Twitter has
significantly influenced our society in regards to celebrities, every day life,
and how we express ourselves. Instead of having to watch television or pick up
a tabloid at the check out line for celebrity news, one can simply create a Twitter
account and follow their favorite celebs, obtaining news about tours, books,
personal opinions, and even witness disputes between fellow celebs. Yes,
Twitter seems like it is this new, innovative, and wonderful creation, however,
there are definitely some bugs in user practices that make it more questionable-
especially celebrity behavior.
Although “the distinction between micro-celebrity and ‘real’ celebrity might once have been a question of popularity, approachability, or mainstream status,” celebrities are using their Twitter accounts more and more to “amp up their popularity over the Web.” (Marwick & Boyd, 141) Through examining this behavior, one can understand the real “practice” of celebrity. Twitter is seemingly a playground for the elite and famous to “practice” their celebrity skills.
With these “practices”, certain issues arise. One of the larger issues with celebrities and their Twitter accounts is the authenticity of them, as “not all ‘celebrity’ accounts are authored by the celebrity in question.” (Marwick & Boyd, 142) Along with this, some celebrity accounts are strictly used for publicity purposes only, such as promoting a new line of perfume, a film release, etc. Do these situations make a Twitter less authentic? Would a user be less likely to follow a certain celebrity if they knew it was not really run by the celeb on their own? Marwick and Boyd make a point saying that “persona is not entirely the point; it is the uncertainty [of who authors the account] that creates pleasure for the celebrity-watcher on Twitter.” (Marwick & Boyd, 144) Celebrity followers would want to hear what they have to say straight from the horses’ mouth- not from their manager, therefore I don’t see how strong this point really is.
In regards to actual Twitter behavior, celebrities practice the idea of “frontstage” and “backstage” posts, where frontstage information is seen as “professional communication” whereas backstage posts include private and “intimate” details about ones’ life. (Marwick & Boyd 142) As the years have gone on, and social media has developed, celebrities are noticeably more comfortable with posting “backstage” details. Do celebrities do this to seem more honest and real? Or do they post this type of information purely for damage control purposes or to let their fans know of certain news before it breaks in the unreliable and image damaging tabloids? I wonder if celebrities tweet about their break ups and divorces on Twitter mainly to contrast what tabloids say or to prevent rumors from happening or because they actually want to share their personal lives with their “beloved” fans.
Celebrities are the most followed users on Twitter, as they use the site as a means of practicing the social marketing theory, by making “people aware of their existence.” (Baran & Davis 284) Their followers see what they tweet, how they say it, and how often they say the things that they do. Their actions on the site definitely have an influence on how some users tweet. Can non-celebs “practice” celebrity? Of course they can. Celebs and non-celebs tweet the same type of information, but it is more of how a user tweets that is influenced, more specifically in regards to the frontstage and backstage information. Just as the celebs are doing, everyday normal people are posting backstage information more often and potentially feel more comfortable doing so, because celebrities are doing it. However, posting too much backstage information/arguing via social network can get a user in trouble with work, co-workers, friends, family, etc., just as a celebrity can get in trouble with their managers, tabloids, etc. Some users even tweet so often, potentially thinking that their opinion, what they are doing, and how funny they think they are is comparable to a celebrity. Come on, 50 tweets a day? Get real.
Celebrity tweets may be influencing how users physically use the site, but celebrities themselves are not necessarily influencing the opinions of users when they tweet. Twitter is an opinion leader’s dream come true. If they find an “innovation useful, they encourage their friends, [of course in 140 characters or less]- the opinion followers” also known as their Twitter followers. (Baran & Davis 282) Most people categorize celebrities in this group of opinion leaders, however, how influential are their tweets exactly? A study completed at Northwestern University concluded “that while many celebrities might have millions of people following their lives on the web, online influence in fact came from less known ‘experts.’” (Olenski) Their findings suggest that although the celebrity tweeting turned Twitter into an “international phenomenon”, celebrity tweets are actually ignored by their millions of followers. So who is getting all of the attention then? It is the “lower profile” users who are experts in their fields who are seen as more influential. (Olenski) However, if a celebrity tweets about their field of work, they may have some more credibility.
