We as the public, love spying on our favourite celebrities whether we admit it or not. Panoptic shows like Love Island and Big Brother have skyrocketing viewing figures, with as many as 6 million viewers, for a single episode. We love to witness peoples’ every move and spoken word, then when the credits roll, we take to social media to pry on what the stars are up to, watch them do their weekly shops, gym workouts and make up routines.

It is accessibility and authenticity that built the foundations of the Panopticon. Social media introduced persistent visibility and “interpersonal, horizontal, and mutual communication” (Mitrou et al., 2014 p.1), this and the movement towards an ‘amateur aesthetic’ introduced more authentic and relatable content from influencers (Abidin, 2018); showing life’s trials and tribulations, mental health struggles and beauty imperfections — Malin Andersson is an illustrative (and inspirational) example, praised for her relatability. Authenticity gives users the impression that they have 24/7 access to/know influencers personally, almost dangerously, like a friend.

Authenticity and accessibility, make us as users feel connected to internet celebrities, but pose “risks for the rights of the individuals by forming new power relations and asymmetries” (Mitrou et al., 2014). Pressure to give fans everything they want, can become overwhelming. The consequences of an invasive watchful eye become a one-sided, asymmetrical relationship between influencer and user, a sense of entitlement to knowing everything about an influencer’s life and invasion of privacy on personal affairs. So, who is responsible for repercussions outside the safety of the Panopticon, the observers or the observed?

Influencers underestimate the lengths audiences will go to, to catch a glimpse of their idols beyond the confines of the Panopticon. YouTubers Jay Swingler and Romell Henry annually play hide and seek with their fans, miscalculating the threat to themselves and bystanders, attracting crowds of thousands and absolute chaos each year. Fans’ desperation to be in with a chance of meeting the stars is understandable — they spend every day watching them through a screen, to them it’s no different coming face to face with them.

Jay Swingler on Twitter

did somebody say, TGF HIDE & SEEK again? £10,000 winning prize if you find us this time? Oh man that's crazy

West Midlands Police on Twitter

@JayFromTGF We strongly advise people not to attend this event due to concerns for public safety.

All in all, we view the glamour of internet celebrities’ lives with envy. Who wouldn’t want fame and fortune?! Yet, internet celebrities have become prisoners within their own lives, locked behind a lens and patrolled by the public.

Who would want to be locked in a nightmare that once was a dream?

Be sure to follow my discussion of ‘Internet Celebrity: Understand Fame Online’.

References;

Abidin, C. (2018). Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley: Emerald.

BBC News, (15 July 2019). Love Island attracts six million viewers to break ratings records, BBC News. Retrieved from: www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48991692 [accessed 30 December 2019]

Coussins, J. & Hicks, A. (30 November 2019). YouTubers ‘offer £10,000 for city hide and seek game’ — despite police warning, The Mirror. Retrieved from: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/youtubers-offer-10000-city-hide-20998490 [accessed 1 January 2020]

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Penguin.

Mitrou, L., Kandias, M., Stavrou, V., & Gritzalis, D. (2014). Social media profiling: A Panopticon or Omniopticon tool?. In Proc. of the 6th Conference of the Surveillance Studies Network. Retrieved from: https://www.infosec.aueb.gr/Publications/2014-SSN-Privacy%20Social%20Media.pdf [accessed 30 December 2019]

Why do we care for popularity? Humans’ need for validation and recognition is constantly reinforced through socialisation and social structures (Elder-Vass, 2019), routinely having our worth recognised by others. How individuals present themselves (in real life and online) reflects the dominant cultural interests of that time (Hearn, 2008). We present ourselves according to the dominant, ‘popular’ ideal to fit in, receive affirmation and feel validated by others, all whilst ideals change in time and context, see the changing ideals of fashion.

Our definitions of ‘popularity’ may differ, but what we can agree on is that it is not achieved through merit, rather there are unjust inequalities, particularly in the online beauty community. Successful influencers are predominantly white or ‘light skinned’, like Manny MUA and NikkieTutorials. The dominant ideal at present is ‘whiteness’, the gateway to popularity.

There is a blatant lack of diversity; ethnocentrism is not limited to the beauty community but many aspects of life. We know the beauty industry fails BAME groups, as “most beauty journalism still assumes readers are white” (Fetto, 2019) but the internet ought to celebrate diversity and overshadow traditionalist mass media — where is the change we’re waiting for?

Yet, there appears an over representation of BAME groups in memes, where they become a laughing stock. Creating humour out of BAME groups is ‘commodification of otherness’ and “appropriation of marginalised cultures for memes” that “further marginalises rather than liberates users” (Steel, 2013; Abidin, 2018 p.40), i.e. Kimberley Wilkins coining ‘Ain’t Nobody Got Time For That’.

