"Always-Recording": A study of always-on culture within the vlogging community.

Introduction

In contemporary culture, connection to others through technology has become the default state of being. As it stands, the majority of people in the Western world at least have a computer if not a smart phone and other devices that can be used to access the Internet. Each year, something new evolves that allows people to have a more constant connection to the online world, a culture that has been given the name by media researchers of “always on”. Just as the technology changes that connects people to the digital world, the academic research about the effects this cultural perspective has needs to keep pace. One aspect of “always on” culture that has not really been explored in present research is the community of YouTube, the content producers, consumers, and those who do both. Burgess and Green (2009a) reported that vlog style videos took up an astounding 40 percent of the videos coded Most Discussed. Their popularity has only increased over the recent years with media personalities now being recognised as celebrities. This collaborative essay will be looking at always-on culture and its impact within the YouTube community. It will look at the background of always-on and move on to studying how YouTubers address their audience, the changing nature of advertising, and finally, the way YouTubers stay connected to their audience through other media platforms.

Always On: An Overview

“Always on” culture can be most easily summed up as always being or having the ability to be connected to “the network”, as researcher dana boyd calls it. In her research and writing about always on, boyd embraces the concept and speaks about ways it can be utilized and the advantages it has, from politics to personal use. One of the biggest distinctions that boyd defines in her work, Participating Always-On is how always on doesn’t simply mean always on and accessible for everyone. There is nuance in the term always on that is not completely conveyed when one first hears it. Today especially, there is a spectrum of being “on” ranging from actively posting on a social media site to simply having cell phone reception or wireless internet access. While an individual might not constantly be checking their Instagram feed or posting to Twitter, their profile is always there to be accessed by their followers and beyond.

Always on culture also has critics or at least cautious participants. One of the biggest researchers that takes on a more critical perspective in terms of the impact of always on on social interactions and relationships is Sherry Turkle. Turkle, like boyd, is also prolific with her work in the area of always on within digital communication research. Unlike boyd, Turkle raises more concerns about this uber connected lifestyle that most of the Western world has come to embrace as the norm. She laments her perceived loss of the company of strangers in public places, everyone on a device and not simply existing in the moment. Constant connection is something that should be executed with caution.

There are many facets of always on culture that can be taken beyond these broad strokes and brought into conversations about specific platforms that allow us constant access to each other and even strangers. As mentioned, there has been copious amounts of discussion about always on culture in a general sense, but one specific platform that has not been addressed in large capacity is YouTube. There are many aspects of YouTube and YouTube culture that lend themselves to be in conversation with always on culture.

Always on and YouTube

One of the ways in which it seems particularly worthwhile to explore is the type of relationship that successful vloggers are able to establish with their audiences. In the context of Always-on culture, it is not only relevant to look at how users of networked devices engage with online content, but also at how such content is specifically constructed in order to appeal to them: in YouTube vlogging culture, one can detect the emergence of trends content creators take up in a way that seems to suggest that there are implicit expectations on the quality standards for this type of contributions. These can include visual features, for example the use of interactive buttons within the videos, which the vloggers usually signal to encourage viewers to subscribe to their channels or follow their activities on a variety of different platforms, or more interestingly performative features.

Andrew Tolsons’ article “A New Authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube” (2010) carries out an analysis of how these media personalities construct their online presence within the community in a relatively new panorama of performer-spectator relationships: drawing from Dyer (1991) and Marshall’s (1997) accounts on celebrity and stardom, it presents a critical overview of the shift such relationships undertook during the transaction from broadcast outlets to digital, more interactive platforms of content creation and sharing. Stressing the conversational character of vloggers’ communicative practices, which works along with mainly domestic settings and an amateurish technical attention, Tolson argues that a “rhetoric of authenticity” is played out which corroborates the impression of a higher degree of intimacy between the audience and the performer. A newly elaborated notion of authenticity is then at stake, where the inherent constructedness of a performance is exploited for the sake of the development of what Scannell (1996, 2001) calls a “communicative context”, within which the conversational quality of communication establishes a “care-structure” relationship between the performers and their spectators, allowing for the cultivation of sociability. An example of that would be vloggers’ widespread habit to invite their viewers to engage with the posted content via the comment section available: spectators are openly invited to share their thoughts and personal experiences related and in reaction to the content, encouraging the impression of reciprocal concern that is an important feature of face-to-face communication. The fact that this is to be found in online platforms shows that the line dividing off and online behaviors is everything but neat.

