Feeding One's Ego Through Social Media

Illustration by John Holcroft

How many 'likes' does one need to feel fulfilled and satisfied? British artist, John Holcroft, nicely summarizes society's current magnetism towards social media in this one illustration. Nowadays people of all ages, especially the younger generation, are drawn to Facebook, Twitter, etc...because these mediums provide them with opportunities that were never available before. This includes forming some type of connection with their favorite celebrities, and to some extent becoming a celebrity themselves. For instance, individuals will go to YouTube to post videos, knowing that they will get some type of views, and hopefully become famous one day. Justin Bieber is a prime example of how a young Canadian kid on YouTube can get scouted for his singing talent. However, do these individuals realize what is happening behind their screen?

The documentary, "Generation Like" exposes how teenagers has migrated to the web for cultural interactions, and this movement has started the game of 'cat-and-mouse.' In the past, corporations have used various marketing techniques to catch their audiences' attention, ranging from hiring celebrities to endorse their products to buying up time slots on television so they can air their commercials. In contrast, social media users, especially teenagers, are now being seek to advertise for these same corporations. As a result social currency, such as "likes" and "retweets" has become a thing in the monetary world. Social currency helps social media users buy branding, money, and fans.

These monetary values might be important to some users, however, it seems like it is the validation of their presence that is significant to them. Receiving the "100 likes" substantiates that their post reached at least 100 people, and of that 100 people, they share the same interest. In our current society, the worth of validation has inflated. No longer do people feel satisfied with "100 likes" or "100 followers," but reaching that next "100" is the goal, which forms a endless circle. In a way social media has become a 'drug' since it is so addictive. People want to get that same 'happy' feeling again and again, and the only way to do this is by posting more. So going back to our main question, how many "likes" does one need to feel fulfilled or satisfied? People still seek empowerment from social media, but moreover they want to receive the instant gratification they will obtain by posting on social media.

Cult Branding: A cultivated Effort

How do American brands effectively market themselves in ways that make them "brand cults"?

Just as all religions need followers in order to survive and thus market themselves to gain them, non-religious organizations also seek to "sell 'community, meaning and identity'" in order to become one of the elite brand cults in America (Einstein, 91). Community, meaning, and identity do not  occur naturally though, they need to be carefully cultivated, nourished, and legitimized. To do so, companies market themselves to niche groups, promising the "rituals, traditions, and a shared worldview" that people of all walks of life inherently seek (Einstein, 91).

Take Harley Davidson, when it started over 100 years ago, it did not have a cult following, a ritualistic hand signal between drivers, or a large celebrity backing. It was simply a brand with a new concept of how to get around on a bike with an engine. Through its marketing strategy, it became one of the main military tools in WWI and WWII, building a cultural identity for itself of reliance, dependability, and American freedom. Then it became the bike of Elvis, furthering both its traditions of excellence and rebellion, and enlarging and legitimatizing the community of Harley drivers. Now, it is the motorcycle company of America. It is a "religious icon" and it is a brand cult (Einstein, 91)

Cult brands do not always take decades to be created though. The Hunger Games has, in less than a decade, progressed from a brand new book series to one of the largest cult followed series in history, making over $1.5 billion on the first three movies alone. Much of this has to do with how recent social media advances have enabled the relationship between brands and fans to explode, significantly depleting the gap between companies and their target audiences. In this context, avid fans like Kaylee are able to track the movement in production of the films and follow the lives of the celebrities that participate in the movie in greater detail, and are then encouraged to share this information with their friends, thus working as unpaid marketers for all things Hunger Games. In this relatively recent change to the marketing industry, the lines between the threefold relationships of community, "community member to brand, community member to firm, and community members to each other", have blurred, allowing all three to happen in the reading of a tweet online and re-tweeting it to fellow Hunger Games community members (Einstein, 89).

This marketing change has significantly expedited the process of making brands into brand cults, while ensuring that the focus on community, meaning, and identity remain. They have transformed the art of marketing into a religious process focus on bringing community together in an identifiable way; Christianity has its services and blessings, Harley has its "Harley wave" and rallies, and The Hunger Games has its three-fingered greeting and four-toned whistle.

