Can The Beauty Industry Be an Ally in Motorsports?
Hi there! Welcome to Track Limits, a weekly F1 newsletter where we break down the biggest headlines and explore the questions, topics, and trends that fuel our curiosity. Nothing is off-topic and a little fun is always part of the mix!!
Good evening!! Here we are, days away from the first Grand Prix, a couple of days after the pre-season testing, and in the midst of everyone binge-watching the new season of Drive to Survive!! Some would say it’s not the best time to send out another issue and they are probably right! But with so many interesting topics popping up this winter break, it would be a pity to miss out on discussing at least some of them!
One that has sparked a lot of interesting conversations is F1 Academy’s new partnership with Charlotte Tilbury. So let’s dive into it!
A week ago, F1 Academy, the all-female single-seater championship owned by Formula 1, announced that Charlotte Tilbury will be an official partner for the upcoming season. This partnership will feature a bespoke livery driven by French driver Lola Lovinfosse.
Charlotte Tilbury, a British luxury beauty brand founded in 2013 by celebrity makeup artist Charlotte Tilbury, sold a majority stake to the Spanish group Puig in 2020. Despite no longer being the largest shareholder, Tilbury remains as the president and chief creative officer. Interestingly, the partnership comes amid ongoing discussions within the female F1 fanbase about beauty and femininity in sports.
Is beauty a prerequisite for women to gain opportunities in the sport? Is there room for female fans who don’t conform to traditional feminine stereotypes? Is being feminine as an athlete an advantage or a disadvantage? Should women’s sports only be sponsored by brands targeting women, if they account for over 70% of global consumer purchases?
Not Ladylike
Women's participation in sports, whether as athletes or spectators, has historically been limited. In ancient Greece, some women engaged in sports, but over the centuries participation was rare, mostly recreational, and often discouraged in public.
By the late 19th century, prevailing beliefs held that women were delicate and that physical activity was harmful. Claiming excessive physical exertion could lead to infertility and undermine desirable feminine traits. Moreover, being a sports spectator was deemed not ladylike and could damage a woman's attractiveness.
Though societal attitudes have shifted in the last century, underlying beliefs persist. Discourse around women’s sports often questions athletes' achievements, commitment, appearance, and the competitiveness of their sports.
Similarly, female sports fans frequently face sexist assumptions: that they only watch sports due to a partner, becuae athletes are attractive, or only want pink merchandise. These factors contribute to the underfunding of women's sports, low female participation, and a lack of support for female fans, while also perpetuating the objectification of female athletes.
Sex Sells
A quick look at female athletes' uniforms, camera angles, and commentary reveals that media coverage of women’s sports often focuses on appearance rather than athleticism or competition.
This dilemma - where sex appeal gains media attention and sponsorship deals - is one many athletes face and it raises a very valid concern: sex sells but at what cost?The problem with this approach to women’s sports is that it emphasizes beauty over skill, undermining the legitimacy of female athletes and diminishes public perception of their value.
There is nothing wrong with an athlete being feminine or attractive. However, these aspects shouldn’t overshadow her athletic abilities or be the primary reason for their recognition. It’s what makes her marketable - in the eyes of most brands - and just another barrier that helps reinforce gender inequality in sports.
Under Pressure
Whether we like it or not "pretty privilege" is real and it describes a phenomenon where those who conform to beauty standards are the beneficiaries of privileges, such as better job prospects, higher salaries, and more positive social perceptions. Women, in particular, face intense pressure to meet these ideals, and non-conformity can negatively impact all aspects of their lives - including their athletic career.
The multi-billion dollar beauty industry, which has long promoted these unrealistic beauty standards and discriminatory beliefs, has profited like no other from undermining women’s confidence and charging them a pink tax “to help them fix it”. Unsurprisingly, it has also affected athletes, with body-shaming being a constant in their lives, which significantly impacts participation rates in sports.
Funnily enough, Dove made a Super Bowl commercial this year about this exact statistic with the slogan “Keep her confident” seeing studies show that around 45% of girls stop participating in sports around ages 13 or 14 due to body image issues. Hmmm, I wonder where that comes from!!
While some beauty brands now promote "natural beauty" or “empowerment”, the reality is that the industry still drives many women’s self-worth issues.
Justifiable Skepticism?
As such, it’s no surprise that the Charlotte Tilbury partnership has sparked skepticism. For every fan, athlete and media personality who expressed their excitement, there are many others questioning the brand’s intentions and impact on the sport.
Especially if we take into account that motorsport remains male-dominated industry where gender inequality and sexism continue to be prevelant issues. Just look at the amount of women in the industry, their roles and pay, the type of media representation and the recurring narratives about women in the sport. All these highlight the challenges women still face. Hence, why the F1 Academy was created and why it could play a crucial role in addressing gender equity in motorsport.
As a side note - some athletes have reported they faced ridicule for wearing makeup while competing. This behavior is completely unacceptable. It does however highlight the unfair scrutiny of women: they are criticized for wearing makeup yet told they don’t look "presentable" without it.
Managing Expectations
Whether you were happy or not by the announcement, there is no doubt that this partnership is mutually beneficial. F1 Academy needs to increase revenue and expand its audience, while Charlotte Tilbury is seeking to tap into the growing popularity of women’s sports to drive commercial growth and enhance brand perception.
This, however, raises questions about the criteria for becoming a sponsor of the F1 Academy. Is it enough to have a commercial interest in the series and the necessary financial resources? Should the F1 Academy adopt a more diverse set of criteria, and is writing a check the only expectation they and fans should have from their sponsors?
At this point, the answers to these remains uncertain, as does the outcome and impact of the F1 Academy/Tilbury partnership. What is clear, is that the industry's legacy has created an uphill battle for the brand. Earning fans' trust won’t be easy, and Tilbury will likely need to demonstrate active support for female athletes - not just through aesthetically pleasing social media post - and a truly be an ally of gender equity in motorsport - maybe even beyond the initial sponsorship agreement.
Is that an unrealistic expectation? Not really. Purpose-led sponsorship is becoming the norm of what stakeholders expect from brands and, when done right, it can significantly outperform traditional campaigns. So why not do more than just slap a special livery on a car and give out makeup packages to industry insiders and influencers?!
Photo Credit: F1 Academy