Horton and Wohl (1956), in their sociological study of the relationship between spectators and media personalities, developed the notion of para-social interaction at work between these two parts; while it is still a useful concept to employ in observing how vlog’s viewers are positioned in this paradigm, the higher degree of interactivity available with the content creators on YouTube than with traditional media’s persona calls for a more attentive and up-to-date account of the concerns arising around the nature and characteristics of such relationships. Vloggers break down the “fourth wall” while engaging with their audiences, striving to give a most personalized turn on their posted content and therefore strengthening the impression that spectators are dealing with real, 360 degrees people. While Turner (2010) argues for a dissolution of a hierarchy of discourse - where content creators have ultimately the control over media discourses, Wernick (1991) and Hearn (2008) take into account how vloggers’ communicative practices and effort to build up an “ideology of authenticity” (Burgess and Green, 2009b) are rather finalised into a peculiar form of promotional discourse which has the self at its centre. Commenting on this, Tolson writes that “social networking on the Internet is the playful (but sinister) version of the self-promotional qualities necessary to operate in the flexible, casualized ‘creative economy’, where the performance of ‘any imagined ‘authentic self’’ is inevitably compromised by its marketization”.

Smith (2016) similarly reports how vloggers online presence ultimately works within a context of “production and circulation of self via social media’s mechanisms of promotion, exposure and archiving”. In his article “‘Imagining others more complexly’: celebrity and the ideology of fame among YouTubes’ ‘Nerdfighteria’”, he examines the contradiction underlying YouTubers’ attempt to be perceived as genuine human beings. Hank and John Green came up with such slogan, which is referred to as ‘IOMC’ in short, while promoting what should be a method for online engagement which is beneficial for the whole community of both contributors and spectators. As a philosophy of ‘self-other’ relation, Smith writes, ‘IOMC’ functions as an “acknowledgement of radical uniqueness and unknowability of ‘the other’s individuality”, but it also reinforces a discursive device to support fame and avoiding criticism. This means that while vloggers may strive to convey a performance of self which is as authentic as possible, it is becoming a common practice to make it clear that what viewers see is just one - or more - aspect of the complex range of one’s personality which transcends the media persona visible on the platform. On the one hand, this entails that vloggers have an interest in stressing that their real-life personality is not something which is “always on” to be accessible and experienced by others as they wish, working against Sherry Turkle’s (2011) concerns about the objectification of others which being always connected seems to encourage. On the other hand, however, scholars such as Faucher (2014) have pointed out how Web 2.0 platforms force their users to invest in creative content creation as a form of free labour, where (paraphrased in Smith, 2016) “one’s identity and working life comprise together and could easily lead to empowerment or exploitation”. The latter is therefore a concern one should take into account as the possible downside of Shirky’s push for more creative and personalised contributions online.

Making Money: The Drive to be Always On

This drive for more creative and more personal content has always led those that consume content to question whether it is created on platforms such as YouTube for communal purposes or for profit. Shirky (2010) maintains that in order to continue to produce content that is created with civic values, we as a society must contribute in a financial way in order for it to persistently influence society. Unlike content created for civic values, that which is created for communal purposes, like that of YouTube content, is produced free for the purpose of social entertainment. If this was the case, then it brings about the question as to why those on YouTube are able to make a career out of the content they create. There is the creative rights aspect, in that those that produce art should be paid, as it is a difficult process to not only come up with original ideas for content on YouTube, but to also produce, direct, edit, publish content without a team of people. This is a considerable effort to create something without being in some way rewarded for it.