Twitter, although originally questioned, is clearly hear to stay for us to tweet a million times a day, or to just sit back and watch what topics trend. It is an interesting tool to examine celebrity and non-celebrity behavior and practices. Twitter puts both the information/innovation diffusion theory and social marketing theory into practice and has the ability to keep society moving forward with topics that actually do matter, not just what Britney Spears’ manager thinks she had for lunch this afternoon.
Works Cited:
1. Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.
2. Marwick, Alice and Danah Boyd, “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Convergence 17.2 (2011): 139 – 158.
Although “the distinction between micro-celebrity and ‘real’ celebrity might once have been a question of popularity, approachability, or mainstream status,” celebrities are using their Twitter accounts more and more to “amp up their popularity over the Web.” (Marwick & Boyd, 141) Through examining this behavior, one can understand the real “practice” of celebrity. Twitter is seemingly a playground for the elite and famous to “practice” their celebrity skills.
With these “practices”, certain issues arise. One of the larger issues with celebrities and their Twitter accounts is the authenticity of them, as “not all ‘celebrity’ accounts are authored by the celebrity in question.” (Marwick & Boyd, 142) Along with this, some celebrity accounts are strictly used for publicity purposes only, such as promoting a new line of perfume, a film release, etc. Do these situations make a Twitter less authentic? Would a user be less likely to follow a certain celebrity if they knew it was not really run by the celeb on their own? Marwick and Boyd make a point saying that “persona is not entirely the point; it is the uncertainty [of who authors the account] that creates pleasure for the celebrity-watcher on Twitter.” (Marwick & Boyd, 144) Celebrity followers would want to hear what they have to say straight from the horses’ mouth- not from their manager, therefore I don’t see how strong this point really is.
In regards to actual Twitter behavior, celebrities practice the idea of “frontstage” and “backstage” posts, where frontstage information is seen as “professional communication” whereas backstage posts include private and “intimate” details about ones’ life. (Marwick & Boyd 142) As the years have gone on, and social media has developed, celebrities are noticeably more comfortable with posting “backstage” details. Do celebrities do this to seem more honest and real? Or do they post this type of information purely for damage control purposes or to let their fans know of certain news before it breaks in the unreliable and image damaging tabloids? I wonder if celebrities tweet about their break ups and divorces on Twitter mainly to contrast what tabloids say or to prevent rumors from happening or because they actually want to share their personal lives with their “beloved” fans.
Celebrities are the most followed users on Twitter, as they use the site as a means of practicing the social marketing theory, by making “people aware of their existence.” (Baran & Davis 284) Their followers see what they tweet, how they say it, and how often they say the things that they do. Their actions on the site definitely have an influence on how some users tweet. Can non-celebs “practice” celebrity? Of course they can. Celebs and non-celebs tweet the same type of information, but it is more of how a user tweets that is influenced, more specifically in regards to the frontstage and backstage information. Just as the celebs are doing, everyday normal people are posting backstage information more often and potentially feel more comfortable doing so, because celebrities are doing it. However, posting too much backstage information/arguing via social network can get a user in trouble with work, co-workers, friends, family, etc., just as a celebrity can get in trouble with their managers, tabloids, etc. Some users even tweet so often, potentially thinking that their opinion, what they are doing, and how funny they think they are is comparable to a celebrity. Come on, 50 tweets a day? Get real.
Celebrity tweets may be influencing how users physically use the site, but celebrities themselves are not necessarily influencing the opinions of users when they tweet. Twitter is an opinion leader’s dream come true. If they find an “innovation useful, they encourage their friends, [of course in 140 characters or less]- the opinion followers” also known as their Twitter followers. (Baran & Davis 282) Most people categorize celebrities in this group of opinion leaders, however, how influential are their tweets exactly? A study completed at Northwestern University concluded “that while many celebrities might have millions of people following their lives on the web, online influence in fact came from less known ‘experts.’” (Olenski) Their findings suggest that although the celebrity tweeting turned Twitter into an “international phenomenon”, celebrity tweets are actually ignored by their millions of followers. So who is getting all of the attention then? It is the “lower profile” users who are experts in their fields who are seen as more influential. (Olenski) However, if a celebrity tweets about their field of work, they may have some more credibility.
