Influencers and celebrity culture
Influencers and celebrity culture: blog tasks
Media Magazine 72 has a feature linking YouTube influencers to A Level media theories. Go to our Media Magazine archive, click on MM72 and scroll to page 60 to read the article ‘The theory of everything - using YouTubers to understand media theory’. Answer the following questions:
1) How has YouTube "democratised media creativity"?
YouTube has made media creation more accessible to everyone. Instead of media being dominated by big companies, ordinary people can now upload and share their own content. Users are both consumers and creators — often described as ‘prosumers’ or ‘produsers’, which breaks down traditional barriers in media production.
Although not all popular YouTubers are American, the platform is heavily shaped by US culture. The dominance of English and the popularity of American creators mean that audiences worldwide are exposed to US cultural references, values, and attitudes. In this way, YouTube contributes to globalisation and spreads Western influence.
Influencers often promote brands and products, encouraging their followers to buy into particular lifestyles. By showing off what they use or wear, they create desire among audiences to purchase the same products. This cycle supports consumer culture and reinforces capitalist values.
Influencer content can be considered postmodern because it often blurs boundaries between reality and representation. For example, creators might include behind-the-scenes clips, breaking the ‘fourth wall’ and reminding viewers that what they’re watching is both staged and authentic at the same time.
Both theorists argue that media industries are dominated by corporate power and profit motives. Platforms like YouTube, now owned by Google, show how smaller competitors are bought up by big companies, leading to concentration of ownership. This reduces diversity and limits opportunities for independent voices.
David Gauntlett suggests that online media allows people to experiment with different identities and present themselves in multiple ways. YouTube reflects this: audiences can choose from a huge range of creators, each offering different perspectives and ways of living, which can influence how viewers shape their own identities.
I think celebrity influencers are a mix of both positive and negative forces. On the one hand, they often promote products and reinforce capitalist ideals, which can be limiting. But at the same time, they provide a platform for diverse voices and can raise awareness about important issues. For many people, influencers offer opportunities to be heard in ways that traditional media never allowed.
Celebrities don’t always manage their accounts themselves. Some post casually and personally, while others rely on a team of social media managers to plan and run their content. For many, accounts are used strategically for promotions, announcements, and endorsements rather than just personal updates.
A strong and consistent voice makes a celebrity stand out and feel authentic. Chrissy Teigen, for example, has built her brand on her witty, unfiltered posts that feel natural rather than corporate. This makes her seem approachable and relatable, strengthening her connection with fans.
Celebrities use their accounts for a range of purposes: building a personal brand, staying connected with fans, promoting upcoming projects, or working with companies on endorsements.
Content often includes brand partnerships, promotional posts for events or products, behind-the-scenes insights into their lives, and direct interactions with fans.
Platforms give influencers multiple ways to engage with audiences. Fans can comment on posts, and influencers can respond directly. Live streams allow real-time interaction, making fans feel like they’re part of a personal conversation, which helps build loyalty and community.
The YMCA report found that young people, especially teenagers, are under increasing pressure to live up to unrealistic body standards. Because influencers and celebrities often post edited or highly flattering photos, many teenagers develop distorted ideas of what a “normal” body should look like.
The report highlighted a range of negative outcomes, including mental health struggles, depression, sleep problems, and body image issues. Constant exposure to idealised content can leave young people feeling inadequate.
I do think social media can be dangerous for young people, particularly when it comes to body image and self-esteem. Seeing unrealistic standards online can make them feel pressured to change themselves. I think age restrictions could help reduce these risks, as younger children are more impressionable and may not have the maturity to handle this kind of content critically.
Read this excellent, academic article on the history of celebrity culture recommended by exam board AQA. Has digital culture changed the nature of celebrity or have things always been like this?
Key Notes
Democratisation of Fame:
Social media makes everyone a “star” → self-broadcasting (profiles, photos, updates).
Not just watching, but being watched (Gamson).
Raises fear: will constant exposure corrupt us?
Playing to the Crowd:
Social media blurs public/private → risks of oversharing (Replogle).
Publicity = core internet ideology (Dean).
Online validation = “applause-o-meter” anxiety (Gronlund).
Pre-social media: only reality TV / stars got this exposure.
History of Celebrity:
Modern phenomenon, tied to tech advances (Kurzman).
