“It’s been a great year with Amanda — a great experiment for both of us. We thank her for her many contributions and know that she’s about to embark on new endeavors and expect there will be times in the future that we can again work together.”
ABCNews.com statement
I wonder if the news that Amanda Congdon and ABC have chosen to part ways isn’t emblematic of the diminished value of “celebrity” in media. Congdon, whose efforts with former Rocketboom partner Andrew Michael Baron pioneered the emergence of succesful new media brands, deftly positioned herself as a crossover talent after her split with the Rocketboom creator. Big media took notice and soon she was videoblogging for ABC News. While that relationship may have never been a perfect fit for either party, it was notable that big media had validated “new” media. I think part of the problem that big media still struggles with is that in many respects, they simply try to ape and replicate what is happening in emerging social media platforms. For instance, on a number of occasions, I’ve heard television colleagues talk of making things “look webby”
Talents aside, it’s not simply an Amanda Congdon or Joanne Colan that make Rocketboom cool, it’s the fact that the entire experience is built around participation and involvement. They are simply the facitlitator or custodians of community. Their “celebrity” is merely a net effect of the interactivity of the show. I don’t know whether ABC may have failed to take this fully into account, or simply wasn’t able to replicate that participation, but it appears the end result was an experience that wasn’t entirely what fans had hoped.
Katie Couric in Iraq
Celebrity’s fickle nature isn’t limited to the new media crossover talent. Just look at Katie Couric’s less than stellar transition to CBS News. I was recently with her in Iraq as she was reporting from the region. Despite her notoriety, and the timeliness of the reporting, the CBS Evening News tied for its lowest ratings (5.5 million viewers) since she took the helm. Now, CBS has given all kinds of explanations for the shows lackluster performance since she took the job, but in my mind they made a bet on her celebrity and it simply isn’t panning out.
I think we’re entering an era where celebrity in media is of far less value then the quality and authenticity of content. There is unlimited choice in how we get news, information and entertainment. We seek content that speaks to us, engages us, and gives us avenues for interactivity and participation. We want to speak with, not simply listen to the messenger. There are so many avenues now for robust discourse, that one-way media is simply having a hard time getting through. As I always say, none of this is zero sum, but certainly the shifts are pretty obvious. There is tremendous opportunity for established media to learn from emerging media and vice versa.
There are some examples of these disparate forms of media drawing on best practices learned from one another. Big media companies are are empowering their workers with new storytelling tools. My current employer, NBC News, has embraced blogs and video blogging and is making plans to do more. Just this past week they featured the enterprising work of my friend and colleague Amna Nawaz. Amna produced this web-only video about the under-reported story of land mine victims in Columbia.
Young victims of landmines
MSNBC.COM has such a thirst for original, unique first-person content that they encourage everyone to produce original video and blogs, not just re-purposed broadcast stories for the web. I’ve even gotten in on the act.
Just as old media are taking cues from new, emerging media are drawing from the experince of their corporate counterparts. Take the webisode drama “35″. “35″ is a dramatic web video series that is shot with three cameras and switched and fed live via Ustream to the web. To me the strength of this project is that it combines the ubiquity ot the internet with the spontaneity and unpredictability of live TV. “35″ was recently featured in a Wall Street Journal article, so once again we see mainstream media taking notice of creative, upstart, emerging media. “35″ runs from September 19th through the 30th, live at 9PM EDT. The show has a post show chat where fans talk with producers.
Who knows where all of this is going, but from my vantage point this is at once daunting as it is exhilarating. But for someone who makes a living in media, it’s vital to keep on top of trend. Seeing what resonates with audiences, what do they ignore, what engages them -these will be the measures of success in this dizzyingly changing media landscape. This seems clear though, treat your community, your audience as a valuable partner in your media and youll likely have a winner. Celebrity in and of itself is of limited value.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Tell that to Hollywood.
