Crowe 1
Sarah Crowe
Kim Knight
EMAC 6372
May 4, 2012
YouTube and the New Celebrity
Teen pop heartthrob Justin Bieber did it. Eight year-old Sophia Grace and her younger sister Rosie did it, too. Karmin, Jackie Evancho and Rebecca Black did it as well. Curiosity would now direct one to ask, “Did what?” They have become YouTube sensations, the newest celebrity phenoms that exploded onto the scene FIRST in the digital realm. However, it wasn’t always like this. To understand how YouTube has transformed itself into a fame domain, one must first understand the role viral has had in creating these stars, as well as how its effects are refiguring society’s definition of what it means to be a celebrity.
The new celebrities that make it to this elite, highly esteemed status are a far cry from the celebrities of early American cinema where major film studios in Hollywood created a “star system” which recognized and claimed their stars. As early as the 18th century, society consciously recognized individuals that turned their lives into a public viewing activity. Prior to calling them celebrities, though, they were known best as renowned persons. In A Short History of Celebrity, author Fred Inglis cites highly accomplished individuals as being the earliest personalities. Jurists, clerics, mercenaries, and scholars were each acclaimed because their recognition was sourced by their accomplishments. “Renown brought honour to the office not the individual, and public recognition was not so much of the man himself as of the significance of his actions for the society,” (Inglis 4).
Well into the 18th and mid-19th centuries, three major geographical cities with rather unique social formations helped to cement what it meant to be a celebrity. London, as Inglis lists first, introduced the new consumerism and urban leisure, (9). Well to do Londoners, including the royals, consumed multiple forms of art, including the theatre, and frequented coffee shops, gardens, and the countryside all in the name of socialization. In the middle of the 19th century, Paris emerged as the fashion capital, making beauty a key component in the lives of the wealthy and recognized. Money, poise, haute couture, and handsome looks classified the celebrity. The city life of New York and Chicago mixed with its newspapers and gossip columns made for the “racy” style frequently associated with the well known. It should not be without mention that scandals, when intertwined with wealth and leisure, are identified as a means of catapulting individuals to celebrity status. When the entertainment industry moved from New York to Hollywood, California in the early 1900s, a new term emerged that helped coin the name of cinema players- they called them “stars,” (10).
Celebrities, as evidenced, have undoubtedly existed for ages. In Larry Leslie’s book, Celebrity in the 21st Century: A Reference Handbook, he found that as early as the 1400s, the word “famous” was used by poets like John Milton to mean, “celebrated in fame or public report; much talked about,” (Leslie 3). However, both Leslie and Inglis agree that it was the advancements in technology and changes in our culture that solidified the term “celebrity” as we use it presently. New forms of mass media, like television, radio and film, served as a restorative function for immediacy and intimacy in the human narrative, (Inglis 10). In the 1950s, when televisions began appearing in living rooms across the country, society expanded its category of celebrity to include news anchors, professional athletes, political leaders, and artists. Society was quick to identify, “to be on TV is the pure form of the successful, fully realized individual,” (32).
By now, we have elaborated enough on where our understanding of fame, celebrity, and super stardom developed. Over the years, television grew from simply a place to hear Walter Cronkite report the news, to a full-fledged entertainment platform guided by popular culture. Newer forms of media, including the Internet, emerged to connect communities and individuals, in addition to establishing another domain for user consumption. Web 2.0, the second reincarnation of the earlier Internet is where we find the topic of this paper. In 2005, three former PayPal employees created a video-sharing site they referred to as YouTube. The site would essentially allow users to display their videos to the public. As the site grew in popularity, one hundred million downloads per day, (Burns XIV) so did the intriguing content posted by its users. Beginning to garner attention were the videos of ordinary individuals doing extraordinary things, in particular singing. Society, up until now, has associated talent with what they saw in mainstream media. Television producers for programs such as American Idol, America’s Got Talent and the X-Factor pre-determined the talent agenda by utilizing their access to professional judges and scouts- all the best that money could buy, of course. Still YouTube contained a digital element that television did not, its ability to make objects go viral.
