The Amplification of Consumer Culture Through Celebrities

Role of Influencers within Consumer Culture.

Consumer culture sets to create a relationship between the consumer and the services or goods that are being marketed towards them. With the progression of Web 2.0., marketers have used influencers to effectively promote their brands, ‘Social media posts represent a more effective advertising channel for influencers than for celebrities’ (Grave and Bartsch, 2022). Marketers have deemed to use influencers due to their pre-garnered, specialised audience – more specialised than a celebrity. They operate a key role within the current consumer culture landscape, due to their perceived ‘relatability’ and their audience looking to them as a trusted source of information, their recommendations are extremely powerful in shaping their audience’s consumer preference. Influencers are multi-faceted however, there are a multitude of effects an influencer can have on their audience. Social proof is an example and links to the discussion previously about their recommendations being able to shape consumer preference, to regurgitate the influencers opinion to reflect ‘normal’ or ‘accepted’ social behaviour. As a result of many influencers marketing high end brands, consumption has the risk of becoming conspicuous consumption. With their levels of influence, especially in the UK, audiences are at danger to undisclosed paid promotions which explains the existence of the advertising regulatory board, ASA.

The ASA’s role in the current landscape is to protect the consumer from adverts that are ‘misleading, harmful, offensive or irresponsible.’ (1), if a creator discloses a paid promotion to their audience, there will be a higher level of scepticism about their genuine feelings than on a product that was not disclosed as an advert. To prevent misleading advertising, the ASA introduced a ruling where digital influencers must include ‘#ad’ in their post to make it evidently clear that the post is a paid partnership.

Conspicuous consumption is ever-growing on the digital space, with rappers flexing their designer clothing in music videos or on social media, the impact of their influence can be seen with many trends that span across many platforms, especially from rapper Playboi Carti. He has managed to kickstart a huge fashion phenomenon due to the types of clothing he and co-signs of his record label ‘Opium’ wear. Labelled ‘Opium-core’, audiences of these artists film themselves dressed in mostly all black with a key brand being Rick Owens. Comparable to the artist Sematary – who we will deep dive into later – he leads the charge into bringing new trends into fashion, despite the cost which many would have previously scoffed at. With some audience members buying replicas of the clothes by sourcing them straight from factories – coming from Chinese sweatshops – for a fraction of the price using middlemen with the biggest middlemen website being ‘PandaBuy’. An ethics debate kickstarts when it comes to sourcing replicas from China as there lies a grey area of ‘if I buy it directly from the company, they will still use those factories’, despite being the truth for some brands, Rick Owens products are made in a factory located in Italy. This displays the sheer potency of the influence they possess, by altering the consumer preferences so much that people want to dress like their favourite rapper so much, they save money but put their morals aside.

Critical analysis of Chapter 6: ‘Social Media and Celebrity: The Internet of Self’ (Williamson, 2016).

Throughout Williamson’s book: ‘Celebrity and the Making of Fame’, she discusses the notion of ‘celebrity’ and instead of the title of being one representative of freedom, they are seen as mere commodities.

From the beginning of Chapter 6, she highlights the importance of the DIY celebrity by referencing (Senft, 2008) who believes that DIY celebrities can sidestep gatekeepers who limited access to media previously (Williamson, 2016:130). Potentially leading to a state of democratization amongst the ‘celebrity status’. Yet within the following paragraphs, she provides a pessimistic account of the DIY celebrity and references Jodi Dean (2002) regarding self-presentation who claims it is constructed through demands of visibility connected to consumer culture. Williamson then clarifies that this presentation does not come with the technology of social media but is instead ‘a product of the circumstances that gave birth to social media.’(Williamson, 2016:131).

