How
far can aspects of identity be seen to affect the way in which audiences use
online media? Discuss, with reference to Zoella and Attitude. [30]
An audience is a group of people who consume a media
product. David Gauntlet argues in his theory of identity that an audience is
not passively consuming media but rather identifying with specific aspects
which they then incorporate into their own identity and sense of self. I
believe that both Zoella and Attitude manipulate their audiences sense of
identity for commercial/financial benefit in a number of ways.
Zoella is a beauty, fashion and lifestyle vlogger (video logs) based in
the UK who often does videos reviewing products such as ‘makeup hauls’ on the
Google owned video platform YouTube. She is the second most popular beauty
vlogger on YouTube and has 13million subscribers on her main channel, with
4.8million on her second channel. Her audience is mainly working-class females
aged 12-22.
YouTubers get paid through having ads on their videos. For every person
who sees or clicks on the ad the YouTuber gets paid a small percentage. This is
why many YouTubers have branched away from solely making videos and looked for
other revenue streams. She has had a successful book release selling 78,000
copies on the first day and has now got her own makeup/beauty/lifestyle lines
of products.
However, because her success relies on the interest of her audience she
has been manipulating them into giving her money by presenting a hyper
realistic and aspirational lifestyle to her audience to keep them invested in
her life and products.
One key example of this is her video on the ‘Zoella Apartment’. In this
video she and her friends visit an apartment in London that has been entirely redecorated
and filled with her new line of products. It starts with an outtake-like
mistake which gives her a relatable quality that she is human and makes
mistakes like everyone else. Using a direct mode of address with the audience
she explains the travel plans and mentions some of her friends by first name
only which implies the audience already has this inferred knowledge. Her
attitude, as in all her videos, is bubbly and smiling, maintaining a direct mode
of address to inspire trust and friendship with her audience. They then proceed
to London which is shown in a time jump to them in a London area before
entering the apartment. At one point in the video she examines one of her new candles
and explicitly focuses on how nice the box looks. She barely describes the
product and its quality instead focusing on the packaging and portraying her
ideology of commodity fetishism to her audience. She goes through and shows
every new product off, describing why she likes it without any focus on
quality. The entire 40-minute video is an advertisement for her products which
is never explicitly stated to her young impressionable audience. She
manipulates them by gaining trust through a friendly manner but this actually
has no basis in reality and instead she tries to get them to buy her products.
She presents a hyperreal representation of a middle class, successful and
friendly woman to her audience who view this aspirational lifestyle as a
reality they could one day obtain and not as something constructed for the
object of profit.
Another example of this is a post on her blog showing a picnic. She
creates another hyperreal representation of the middle-class lifestyle by
showing a blanket den with rugs and cushions. The food is middle class like macaroons
and a variety of cheese presented on wooden boards and fruit in glass bowls.
This is nowhere near the reality of a picnic with dirt, grass, and bugs
everywhere but rather an insanely hyperreal representation which does not fit
reality. She is pristine with perfect
makeup and clothing which the audience aspire to. This also links to George
Gerbners Cultivation theory as by presenting herself in this way she is
reinforcing stereotypical hegemonic paradigms of how women should dress and
behave. She is always non-sexualised, even in a blog post about which valentine’s
day pyjamas she has looked at, she is innocent and remains pristine. However,
both of these posts while showing a fun and aspirational lifestyle pray on the
audience in a capitalist way. In the valentine’s post, there are hyperlinks to
every outfit she tries on so they can be instantly purchased through the hyper
modality of the internet; and similarly, in the picnic post she references
specific brands without giving any clarification as to whether it is an
advertisement.
Attitude also manipulates its audience in a similar way. Attitude is a
British gay magazine whose website, Attitude Online, was created in 2014. They
have over 11,000 digital downloads of the magazine (e.g. PDF) each month but
have not made their physical issue sales public knowledge. Much like Zoella,
Attitude creates a hyper realistic representation of gay men for its audience
to aspire and identify with as well as cultivation many stereotypical
representations of gay men. This can be seen in the ‘BOYS’ tab on the menu bar
where there are many articles focusing on stereotypically attractive and
hypersexualised men. This representation of fit, handsome and well-groomed men
is then aspired to by its audience even though it is a hyperreal representation
and an unrealistic aspiration for many gay men.
In the Attitude Press Pack they described their audience as loyal to
brands shown by Attitude, middle age middle class men, as well as following
latest technology and gadgets and likely to buy them. Here we can see they are
specifically telling advertisers to use them because they can take advantage of
the disposable income their audience have. Not only because they are middle
aged and middle class meaning they have more disposable income, but also
because they have disposable income because they are gay. This stereotype is
sometimes called the ‘pink pound’ and refers to stereotypical extra income gay
men have because they don’t have a family to provide for. This exploitation of
their audience has been clearly shown to advertisers and investors to show the
benefit of the untapped gay marketplace.
Clay Shirky’s End of Audience theory describes the audience as having a
much larger role in the products which they consume, no longer remaining
passive they can influence the products with their input and are now on the
level of a producer. YouTuber’s often talk about their ‘community’ (audience)
and often approach them as a family who they make the content for. One key way
they interact with fans is through social media such as Twitter or Facebook;
but also through the comments sections of their videos. On Zoella’s picnic blog
post we can see many comments about how pretty the picnic was and how they wish
they could take part in it and see her. This is often a common use of a
comments section but there is also a post from an account ‘FuckZoella’ about
how they hate her. This is the other side of audience theory, it allows both
those who love and hate the product to interact more directly with the creator/producer
of that product.
Comments
Post a Comment