Celebrities and the Specular Economy

Celebrities have adapted their behavior as their use of Social Media has increased. We have been submerged in a Specular economy for a substantial amount of time, but the growth of Social Media has pushed us (us being us, you know, the ordinary people) and celebrities into new Micro publics, where we now a hold yet another persona. This rapid rise in Social Media has meant celebrities have changed the way they publicise themselves, and even the way they live their everyday lives. 

It is inherently difficult to answer the question of exactly how celebrities have changed in response to new media; for the changes are endless. 
As a child of the Social Media Revolution it is difficult for me to comment on the differences in ‘Celebrity’ and how they have changed in recent times because to me, the online Specular economy is the norm. Research though, and basic knowledge, show that ‘Celebrity’ has changed since the rise of new Media, and even in the past 5 or so years, the rise of Celebrity and their personal brands has grown dramatically as more and more people use social media sites. The use of Social Media by stars has become almost a necessity for celebrities, and for most people, for that matter. Sites like Twitter allow the rest of the world an insight into the life of the famous that was previously much more measured through ‘old’ media. It is, however, questionable as to how real the information that fans receive from stars on social Media is, or whether what we see is only the parts they want us to see, their persona.

Inevitably, all users of Social Media are active in the Specular Economy, whether purposely or not. David Marshall describes it as us becoming collectively "more conscious of how we present ourselves and how others perceive us" (2010, p. 498) and I know personally I do this every time I pick up my phone to check Facebook. I am sure that my friends and peers, in fact most of my generation, do this too. Social Media, and particularly the more popular sites like Twitter, Instagram and Facebook have created technological shifts in the way that people now communicate and engage with contemporary culture (Marshall, p. 498, 2011). This means that us users are able to manage our personas more actively than we are able to in ‘real’ life, and allows celebrities to be more involved in the management of their “personal brand” (Bercovici, 2011). As Marshall says, the Internet has provided a new medium to send "messages and images outwards that circumvent the gatekeeping and control mechanisms" (2010, p. 498) that are associated with old media such as print. Celebrities are no longer as powerless in the creation of the public persona as they were when Magazines and Paparazzi were some of the few sources of Celebrity stories/photos/gossip.

Just this month Fergie (of Black Eyed Peas fame) posted a photo of her Newborn son to Social Media with the hashtag #paparazziyoucanleaveourhousenow, circumventing the traditional first photo that the paparazzi tend to vie for. In many ways this particular use of Twitter allows celebrities much more freedom than they ever have before – changing their persona entirely. Marshall (2011, p. 502) describes this idea; a

New form of celebrity that embraces the sensation of being always accessible well beyond the interventions of now weakened intermediaries of paparazzi and gossip columnists. The specular economy has produced a new regime of personal presentation that we are only beginning to see its profound implications.

This definition aids in explaining how celebrities have changed since they began using Social Media as part of their Public Relations. They use these sites to portray to their fans any and only the information that the want the public to see, in some ways decreasing the demand for older media techniques like glossy magazines. While Twitter use is far from universal, a recent Pew Internet study showed that one in five Internet users is now using either Twitter or a similar status updating program (Forrestal, 2011 as cited in Stever & Lawson, 2013, p.340), fans can now experience a direct social interaction with their favourite celebrities that they couldn’t as easily before through Twitter and alike. Stever and Lawson (2013, p. 339) discuss this “parasocial interaction” where “unreciprocated interaction between individuals of differing status and knowledge of one another” is prevalent. Celebrities can put news or information out into the public sphere and give their fans the feeling of interaction. As Hargittai & Litt (2011, p. 825) observed, “users can follow one another’s content without reciprocal obligation,” a point that is especially important when one of the users is a celebrity and typically the communication is only one way. This enables stars to manage their personality by giving fans what they want, an insight into their life. We have become a society of spectacle (Debord as cited in Marshall, 2001, p. 501) and the portrayal of celebrities through their personal accounts has allowed for this to happen.