Throughout the chapter, Williamson goes further in-depth regarding the circumstances of social media’s birth from within the West Coast tech scene. She frequently refers to the work of Alice Marwick (2013) who believes that the current state of social softwares encourage people to highly edit and control their personas for a ‘safe-for-work’ presentation (Marwick, 2013:5). Williamson uses this to further explain that the creation of Web 2.0. was a marketing ploy, and that the new technology scene is built on a system of hierarchy and status, set to encourage engagement in the practices for presentation of self, akin to that of a micro-celebrity. T

Williamson then goes on to use and critique Jenkins’ theorised ‘participatory culture’. Her critique of Jenkins lies in his wrong implication of a sense of equality between corporations and the consumers, as consumers’ desire - unlike civilians, ‘is a top-down phenomenon’ where the elites hold the freedoms, a complete contrast to the civilian’s desire ‘desire for the public to raise its voice and to win rights and freedoms come from the mass, not the elite’(Williamson, 2016, Page 154). Further notes describe that ‘systems have become enmeshed in economic convergence, transform[ing] new media into the model of ‘older communications forms’ (Murdock and Golding, 2002:112) reinforcing the idea that invention of Web 2.0. was purely a marketing ploy and brought no real change, as inequality is growing further and that notions of celebrity ‘are growing rather than receding’ (Williamson, 2016:151), contradicting what optimistic beliefs some had with the introduction of Web 2.0.

Williamson presents a fair and balanced argument from both sides of the debate throughout this chapter, and I remain largely uncommitted to either side of her accounts. I agree with her statements regarding the ‘yuppie, techie’ culture that surrounds Web 2.0., yet I find that she downplays the cultural influence of DIY celebrities/influencers. To succeed within the DIY influencer scene, you need to bring something unique to the internet, but sometimes you are at the sheer mercy of the algorithm. There is an interesting trend between some DIY celebrities evolving into musicians, but in such an oversaturated market of music, what can one do to stand out?

Case Study – Sematary.

Many cultural trends have proven to be ones of a cyclical nature, with resurgences throughout time. Sematary is a prime example of what Williamson defines as a DIY celebrity ‘ordinary people taking over the means of media production’ (Williamson, 2016: 131), building his empire and dedicated fanbase himself, popularised from his videos of him engaging in physical altercations with the far-right. Sematary operates as a trendsetter within consumer culture, but with the trends he gives popularity again, he could be labelled as a trend-reviver. He is an amalgamation of influence and brings a refreshing counterculture; he has managed to garner a cult-like following from the new wave sound he produces combined with his unique image. Said influence can be seen not only in his style, but the messages betwixt his distorted and rage-inducing music which is comparable to the lyrics and underlying themes of tracks made by The Clash and the Sex Pistols in the mid to late 1970s. His music is a mashup of different genres: punk, trap, black metal and witch house. Such genres are reflected in the lyricism and design of each track with the inclusion of lyrics containing necrophiliac imagery bearing ties to black metal and the flow being reflective of circa 2013 Chicago drill, most notably Chief Keef. Keef, being one of the most notorious and most influential rappers to exist, is Sematary’s main inspiration for his music and fashion sense.

Keef popularised the designer brand ‘True Religion’; iconic for its distinctive horse-shoe logo sewn into all their denim products through his wear and even centring a song around the brand titled: ‘True Religion Fein’. Some could look at Keef as a brand ambassador as he contributed towards the success of TR, yet no partnership between him and TR existed, as stated in a Complex article: ‘when I got money, all of it was spent on jeans and shirts’(2). Yet, TR have proven that they disregarded the culture due to their sharp decrease in quality of the denim and quality control, but still increasingly high retail cost showing that ‘culture has become commodified, a thing to be bought and sold’ (Hesmondhalgh, 2007;15). The vast culture that Keef created is projected through Sematary, which is why I labelled him as ‘an amalgamation of influence’ and reviving those forgotten trends for modern day. He acts as social proof and influences his audiences’ consumer choices, as previously mentioned, he revived the trend of wearing True Religion and even brought a designer shoe brand ‘New Rocks’ to the front of his audiences’ attention. New Rock shoes primarily target those interested within the Gothic scene, as their shoes are black, chunky, each with their own metal elements to them. Despite the high cost of each brand, the way he incorporates these articles of clothing into his image, creates a sense of desirability which can influence his audience into shaping their consuming preferences to reflect what Sematary stands for as ‘celebrities add value to a specific brand / product by transferring the cultural association with their work to the brand’ (McCracken, 1986). Sematary is also a heavy smoker, which goes against the western governmental advice. Him incorporating this into his image can also be seen as an act of rebellion / the anti-establishment anarchism he represents.

