A recent article on bodyandsoul.com.au attempts to highlight the “curly hair tax” — the inflated prices people with curly hair often pay for products. At first glance, this is an important conversation. Curly and textured hair has long been underserved in the beauty industry, and consumers are frequently forced to pay premium prices just to access products that work for them.
False Advocacy Undermines Credibility
However, the credibility of the piece is weakened by the choice to feature commentary from a salon owner without curly hair, whose business model includes product sales and whose online content often promotes commercially-aligned messaging. One quote in particular stands out:
“I firmly believe that for any insecurity someone has, there is someone walking behind you with an EFTPOS machine to try and get you to buy their product, and I find it really frustrating.”
The irony is difficult to ignore: here is someone who aggressively sells products, lamenting the exploitation of insecurities for profit. In recent months, this same person has published multiple blog posts filled with misleading claims designed to boost SEO and increase product sales, yet they are presented as a neutral expert in a discussion about overpriced curly hair care.
Centering the Wrong Voices
By choosing this source, the journalist undermines the core message of the article. Instead of centering the voices of people with curly hair—those actually affected by the so-called “curly tax”—they handed the mic to someone complicit in the very system they claim to critique. This is more than just hypocrisy; it’s an example of how mainstream beauty discourse continues to sideline those with lived experience in favor of salon owners and “experts” who profit from the problem.
What Was Missed
This was a missed opportunity to feature voices that actually represent the curly hair community—curl specialists who have firsthand knowledge, consumers who navigate these costs daily, or advocates who have long fought for fair pricing and better industry practices. Instead, the article reinforces a cycle where those benefiting from the status quo get to define the narrative, while those directly impacted remain unheard.
What Needs to Change
If we truly want meaningful change, we need to amplify the right voices. Curly-haired individuals deserve more than surface-level concern from business owners who cash in on their struggles. We need journalism that digs deeper, challenges power structures, and prioritises authenticity over convenience.
Because calling out injustice means little if we’re still handing the stage to those perpetuating it.