I think there’s something in human nature that will keep us interested in beautiful / talented / outrageous people. But you’re certainly right about the growing importance of engaging with your community or audience.
The case of Amanda parting ways with ABC doesn’t really play into your premise. In all likelihood Amanda is moving on to a Hollywood project and feeding into celebrity-centric culture. Perhaps it’s specifically news media becoming less celeb-obsessed? But, there’s so much evidence to the contrary.
I also think Amanda/Joanne are far more than simply custodians of community. That doesn’t fly at all. If they weren’t talented, engaging, funny and beautiful people, the show would not work. The community contributes to the show, and the community is part of its success, I’d say the show is at least 80% producer-driven.
Again, I agree with your premise – I often say we’re moving into the age of authenticity – I just don’t think we’ll ever escape celebrity, or thirst for well-produced content. Even as I promote raw citizen journalism with my project The Uptake, we’re trying to train CJs on how to produce better stories and be part of our brand, because we want people to stay interested in our content.
More from author
Chuck, never said they weren’t talented and beautiful! In respect to both, talent and beauty are abundantly clear. Sorry to all involved if i gave that short shrift!
More from author
No worries! To your point – I’m sure Andrew hugely considered the Rocketboom community when choosing Joanne to host. The community was well-established by then, and he had to find someone whose particular talent and personality would be accepted by the community.
More from author
Celeb involvement has rarely swayed my decision to watch something. Celebrity in and of itself doesn’t tell me something is worth my time. I’d rather watch a fun new show with stars I’ve never heard of than the latest from Kelsey Grammar or whoever. But I’ve always been that way, and I guess with the tremendous increase in available content combined with the decrease in time available to watch it, more people are putting substance ahead of glitter. Hopefully that will mean talent and creativity will be able to shine more, but one look at the checkout magazine racks with stories about Britney- and Katie Couric- and I don’t know how fast the change will occur!
More from author
In a conversation with the folks at Buzznet back in January, Marc Brown broached the idea of “meta-celebrity” — certainly, new media is dominated itself by celebrity culture, from Gawker Media’s celebrity obsession to the fact that Perez Hilton is reportedly the number one “blog” out there. Even Chris Crocker, while already fairly well known in the YouTube community, didn’t go “mainstream” until the Britney incident.
I’ve got a whole theory about the interplay of celebrity and new religious movements, especially within the context of Hollywood, and I’m not sure that I’d be so quick to disregard cults of personality, since those are very much older than any media. It’s just the new celebrities (and cult leaders) will live and die by their mastery of the new tools for promotion and attraction.
More from author
I agree that individual stars will be less important as we move forward. One only has to look at the longer trend of film to television to cable to web to see the vast array of choices at hand. Imagine the days when Tony Orlando’s show got canceled with a 30 share. These days nothing even sniffs a 30 on TV.
From my perspective I think brands will still be very important and the idea of a brand is slowly replacing individual celebrity. A brand can be a person, too. So the new celebrity is as much about star power as it is about their brand — what do they bring to the table that we identify them for?
More from author
What I want know is to find people who can be filters for me. News media especially created celebrity that were simply cardboard cutouts. Think the local TV news anchor. I think newspapers are the best to adapt to the web since good print journalists are actual filters that find information and distill it to us.
As you said Jim, good websites also have a community, but someone has to be the cat wrangler to keep the community energized. The new celebrities are the ons that help us all connect with each other. No more “authoritative” voices.
More from author
I recently came across this year-old blog post. It describes Paris Hilton as a post-Madonna celebrity. Old school stars, it says, are like web destinations. They attract attention based on what they themselves have to offer. But Paris Hilton has more in common with web platforms such as YouTube or Digg. She happily mentions brands and venues that she likes without being asked (ie, gives out links), which makes it fun for designers and promoters to hang out with her, which gives her more opportunities for being in the spotlight.