Now celebrities, and us mere mortals too, have the power to an extent, to control what is projected into the media, particular social media. At this point in time celebrities are posting their personal photos to Instagram, or their ideas to their own websites and blogs - showing their fans what they otherwise may not see, or would have been provided with through second hand sources such as Magazines. It has been said that it was Celebrities who started the craze that is Twitter, a critical event for the mainstreaming of Twitter “was when Oprah Winfrey publicized her account on TV in the fall of 2008” (Stever & Lawson, 2013, p. 341). While these social Media sites may have started as simply a more direct way to interact with fans, and circumvent traditional media, the sheer masses that celebrities gain in Twitter following’s shows just how much they can impact their brand and how they now monitor their behavior on Social Media. Justin Bieber has approximately 45,000,000 followers on Twitter (Twitter counter, 2013), at this point, and actually well before Justin will have changed his behaviors on Twitter as he is being watched by so many, and Social Media becomes yet another Public Relations forum where his persona is managed and the Specular idea comes into play. To some extent, with celebrities like Bieber, who potentially do not manage their brand as well as other celebrities, perhaps they have not changed in ways that other celebrities have. Katy Perry is an example of of change, with 40,000,000 million Twitter followers her Tweets are far more measured and to an extent less personalised, because she is possibly more aware, or just cares more about what she is projecting out to the public.


(Screenshot: Justin Bieber Twitter account. https://twitter.com/justinbieber)

While I can see the benefits for a celebrity to share of their own accord, is this driving public demand for juicy details? Now that we get to see what the famous are really like does this intensify the Celebrity culture as Marshall suggests (2012, p. 499)? I think it does. For example, Shane Warne and Liz Hurley apparently share a lot of information about their relationship on Twitter, they don't Tweet each other for a week or so, and everyone wants to know more about their business and rumours that they are breaking up start to spread (Stephenson & Dowling, 2013). The mirror effect is having a broader implication on Celebrities, the more they manage their persona by sharing their own information first hand, the more details we then want. The same can be said by the way that any information can “catch fire in real time in Social Media” (Dumenco, 2012) as even one image can go viral in minutes, and celebrities have thus changed to be aware of that. When Niall Horan (from the band One direction) was spotted in Melbourne on a personal Holiday a picture of him was uploaded on Twitter and Social Media went into melt down. The hashtag #niallsinmelbourne was used so that fans could track any sightings of him (Wright, 2013) and any subsequent photos of him also went viral through mobile media. These aforementioned technological shifts (Marshall, 2010, p. 498) mean that the circumstance of celebrity has changed and allows them even less privacy, so much so that they are now aware of other people using Social Media, not just their own uses. So in anything they are doing celebrities now can only project measured and controlled personas because what ever they do will be captured and reflected against them.

As the rise of Social and Mobile Media grows celebrities will continue to change, as will all users. These technological shifts have made us more aware of what we are doing, what is being captured and what is being projected online, creating your persona. For celebrities this is magnified as the whole world watches them. Celebrities aid in both the popularity of these sites and the popularity of themselves by feeding, sometimes streaming information to their fans. This stream of information is only creating more want by fans and requires more management by celebrity to ensure that the information given will only help their personal brand. Some celebrities are able to manage this well, others are not, but inevitably, all celebrities have shifted their behaviors in response to the current ways we use social Media.

References

Bercovici, J 2011, The Celebrity 100: Social Media Over- and Under-Achievers, Forbes.Com, p. 62. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=822cc9ba-0288-41a0-8cd1-8367ddfaab3c%40sessionmgr11&vid=1&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=65508990

Dumenco, S 2012, Imagine a world without Justin Bieber; it's easy if you try. #worldwithoutbieber, Advertising Age, vol. 83 (37), p. 1. DOI: 00018899

Hargittai, E. & Litt, E., 2011. The tweet smell of celebrity success:
Explaining variation in Twitter adoption among a diverse group of young adults, New Media & Society, retrieved from http://www.webuse.org/pdf/HargittaiLitt-TwitterAdoptionNMSPreprint.pdf

Marshal, P.D 2010, The Specular Economy, Society, vol. 47, (6), p. 498-502.