Other resources:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/generation-like/
http://www.harley-davidson.com/content/h-d/en_US/home/museum.html

Branding Identity

            The film, “Generation Like,” illustrates how social media and celebrities function religiously. In a media obsessed society, communities are formed online among individuals in the same fan base of films, television, or music. People gain celebrity and icon status when they accumulate a following, like Tyler Oakley after making his own YouTube videos. The film interviews different kids that have gained recognition through social media. One girl, a hunger games fanatic, says that gaining followers and status on social media has given her a sense of empowerment.

The kids depicted in the film had a false sense of empowerment. Their actions were conforming to what they believe will give them the most attention or validation, and thus they are stripped of their identities. Their new identities are created by obsessions they have or the brands they are promoting. Mara Einstein mentions that “scholars and social critics also clearly identify commercial culture as the source of identity creation.” This is evident with Steven Fernandez, who becomes a walking advertisement for the skating companies that support him. With fame Steven Fernandez transformed into “Baby Scumbag.” After his transformation, Steven no longer makes videos to show his skateboarding skills, but rather to gain attention and views on YouTube. The desire for attention and support from sponsors pushed Steven to create videos with sexualized women and guns, ultimately leaving behind his adolescence. 

Brands: Companies, Celebrities, Religions, and Us

For brands, we often think of Apple, the Nike Swoosh, and North Face, but do we ever think of people themselves as brands? When you’re a celebrity or YouTube star, does there come a point where you become a brand to sell yourself or your image? I want to explore how brands are themselves unique and universally recognized: a symbol that jumps out but is easily latched onto. As Einstein in her essay points out, intimacy is key to creating a sense of community for different brands. Brands want to foster “shared experiences, the development of myths, and the acting out of rituals” to gain a relationship with their constituents (Einstein 92). Intimacy with a higher power, whether that be God or celebrities in our culture, is something that both global markets and world religions have sought to achieve. Brands function as consumeristic icons: they help identify not only the company, but the people themselves who want to associate themselves with it.

Former Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter recently spoke at Hamilton College and he was asked about how he felt about the media and his role in it. He gave a perplexing response: A brand is who you are inside, how you want to be, while your image is what you want people to see you as or how they see you. It’s intriguing how he sees a brand as being more authentic to his true identity. 

Now, I don’t think it’s odd to think “how do people see me?”  I think evolutionarily, it's an innately human response to compare ourselves to others, as Laderman mentions. But do we often think of crafting our identity? In Generation Like, the film focuses on how people choose certain profile pictures to project an image of themselves and what they like: what brands do they enjoy and how can industries learn to target them? If we like and endorse certain brands, we enter in a community that validates not only that  product, but ourselves.

Through social media and communications with brands, we enter into a feedback-loop with members of the community endorsing the product. I buy mickey ear stickers and put them on my bedroom wall and I post Disney trailers on Facebook because I want people to know I love Disney. I know at the core they’re animated films, but I have willingly bought into the myths they tell, and I ritualistically watch their new movies because I am devoted to the brand. In our culture, we walk around as walking advertisements for other brands to brand ourselves. I want to be part of the Disney, Catholic, Amazon community because it gives me the power and ability to craft my own brand.

The famous YouTube star, Miranda Sings, has completely branded her personality. Her red lipstick, hair pins, tucked in shirt and crazy voice and attitude are widely recognizable across college campuses. This person branded herself as a crazy character that has gained a cult-like following, and from this, we can see that you can brand yourself for something you really aren’t. But as followers of Miranda, we impersonate this impersonation. There’s a sense of community of those who know her jokes and distinct voice.

I think there’s a distinction celebrities, companies, and religions have between us followers, as much as we want to interact with them and brand ourselves. These major conglomerates need a single picture, package, et cetera so that a wide range of people can adapt it as their own. We, on the other hand, can have many different brands be a part of us, which makes us “unique” (or as unique as these markets lead us to believe.) We pick and choose what brands we want on our billboard, consciously or not, and by doing so, try to brand our “true” identities. As Doulas Atkin writes, these sacred and profane brands “are being bound by the essential desires of human nature, which seeks satisfaction wherever it can” (Einstein 90). We seek satisfaction in verification, and sometimes, a Nike swoosh or Mickey ears verifies we’re part of something simple and so much more.