Twitter, although originally questioned, is clearly hear to stay for us to tweet a million times a day, or to just sit back and watch what topics trend. It is an interesting tool to examine celebrity and non-celebrity behavior and practices. Twitter puts both the information/innovation diffusion theory and social marketing theory into practice and has the ability to keep society moving forward with topics that actually do matter, not just what Britney Spears’ manager thinks she had for lunch this afternoon.
Works Cited:
1. Baran, Stanley J. and Dennis K. Davis, eds. Mass Communication Theory: Foundations, Ferment and Future, 6th ed. (Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2012). Print.
2. Marwick, Alice and Danah Boyd, “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter,” Convergence 17.2 (2011): 139 – 158.
3. Olenski, Steve. “Study Finds Celebrities Have Little
Influence,” Social Media Today. Social
Media Today LLC. , 29 Sept 2010. Web. 26 Feb 2012.
Emily started off her blog post by stating, “Twitter has significantly influenced our society in regards to celebrities, every day life, and how we express ourselves. Instead of having to watch television or pick up a tabloid at the check out line for celebrity news, one can simply create a Twitter account and follow their favorite celebs…” With the advancements of social media, we no longer have to wait to hear about our favorite celebrities or athletes on the television or read about them in newspapers. Twitter allows us to become even more of a fan then ever before. We get to know these people on a level that we normally would not have because we can constantly see what is on their mind or what movie they are filming. For example, I follow Denis Leary on Twitter. I am not a Denis Leary fan, I have never really seen anything that he is in, but I followed him because he is famous. He has some really funny Twitter posts about current event things that make me laugh so I continue to follow him. It is almost as if I got to know Denis Leary on more of a personal level, as strange as that sounds since I never met the guy. However, before following a celebrity I look to make sure it is not their publicist.
ReplyDeleteWith all great things, comes advertising. Twitter brings you closer to celebrities then ever before, but some celebrities use it to purely promote their “brand” or other brands. This should not be a surprise to anybody as Angela Carroll said in the Journal of Brand Management, “The use of celebrity endorsers has increased to approximately 25 per cent of all advertisements in the United Kingdom and United States…Celebrities can command large fees for celebrity endorsement contracts, making this an attractive and lucrative career dimension” (Carroll 150). Athletes are really the most common celebrity figure to use endorsements to make so much more money. LeBron James signed a 99 million dollar contract with Nike before his first ever game in the NBA. So naturally his brand “Witness”, back in Cleveland, has the famous Nike swoosh symbol to help advertise for them. Well what can happen on twitter is that if the celebrity decides to just let their publicist “tweet” for them, it is like you are following a commercial and most people will not follow that celebrity. However if it is slipped into the post casually, most people won’t mind.
Marwick and Boyd’s article “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter” described the change that Twitter has creates with celebrities, “Like much social media, Twitter creates a ‘context collapse’ (boyd, 2008) in which multiple audiences, usually thought of as separate, co-exist in a single social context. The practice of celebrity involves negotiating these multiple audiences to successfully maintain face and manage impressions. (Marwick 145)” The key point in that statement was to maintain face. One little slip up on Twitter or any social media post can ruin a person’s career. This is why many celebrities use, or we think use, publicists. They are there as a safety net to make sure nothing will be controversial because once it is out on Twitter it will be read by millions of people. As Emily said in her post, “Celebrities are the most followed users on Twitter, as they use the site as a means of practicing the social marketing theory, by making ‘people aware of their existence’” (Baran & Davis 284). So one mistake can be extremely damaging for anyone famous.