Stephenson, A. & Dowling, J (2013, September 18). Shane Warne says rumours of split with Liz Hurley ‘absolute rubbish’. News.com.au, retrieved from http://www.news.com.au

Stever, G, & Lawson, K 2013, Twitter as a Way for Celebrities to Communicate with Fans: Implications for the Study of Parasocial Interaction, North American Journal Of Psychology, vol. 15 (2), p. 339-354. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=665a436f-7c2d-45b1-b42c-f3b8e900f10e%40sessionmgr12&vid=1&hid=8&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth&AN=87531068

Twitter counter (2013). Twitter top 100 Most followed. Retrieved October 4^th 2013 from http://twittercounter.com/pages/100

Wright, J. (2013, September 10). One Direction's Niall Horan holidaying in Melbourne, Twitter speculation suggests. The Sydney Morning Herald, retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au

Asianised, Hollywoodised, Globalised.

"Hollywood is becoming Asianised in diverse ways, while Asian film industries are in turn becoming Hollywoodized."

Klein (2004, p. 361) made that statement almost a decade ago, and it is still sustainable.
When first reading about Hollywood becoming Asianized the idea did not resonate with me, I could only think of big blockbuster films that I viewed as very Americanised (the Hunger Games, the Batman series, typical rom coms etc) but having delved into it further, I agree with Klein when he suggested that while Hollywood "blockbusters proclaim their Americaness on the surface, their style and content has been ...taliored to the world market" (Rosenbaum as cited in Klein, 2004, p. 363). What I and I believe many other people would have assumed is that most of the influence in the last decade (and previously) on Hollywood has come from American and Western Culture. But there are many example which refute this claim and support Klein. There are many ways that American films are still influenced, if not more, by Asian audiences and sales.

Lucy Liu, a famous Asian-American Actor
Source

The resurrection of the Marvel films, Iron man and alike shows a resurrection of the Asian influenced Comic film. We are also seeing a rise in the use of Asian women in leading female roles, something that has increased since Klein first suggested this Asianization. According to Marlow Stern (2013) for 3 consecutive weeks in July 2013 we saw a "hotly anticipated" american film released featuring an Asian Actress playing the lead or love interest. The Wolverine is an example of this.


More recently the practice of tweaking films and creating different edits for Asian distribution has emerged. The movie 21 & over is an example of this. Scenes for this movie were cut and re-filmed to edit into the version that would be shown to Chinese viewers, to portray a more "wholesome" (Kaufman & Zietchik, 2013) by the R 18+ movie. There is some of more examples of such films here.

Simultaneoulsy, there are still films coming out of Asia that are noticably Hollywoodized. One of China's highest grossing films 'Lost In Thailand' in my opinion has effects of Western Culture. From my first view of the movie poster I immediately thought of the American 'The Hangover' and saw the similarities in the plot (while Lost In Thailand is a little more wholesome).

There are so many ways in which these two culture are affecting each others film industries, too many of which to delve into here, if anything though I think it is clear even from a small number of examples that Klein's statement is truer now than it was a decade ago.

References

Kaufman, A.  & Zietchik, S.,  (2013, February 14). For the raunchy '21 & over' a very different message in China. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/entertainment/la-et-mn-21-and-over-release-date-china-theaters-reviews-miles-teller-20130213

Klein, Christina 2004, ‘Martial arts and globalisation of US and Asian film industries’, Comparative America Studies, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 360-384. 

Stern, M., (2013, August 3). Whats behind Hollywood's Asian Flirtation? China's Box Office. The Daily beast. Retrieved from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/03/what-s-behind-hollywood-s-asian-flirtation-china-s-box-office.html

Celebrity and the Specular Economy

I think the Specular economy, and how David Marshall describes it as us becoming collectively "more conscious of how we present ourselves and how others perceive us" (2010, p. 498) has been a present idea for a long time but the growth of Social Media has pushed us (us being ordinary people) and celebrities into new Micro publics, where we now a hold yet another different persona. This rise in Social Media has meant celebrities have changed the way they publicise themselves, and even the way they live their everyday lives.

