The Internet and Authenticity

I think that in terms of entertainment, one of the things that initially drew creators to the internet was the sense of democracy that came with it. In the early days, theoretically anyone with an internet connection and a computer could start a blog, website, or YouTube channel and potentially be the next ‘big thing’. However, with this power came great responsibility for creators who were growing in popularity: the pressure to remain authentic and true to themselves.

As all things do in a capitalistic society, at some point, things started to boil down to one question: how can I make money off of this?

I’m going to be focusing on the YouTube community and its’ content creators for this blog post, more specifically the recent scandal regarding the Fine Bros and their YouTube channel.

For context:

While a lot of people don’t necessarily know them by name, I can guarantee you that the majority of people on the internet have seen a Fine Bro’s video at least once; their popular ‘teens/elders/kids react’ videos have garnered millions of views over the last couple of years.

In late January the Fine Brothers found themselves in hot water after trying to trademark the concept of “react” videos and even seemingly the term itself. Meaning, if anyone wanted to make a video within the same ‘react’-style as the Fine Bros, they would have to go through the Fine Brother’s company, and give them a cut of the profits. Not only would they be entitled to profits, but they would also have the power to police and sensor videos which they deem as too similar to their own react format.

Unsurprisingly, a large amount of viewers did not like this idea. Though not as big as a huge, mainstream media corporation, this type of trademark is simultaneously a symbolic, yet very real threat to the democracy of the internet. The Fine Brothers lost hundreds of thousands of subscribers over just a couple of days. Also not surprisingly, they revoked their application and put up an apology video to try and counteract all the negative press they were receiving.

On a basic level, it is completely understandable that a person would want to monetize their business and ensure that they can maintain a sustainable living off of the work they do. The issue with this concept is that while it works in the film and television industries, the internet seems to be another animal altogether. Audiences are not nearly as tolerant of capitalizing on the success of a YouTube channel as watchers of television are of advertisements.

Often times after a channel beings incorporating sponsored content into their videos, audiences will be receptive, but only to a point.

A study done by Colliander and Erlandsson said that: “the writer should be perceived as liking the brand less as their enthusiasm about the brand will be seen as financially motivated. Such a betrayal will not only backfire with regard to attitude toward the blog and credibility of the blog but also adversely affect the brand” (113).

To me, nothing is more annoying and makes me want to use a brand less than when I’m swindled into watching a video that I believe to be expected content, and have it end up being an ad. If I have to hear one more ad from audible.com, I swear I’m going to quit the internet.

For example, I can personally site Tyler Oakley as a YouTuber who I feel has almost completely sold out. Every other video contains a sponsorship, all of his podcasts are sponsored, and I feel like every other tweet he puts out is advertising his book, his movie, or his television show. While I sympathize with the fact that he wants/needs to make money off the content he has created, it is incredibly alienating as an audience member to see him market a brand of ‘authenticity’ while only demonstrating a lack of real credibility. I mean, I seriously doubt he likes audible that much.

Like the quote used above dictates, his excessive use of advertisements have made me question the authenticity of his brand, and completely turned me off from being a consumer of his content. As of a couple weeks ago, I unsubscribed from his YouTube channel, and unfollowed him on Twitter, and I’m sure I’m not the only one to have been turned off by the commercialization of Tyler Oakley’s brand.

In comparison, one can look at Jenna Marbles and see a distinct difference in how her audience reacts to her channel. Being one of the most subscribed channels on YouTube and being on top of the game for the last couple years. She almost refuses to endorse products on her channels, with the exception of her and her boyfriend’s podcast, which they do to ensure they can keep it free.

Because of her resistance against sponsored content, when she and Julien do have a sponsor on their show, I feel like whatever product is being endorsed is something that they genuinely believe in. This sense of credibility has lead me to actually use and order some of the things that they’ve had talked about on their podcast. It’s because they aren’t invasive with their advertisements, nor does it upset the balance of actual created content versus what I see as “fake” or “forced” for money.

This mindset also seems to resonate with the rest of her audience, which has remained constant and growing over the last couple years, with few rumbles of unrest within the community. For the post part, viewers respect Jenna for not falling into the capitalistic machine that seems to be consuming the rest of YouTube.

In relation to the Fine Bros, I suppose it’s important to note how finicky audiences can be, and how important it is for a creator to maintain balance between making money and keeping an audience. Without an audience, you won’t be able to make money; on the flip side of the coin, if you make too much money off of sponsored content, audiences are not hesitant to revolt and voice their opinions against those who they see as ‘power/money’ hungry.

What’s your personal opinion on the topic of YouTubers adding sponsored content into their work? Okay? Not okay? Okay in moderation? Let me know in the comments! :)

Source:

The blog and the bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. (2015, February/March). Retrieved March 27, 2016, from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13527266.2012.730543

#YouTube