YouTube has had a system where it has advertisements as far back as 2005 when it was purchased by Google (Cunningham et al, 2016), and the way it has conducted how it advertises has changed. In one of his blog articles, YouTuber John Green (2014) broke down the ‘profit’ that those that post original content received based on the number of views a video gets. He explains that where once YouTubers received an acceptable amount from advertisements, enough for people to make a living, this stopped being the case roughly four years ago. The popularity of YouTube, and the idea of instant fame on a platform that was accessible to everyone drove an influx of ‘amateur’ vloggers and video makers. The content that was distributed changed from single person productions to professional television and movies with full production casts. This convergence of media use on the single platform of YouTube meant that advertisements were spread over more content, resulting on less revenue for those that accumulated money through advertisements in relation to their number of views.

Despite this, this has not stopped those on YouTube creating content. If anything, YouTube is producing more content in its history that it ever has before. Funding is now largely done through donations on sites such as Patreon.com, where viewers pay for the content they want, and 95% of the money goes directly to the creator. Green (2014) explains that now through sites like these, content creators are able to earn a living again. It is also ideal for up-and-coming companies to make a start. Regardless of how individuals on YouTube make their money, it is money still being made. Through data mining (Kennedy, 2016), Google and YouTube are able to see who makes the best profits and how; one of the key contributing factors as to why Google initially purchased YouTube was due to its rise in popularity, and this its ability to make money.

Despite being aware that YouTubers make money from their videos, and that YouTubers discuss the amount of money being earned in general, what individual YouTubers earn is a subject that they don’t discuss. With creators such as PewDiePie, the most subscribed YouTuber, who went from being a college dropout working in at a hotdog stand, to being abundantly financially stable; to Mystic7, a creator known for sitting on his mobile phone making Clash of Clan videos strategy tutorials, to exclusively making content related to Pokémon Go. Despite being just as popular before switching content, Mystic7 now gets exclusive access and invitations to Pokémon Go events around the world, a bonus for posting exclusively for a major corporation. Regardless of why or how YouTubers make money, the fact that there are those that seek out the platform in order to make a regular income from the knowledge that others can and have previously is the driving force behind beginning to explain how YouTube, through capitalism, contributes to the need for individuals to be always-on.

There is no better platform with which to sell yourself than through social media, which is all connected and owned by the same company, if you take the time to connect the corporate connections (Zuboff, 2015). Providing a constant online presence correlates with reminding viewers that creators exist, and they exist for you to watch them, for you to provide their earnings. Therefore, the best way to do this is to remain always on is either in the form or posting videos every other day to satiate fan’s needs or making sure you remain active through other social media platforms, such as Instagram, Facebook, and perhaps more frequently through Twitter.

YouTube and Beyond

In order to maintain an active persona, most YouTubers use other forms of social media to promote their own content, as well as, having a more personal relation with their fanbase. Social forums, such as Twitter, allow for these media stars to demonstrate their relatable selling point. Twitter blurs the line between “social classes” allowing everyday people to communicate directly with celebrities and celebrities can act like normal people. Always-on culture focuses on our engagement with social media and this section of the essay will be looking at how YouTubers embrace other platforms in order to engage with more fans, but will also look at the disadvantages of having a big online presence.

In her book Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other (2011), Turkle explores always-on culture and our relationship with technology. She argues that our ideal state is to “never be alone but always in control”. This idea can be applied to the YouTube community and vloggers. Vloggers are known for sharing, what seems to be, their private life, yet it should be reminded that they are in complete control of what they post and show only select parts of their life. When promoting their own content over other media platforms, YouTubers tend to build an engagement with their fans through a series of posts or Tweets in the lead up to publishing their content. By having this build up, they set the first impression for how fans should view the content, for example, the vlogger may post an extreme headline (commonly referred to as clickbait) to grab viewers’ attention and ensure they engage with the media content. Thus, linking into Turkle’s idea of control. YouTube stars retain control by manipulating information and controlling their engagement with fans. Due to the social aspect of these websites, no user is truly alone either. Twitter allows users to be notified when certain accounts post on the website. These alerts keep both YouTubers and their fans constantly connected with each other, reflecting Turkle’s first statement of never wanting to be alone.