Society has often associated the term “viral” with its component term “virus” which we know as an, “infectious agent that replicates only within the cells of living hosts, mainly bacteria, plants, and animals,” (Dictionary.com). To assist in further understanding how YouTube talent videos possess viral characteristics, we will take a brief look at Steven Johnson’s text titled, The Ghost Map: The Story of London’s Most Terrifying Epidemic. The text focuses on London in the 1850s where improper sewage disposal and inadequate water systems led to a horrific cholera outbreak. So here is the connection. A local doctor observed that the neighborhood where the outbreak was occurring used one particular water pump as its source of drinking water. “Cholera wasn’t lingering over the neighborhood in a diffuse form. It was radiating out from a single point,” (Johnson 2585). The quick spread of the disease from a single source created the terrible outbreak and helped define what is meant when something goes viral. Much in the way a viral disease works, so too does a viral video. In Alan Lastufka and Michael Dean’s book, YouTube: An Insider’s Guide to Climbing the Charts, the authors expand on what is meant by referring to a video as having gone viral. “A viral video is one that is so funny, so outrageous, or so shocking that it is immediately shared from one viewer to the next, and on and on; it goes viral, like the flu,” (Dean, Lastufka). The authors go on to explain that viral videos made their start as accidents. YouTube users would stumble upon a video they interpreted as being entertaining, and would in turn, up its viewership by viewing it themselves, and then utilize other social media outlets to share what they had seen.
Viral videos were now established as an occurrence found to be happening all over YouTube. People began scanning the site for the next big thing. At some point, popular culture expanded the content of viral videos to include the gifted and talented. The most successful case to date is that of young pop singer, Justin Bieber. The “Biebs” as he is often called, was discovered in 2008 after a video of him singing, was posted by his mother, and then seen by a YouTube user with some serious connections in the music industry. Bieber’s videos, which showed him dancing, singing and playing instruments all at a very young age, created a large following of users. To date, he has sold over five million albums and performed at countless sold-out tours worldwide. Others, having seen the powers of elevated viewership, quickly followed suit. Another viral superstar has a rather unique connection to reality TV. Twelve-year old Jackie Evancho, got her key to fame when a video of her singing classical music won her a place on the talent competition show America’s Got Talent. Though she placed 2nd by the end of competition, she went on to sign a record contract and has since become the youngest solo artist in U.S. history to go platinum, (Wikipedia.com). Each of these artists, as well as countless others, have defied celebrity standards to become crossover stars. This new form of celebrity can be attributed to how YouTube has become an extension of mainstream media.
Kelli Burns, author of Celebrity 2.0: How Social Media Foster Our Fascination with Popular Culture, claims society’s interest in YouTube saying, “much of the appeal of watching user-generated videos can be traced to the popularity of reality television,” (Burns 63). For quite a while, society was enamored with shows like Survivor, Big Brother, and The Amazing Race. A connection could be made between viewers and participants in the show because, after all, they were just regular people with mundane jobs and no special circumstances. Burns also cites our “boredom” with reality TV’s tendency to be scripted as pushing us toward more “organic” and “real” content which could be found on YouTube, (Burns 63). Traditionally, ordinary individuals were also noted to have found stardom after appearing on television shows like American Idol and The Voice. Still, after society watched the rise of Justin Bieber and select others, YouTube emerged as THE place to be potentially discovered. The phenomenon continued to happen for folks all over the globe whose videos gained mass viewership and are now synonymous with YouTube fame.