As Marshall says, the Internet has provided a new medium to send "messages and images outwards that circumvent the gatekeeping and control mechanisms" (2010, p. 498)  that are associated with old media such as print. Celebrities are no longer as powerless in he creation of the public persona as they were when Magazines and Paparazzi were some of the few sources of Celebrity stories/photos/gossip.
Just this week Fergie (of Black Eyed Peas fame) posted a photo of her Newborn son to Social Media with the hashtag #paparazziyoucanleaveourhousenow (read about that here), circumventing the traditional first photo that the paparazzi tend to vie for these days. Now celebrities, and us mere mortals too, have the power to an extent, to control what is projected into the media, particular social media. At this point in time celebrities are posting their personal photos to Instagram, or their ideas to their own websites and blogs - showing their fans what they otherwise may not see, or would be provided through second hand sources such as Magazines.

While I can see the benefits for a celebrity to share of their own accord, is this driving public demand for juicy details? Now that we get to see what the famous are really like does this intensify the Celebrity culture as Marshall suggests (20120, p. 499)? I think it does. For example, Shane Warne and Liz Hurley apparently share a lot of information about their relationship on Twitter, they don't Tweet each other for a week or so, and everyone wants to know more about their business. The mirror effect is having a broader implication on Celebrities, the more they manage their persona by sharing their own information first hand, the more details we want.

References

Marshal, P.D 2010, The Specular Economy, Society, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 498-502

The rise of Media Empires (Week 2)

There are many different aspects to the rise of Media empires, from the Internet to what is now consider the simple ability to fly to other countries.

The rise of the Murdoch's News Corporation is one great example of how New Media Empires have emerged in response to technology. Years ago we never would have thought that one singular person or empire's published titles could make up 59% of the daily Newspaper sales in Australia (the conversation.com, 2013), let alone their holdings in other countries. Rupert Murdoch is a born Australian but he lives in the United States (and he no longer even has the right to vote here), yet he has so much control over our Media output. This is evidence of a "rapid integration of the world's economy" (Hatchen & Scotton, p. 3, 2002) and would definately not be possible without the globalised technologies or the flows of Globalisation, in particular the Physical, Information and Media flow.

As well as New empires, we have also seen the rise of Social Media Empires...

Source: Business2Community.com

As Hatchen and Scotton point out, the popular culture of the West has increasingly flowed around the world (p. 4, 2002), and the use of new technologies by the Media has allowed this to happen. In my opinion, Hollywood could be seen as an 'old' Media empire. Once, it was the media that streamed out of Hollywood that was creating a cultural flow to all other areas of the globe. Now, through a different technology we see Social Media Empires like Facebook. I can imagine that nobody in the 1950's, or even the early 2000's would have predicted the type of "paradigm shift" (Pieterse, p. 1, 2004) that the Internet and Social Media has brought.

References

Nederveen Pieterse, J 2004, ‘Globalization: consensus and controversies’, Globalization and culture: global mélange, Rowan & Littlefield, Lanham, Md., pp. 7–21

theconversation.com, 2013, 'FactCheck: Does Murdoch own 70% of Australia's Newspapers?', Retrieved September, 12, 2013, from https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-murdoch-own-70-of-newspapers-in-australia-16812

Hatchen, WA & Scotton, JF 2002, ‘News communication for a new global system’, The world news prism: global media in an era of terrorism, 6th edn, Iowa State Press, Ames, pp. 3–14.

A Participatory (Social) Media Culture

While reading through Joost Raessens' Computer Games as Participatory Media Culture (2005) two concepts of the Participatory Media Culture Model as being quite relatable to Social Media. Similar to Computer Games Social Media has the characteristics of both "virtuality" and "interactivity".
Let me explain further...

