotion of the meta glasses using Kylie Jenner as a face. I specifically want to talk about Emma Chamberlain's comments on Emma Grade's podcast that she thinks that influencer culture is dying or the ability for influencers to influence is changing. And the Vox article that featured Audrey Peters talking about how her door dashing her Starbucks every morning was just a bit for rage bait. Let's first talk about the meta glasses. I think meta put Kylie Jenner as the face of the meta glasses because they very transparently want to reach a demographic that tech is not reaching very effectively right now. And definitely the meta glasses are not reaching very effectively right now, which is what I imagine they think is Kylie Jenner's core audience demographic. The young trendy girly pop. Loves beauty, loves fashion, and might be pretty easily influenceable. I think they failed to estimate how much scrutiny anything a Kardashian Jenner gets and how much critical thinking the Kardashian and Jenner's moves invite in from their audience. Not just those influenceable girly pops, but the entire world who look to the Kardashian Jenners to make cultural commentary about where our society is and where our society is going. By splashing out as big as they have on this Kylie Jenner meta glasses collaboration, they have gotten probably just as many eyes as they hoped a collaboration with Kylie Jenner would get them. But not all of those eyes have been complimentary. Actually, instead invited people to have a larger sense of an awareness of everything that is wrong with the meta glasses in today's society. Meta's an unsolicited example. You know the influencer that was filming those lawyers making out in the public park bench? I think maybe even just a year ago, people would have looked at that and said, you know what? That's crazy. Those two are cheating on their significant other. We should try to dog them and cancel them. Because look what happened with that couple at the corduroy concert. But since AI has taken over so much of the conversation in the past year, and obviously four years, but I think to the regular consumer, the last year has been a significant shift in talking about and hearing about AI. Everyone has in their mind the idea that we are being surveilled for data. And I think a new heightened awareness that maybe we didn't have before. So now I'm seeing the comments about those two lawyers in the park like, well, you know what, cheating is not actually a crime. And they should be able to live out their life without fear of being filmed in public. I think that commentary is a direct backlash from the awareness that people now have about how heinous filming in public is because of the commentary around the meta glasses. And I think a lot of that attention came from Kylie Jenner. So then if I talk about Emma Chamberlain and Emma Grade, I would say that Emma Chamberlain's theory is definitely being exemplified in this particular Kylie Jenner meta glasses example. Emma's saying, influencing as we know it is dead because the consumer is aware they're being sold to, and they don't want to be sold to. Or at least that it's less effective than it's ever been to sell things through influencers because everyone knows that they're watching an ad. And they're not believing that the person who's pushing the products that they're showing on their TikTok or Instagram actually cares about that product and actually uses that product. And then the Vulture article about Audrey Peters, that she's rage baiting everybody by door dashing her three meals a day, and that's not actually something that she does. It's part of her strategy to stay relevant. The veil of the relatability of influencers on TikTok, which was a big reason why I think the platform took off over Instagram for short form video was that people felt Instagram influencers were canned and polished, and TikTok influencers were relatable and real. That relatability and realness was discovered to be sellable. Once everything became an ad, it's no longer relatable anymore. Okay, so the veil of influencing has fallen. At the same time, Meta is trying to rely on that same influencing strategy to push a technology that nobody is consenting to and nobody seems to actually want. I'm going to read you a couple of the headlines from Apple News when I type in meta glasses into search. New York says the cursed quest to make meta glasses cool out of meta glasses could be the gateway into a queer dystopian nightmare. Vox says meta glasses are killing the vibe. That, plus their partnership with a bunch of the cool creative people that I at least follow on Instagram shows me that they're still living in a maybe 5 years ago, influencer brand strategy roll out where they think that just by putting the product onto a cool person will make the product sell more. I'm sure it has raised their sale numbers to some degree, but it has also, I think, inflated the scrutiny and the criticism on the product and the technology itself. All that to say, I think one of the biggest social media giants in the game is seemingly failing to understand what a creator like Emma Chamberlain and even a creator like Audrey Peters might already understand. A lot of times, rage will get you the views, which is what Meta seems to want views, not rage. But consumers may not be transacting and relating to ads content on social media the way that they once did. Even if it's Kylie Jenner promoting your product.