A recent article on bodyandsoul.com.au set out to address the “curly hair tax”—the higher prices people with textured hair often pay for products. It’s a conversation worth having. Curly and textured hair has long been underserved, with many consumers forced to pay more just to access something that works.
But the piece stumbles almost immediately. Instead of centring people who live with textured hair, it quotes a salon owner without curly hair—someone whose business relies on product sales and whose public messaging often mirrors commercial talking points. 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 hard to miss. Here is someone who actively markets products criticising the commodification of insecurity. This same individual has recently published SEO-driven blog posts laced with questionable claims—content designed to sell. Yet they are presented as a neutral expert on the exploitative pricing of curl care.
By platforming this voice, the article undermines itself. It sidesteps the people most affected and elevates someone participating in the very system being critiqued. This reflects a larger pattern in beauty media, where lived experience is overshadowed by the safer, more commercially aligned “expert.”
The missed opportunity is clear. There are curl specialists with structural insight, consumers managing these costs daily, and advocates who have been challenging inequity for years. Instead, the conversation gets filtered through those who benefit from the problem.
If this topic is to move forward meaningfully, the focus must shift. Not just toward people with textured hair, but toward those whose connection to the issue is direct, not theoretical. Credibility should be earned by lived reality—not by commercial proximity.