With immutable barriers placed on success, desperate attempts to be ‘popular’ may result in a mentality of ‘fake it till you make it’. Internet celebrities can control and negotiate the presentation of identity (Marshall, 2010) and will do so in accordance to what sells in a consumerist society, rather than what is genuine. Search ‘beauty community’ on YouTube to witness a vast discussion that may make you question the transparency and glamour of the content you view online.

The idea than internet celebrity ‘success’ comes only from hard work is false. Online self presentation is not always authentic and is generally determined by ideological social ideals. To be in with a chance of popularity or success in internet terms, one has to ‘fake it ‘till they make it’, being the version that pleases the majority, marginalising minorities.

It’s only human to want to be liked, right?

Be sure to follow my discussion of ‘Internet Celebrity: Understand Fame Online’.

References;

Abidin, C. (2018). Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley: Emerald.

Fetto, F. (29 September 2019). The beauty industry is still failing black women, The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/sep/29/funmi-fetto-happy-in-my-skin-beauty-industry-diversity [accessed 6 December 2019]

Marshall, P D. (2010). The promotion and presentation of the self: Celebrity as marker of presentational media, Celebrity Studies 1(1) 35-48. Doi:10.1080/19392390903519057.

Perelli, A. (6 August 2019). The top 15 makeup and beauty YouTubers in the world, some of whom are making millions of dollars, Business Insider. Retrieved from: https://www.businessinsider.com/beauty-and-makeup-youtube-channels-with-most-subscribers-2019-7?r=US&IR=T [accessed 6 December 2019]

Steel, C K. (2013). “Shaking off the ‘Other’: Appropriation of marginalized cultures and the ‘Harlem Shake’.” Selected Papers of Internet Research 4.0

Within ‘Internet Celebrity’, Abidin refers to a shift in the influencer industry from ‘quantitative metrics’ to ‘qualitative impact’ (Abidin, 2018), suggesting one’s follower count is not nearly enough to survive in an over-saturated industry; it is actually the efforts to make one’s impact visible and distinct (Abidin, 2018) that allow an influencer to thrive. The indication that this shift is complete and that we no longer care for metrics is nonsensical, in fact the concern for metrics more so than anything else became overwhelmingly apparent as I turned the book’s pages.

It is easier than ever to ‘rank’ influencers, simply drop a name in the Social Blade search bar and watch the numbers formulate. This tool serves to prove the value of influencers and “quantify YouTube culture’s popularity with easy-to-understand data” (Alexander, 2019). ‘Boosting’ content to the next level with no regard for connecting with audiences.

Supposedly, the “value of Instagram Influencers is usually proportionate to the number of followers they have” and their subsequent ranking (Abidin, 2018 p.79). What ‘value’ traditionally meant in Karl Marx’s era, was the amount of labour put into a product (Marx, 1867), however, nowadays it appears to equate to ‘views’ and ‘likes’. The internet is slowly but surely, reducing people to numbers and losing the nuance of individuality. A phenomenon we each fall victim to everyday.

This phenomenon is quantification — measuring something — but in the name of what? Driving our attention towards quantity and away from quality. Social media enables the collection and display of quantitative measures on an unprecedented scale (Espeland & Sauder, 2007), not possible 20 years ago. Quantification simplifies and reduces information, simplifying the complexity of humanity into numeracy. People no longer care for the sincerity or meaning of a message, it’s simply another comment amongst thousands. Wait, did you actually think you were special?

I considered how we picture audiences nowadays, took to Google and began my search. When I say ‘Metallica’ one imagines massive crowds with lighters in one hand and beer in the other. When I say ‘Pewdiepie’ one sees a figure on a screen, ticking away at 100 million. Does Felix Kjellberg get the same buzz broadcasting to millions through a lens, as James Hetfield does singing to roaring audiences?

Abidin reflects on initiatives to tackle numerical saturation online, including the 2014 Instagram Purge, deleting bots, fake and inactive accounts, from its database (Lee, 2014). Alas, this decreases the figures, but fails to change the widespread mindset of viewing people as numbers, subsequent dehumanisation and loss of intimate relationships!

The internet remains a crowded, yet lonely place — we are alone together (Turkle, 2017), we’re connected but that means nothing. Human nature has been extracted from once human relations and replaced with digits. Is having a following worth sacrificing meaningful relationships? Do audiences bring us closer to others or compile us into a human excel sheet?

What would you choose? Nuance or numbers?

Be sure to follow my discussion of ‘Internet Celebrity: Understand Fame Online’.

References;

Abidin, C. (2018). Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley: Emerald.

Alexander, J. (24 May, 2019). Social Blade shaped YouTube culture, and creators are now banding together to save it, The Verge. Retrieved from: https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/24/18638857/social-blade-hashtag-youtube-subscribers-twitter-james-charles-tati-westbrook-tseries-pewdiepie
[accessed 20 November 2019]

Espeland, W N., & Sauder, M. (2007). Rankings and Reactivity: How Public Measures Recreate Social Worlds, American Journal of Sociology, 113 (1) 1–40. Doi: 10.1086/517897

Lee, D. (19 December 2014). Instagram deletes millions of accounts in spam purge, BBC News. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-30548463 [accessed 20 November 2019)

Marx, K. (1867). Capital: Critique of Political Economy. Germany: Verlag von Otto Meisner.