The level of celebrity worship in our society has been exacerbated tremendously by tabloids and online blogs. Because of this, celebrities who desire staying power and influence need to be more than just an actor, actress, musician, or reality star – they have to be a brand. This brand is promoted through social networking sites like Twitter, which makes the authenticity of these communication channels questionable. “Part of the appeal of Twitter…is the perception of direct access to a famous person, particularly ‘insider’ information, first-person pictures, and opinionated statements” (Marwick & Boyd, 142). It would be naïve to say that the actual celebrity behind the celebrity name on Twitter is always the person tweeting. Carefully planned statements of 140 characters or less are published online by trained public relations professionals who know how to make a tweet seem personable, but also beneficial to the celebrity’s image. It is apparent who uses these professionals and who does not – a look at Kanye West’s occasional Twitter “rants” is evidence enough that he is indeed the person behind the Twitter account. A recent example of celebrity tweeting gone wrong is Ashton Kutcher’s tweets regarding his relationship with Demi Moore, in which his publicist had to tell him to stop and let the professionals take over. The “brand” was viewed traditionally “as a marketing function within the business. Increasingly, however, it has come to viewed as heart of business activity…and as an asset that needs to be correctly managed” (Carroll, 147). As such, even Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter is subject to scrutiny and must be taken seriously as a means of generating publicity.
ReplyDeleteThe use of Twitter as a marketing tool is also important to note. It is a well-known fact that paying celebrities to endorse a product on Twitter is one of the most effective promotion strategies. The celebrity’s tweets become insincere and less believable when marketing is involved, because his or her followers know they are being paid. However, because of the personal quality associated with tweeting, namely “the dialogic nature…and its ability to facilitate conversation” (Marwick & Boyd, 142), the line between blatant marketing and simply suggesting a product is blurred because it appears that the celebrity is truly a user of and believer in the product or service.
Twitter created the “official” Twitters of celebrities, businesses, and opinion leaders, which verifies the accounts of the real and dismisses the accounts of the fake. But, because of branding and marketing and the pervasive nature of celebrity worship, what defines who is considered “real” and who is “fake”? Khloe Kardashian claims that she and her family are real, but the reality for the Kardashian family is to brand themselves to death. Does this incessant branding deem them authentic to the public? George Clooney famously does not participate in social media – does this make him less authentic? This brings about the ultimate question: does authenticity on Twitter truly affect a celebrity’s image? If celebrities still gain thousands of followers each day, the genuineness of these accounts does not seem to be a major factor in whether or not he or she remains popular.
Emily’s post is completely spot on. Twitter is the way for audiences to get their news, fans to get their celebrity fix, the public to get their gossip, and practioners to gain information. In class, we all talked about how we found out about Whitney Houston’s death via Facebook and Twitter and yet, some of us questioned its accuracy, whereas some of us did not if it was classified as a “trending topic” on Twitter. Twitter is a way for people to express their thoughts and views in 160 characters or less. As Emily quoted one of the readings for this week, celebrities give us the “backstage” illusion that they give us a look into their lives and go behind the scenes into their own personal thoughts. This is brought to our attention in the article, Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies by Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd. “Through analysis of tweets from 237 highly followed Twitter users, we find that celebrity practice involves presenting a seemingly authentic, intimate image of self while meeting fan expectations and maintaining important relationships” (Boyd, Marwick 140). Followers of celebrity Twitters want that inside look to feel like they are part of these celebrities’ lives. However, some celebrities use this medium to their advantage and use their Twitter accounts to gain feedback from fans, or promote themselves or promote their friends…and it WORKS! A friend of mine is a fan of the Real Housewives of New Jersey and follows each housewife on Twitter. One had a new book coming out and my friend Tweeted at her asking where she would be holding her book signings and the housewife answered her. This gets more fans to go out, buy that book, go to the signing and it is a win for the Housewife as well as the fans. This is a prime example of the social marketing theory which is defined by Baran and Davis as the, “collection of middle-range theories concerning the promotion of socially valuable information” (Baran, Davis 284).
