How the 'Food Babe' Grew the Most Controversial Content Farm of 2015

As one of the greatest unfounded think piece writers in the history of the world, I am always fascinated by personalities, content farms, and other niche interest that are able to scale, reaching audience that I didn't even know existed. At the core of any 'online movement' or popularity burst is an interesting point of view, created by an interesting person. This person finds a way to use contemporary social mediums to 'reach people' online who have a demand for a consistent stream of information.

Last week, I found out about the Food Babe, a lady who has been pumping content into the web and reaching audiences who want to know about food from a babe. For the most part, she publishes 'recipes' and 'blog posts about being healthier by eating things that are healthier.' She has a KILLER digital strat, using internet strategies to reach new people every day. If you visit her website, her own personal brand looks very stock-photo-wave.

Can this be real, or is this some complex project created by Monsanto? What a babe! (That isn't demeaning because she calls herself a 'babe.')

The Food Babe, Vani Hari, operates some generic website called FoodBabe.com, which is just another health & nutrition content farm, except it is built upon Hari's personal brand [via 'a strong voice].' It is more than just a LiveStrong.com, WebMD, or bodybuilding.com style content farm/message board/community sourced content farm meant to serve as the landing pages for people who needed 'serious health questions answered.'

The Food Babe is a crusader, using nutrition science to educate 'the masses.' No more falling for labels, or ingesting hidden ingredients.

She starts campaigns against huge brands to 'inspire backlash.' She wants you to 'feel informed' by casually browsing a blog post with a sharable headline that more-or-less explains what you are reading. She wants you to share the post and be a thought leader within your social sphere by sharing content. She has targeted an audience of ~940k Facebook fans with sharable content. She has a personal narrative that 'resonates' with these office workers trying to lose stubborn belly fat.

We all just want 2 be the smartest snackers possible.

Last month, the Food Babe got the ' ​NYTimes profile treatment' where she is highlighted as 'an interesting person' who is 'doing something interesting' and 'captivating an audience.' In the same piece, 'scientists' question if she is actually qualified/informed to post things to the internet about health/food/science. She probably isn't, but she IS qualified to create [HIGHLY SHAREABLE CONTENT] that captures the zeitgeist of the 'woman on the internet who wants to be healthy and follow the rules of a guru who uses the word BABE as an indicator of expertise.' In 2014, NPR already had a headline ​"Is the Food Babe a fearmonger?" There is a new wave of 'takedown' pieces by content farms that are looking to #shame her and the faceless social media followers that she is #influencing.

Is the point of this 'coverage' from mainstream content farms just to 'discredit' independent media outlets and content farms?
Do they want every1 to be free to consume premium, truthful content?
Is the internet all about speculation without proof?

The Food Babe isn't anything 'new.' Every day we are bombarded with labels that advertise various 'health benefits.' From 'contains 100% daily value of vitamin C' to 'gluten free,' there are way too many examples that demonstrate why product packaging is flawed. There is no way to be completely certain of what you are ingesting, unless you slaughter animals/grow crops yourself. Until then, we will be dependent upon websites to 'find out the truth for ourselves.' But there's also no way to really know if the content you read on the internet comes from a trustworthy.

So I guess it is pretty chill that the Food Babe just wants to 'inform' us about a healthier lifestyle. She looks nice, passionate, and agreeable. I'd probably trust her to be my real estate agent, teach my children, or handle Human Resources within my medium-sized business.

It doesn't matter if the science is flawed--the point was to create a sharable headline that would generate discussion and shares. She 'starts social media campaigns' telling Subway to stop putting yoga mat materials in our bread. Or that there are 'toxins' in Starbucks pumpkin spice lattes. It is all 'plausible enough' for me.

Check out this brilliant Upworthy style headline that got 721k FB shares! She 'gets' the algorithm.

That's pretty interesting. I like talking about the idea of 'toxins' in our food and making choices where I am not blindly influenced by brands. It makes me happy when I pick up something with an 'encouraging' food label [via 'a new, clean lifestyle'].