Raessans' states that virtuality is "the possibility to simulate virtual worlds a gamer can explore" (2005) and while this defines the concept I believe that his highlighting of virtuality as "an event or entity that is real in effect but not in fact" (Heim, 1993, as cited in Raessan, 2005) shows a great comparison to Social Media.
There are so many examples of this, Second life (you can explore that here), online shopping, the growing use of Avatar's (some more information about that here), but I find myself more familiar with Social Media Portals such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter. On these sites a user can create a reality that is real for them online but not so much in "factual reality" (Raessan, 2005). For example, Instagram is abundant with what I would call Health Inspiration accounts; users who post photo's of their health food's, exercise regime and inspiring motivators for their followers (which are often in the thousands, sometimes tens of thousands); and create a virtual society of people who are interested in similar things. The account holder, does not in fact have thousands of people watching them eat and exercise throughout their day in real life, but in effect, they do; on Social Media.

Source: http://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/v/virtual_reality.asp 3/9/2013

Social Media can also be linked to the concept of interactivity. In my opinion, without interactivity most Social Media avenues would not operate. Interactivity means that the user has the ability to intervene with the representation itself in a meaningful way (Cameron as cited in Raessons, 2005) rather than simply viewing the message and doing or thinking nothing of it. This principle is how Twitter operates - with users posting information and others retweeting, replying and more, to intervene with the representation of the information, and eventually interact with the conclusion.

References

Raessens, J 2005, ‘Computer games as participatory media culture’, Handbook of computer game studies 2005, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp. 373-388

The Twitterverse and the Federal election

Mamadonut.blogspot.com 28/8/13

With the Australian Federal election around the corner the prevalence of Political Microblogging is quite relevant. As a relatively new aspect of the World Wide Web and Mass Media, Twitter and any other forms of Microblogging have great potential to increase the participation in political matters by previously unengaged citizens (Castells, 2007 as cited in Larsson and Moe, 2011), when it is used by Politicians, Journalists and voters, as a platform for Political communication.

Technologies are often viewed as key drivers "of change in the electoral arena" (Gibson et al., 2008, as cited in Larsson and Moe, 2011) and the current use of Twitter in Australian Politics, and around the world is, in my opinion, no exception to this. Being Generation Y I do not actually remember (or at least was not old enough to pay attention) an election being held where Twitter, Social Media, and new technologies alike were not used by Politicians, Journalists and everyday citizens to supply us, to an extent (considering the Techno-legal Time Gap), voters with any information they and we want. 

Twitter provides a relatively democratic Public sphere that would otherwise not exist in Politics. The successful use of Twitter in Obama's US Presidential Campaign in 2008/9 helped to establish Social Media "as an integral part of the political campaign toolbox" (Tumasjan et al., 2010). While in theory Microblogging should allow the Public to communicate with Politicians who are active on Twitter, and vice versa, I would argue that it is naive to think it is possible to carry civilised conversation through medium. An example of this is when Joe Hockey, Shadow Treasurer, asked for his followers opinion on the Governments Emissions Trading Scheme. The replies inevitably moved towards attacks on both Labour and Liberal policy, and not surprisingly didn't really provide a great deal of insight into the actual thoughts on the ETS. Dare I say though, that tactics such as this are simply a ploy to seem engaged with the Twittersphere.

Despite this, I feel that Microblogging on Twitter during an election is a positive. I would call myself a semi-engaged voter, I occasionally watch Q&A (occasionally!) and I do follow Politicians on Twitter. I also, though, follow Journalists. And this is where I see the benefits. Journalists like Latika Bourke, a Political Reporter from the Canberra Press Gallery, use hashtags like #AusVotes, and links to further details to provide everyday Twitter users with information as they scroll through their daily, or hourly Social Media fix. I cannot think of another avenue that allows voters this much readily available information, even when Tweets are limited to 140 characters.

References

Larsson, A.O., and Moe, H. (2011). Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society, 14(5), 729-747. DOI:10.1177/1461444811422894 

Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sander, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. (2010). Predicting Elections With Twitter: What 140 Characters Reveal About Political Sentiment. Social Science Computer Review, 30 (2), 229-234. Retrieved from http://danielschiffman.com/learning/ICWSM10_Predicting_Elections_with_Twitter.pdf

Creating what I'm consuming

A Prosumer? That's me.
Ritzer and Jurgenson (2010) discuss the aspects of Prosumption, but what I tend to be consistently drawn to is the term "user-generated". I spend considerable amounts of time using Social Media; Instagram, Facebook, Blogs, etc. and so it is clear to me that I am a Prosumer, creating what I am consuming. As a student I am a producer of both society as a whole and of my own identity, and it is this production and consumption that creates my identity.