Branding, Icons and Religion

We are our own media companies. We create ourselves and ‘brand’ ourselves anyway we like. We are empowered by the web, and the web is empowered by us. But is this really the case? How much are we really in control of our own identity? As Einstein writes in her article, “identities are constructed through consuming”. Therefore, we are not the product of our hard work, dedication and beliefs, but a consequence of what we buy (clothes, cars, laptops etc.). The brands we wear and the things we buy are more than just goods and services, they play a vital role in communicating our ‘true’ identity to the rest of the world. This branding translates to the online world, where the things we share, tweet and like become the primary means of revealing our characters.

This communication is very critical for the “like generation”, not because it reveals their personalities but because it provides a source of validation, as well as connection to the celebrities and the online community. One source of validation comes from the idea of being liked by lots of people. If that happens, you become an icon, a secular source of  “divine representation” that can inspire others. This is where religion and identity branding meet. Tyler Oakley and Steven Fernandez are true icons in this sense, they have the capacity to induce powerful and transformative experiences within a group. Their fans look up to them for a number of reasons, either in search for a life advice or simply to be entertained. Neither Tyler nor Steven expected to reach these levels of followers at first, yet the idea of being liked and “worshiped” as a celebrity was definitely flattering.

After reaching this level of celebrity adoration, how much are they still in control of their own identities? It seems like both had to give up parts of who they are in order to reach that status. Inevitably, both of them had to adjust their content according to their needs or the desire of the fans, whether it was advertising their sponsors or adding naked girls to the videos. In the end, it seems like it’s the fans and the followers who are the true marketers, they have the ultimate power to make Tyler and Steven alter their identities in order to meet the demands of the web community.

Mike's Special Stuff

In Generation Like, the importance and influence of branding is highlighted, however, the movie overstates its transformation. Branding has existed for centuries and fundamentally impacts the perception, motives, and identity of the average person. As Mara Einstein suggests, brands are pieces of our identity. Branding reflects a religious devotion and faith in companies.  As in religion, branding lauds the importance of seemingly insignificant and malleable notions. These seemingly arbitrary distinctions of sacred and ordinary, confuse many who are not personally engaged. For example, the act of celebrating Easter may confound and confuse many atheists. Branding behaves in a similar way.

Many athletes, both professional and amateur, rely on the effectiveness of Gatorade, I considered myself one. Before every game I would rush to get my lemon-lime Gatorade, scoff at Powerade and decline basic water. Gatorade was distinctly different and superior to those alternatives. Gatorade was what Michael Jordan had, it was what every athlete had. As its commercial said,  Gatorade was created in a University of Miami laboratory to optimize the ability of athletes. Even when athletes were drinking water, they drank it out of Gatorade cups.  I bought into the branding.  For a two years in middle school and two in high school, me and my teammates flooded our bodies with Gatorade It turns out, Gatorade is actually less refreshing and replenishing than water. Gatorade exemplifies Einstein's idea that “branding is about... taking the individual aspects of a product and turning them into more than the sum of their parts.” Gatorade was and is simply water, sugar and artificial flavor, no different than any ordinary juice. Reflecting on it, my comfort in Gatorade was no different than Mike's Special Stuff in Space Jam; simply mentally replenishing. Sure it was nothing, but belief in it was good enough. Despite its simplicity, Gatorade was double the price and double the authenticity. 

Does branding work with religion?

In Generation Like and Branding Faith, a common thread is the capitalist system acting as the driver behind the paradigms under observation. Social media platforms are usually seen as a forum for others to share interests and opinions with likeminded individuals. The power of this opportunity used to be that information can be disseminated beyond the confines of time and space, shaping separate parts of the world into global communities. However, as Generation Like points out, the information shared between users during their mediated encounters is now being analyzed and coded by large corporations, as means of understanding consumer preferences and other habits. By piecing together certain aspects of a person’s social media profile, companies are able to gain insight into what products to market, when to market those products, and how to present them to specific users in an effort to increase profit. Profit increase is the end companies in Branding Faith are striving for as well.

Mara Einstein states, “…branding is about creating long-term profits and growing the business…branding exists to create profits”. With regards to religion, how does this model translate into growth for religious institutions? Would the monetary benefits of effective branding be comparable to adding members to a congregation, or a deeper commitment to the religious rituals? Based on our discussion from the beginning of the semester, the growth and prosperity of branding has an inverse relationship to the number of people regularly practicing religion. Even though Einstein gives us some insight into how religion institutions branded themselves in the earlier stages of their development, she does not explain how current branding models being used my commercial entities can be implemented to change the landscape of rituals within religion or religious practices themselves.