OutKick88%

Simone Biles questions whether $23,000 for a red carpet glam is 'the new norm' in viral TikTok 55%

By Amber Harding0%

5/1/2026, 10:24:42 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.2% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 404 faulty-reasoning hits from 684 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.1% and a BS Rank of 55% (9,574 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.80% of the article peer group.

Simone Biles is learning the hard way that going glam for a red carpet comes at a price. 
A very high price. 
In a TikTok video posted this week, the Olympic gold medalist broke down the cost of her most recent red carpet appearance. 
And let’s just say, she’s not thrilled about it. 
"We need to have a discussion… I just need to know if this is normal," Biles said at the start of the video. 
"I know going outside is expensive as f--k these days, but like is it this expensive, ok?" 
CLICK HERE FOR MORE OUTKICK SPORTS COVERAGE 
She explained that she had just attended a red carpet event and added up all the costs afterward. 
After factoring in her stylist, hair and makeup team, Biles revealed the total. 
And it clearly caught her off guard. 
"Yeah, $22,000," she said. 
"Actually $23,000." 
From there, she doubled down on the question that was clearly eating at her. 
"I just want to know, is that f---ing normal? 
I get inflation, I get prices these days have gone up," she said. 
"But if that’s the new norm, y’all can have it. 
Y’all will never see me at another event. 
I’m going to sit my ass right here where it’s free." 
She even admitted the whole thing has been bothering her more than expected. 
"I’ve been kind of spiraling since then," she said. 
"And there’s no way you guys are paying these prices each and every time  there’s just no way." 
Oof. 
This one should have stayed in the drafts. 
Now, on the surface, there’s nothing inherently wrong with any of this. 
It’s Simone’s money. 
She can spend it however she wants. 
But sharing that kind of sticker shock with an audience where plenty of people aren’t even spending $23,000 on their rent or mortgage for an entire year? 
That’s going to come across as at least a little tone deaf. 
And, judging by the comments, the internet thought so, too. 
"Damn. 
Talk about being out of touch." 
"The gas station near me went from $3.95 to $4.59 overnight so going outside definitely is expensive but not for the reasons she thinks." 
"I like her and wish her the best, but this is not it." 
To be fair to Biles, she did preface the video by specifically addressing fellow celebrities, athletes and influencers. 
But that group makes up a very, very small percentage of her 5.6 million followers. 
So maybe this could have been a group text? 
SIMONE BILES REVEALS SHE UNDERWENT 'THREE PLASTIC SURGERIES' 
What’s also interesting is that even people in that world seem to think $23K is steep. 
Based on responses, the typical range for a red carpet glam team sounds closer to the $5,000-$6,000 range. 
Still absurd to the average person, but a far cry from what Biles paid. 
And that’s kind of where this lands. 
Again, she can spend whatever she wants. 
But you could definitely do this cheaper. 
I say that as someone with exactly zero red carpet experience  so you know, grain of salt. 
But it feels similar to weddings. 
Some people drop $50,000 on one day. 
Others don’t. 
Both options exist. 
Same deal here. 
If anything, this feels like a missed opportunity. 
Biles is the most decorated gymnast of all time. 
She has a massive platform. 
There are probably thousands of small designers, independent stylists and up-and-coming hair and makeup artists who would jump at the chance to work with her  and likely for a lot less than $23K. 
Not for free, of course. 
But for exposure? 
Absolutely. 
Instead of questioning whether she got ripped off, she could flip this into supporting smaller businesses and helping launch someone’s career. 
OUTKICK IS NOW ON THE FOX APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD 
As for the event itself, Biles didn’t specify which red carpet outing this was for. 
But her most recent appearance came at the Laureus World Sports Awards in Madrid. 
And she did look phenomenal. 
Twenty-three thousand well spent! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.6%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Amber Harding: 2.2%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 2.3%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Amber Harding: 4.0%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 3.0%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 5.5%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 2.6%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.4%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.4%Fox Nation: 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.6%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.6%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 2.7%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.6%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.3%Amber Harding: 6.2%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization13.3%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 3.5%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.5%Amber Harding: 3.5%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.6%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.8%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.4%Amber Harding: 1.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote3.4%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 21.2%Amber Harding: 12.2%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice21.2%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amber Harding: 1.4%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Amber Harding: 3.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.6%

684 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech541writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSimone Biles • 23 words • 100.0% coverageSimone Biles • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOUTKICK • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageSimone Biles • 4 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSimone Biles • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageSimone Biles • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSimone Biles • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageOUTKICK • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

OUTKICK

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words13% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%OUTKICK: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.8 ptsWriter: 26.8%OUTKICK: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.