Turkle (2011) carries on to discuss freedom within the always-on culture. The over-sharing nature of social media makes freedom questionable; are we really free if we constantly feel the need to post online? This question can be explored within the vlogging community. Social media for these people becomes an additional job. Every post or engagement becomes scrutinised by their fanbase, and every decision within their private life has to be shared so as to not lose fan interest. For example, just as a celebrity’s relationship becomes public knowledge, so too does the media star’s. Due to the information available online, fans can have a more in-depth involvement. However, these types of fans can cause strain on the vlogger’s real-life relationships by making fake photo edits, spreading false rumours. Thus, adding to Turkle’s idea of restrained freedom. By using multi-media platforms, vloggers allow for a wide range of fans to be able to engage with them, instead of just relying on the comments section on YouTube. This in turn makes them more connected online, as their online presence is spread across a number of forums. Through other media, these online personalities can bring potential viewers back to their main site, YouTube, to allow their popularity on the site to increase and bring in higher revenues. However, it is now a common problem for other online profiles to post content, without the creator’s permission, meaning they too collect a revenue. This again follows Turkle’s argument surrounding a new definition of independence.

To summarise, the vlogger must embrace digital life to its full extent in order to stay relevant to an audience that is always connected, always watching. Even if this means sacrificing their freedom.

References

boyd, D. (2008). “Digital Handshakes in Networked Publics: Why Politicians Must Interact, Not Broadcast.” In Ben Rigby (ed.), Mobilizing Generation 2.0. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. http://www.danah.org/papers/essays/DigitalHandshakes.pdf

boyd, D. (2012). 'Participating Always-On Lifestyle' from Michael Mandiberg (ed.) The Social Media Reader, New York University Press,p.71-76

Burgess, J., Green, J. (2009a) YouTube: Digital Media and Society Series UK: Polity Press

Burgess, J. and Green, J. (2009b). YouTube: Online video and participatory culture, Cambridge: Polity.

Cunningham, S., Craig, D., & Silver, J. (2016) YouTube, multichannel networks and the accelerated evolution of the new screen ecology. Convergence-the International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(4), 376-391

Dyer, R. (1991). “A Star Is Born and the construction of authenticity”. In Stardom: Industry of desire, Edited by: Gledhill, C. London: Routledge.

Faucher, K.X., (2014), Veblen 2.0: neoliberal games of social capital and the attention economy as conspicuous consumption. In tripleC journal for a global sustainable information society, 12 (1), 45–60.

Green H (2014) The $1,000 CPM: advertising is a kinda shitty model. It’s very exciting that we’re moving beyond it. Medium.com, 15 April. Available at: https://medium.com/@hankgreen/the-1-000-cpmf92717506a4b (accessed 4 August 2015).

Hearn, A. (2008). “Variations on the branded self: Theme, invention, improvisation and inventory”. In The media and social theory, Edited by: Hesmondhalgh, D. and Toynbee, J. 194–210. London: Routledge.

Horton, D. and Wohl, R. (1956). Mass communication and para-social interaction:observations on intimacy at a distance. Psychiatry, 19(3): 215–229.

Kennedy, H. (2016). ‘Chapter 1: Social Media Data Mining Becomes Ordinary, in Post, Mine, Repeat Social Media Data Mining Becomes Ordinary. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp 17-33

Marshall, P. D. (1997). Celebrity and power: Fame in contemporary culture, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Scannell, P. (2001). Authenticity and experience. In Discourse Studies, 3(4): 405–411.

Shirky, C. (2011), Gin, Television and Cognitive Surplus in Cognitive surplus : creativity and generosity in a connected age, London: Penguin pp. 1-29

Smith, D. R. (2016) ‘Imagining others more complexly’: celebrity and the ideology of fame among YouTube’s ‘Nerdfighteria’, Celebrity Studies, 7:3, 339-353, DOI: 10.1080/19392397.2015.1132174

Tolson, A. (2010). A new authenticity? Communicative practices on YouTube. Critical Discourse Studies, 7 (4), pp. 277-289 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17405904.2010.511834

Turkle, S. (2011). Always-on in Alone Together : Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. New York: Basic Books

Wernick, A. (1991). Promotional culture: Advertising, ideology and symbolic expression, London: Sage Publications.

Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilisation. Journal of Information Technology (30), 75-89. Shirky, C. (2010) Cognitive Surplus: Creativity and Generosity in a Connected Age. London: Penguin Press.