Examples: Lincoln (photography), Queen Victoria (print), Dickens (mass culture “pop star”), Tennyson & Longfellow (press-driven fame).
Stage actors: aura enhanced by posters/photos (Marcus).
From Fame to Celebrity:
Shift: accomplishment → personality (Roof).
Dickens feared celebrity robbed dignity; Thackeray critiqued celebrity > literature.
“Good” vs “bad” celebrities: Queen Victoria (domestic exemplar) vs Byron/Wilde (rebellious impudence).
The Internet Era:
Gamson: types of online celebrity → launch pads, anti-celebrities, DIY stars.
Replogle: stricter privacy expectations for ordinary people.
Halberstam: problem = active pursuit of fame, prioritising it above other values.
Continuities:
Then and now: anxieties about exposure, dignity, and authenticity.
19th c. celebrities survived media debasement → lesson for us: we may endure (and even embrace) social media’s gaze.
Core takeaway: Celebrity is not new, technology drives it. Social media has extended old anxieties (privacy, authenticity, dignity) to the masses.
Has digital culture changed the nature of celebrity or have things always been like this?
Continuity: Celebrity always linked to tech (photography → Lincoln, print → Dickens, posters → stage actors).
Old anxieties: Exposure vs dignity (Dickens feared loss of respect, Thackeray = personality > achievement).
Good vs bad celebs: Victoria as moral model vs Byron/Wilde as scandalous — like today’s “wholesome” vs “problematic” influencers.
Change: Social media democratises fame (Gamson) → ordinary people as “stars.”
Blurred boundaries: Public/private collapse (Replogle), validation anxiety (Gronlund), ideology of publicity (Dean).
Critique: Halberstam → pursuit of fame as empty goal.
Takeaway: Nature of celebrity = same tensions (exposure, authenticity), but digital culture universalises + accelerates it.
Read this Forbes article on how covid and TikTok have changed the influencer market in the last couple of years. What does this tell us about society and media culture - are we becoming more creative and independent or is this just another way to sell more products to more people?
Key Notes: Influencer Marketing & the Rise of the Everyperson
Covid-19 Impact (2020):
Lockdowns → higher social media use + demand for authentic, topical content.
Traditional ad shoots disrupted → brands pivoted to influencers.
Influencer market growing fast (50%+ annual increase since 2016).
TikTok & Viral Fame:
TikTok’s algorithm rewards content quality, not follower count.
Overnight fame possible (e.g., “cranberry juice skateboard” viral video).
Authentic, everyday users (even older adults) gaining traction.
Micro & Nano Influencers:
Seen as more authentic, relatable, and credible than big celebrities.
Smaller creators → stronger engagement + loyal followers.
Audiences trust “everyday” voices > traditional celebrity endorsements.
Authenticity & Transparency:
2020 crisis made insensitivity risky → genuine content valued.
Trend toward real, personal campaigns likely to continue.
Niche Experts:
Rise of influencers in specialised fields (food, DIY, tech, parenting, politics, science).
Examples:
Heather Cox Richardson (political historian, newsletter → Facebook).
Laurel Bristow (Covid scientist → Instagram fame).
Expertise + clarity = trust + follower growth.
Takeaway: Influencers are no longer a stereotype (e.g., fashion bloggers).
They come from all walks of life — the “every person” influencer is now central to brand strategy.
Society & Media Culture: What Influencer Marketing Shows Us
Creativity & Independence
Platforms like TikTok give ordinary people a chance to go viral → creativity no longer gatekept by media industries.
Micro/nano influencers show that authentic voices and niche expertise (e.g., science, politics, DIY) are valued.
Everyday creators reflect a democratisation of media → anyone can be a cultural producer.
Consumerism & Commercialisation:
Brands quickly co-opt this “authenticity” → influencers become new advertising channels.
Even the “every person” influencer is often monetised → selling products disguised as personal recommendations.
Growth of influencer market (50%+ yearly) shows this is a profitable business model, not just creativity for its own sake.
Hybrid Reality:
We are both more creative and independent (audience as producers) and more deeply tied into consumer culture.
The line between authentic self-expression and advertising is increasingly blurred.
Media culture reflects our desire for connection and trust — but this is easily leveraged for commercial gain.
Takeaway: Influencer culture embodies a paradox → it empowers everyday creativity and independence, but ultimately it extends capitalism by finding new, more “authentic” ways to sell.
Comments
Post a Comment