DeleteThe Real Housewives of New Jersey are actually perfect examples of using Twitter to gain publicity. I am not a fan of the show, however, I know that when one housewife was feuding with one of the other housewives, each would Tweet about their thoughts and opinions on the show, the other housewife, etc. Fans would feel as if they were in their brains listening to their thoughts on the show and the rivaling housewife. These tweets are examples of “targeting” which are defined by Baran and Davis as, “identifying specific audience segments and reaching them through the most efficient available channel” (Baran, Davis 285). The Housewives target their fan base by Tweeting at them any information about their personal lives or the show or the other Housewives because it will grab the followers’ attentions and make them Tweet back at them, Re-Tweet it for their friends to see, etc. This is the new “word of mouth”. Friends tell their friends, family, and Twitter followers the gossip and information they find interesting. Twitter is the new form of marketing your products, your thoughts, and yourself if you’re a celebrity. Twitter is the epitome of a new form of the social marketing theory and I do not see that changing anytime soon. The more followers someone has, the more chances the information has to reach more audiences and have their voices heard. If something is REALLY newsworthy and important, we will become aware because it would be “trending” on the side of our pages. Twitter is our new source of vital information.
There is much to discuss when it comes to celebrity Twitter activity and frontstage/backstage posts from users on a broader level in response to Emily’s blog. Twitter is definitely a quality, marketing tool and allows celebrities to brand themselves to a very large audience. However, it seems that the information they share is not always coming from the celebrities themselves. I find that general Twitter users use their accounts as a means of following big name celebrities, but also for communicating with a smaller more intimate audience such as their actual friends rather than getting something out to the entire Twitter community. It truly lends itself to being more of a blogging site than anything else. This is not to say that bigger, more meaningful messages are not sent across Twitter, because that definitely occurs as well.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of what celebrities use Twitter for, we have the following: “Some famous people lack the time or interest to maintain an account but view it as a good marketing tool; some have managers who discourage direct access to fans; and still others are under contract to a team, studio or production which expressly forbids candid tweeting (Marwick and Boyd 143). Sometimes there are people behind the scenes dulling out information about an upcoming concert or the latest product their name has been associated with, thus using Twitter as a sort of self-advertising and marketing tool. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is a simple, efficient way to relay any type of information to people you may not normally get the chance to. So while the followers that celebrities maintain on Twitter may not even be hearing directly from their idols, there definitely are many famous people who do maintain their own account and say things that fans value. Regardless, celebs have Twitter accounts to increase their popularity in a way, which connects them even more to their fan base.
The celebrities who do talk directly with their fans and will even respond or re-tweet something one of their followers said. Often times we get people tweeting at a celebrity hoping to get a response or begging for a response. For example there is always the “Hey its my birthday, can you please reply to me? - @(insertcelebhere).” Something like this is interesting to examine. This is a huge reason why Twitter is so popular as Emily discussed. People feel so close to celebrities who are otherwise unattainable figures who we dream of bumping into on the bustling streets of New York, or in line at the airport. Twitter allows us to make connections that would frankly not be even potentially feasible. Celebrities like Justin Bieber and Bethany Frankel often retweet their fans which makes them more likeable to their audience.
In terms of frontstage versus backstage information – I feel that there is a need for both for the purposes of Twitter. For instance, as a personal example, many of my favorite artists tweet from backstage at their concerts and during the show. It is nice to get that connection and get the update on my feed right as they are doing it on stage in front of me. I think that it gives celebrities more of a “we’re just like you” edge. It allows them to become more easy to relate to when all of their posts are not focused strictly on business. Another example is of frontstage information such as John Mayer tweeting about an impromptu concert in New York City. My friend and I were so excited to have access to this information (we didn’t end up making it down), but it was great to have the option due to social media.
The above relates to a concept involved in the social marketing theory as presented by Baran and Davis. The discuss targeting which is exactly what celebrities (or their people who tweet for them) take part in. Targeting is defined as “identifying specific audience segments and reaching them through the most efficient available channel” (260). Twitter, though increasing its popularity to a larger demographic, is dominated by younger generations. Celebrities across the board cater to their fans by talking about things that appeal to fans of this age such as upcoming concerts, opinions on political happenings, new song releases, you name it. Not to say that these ideas don’t appeal to an older audience, it is just that Twitter in general is not exactly focused there. I think the idea of targeting is key for platforms like Twitter, but also Facebook pages and what have you. Marwick and Boyd say that, “ Part of the appeal of Twitter is the perception of direct access to a famous person, particularly ‘insider’ information, first-person pictures, and opinionated statements” (142). I feel that this is directly applicable to the social marketing concept.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is a tool for micro-blogging, the sharing of news, and connecting to those who are otherwise unattainable. It will grow with us over time until something later and greater emerges and is able to help us connect even further. Celebrities and average users alike utilize forms of social media in a way that is tailored to each individual. So whether or not celebs are tweeting themselves or paying someone to do it for them, it is working in terms of getting people to notice them. As a marketing technique, Twitter has proven effective, and will continue to be in the future.