Since before Sematary’s first album release ‘Rainbow Bridge’, his disdain for those in power, especially the police, has been apparent. In the song ‘Slaughter House’ he states: ‘Fuck the law, death to the cops’ and in a song named ‘1312’ (a way the punk scene represent the abbreviation ACAB) he states: ‘Fuck the government… Stupid copper boy, he gon’ get my pistol’. His far-left personality and his intolerance for those associated with the far-right are also intertwined within his image, as he has cut ties with artists for showing the smallest association with the right-wing and has even been arrested for physical altercations with fascists, which reinforces the image he strives for. Halkjelsvik states ‘Anti-establishment movements and parties are on the rise… illustrated by the results of the Brexit referendum and the US presidential election’.(5) helping us to understand why this culture has had a sudden resurgence, which has remained dormant for a significant amount of time. Sematary’s anti-establishment anarchism is explained in an interview with Underground Underdogs: ‘I generally hate everyone that’s in power or will be in power,’ (3) His distrust of anyone in a position of power links with what Halkjelsvik’s findings show ‘the most important sources for influence amongst the anti-establishment movement were: lack of trust in established positions, a charismatic leader and social media’. With Sematary able to utilise his image as a leader figure and use social media to cherry-pick his audience down to the people that agree with his anti-establishment anarchism to keep away right-wingers and fascists. Sematary is an outlier whose image goes against the ‘safe-for-work self-presentation’ Marwick discusses and proves that ‘freewheeling creativity, rebellion’ are still present online without being ‘dwarfed by networks of personal brands contending for the benefits of high online status’ (Marwick, 2013:5).

Within his community, a sense of belonging arises due to the manufactured streamlined audience and the people that found him because of his extreme views, thus potentially leading to increased consumption of his content. With the following Sematary and his label ‘HAUNTED MOUND’ has, being at its largest ever, they have toured worldwide and released merchandise: featuring t-shirts, patches, CD’s, tapestry’s, etc. all at limited stock numbers which encourages his dedicated audience to feel compelled to buy merchandise to avoid the fear of missing out.

Despite being a fan of his work, I do question true authenticity of Sematary – as any celebrity is never 100% authentic. I question whether the image Sematary has constructed is not actually him (Zane Steckler), yet instead a constant persona that he dedicates his life to knowing that he will attract an audience for appearing ‘relatable’ to some people by including themes such as various mental illness and extreme violent fantasies within his songs. This persona could be put on to have the appearance that he is ‘suffering’ but, he is acting this way to capitalise from those that are suffering, being able to find self-reflection within many of his lyrics. Plus, there have been accusations of verbal and physical abuse from his ex-girlfriend, furthering harming his image as he has kicked people out of his record labels for having similar accusations against their name. Finally, people from within the community discovered that Sematary’s parents are very wealthy which could explain his extensive True Religion and designer clothes collection, directly contrasting his ‘suffering’ image that he attempts to produce.

Underground artists are crucial within an era of consumer culture. Their unique style and presentation of self, contrasts the ‘safe-for-work’ image that Marwick argues. Their unique image garners a loyal audience who find self-reflection within their constructed authenticity. Alternative perspectives are offered from underground artists that won’t be found amongst mainstream artists; with a refreshing counter-cultural influence that is also offered.