Question

Preteens are raiding Sephora's due to misdirection in their beauty path from looking up to influencers way older than them.

Comments

Although the claim itself is strongly stated, I believe that if you rephrase and revise the claim a little bit it could be much better. In order to strengthen the claim, you could use Sephora as an example of the thousands of makeup stores that Pre-teens are "raiding", Sephora is not the only one. By changing the wording of "raiding" to something more topic specified, like "gravitating" or "taking over", the claim might be seen as more factual and reliable. The best way to improve the claim is by clarifying the relationship between pre-teens, influencers, and consumer behavior.

Answer 1

I think restating this claim would benefit your strong opinion on how you may feel about this topic. simply saying that pre-teens are raiding Sephora's comes off harshly and almost goes to show an act of a crime. where did you acquire this article from? and how do you know it is factual and not just opinion based? also what harm are they doing trying on makeup and wanting to explore possibly playing dress up? a new direction could be taken with this topic on how pre-teens are wanting to explore themselves since the internet is such a large part of ones every day life.

Comments

I agree with this as well. Most of the article just seems like someone older is mad at pre-teens because they are obsessed with a product that is intended for all age groups. The author makes it sound like something is being done that is wrong, which really is not a truth, in this case. Pre-teens pay with the same currency as any other consumer and therefore shouldn’t be restricted from buying a product just because a journalist in another age group is upset by it.

Answer 2

Upon some investigation, this article regarding the increasing popularity of Sephora, particularly the skincare products it sells, among preteens has merit as an opinion piece. The admittedly biased nature of this article may initially make it appear as a conduit for misinformation. However, this doesn’t seem to be the full story. The author of this article, Van Badham, has a short biography linked through the website containing the article, The Guardian. Badham’s biography on The Guardian website identifies her as an author, critic, and trade union feminist. According to Badham’s biography on her Instagram account (https://www.instagram.com/vanbadham?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==), she’s a regular writer for The Guardian who is a staunch supporter of Instagram’s #proudtobeunion community. As such, her presence as an author with a focus on issues in the popular culture through a more feminist (and somewhat liberal) lens can be defended and the author admits this stance freely. 

In fitting with Badham’s freely admitted bias, she hyperlinks various sources for different claims and statistics used throughout this article. The reliability of these linked sources varies—from an Instagram post from The Guardian (https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3crq3oo1ca/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link) to a study on young children’s learning patterns from Michigan State University (https://www.canr.msu.edu/news/young_children_learn_by_copying_you). However, the reliability of Badham’s sources is somewhat less relevant because she admits her bias regarding the article’s topic very early on: “[T]he online fight is real and - I cannot stress this enough - I really hate this timeline.” As such, she brands this piece as favoring a negative standpoint on this “Sephora Tween War”. With this perspective in mind, though some of Badham’s sources may have a standpoint more akin to an opinion piece, her sources are fitting because this article is an opinion piece supported by several statistics and perspectives from reliable (or, in some cases, objective) sources (i.e. Michigan State University and Badham’s observations of TikTok posts supporting the context she posits for the “Sephora Tween War”). 

Not to mention, Badham’s topic of focus doesn’t appear exclusive to this article. Simply by copy-and-pasting the title of Badham’s article into Google, various other articles boast headlines that support Badham’s perspective. Some of the top articles are from Today (https://www.today.com/parents/teens/tweens-skin-care-sephora-rcna134294), The Independent (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sephora-kids-tiktok-tween-spaces-b2483644.html), Medium (https://medium.com/@hannah.beatrice/the-dark-side-of-tiktok-sephora-drunk-elephant-and-gen-alpha-b290e66d1629), and The Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2024/03/04/tween-skin-care-obsession-drunk-elephant-sephora-ulta/)—all of which generally support a more left-leaning political standpoint (https://adfontesmedia.com/). This bias is consistent with Badham’s admitted bias as more politically left-leaning. 

In short, this article is quite reliable as an admittedly left-leaning opinion piece with a bias towards the negative perspective on Generation Alpha’s intensive use of skincare. The bias and standpoint are admitted early on in the article and allow readers to consume Badham’s opinions with her particular perspective in mind. Supporting articles from other websites come from similarly left-leaning perspectives, allowing Badham’s take on the “Sephora Tween War” to hold legitimacy as what it is: an opinion piece.

Comments

These are some very good points and all of your research and sources you cited add up and make sense in the context of this post. Including their personal bias was very smart and helps explain this article.

---

After reading through this you did a very good job gathering sources and taking facts right from the source to back up your claims. So, if a user wanted to go check your source after reading your claim, that was fully available to them. You also included personal bias which I appreciated reading during this because it can feel more like a conversation instead of an argument of if something is true or not in relation to the topic.

---

This factcheck is backed up by lots of great research and sources, it does a great job at giving us readers background information regarding both the article and the author that wrote it, with all the information you provided it definitely helps to explain the declarative nature of the article in question. it also shows that other people share Badhams opinion and proves that this is a potential problem for the youth.

Answer 3

I think that this claim makes it sound like there are children stealing and/or committing crimes in Sephora, rather than just buying a popular product. This article seems pretty opinion based and angry at them for purchasing a product. They use the same money that anyone else uses, so what is the harm in young kids wanting to try out something that they saw their favorite influencer on TikTok use? This website below shows some statistics to what these preteens are buying and this trend has increased sales for these Sephora brands overall. While yes, there are definitely more young people shopping in Sephora, this piece is purely an opinion about it, not a fact.

https://aytm.com/post/sephora-kids-gen-alpha-skincare

Comments

I enjoyed reading this fact-check for a few reasons, one being you made a great claim of your own and questioned the original claim for not having any sources listed. Then you asked the users a question and instead of answering it for them you provided a truly reliable source. This source had real data from makeup stores such as Ulta, Sephora, Amazon and any typical drugstore. It also gave data on what makeup was being used and by what age groups instead of putting all preteens into one category.

---

While I have never heard of your source, after looking into it, it seems like a credible source. It seems like people are trying to spread accurate information to those curious about learning more about certain topics.  I agree with what you said about the original article being based on opinion.

---

I found your fact checking to be very insightful. You brought up great points with the fact of how misleading the term "raiding" is. Raiding suggests illicit activity such as stealing which is not the case for these preteens. You were able to back up your claim with genuine. statics as to what the children are buying, based off trends. Not what the preteens are stealing. The linked article referenced relevant, current brands in order to support your claim with the most recent information. This corroborates your belief that the article is opinion and not fact.

Answer 4

While the claim itself is presented as a very strong statement, diving deeper into the subject reveals that it is not all that it seems. Using the wording of "raiding" makes this seem like a much more aggressive act then what is really happening. While this topic can raise many different opinions, like pre-teens are just exploring themselves at a younger age or kids should be kids, and today's society is allowing them to grow up too fast, the wording should still be correct as it can spread false information to the public. I instead would use wording like, "occupy" or for more dramatic wording, "taking over".

Answer 5

The article focuses on the trends these kids are trying to follow. They are more concerned about copying what their parents and influencers are focused on. The article suggests that to combat these kids in sephora, as a society we need to not idolise anti aging creams. This way what we find important, at least the stuff that will influence these kids won't be buying out products they don't need yet and focus on kid stuff.

Comments

I agree with this comment. The article highlights the fact that older consumers are frustrated by younger consumers selling out anti-aging skincare products. The article appears to be opinion-based and critiques social media culture for profiting off of children's obsession with such products. The title of this fact check makes it seem as if children are robbing Sephora rather than purchasing products they may not need.