I just want to lose weight. The Food Babe makes me feel like I can use non-GMO consumer choices to burn fat.

The Food Babe is just the physical manifestation of what people who share things on the internet want to believe is healthy. Some one who looks like they have an attainable body and aesthetic. Not too skinny, but healthy with a confident smile. A strong woman who went on a reasonable 'diet' branded as a 'lifestyle change.' They saw reasonable results in a reasonable amount of time. Why must the internet attempt to discredit a site that is obviously for people who eat casseroles made from Grands canned biscuits who are trying to 'eat healthy'?

I choose to use the internet as an infotainment source because I choose to be uninformed.
I choose the mediums/messengers who I want 2 bombard me with content.
I don't want to know the 'real science' behind anything, nor do I have the biology/chemistry/physics/complex scientific knowledge to understand anything anyways.

I choose the authoritative figures in my life, but I don't have money to see a real expert/doctor/nutritionist. There might not even be an established realm of science for the consumer health vibes that I want to experience. Scanning reddit threads that are filled with people who support my rational pseudo-science has been fine so far.

The Food Babe has the formula to be more scalable than 'real science' behind health/weight loss. That has always been boring anyways--mass audiences want to believe there is a magic formula. She has marginalized her message to focus on 'not ingesting toxins' without a science-approved definition of 'toxins.' She crusades against the obvious and uses polarizing brands/products to strengthen her own brand, which is GREAT social media rat.

I'm not sure why scientists/content farmers should dedicate their time to 'discrediting' the Food Babe. They shouldn't be jealous of her transitioning into mediums beyond the internet because of her relatable look and universal jargon. They should focus on reading the tweets of Neil deGrassi Tysson / Bill Nye the Science Guy 'breaking down' the latest obviously-flawed science movie.

'Celebrating science' just isn't that scalable because most people aren't smart enough to see beauty in science anyways. Only the most annoying people in your feed share science headlines anyways. 'Cool' people share thinkpieces about the genesis of Tumblr microtrends.

'The smart people' on the web enjoy 'debunking' people without authority, even though the best part about the web is that people without authority get to go insane right before our eyes. It's a shame that the blogger era is over, because the term 'blogger' provided a safe place for a quack to generate an interesting stream of content. Now, every human publishing content needs some sort of 'authority' in their field, or else they are in danger of being insensitive, spreading misinformation, or 'illegally practicing _______' according to the people who went to school for years to practice ________.

In order to build any online brand, you must remember that satisfying the netstream media is not important. The majority of 'real people' aren't really into thinkpieces, they'd rather have people marginalize any story into a sharable headline anyways. 'Winning' the internet requires validation by way of coverage from a NYTimes trend piece, an NPR audio piece, and maybe some Buzzfeed/Gawker Media 'aggregation/explainer' pieces that position themselves as being above the backlash. If you are lucky, your personal brand will turn into an internet lighting rod that paves the way for sharability and 'mobilizing' your content as a 'movement' that is misunderstood by the establishment.

Are ppl mad at the Food Babe for 'not being a real scientist/nutritionist'?
Or do ppl on the internet just hate people who use the internet optimally for their own benefit? [via reaching audiences of 'dumb dumbs' who follow Ellen on Twitter]
In order to have a successful personality/content farm on the web, you must realize that the majority of people who don't like you aren't your audience anyways.
People are mad at Buzzfeed for marginalizing culture by infinitely indexing it in a formulaic voice.
People are mad at Upworthy for using 'hope in humanity' [via memes] to go viral.
People are mad at Emerson Spartz for creating tons of lifeless content.
People are mad at Youtubers for 'changing' after their first viral hit gave them a chance to scale into new audiences.
People are mad at every website for trying to grow/reach new people, a far cry from the 'voice' of the website from yesteryear.
People are mad at successful people for using the formulaic strategies of success.

We must debunk everyone on the internet, exposing them as just another internet user.
We must make every one creating content feel as though they should not create content.
We must make the internet a place with only 100% fact and truth.
We must know the science behind food, babes, and food babes.