You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘YouTube’ tag.
Burgess and Green argue that: ordinary people who become celebrities through their own creative efforts “remain within the system of celebrity native to, and controlled by, the mass media” (Reader, page 269).
A home video camera, an amusing talent and a click onto YouTube. It doesn’t look hard does it?
When presented with the most popular videos on YouTube, I can’t help but say in absolute bewilderment ‘But, how are THEY so famous?”.The videos I’m talking about come in so many frustratingly simple forms: a baby biting a toddler, a monologue from a Britney Spears fan, a song about ‘Friday’. These are the videos that we’ve all watched. They have launched ‘ordinary people’ to fame while millions of people shake their heads and wonder, “How are they so famous? That looks so easy!” and most importantly “I could do that”.
The tale of an unknown talent posting a simple home movie on YouTube and sky-rocketing to success is equally ever-present on computer screens and in the media. It is the fairytale story that we all know too well. Burgess and Green deconstruct the assumption, “that raw talent combined with digital distribution can convert directly to legitimate success and media fame.” (2009:21). Couldry emphasises the binary nature of the world of media and the world of the ordinary citizen. He asserts that a transition from the later to celebrity is only possible “when the ordinary person gains access to the modes of representation of the mass media” (2009:22).
This fantasy of instant and autonomous celebrity status is typified in the case of, you guessed it, Justin Bieber. The young Canadian pop star who uploaded a simple home video of himself singing along to his guitar has been created into one of the biggest ‘musicians’ of the decade.
However, Bieber’s YouTube legacy is more based in myth than reality and people forget that talent and a pretty face won’t get you there alone. Burgess and Green illustrate the often invisible role of the mass media in these particular stories, which “disguises (and therefore helps naturalise) the inequality of symbolic power which media institutions represent” (2009:23). What is often left out of the Justin Bieber story is Usher, and more importantly the record label (Island Def Jam) that has well established connections with the mass media. Bieber was scouted and effectively brought to fame by Usher, already a big name in the music industry and the mass media. It was this aspect of Bieber’s fate that has made him the icon he is today, not YouTube. Thus, he remains in the system of the mass media.
It’s not hard to see how this mythical ‘land in your lap’ fame began and continues to survive. The illusionary promise of fame, “is firmly embedded in YouTube itself, evident in a number of YouTube’s talent discovery competitions and initiatives” (2009:23). To perpetuate this, YouTube created a separate channel for musicians wanting exposure (many with the hope of being scouted by a recording label), which 120, 000 hopefuls signed up to in its first three months.
The YouTube fame to fortune story is inspirational; everyone loves the idea of a talented youngster getting a well deserved break in the industry. In reality, (as much as it is hidden by YouTube) these individuals are tightly controlled by the mass media and their fame is not as autonomous as it appears.
I like to remind myself of these facts when I consider doing THIS at my wedding:
Burgess J., Joshua, G., ‘YouTube and The Mainstream Media’ in YouTube: Online and Participatory Culture, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, pp. 15-37
While discussing YouTube, José van Dijck argues that the site’s interface influences the popularity of videos through ranking tactics that promote popular favourites (Reader, page 94). How do ranking tactics impact on the formation online ‘communities’?
Sometimes using the internet can feel like you’re part of one big democratic family whose opinions only rely on its members. In fact, users enjoy feeling like they are part of an online community that is in control of a site, not the other way around. However, websites sculpt the workings of online communities using ranking tactics, often unknown to the user. These tactics often work under the guise of random selection, meaning that a site can appear to provide information in an indiscriminate order while it is actually “maneuvering individual users and communities” (2009: 45).
Enriching an online ‘community’ is crucial for sites such as YouTube and Facebook. This is because they provide a sense of belonging to people using their site, which is crucial to user loyalty and consequently the success of the website. However, each site’s understanding of ‘community’ differs greatly. José Van Dijck explains, “On the face of it, ‘community’ strongly connotes the inclination of users to belong to a (real-life) group and be involved in a common cause”(2009:45).
These are the aims of many sites that use ranking tactics to simulate a real-life group. YouTube’s online community is what van Dijk calls a ‘taste community’ (2009:45), in which communal cultural preferences are shared. YouTube’s Terms of use emphasise their site as an online community, ‘Remember that this is your community! Each and every user of YouTube makes the site what it is so don’t be afraid to dig in and get involved.’ (2009:45). However, they neglect to mention their own involvement in manipulating this community.
Ranking tactics determine the popularity of particular videos on YouTube, promoted largely by its online community. Ranking is overtly displayed visually on the homepage of YouTube.
Categories include:
– most viewed
– most discussed
– top favourites
– top rated
The significance of YouTube’s ranking tactic exists in its reliance on users and producers for evaluation. This is achieved using coded mechanisms that direct the users to popular favourites using download measurements. YouTube by connects people through evaluation using, “algorithms, the technical details of which remain undisclosed” (van Dijk, 2009:45). The private process of YouTube is worth being skeptical about. While we are told that the rankings on YouTube are purely viewer controlled, YouTube’s resistance in making their processes transparent suggest a greater involvement from the company.
And then there is Facebook. The seemingly unsystematic way in which features such as ‘Top News’ and ‘Friends Albums’ appear with your ‘friends’ information creates the illusion of a completely free online community. However, Facebook’s role in the creation of its online community is far more involved than many realise.
The site functions so that links are prioritized over status updates. While this appears to randomly appear on people’s ‘Top News’, links are ranked above status updates by Facebook to create greater user engagement with the site. Put simply, it keeps people on Facebook for longer without making it obvious how.
Online communities are largely sculpted by ranking tactics that function on sites such as YouTube and Facebook to generate maximum engagement and activity on their site.
José van Dijck, ‘Users Like You?’ Theorizing Agency in User-Generated Content’, Media, Culture and Society 31 (2009): 41-58
Olivia Chapman 