For many students, like myself, Social Media is the height of where we 'Prosume'. Everything on the likes of Facebook and Instagram is 'user-generated' - we are creating the Status updates, the Photo's, the Check-in's that we are all consuming. We are both generating Fashions by producing what we like and simultaneously consuming what we enjoy, channelling our Identities in particular directions and defining who we are. This blog is a classic example...
When I finish this Post I will visit other Student's Blog's to gain their insight into the idea of Prosumption. I have already visited CloudDeakin (Our Student Portal for all those non ALC215er's, and I'm sure there are SO many!) and consumed the questions and sentiments that have been produced by my fellow Student's, to help guide me on this Blog Post.

Ritzer and Jurgenson do highlight that the growth of the Internet and Social Media has allowed Prosumption to flourish but that it was "clearly not invented on Web 2.0", this makes me think, had it not been for my generation and our obsession with all things 'Web' would I still be a Prosumer? And then I think, ahhh YEP!
I go to Lectures and I contribute to the atmosphere of being at a live lecture, whilst I consume that same atmosphere, that's Prosuming, no? I am no Fashionista (I wish) yet I follow Fashion trends by purchasing the next big item and in doing this I help to create that Fashion trend (so technically, I guess I am a fashionista...that's what I'll tell myself anyway). Just two examples but the list goes on!

All in all I think I am very much a 'Prosumer', and what interests me the most is that I am probably more of on than my Parents, and their Parents, so I can only imagine how much Prosuming will following generations partake in.

References

Ritzer, G. & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The Nature of capitalism in the age of the digital 'prosumer'. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10 (13), 13-35. doi: 10.1177/1469540509354673

Innovators or Pirates - mutually exclusive?

This is a difficult question to answer.

I find myself torn between the legitimacy of the concern over illegal downloading of MP3's and the right for all to use and enjoy music. Innovators or Pirates, cannot be held mutually exclusive.

The main feature of a 'Mash-up' is that it mixes two or more songs (usually copy-wright protected sound recordings) together without the owners opinion (Potter, W., 2010). In terms of the law this is Piracy, but it is here that the ever present Techno-legal time gap seems to emerge again. MP3's changed the face of the Music Industry (Martin et al., 2010) and since then the law has been playing 'catch up' per se.

In my experience, I have found that most 'Mash-ups', remixes (the list goes on) that I have encountered have given much credit to the original Artist. The Mash-up version will have the original song name or artist in the title and the terms versus or ft. are frequently used. 

The Mash-up 'Call me Greyhound' is an example of this. The name itself contains a mix of the two original songs 'Call me Maybe' and 'Greyhound' and the title of the Youtube clip contains both original artists names - it is noteworthy that the page also contains a link to purchase the original song on iTunes.

Wellet Potter (2012) states that "often the sole motivation for the creation of a music mash-up is a creative and artistic one, as opposed to economic incentive" and I thoroughly agree with this sentiment. Most creative artists do what they do because they enjoy it and the people who listen to the music, myself included, enjoy it. They are innovators in their area, and they take what Music they enjoy and make it, what some would say, even better.

While Piracy is clearly an issue within the Music Industry, I don't believe that Mash-up artists deserve the title of Pirates. How to control the issue legally, I do not know, I guess that is for "The Man' to eventually decide, until then, I will continue to enjoy the abundance of remixed music that is available to me.

References

Martin, B., Moore, C. and Salter, C. (2010). Sharing music files: tactics of a challenge to the industry, First Monday, 15, (12). Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2986/2680 

Potter, W. (2012), Music Mash-ups: The current Australian Copyright implications, Moral rights and Fair dealing in the Remix era, Deakin Law Review, 17 (2). 349-384. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=e7c12aff-c83a-4e0e-b914-f5fb544458c9%40sessionmgr11&vid=2&hid=7