Prior to the release, I was intrigued by how the show could pick the so-called "best" influencer among 77 competitors on different social media platforms and providing different content in various ways through an offline show. Under the assumption that the results of the show could only be disclosed months later due to post-production, it was not possible to have real-time voting and for the influencers to tap on their existing followers/membership base so I didn't know exactly how the selection and judging criteria would be. It is debatable as to whether the format of the show and whether the rounds were fair to every influencer and I honestly did not care about who won the title in the end since I knew none of them except Jang Keun-seok who is a celebrity/artist in the first place. Although I must say, I felt that the winner deserved to have the prize money taken away for being a bragging blabbermouth despite the confidentiality clause.
The show was boring to me from the start because the first episode took so much time to introduce these influencers to the extent that it was becoming repetitive. While the influencers gushed about their fellow competitors from time to time whenever someone considered "big" in their circle appeared, that enthusiasm was somewhat lost on me because I didn't know who they were. If the viewers are those who follow the influencers closely or are aware of who are the bigwigs in the Korean influencer scene, maybe the introduction section wouldn't come across as so lengthy and yawn-inducing though.
Of course, things got better as the game progressed but I did wonder if some of the rounds were fair especially when the influencers were paired up and some were ousted because of their partners' being too fixated on doing what they thought was best or their incompetence. Ultimately, the influencer should be responsible for their personal performance since they are on their own in the online arena. Makes no sense to me if they were kicked out because of another person's mistake. In addition, to have the competition's outcome being decided in a controlled and offline environment also gave me doubts on whether it was fair after all. The Internet is an entirely different ball game after all compared to the real world.
Rather than discussing the game rounds in detail or which influencer played their game well, I felt that there was more interesting stuff which I observed outside the main event i.e. the competition. Perhaps some food for thought for all while viewing this show?
1) The perception of status based on perceived effort
It appears that in the influencer world, people who are active on certain platforms are considered to be of a higher class compared to others and this is seemingly tied to the type of content they produce. It was clear from the show that the TikTokers while boasting of huge follower numbers because of the global reach of the platform itself, weren't seen so favourably by their peers compared to people who had smaller numbers but were on platforms like YouTube. The way I understand it was that it is more difficult to get people to become subscribers on YouTube vs. becoming a follower on TikTok and that TikTokers produce short-form videos as compared to YouTube where the video length is much longer generally. As such, it is natural to assume that because the video is longer, more effort is needed to plan, film and edit the YouTube videos as compared to a TikTok video which may be as short as less than a minute.
As I am not a TikTok user, I do not really understand the dynamics of that platform or what is considered popular there. However, as a YouTube user, I only subscribe to channels when I really like the content, the content producer and would like to keep going back to watch new videos from that channel. As such, pressing that subscribe button on YouTube probably requires a more deliberate and conscious effort on the user's part (at least for me) compared to just liking or following an user account such as one on Instagram or X or Facebook. As for the effort part, I do agree that the long form videos require a lot of time and work but if the TikToker consistently churns out short form videos, say on a daily basis, then that can be seen as hard work as well - just that it's more spread out and may not be as apparent.
2) Monetisation vs. advertisement revenue - direct vs. indirect support
Some social media platforms allow influencers to earn money through monetisation functions like receiving tips or rewards while others offer advertisement revenue based on views. From the show, some influencers seem to think that even though they have lower follower numbers, the fact that they earned more through monetisation which is a direct form of support shown from their followers is a reflection of their superiority vs. those who have huge follower numbers but maybe not an equally big amount of advertisement revenue to reflect their fanbase.
I do use X and Facebook to get the word out whenever I update my blogs so these are essentially for PR purposes rather than for earning money or gaining a huge follower base. And since I do not have a huge follower base to begin with, I have no idea how and how much people can earn through these platforms. While I do see why those influencers who make huge money through monetisation functions see themselves as being more superior because they have a seemingly more engaged and fervent fan base who is willing to pay, we also cannot ignore the fact that some of these functions require payment so that the fans can gain access to extra stuff.
On the other hand, advertisement revenue doesn't look so passive or indirect as it seems - you actually have to click and view a video or post or be made to sit through a full ad before accessing the desired content at times. I would think that there is nothing that suggests that one avenue is better than the other - it's just different ways of showing support.
3) Followers vs. engagement - which is more meaningful?
The game started off with ranking the influencers based on their follower count which can be seen as unfair because the social media platforms have different "hurdles" to cross, be it perceived or actual, when it comes to users choosing whether to follow an account. As I noted above, becoming a YouTube channel subscriber certainly means a more conscious and obvious show of interest on my part compared to doing the same for an Instagram or X account. While follower count may be important to influencers because this can affect the kind of money they can command for commercial tie-ups, I feel that engagement may be a more meaningful metric but the criteria to assess this across platforms is even more challenging to do. As such, it is understandable that the show chooses to use follower count as a starting point to rank people despite the potential controversy about the nature and reach of these different social media platforms.
4) Getting attention in the right way - substance or minimal effort as long as you win?
I can't say for others but in my case, I follow social media accounts of non-celebrities primarily because I like the content. However, this competition has also showed that there are some influencers who capitalise on their physical/sexual charm or their gift of the gab or by being unconventional to stand out from the crowd and become successful - nothing wrong with that as long as the market demands it. The interesting thing you can observe from this show is, humans can be very contradictory when it comes to alternative definitions of being worthy of success.
While users may like someone who flaunts her nice figure (those male influencers who were fawning over the female influencers dressed sexily), when it comes to that person becoming your competitor, some influencers "look down" on these people by saying that they are just "selling their bodies" for eyeballs and have no substance to speak of. Likewise, for contestants who were just saying controversial things, being critical of everything or saying things which others don't dare to, shouting or putting on an act to fish for attention, that didn't seem to sit well with some influencers even though they admitted that this was indeed effective in getting people's interest.
For the round when people were supposed to upload a thumbnail post to attract attention in a short period of time, some influencers were taking the "sneaky way out" by producing photos with minimal effort just to hog the centre spot. Would you then say that these people did not deserve to win because their actions defeated the purpose of the contest or would you conclude that as long as they got the attention they wanted, it did not matter if the content had no substance so as to speak?
And it is worth noting the change in sentiment towards Jang Keun-seok's participation in this contest right from the start. While people were in awe of him when he first arrived, some influencers soon felt that it was unfair for him to join because he was already famous before he became an influencer. The truth was that, he was already active on past editions of online platforms before social media and influencers became buzzwords so he can be considered as an experienced predecessor in this kind of online engagement. And honestly speaking, he wasn't as popular as compared to his heyday when he joined this competition. As such, you can say that he was riding on the coat-tails of his past fame but the extent of this advantage could be quite limited. Besides, things were evened out because he was on a comparatively more challenging platform i.e. YouTube and was still relatively new to this influencer thing thus his follower count wasn't that high yet. From what happened, it reflects the fact that when people see others competing with them but do not feel that they have the substance or they actually have a perceived unfair advantage or headstart, the latter is generally not viewed too favourably.
While the show itself had some flaws and may not satisfy everyone with the way the competition was conducted or the outcome, I thought that it was still valuable in terms of offering some interesting observations on human behaviour on the sidelines. Perhaps if you adjust your expectations accordingly, it might still be palatable after all.
No comments:
Post a Comment