Katie Couric’s core competency is creating destination-type content. I’m guessing Amanda Condon’s mission at ABC was to produce the same. Old media was probably much less interested in her platform-building skills. They hired her to get – rather than give out – attention.
The problem is, today’s audience doesn’t just want to watch. They expect to be engaged, to feel a sense of connection. Which is why it’s not enough to “make things look webby”. In addition, the folks on the screen have to act webby. Their celebrity is no less important before. What’s changing is their job description.
More from author
Interesting post Jim. Don’t have a lot to add to what’s been said in comments. I think that the scarcity model of network news has been severely eroded by the Internet. I don’t think the value of pretty faces, legs or whatever’s will ever go away as long as people still have eyes. I think human nature has been around since way before media so celebrity gossip will always have an appeal at the check out counter, browser, or under the hair dryer. personally I am thrilled by the new media choices(unlimited) that I have and am part of.
More from author
Wow! once again you guys have completed the post, filling in the blanks and adding unique perspectives.
More from author
I think people want their celebs to be approachable, to be more like them. Still, starpower is still a factor. The most searched for terms online are often celebrity names.
More from author
It’s easy to allow your eyes and mind to follow that which easily grabs and holds your attention: the olympically beautiful or well done, the car wreck, the female breast or leg. Work is required to focus on other things – things arguably more human, more evolved.
While researching MSM’s online television scene, I get hooked on various network lineups of ‘death porn’ (crime scene / forensics teams featuring women in low-cut blouses posing rumps up over cadavers). I have to giggle at NCIS’ full-frontal, naked corpses’ blurred genitalia.
Watching those shows isolates, alienates, and creates in me an atmosphere of distrust and fear.
On the other hand, when I watch media created by folks I know from the vlogosphere – folks with whom I’ve stayed or have stayed with me, folks who’ve inspired, or extended hands in kindness – I am further inspired, and my soul is filled with things like hope and warmth, rather than diminished.
Celebrity? I hang out with lots of media celebs. Real ones (from work), and the ones I’ve created. The ‘real’ stars have rarely inspired anything in me but fear and trembling (with a few notable exceptions). The celebs I created make me warm, fuzzy and creatively hot. I’ve breathed the same air they breathe, broken bread with them, celebrated their successes and vulnerabilities.
The idea that you will never hang out with the actor you admire over a meal is one that by its nature diminishes your place in the world. Turn that idea on its head. “I can have lunch with whomever I please,” is an idea I played around with for years. It’s now a reality. I regularly hang out with folks I find totally amazing, and life is rich as a result.
Now THAT’s star power.
More from author
The gap between “normal” people and celebrities is always shrinking. Pop culture, like religion, is built upon a concept that there’s an ideal lifestyle to aspire to. But when someone can ride a wave of democratized YouTube success toward even a fraction of the power that “real” (industry-created) celebrities have, that shakes the paradigm.
You’re right to say content is swiftly becoming the magnet, not celebrity. Enter: the death of net neutrality. (We can’t have the people choosing their media without corporate oversight indefinitely, now, can we?)
More from author
Jan, wonderful, thoughtful remarks.
More from author
“…treat your community, your audience as a valuable partner in your media and youll likely have a winner. Celebrity in and of itself is of limited value.”
That says it all. So very true!
More from author
dn403ylridkjxaop
In a conversation with the folks at Buzznet back in January, Marc Brown broached the idea of “meta-celebrity” — certainly, new media is dominated itself by celebrity culture, from Gawker Media's celebrity obsession to the fact that Perez Hilton is reportedly the number one “blog” out there. Even Chris Crocker, while already fairly well known in the YouTube community, didn't go “mainstream” until the Britney incident.
I've got a whole theory about the interplay of celebrity and new religious movements, especially within the context of Hollywood, and I'm not sure that I'd be so quick to disregard cults of personality, since those are very much older than any media. It's just the new celebrities (and cult leaders) will live and die by their mastery of the new tools for promotion and attraction.
More from author
{ 5 trackbacks }