Social Blade, (6 April 2018). Social Blade: The best Social Media Analytics tracking website, [video file]. Retrieved from: www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-A1LsSKTLI. [accessed 20 November 2019]

Turkle, S. (2017). Alone Together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books.

Based on my read of Crystal Abidin’s, “Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online”, the purpose of this blog is to address social issues and spark discussion. The book is an exploration of the social, economic and cultural skills involved in the formation of celebrity online, likewise this blog is a space intended exploring ideas. If you want to read along with me, you can find Crystal Abidin’s book here.

You may have noticed a correlation between an influx of technological developments and changes in the operations of society and subsequently the world of work; this is not a new phenomenon. It began when Henry Ford developed the Model T automobile in 1909 and kick-started the era aptly named, Fordism, characterised by the production line. Much like a production line, the internet distributes to many, be it content or opportunities to create.

Recent changes in the digital economy have had subsequent impacts on the experience of work. It is evident that “the economic, legal, cultural and social impact” of the industry has “stimulated innovative forms of digital labour on the internet” (Abidin, 2018 p.87), introducing the profession of the ‘influencer’. The term ‘influencer’ distinguishes between the ordinary internet celebrity and its epitome, one who maintains visibility online to build a business (Abidin, 2018).

Its presence has undoubtedly changed the experience of work, it introduces, ‘casualization’, an increase in temporary, part time, freelance jobs in the cultural and production industries (Bourdieu, 1998) such as being a ‘full time YouTuber’, working from the comfort of home. The casual nature of the work begs the question, are influencers working hard, or hardly working?

Full-time ‘influencing’ has pros and cons. It allows for “an increasing uptake of young people in entrepreneurship”, one can create a sustainable business and showcase “creativity and innovation” (Abidin, 2018 p87:98). One of the internet’s highest successors being Zoella, receiving upwards of £12,000 per Instagram post, amongst many others.

However, in the event that it all comes crashing down, relying on the possibility, but not certainty, of success can be dangerous. Jessy Taylor, a 21-year old influencer had her Instagram account deleted, and took to YouTube claiming, “I make all of my money online” and “I have no job qualifications, I could never work a normal job.”

‘Internet work’ introduces the repercussion of the ‘work as play’ ethos, involving an ‘anti-corporate culture’ where people are willing to work flexible hours for negotiable money (Van Dijck, 2009). The threat of this new ethos indirectly effects people with conventional jobs, doing the arduous commutes and 9–5. The ultimatum of online work leads to a new collective mentality amongst the remaining workforce, as employment begins to feel like a “fragile, threatened privilege” and one’s hope and future become uncertain (Bourdieu, 1998 p.82), this inevitably leads to a sense of demoralisation.

Why should you do a treacherous journey to work, get shouted at in the boardroom and sip on stone-cold coffee for a liveable wage, when 7-year old Ryan makes $22 million in a year playing with toys? It doesn’t seem worth it.

Would you sacrifice stability with misery for success with uncertainty?

Be sure to follow my discussion of ‘Internet Celebrity: Understand Fame Online’.

References;

Abidin, C. (2018). Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame Online. Bingley: Emerald.

Berg, M. (3 December 2018). How This 7-Year Old Made $22 Million Playing With Toys, Forbes. Retrieved from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2018/12/03/how-this-seven-year-old-made-22-million-playing-with-toys-2/#6655b54c4459 [accessed 17 November 2019]

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Acts of Resistance: Against the Tyranny of the Market. New York: New Press.

Hellenkemper, M. (30 July 2017). These Are the Highest Paid Influencers — And We Calculated Their ROI, Business2Community. Retrieved from: https://www.business2community.com/instagram/highest-paid-influencers-calculated-roi-01887012 [accessed 17 November 2019]

Petter, O. (29 October 2019). Zoe Sugg named highest-earning female social media influencer under 30, The Independent. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/zoe-sugg-net-worth-zoella-influencer-richest-highest-earning-list-a9175441.html [accessed 17 November 2019]

Ritschel, C. (10 April 2019). Instagram influencer cries at the prospect of getting a ‘normal’ job after account is deleted, The Independent. Retrieved from: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/jessy-taylor-instagram-deleted-account-twitter-youtube-a8863591.html [accessed 17 November 2019]

Taylor, J. (4 April 2019). STOP REPORTING MY INSTAGRAM ACCOUNT [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQonbtV2iaA&feature=emb_title [accessed 17 November 2019]

Van Dijck, J. (2009). Users like you? Theorizing agency in user generated content, Media Culture and Society, 31 (1) 41–58. Doi: 10.1177/0163443708098245