On February 24th, The Guardian released an article titled, "Zoe Sugg: the the vlogger blamed for declining teenage literacy ". For those unfamiliar with her, Zoe Sugg is a YouTuber, more commonly known as Zoella. Her beauty and lifestyle-inspired videos reach over 11 million subscribers each week, not to mention the almost 5 million subscribers she has on her other channel, MoreZoella. Zoella has expanded beyond the YouTube space, with three novels, beauty and lifestyle product ranges, and a merchandise collaboration with her brother Joe Sugg, another successful YouTuber. She has become wildly successful in the UK, with a big following in the United States as well.

As the title of this article suggests, columnist Zoe Williams says that Sugg has helped decrease teenage literacy rates. Instead of focusing on this statement, Williams criticizes Sugg's Youtube videos for treating them as one big endorsement for brands, including her own. She also notes that Zoella's content is focused on "teenage fascinations," a subject that a twenty-six-year-old woman, like Sugg, should be over by now.

What's funny about Williams' article is that she never explains why Sugg is responsible for 'declining teenage literacy'. She doesn't emphasize that Sugg's first book, Girl Online, was the fastest selling novel the first week it came out, beating out J.K. Rowling's record. She doesn't mention that Girl Online's popularity led to a trilogy. She talks about how that the Girl Online series was just named among secondary school students' favorite books two weeks ago. She doesn't mention that Sugg has a book club in partner with W.H.Smith, a book retailer in the UK, where she promotes young-adult books that are not her own.

Like Williams, many mainstream media writers constantly try to put down Zoella. They say her content is only for more endorsements from advertisers and companies, that her content is childish, that she's wasting teenagers' (her presumed audience) time. The problem with writers like Williams is that the don't understand what it's like to be a YouTuber. It's easier for them to analyze what's might be wrong with YouTuber, not what YouTuber actually do. For example, they don't understand that endorsements often encourage YouTubers to keep on creating content. Through endorsements, YouTubers often receive more views and subscribers, in addition to getting paid for their work. In regards to Zoella herself, most don't realize that her videos aren't just being watched by thirteen-year-olds. While her core audience is aged 18-25 years old, Sugg has said herself that she has viewers as young as five years old to women in their forties.

Overall, these writers ignore the fact that Sugg just trying to provide a positive online environment. She's grown from doing monthly beauty hauls to having sit-down talks about her anxiety and what others can do to overcome their own anxiety. They ignore the fact that Sugg promotes positivity offline as well, often partnering with charities for mental health awareness or ill children. Regarding her endorsements, Sugg shouldn't have to apologize or defend herself for the fact that yes, YouTube is business for her. YouTube has become her career; if YouTube was your career, wouldn't you want to receive some sort of salary? While watching and supporting Zoe Sugg's content may seem like a waste of time to you, I would argue that the 16 million people who follow her content wouldn't think so.