When I first joined Twitter, my family questioned the point of such a site – the premise of taking status updates and making a whole site based around what you’re doing at any given moment seemed preposterous to my parents. But, as I went on to explain, I think Twitter has become such a success because of the “backstage” peek we get into celebrities lives that Emily spoke about , and because it is an influx of real-time information that comes from real people. Yes, you can follow Twitter accounts that may be based on a celebrity or on a television show, but is not actually affiliated with them, however those accounts can still provide valid and reliable information on the topic you are interested in.
ReplyDeleteTwitter is predominantly based on the media system dependency theory discussed by Baran & Davis in this week’s reading. The theory “asserts that the more a person depends on having his or her needs met by media use, the more important will be the role that media play in the person’s life, and therefore the more influence those media will have on that person.” (pg. 288 – 289) As we discussed in class, when a major event happens in the world, be it media related or otherwise, we are more likely to turn to social networking sites like Twitter or Facebook for reliable and current news than “older” sources like television or the radio. Because we can follow news sources on Twitter, yet also get opinions and news from other sources we trust (because we follow them,) we are dependent on their updates for breaking news. For example, I interned in New York City over the summer, and found out via Twitter that an artist I liked was hosting a free concert in the middle of Times Square, just a block away from my office, in the middle of the day. There were no postings about this concert on any fan sites I had seen, or in the news – the buzz and solely Twitter created publicity for this event, and it worked. I got to see a free concert along with about 200 other fans, and social media brought us all together.
This was not the first time I realized the power of Twitter, however. I mentioned the “backstage” access celebrities create when you follow them on Twitter as another reason that the site is so popular. In the reading “To See and Be Seen: Celebrity Practice on Twitter” Alice Marwick and Danah Boyd discuss how celebrities use social media to their advantage, to not only sell the products they appear in, but to sell their personal brand as well. “On Twitter, celebrity is practiced through the appearance and performance of ‘backstage’ access. Celebrity practitioners reveal what appears to be personal information to create a sense of intimacy between participant and follower, publicly acknowledge fans, and use language and cultural references to create affiliations with followers.” (pg. 2) Personally, I feel celebrities use Twitter best when they connect with fans – they don’t have to reply to each one personally, but those who take the time to do Q&A sessions via Twitter, or reply to a particularly funny or endearing tweet make fans (and possibly ambivalent followers) want to read what they have to post when it comes time to talk about their personal lives or projects they are involved in. Because of Twitter, I have gotten a reply from a Bethenney Frankel, a Bravo celebrity, informed a MTV producer about tour dates for an artist (and ended up meeting the producer at the concert,) and got a personal message from the author of my favorite book, thanking me for my kind comments and telling me about her next project.
Though Twitter can certainly be mundane at times in the content that is posted, I think it is a powerful tool that celebrities should learn how to use, and often, because it is a direct line of communication to the public, and to fans.