As its unforeseen rise to a global talent hub has taken shape, YouTube has been looking toward the future as it works to meet the interests and demands of popular culture and its users. In an article from Wired Magazine, executives at YouTube headquarters talked about their plans and the hopeful future of their site. One such challenge they have set forth to do is move their audience from casual users to genuine, devoted fans, (Austen). To do this, YouTube has taken on a form very similar to broadcast television, by creating channels. Corporations and celebrities have joined with YouTube by establishing what are called premium channels. Content on these channels will stream at a scheduled time each week. This partnership, as we choose to call it, is a unique shift toward a bigger entity YouTube plans to become. In addition, YouTube has also found a use for all the stars it has helped to produce. The YouTube Partners Program is a channel for users who want to make a profit from their content. Compared to an individual’s normal channel, a partner has access to better features and designs and can also protect his or her material with copyrights.
The bigger question, though, still remains, “Can YouTube, a booming social media entity, compete with traditional forms of entertainment?” The answer may not be at all surprising to anyone, “Yes, it can.” With over four billion videos being viewed globally everyday, sixty hours of video uploaded every minute, and over 800 million users visiting the site each month, (YouTube.com) YouTube without a doubt has the dedicated audience needed to keep it relevant. Kelli Burns, the author of Celeb 2.0 as you may recall, adds one more characteristic that makes YouTube a one-of-a-kind tour de force. It’s a movement that has rolled across countless other social media sites, but can be seen most predominately on YouTube. It’s called a creative revolution. Users have found that their own genius, talents, and sometimes lack there of, can make them a household name and filthy rich- something many long to be. Big entertainment companies like Time Warner, Walt Disney News Corp, and CBS held the reigns for years on what was to be in popular culture. They chose the stars, the film genres, the locations, and decided on the content we viewed. Celebrity, as we have learned, has deep roots in our culture. To this day, it remains at the top of what moves popular culture. But the creative revolution taking place has not only made YouTube stand apart from other mainstream media, it has also changed the hands that have long controlled our entertainment. In the Wired Magazine article, Danny Zappin, a director, producer and the boyfriend of Lisa Donovan, an early YouTube celebrity, says that, “YouTube is the anti-Hollywood, the anti-TV. There are no decisions by committee, no casting calls, not gatekeepers to pass just to get started,” (Austen). YouTube’s deconstruction in the traditional model of power and control, help it to stay afloat in an industry that isn’t always thrilled to give up power. If the unique content being uploaded and streamed across the site and its trove of dedicated users weren’t enough, YouTube’s monetary status should certainly do. In society, it is understood that all things are possible if you’ve got the money. In 2006, YouTube was purchased by Google for 1.6 billion dollars. As it continued to grow in every way, corporations across the globe, including advertisers, flocked to the site to get in on the action. However, it was the fame-seeking wannabe’s, the lucky stars, who helped get the ball rolling for YouTube.
Celebrity, star, idol, personality, big shot, VIP-it doesn’t matter what you call them. One point has remained the same over the ages: society continues to be mesmerized by their existence. The overwhelming success of Internet phenomena like Justin Bieber and Karmin helped to rush in a new kind of celebrity. Celebrities who are admired for their authenticity, creativity, and irreplaceable manner. The viral video star has brought YouTube to the forefront of the Web 2.0 charge into the future of digital technology.
Works Cited
Austen, Ben. “The YouTube Laugh Factory: A Studio System for Viral Video.” Wired.
2011. Harper’s Magazine. 4 Apr. 2012
Burns, Kelli S. Celeb 2.0: How Social Media Foster Our Fascination with Popular
Culture. California: Praeger/ABC-CLIO, 2009. Web.
Grusin, Richard. YouTube at the End of New Media. Web.
Inglis, Fred. A Short History of Celebrity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010.
Print.
Lastufka, Alan. Dean, Michael W.. YouTube: An Insider's Guide To Climbing The
Charts. Beijing: O'Reilly, 2009. Web.
Leslie, Larry Z.. Celebrity in the 21st Century: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara:
ABC-CLIO, 2011. Ebook Library. Web. 21 Apr. 2012.
“Virus.” Dictionary.com. 2012. Web. 6 May. 2012.
YouTube.com. 2012 YouTube, LLC. Web. 9 May. 2012.
Wikipedia.com. 2012. Web. 9 May. 2012.