Every time I open REDNOTE (Xiaohongshu), a GRWM with a tiny “PR/brand collaboration” tag pulls me in—and wins my trust. It’s not just what the creator says; it’s the soft daylight, the bare-faced close-ups, and the friend-to-friend tone that feels like a chat, not an ad. Those choices make the post look reliable and nudge me toward buying. But that feeling isn’t “natural.” It’s crafted—the creator and brand encode intimacy and usefulness, and we as viewers decode it as authenticity
Hall’s encoding/decoding model shows how platforms circulate content. In encoding, creators (and platforms) encode a preferred meaning via soft lighting, tight close-ups, domestic settings, a friend-to-friend tone, and a clear PR/brand-collaboration label (Hall, S. 2006). Decoding then splits into dominant (trust → buy), negotiated (trust with caveats: skin type/shade/price), and oppositional (reading it as scripted selling) (Hall, S. 2006).These connotations often naturalise into a myth of authenticity, making care feel natural and commerce discreet (Bennett, P. and McDougall, J. (2013). In Howarth’s terms, such cues are articulated around the nodal point “authenticity,” a partial fixation open to contestation (Howarth, 2000, pp. 1–15)
On RED (Xiaohongshu), encoding is visible at a glance. Many GRWM posts place a PR/brand-collaboration disclosure on the cover or first line, foregrounding transparency. Visual codes—soft daylight, tight close-ups of texture or shade, and a domestic backdrop—stage an “I’ve-got-nothing-to-hide” intimacy that invites trust. Vocal/script codes extend that effect: a friend-to-friend tone, everyday phrases, and steady eye contact. Framing devices tie discovery to action: a pinned product list, link, or discount cue. Together these cues encode a preferred meaning: authentic, relevant, safe to buy(Hall, S. 2006).Decoding then splits. Dominant readers take intimacy as evidence—saving, sharing, even adding to cart. Negotiated readers grant partial trust but filter it through skin type, shade range, price. Oppositional readers treat the clip as scripted selling, flagging filters, faint disclosures, or affiliate links, and resist purchase. These are positions, not mistakes—they show how the same post is read differently (Hall, S. 2006). Following Barthes, these connotations crystallise into a myth of authenticity in which individuals care about the feeling of nature rather than commerce.
Overall, what feels “authentic” in #GRWM is not given but encoded through aesthetic and verbal cues, then decoded in dominant, negotiated, and oppositional positions (Hall, S. 2006). These cues often naturalise a shared myth of authenticity (Bennett, P. and McDougall, J. (2013). Meanwhile, “authenticity” itself functions as a nodal point—only partially fixed within specific settings and open to contestation (Howarth, 2000: 1–15). Hence the same post can lead some to believe the creator or product is useful while others critique and challenge it: different social positions and ad literacies shape different readings. When you see a “PR experience/brand collaboration” label, what makes you still trust—and buy? Why
Reference list:
Bennett, P. and McDougall, J. (2013) Barthes’ Mythologies Today: Readings of Contemporary Culture. 1st edn. Edited by Pete Bennett and J. McDougall. United Kingdom: Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203568422.
Hall, S. (2006 ). ‘Encoding/Decoding’ pp.163-173. in Durham, Meenakshi Gigi, and Douglas Kellner, editors. Media and Cultural Studies : Keyworks /. Rev. ed., Blackwell, 2006.
Howar, David R. Discourse [Electronic Resource] . Open University Press, 2000.
Hi, Emily. I think you have applied Hall’s encoding/decoding model very appropriately to GRWM (Get Ready With Me) content on contemporary social platforms like Xiaohongshu. At the same time, this is a very insightful blog post, and your critical awareness of the relationship between business and culture reminds us that even content that looks like simple ‘habit sharing’ or ‘daily recording’ may actually hide strong commercial purposes (such as promotions or advertising). This critical perspective is very important for contemporary media culture. So I also want to know, when you are a consumer yourself, which decoding position do you belong to?
Hello, I really enjoyed reading your blog post, and i liked the diagram images you used to demonstrate how encoding and decoding works. Overall, you have a clear explanation of the theory and the GRWM example you used demonstrates how people may create meaning. I also liked how you had a strong breakdown of the decoding positions which made it more easy to understand the theory. You included loads of good references to support your answer. My favourite thing of all was the social media example you used – mainly because it’s very different to the ‘normal’ social media platforms we are used to. Finally, I really like how you ended with a rhetorical question, as it makes me think and reflect on my own habits.