Before I make my own comments, I really want to sing the praises of Emily’s post. I greatly enjoyed the points she made in her lead statements, especially the off the cuff comments that truly expressed her feelings on the uses and tactics on celebrity Twitter pages. Mainly, I believe this is because the mostly parallel my own views.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am a fan of social media and the benefits that it does indeed bring to the many and their increased connectivity to others, I believe that many celebrities use Twitter and other pages as a new age Public Relations plan to project the image of who they have created themselves to be. This is central to the discussion of the authenticity of celebrity accounts. I think that even if the celebrity runs the account in question, the content posted still projects a well-honed image to the public and those who choose to follow the icon. Therefore, the stream of consciousness that exists within your average joe’s Twitter feed is absent in the tweets of socially present celebrities. As a potential “follower” of these debated accounts, I think that the interest and appeal weakens when it is discovered that the celebrity is using a social media platform as a method of projecting a certain image, or to control the potential tarnishing information published about them in alternative venues. Ultimately, I completely disagree with Marwick and Boyd’s comment where they say, “persona is not entirely the point; it is the uncertainty of who authors the account that creates pleasure for the celebrity-watcher on Twitter” (144). I believe that most who are passionately following the lives of their favorite stars, would be gravely disappointed to find out that the tweets they look forward to are automated, controlled, or performed by someone other than their idols. It removes the fantasy that many fans are engrossed in. Which also, could really alter the authenticity of the celebrity persona altogether.
One could argue that the lifeblood of Twitter is to capitalize on your personal brand. To stand out, among thousands of other’s thoughts. But this really just another tool we as a society use to make our peers make, “people aware of their [our] existence,” (Baran & Davis 284) and to somehow project ourselves into a world that is just a abyss of ideas and character-limited thoughts which we ultimately use to justify our social and literal existence. We’re all guilty of it, myself included. We thrive for the retweet, the favorite, or the mention. We are no better than the favorite celebrities we put on pedestals. They are utilizing social media to permeate the atmosphere with their identity, and we are posting to hopefully perpetuate the virtual world with our existence. We thrive on knowing that we are known, followed, cared for. It’s a weird dynamic of our technologically driven lives. It’s multi-leveled public relations, it’s social marketing, but most of all, it’s human.
I have had a Twitter account for about a year now. On a personal level, I generally do not use the social networking site when seeking information; this is largely due to a lack of technology to easily access my account. I do not have a smart phone, therefore I cannot check my account or read the Tweets of the people I follow as easily as many people with smart phones. In the year or so I have had the account; I have made fewer than 120 total tweets, and follow about 40 people. Of the people I do follow, none of them are celebrities. However I do follow one celebrity fan, who just posts information on the band’s tour dates and news regarding their music. I am aware that this particular Twitter user is not affiliated with the band, and I prefer this user over the band’s actual Twitter account because they only Tweet or Retweet important issues regarding the band, whereas the band Tweets much more often, and the Tweets consist of ‘backstage’ information, which I am uninterested in. So this leads me to Emily’s question, I do not think these situations make twitter less authentic, and users wouldn’t necessarily be less likely to follow a celebrity if they knew the account was run by a team of correspondents rather than the celebrities themselves. Particularly when it comes to political candidates, users are interested in the latest news and progress of their candidate, but do they really want their candidate to be constantly Tweeting rather than tackling important issues? I’m under the impression that many people assume such important figures Twitter accounts are not run by the celebrity themselves. Plus, as mentioned in this week’s reading, “If they [non-celebrity users] encounter new ideas or information, they turn to others for advice and critical interpretation.”(Baran, Davis, 145)This is where the retweet comes into play, where normal users often retweet what a celebrity has said, but then attach their own comment to the tweet. Thus the normal user may have more influence than the celebrity themselves because the normal user can make sense of or criticize what the celebrity has said, and relate it to other normal users like themselves. When it comes to backstage posts, I don’t think celebrities do this to seem more honest and real. I view the backstage posts more as an indication that the celebrity user is authentic, rather than someone managing the celebrity account. This can be important to followers of the celebrity, for they can feel a greater connection to their celebrity. For those who seek the real celebrity user accounts, the role of opinion leader may be more influential to the followers, than those who do not specifically seek out authentic celebrity accounts. Celebrities who are in control of their tweets, will generally post information about their lives as the live them, not as damage control purposes to protect their rep from the tabloids. As far as the influence celebrities have over their followers, I believe it is very little compared to the opinion of the average Joe, unless it is directly about the celebrity’s career. As mentioned in the reading, “Opinion leaders influenced people like themselves rather than those above or below them in the social order.” (Baran,Davis, 145)According to this, Twitter users are more likely to be influenced by how others interpret celebrity tweets, rather than the celebrity’s tweets themselves.
ReplyDeleteKyle Barry