Content uploaded by Alice Marwick
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alice Marwick on Aug 15, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
To See and Be Seen:
Celebrity Practice on
Twitter
Alice Marwick
Microsoft Research, USA
danah boyd
Microsoft Research, USA
Abstract
Social media technologies let people connect by creating and sharing content. We examine the use
of Twitter by famous people to conceptualize celebrity as a practice. On Twitter, celebrity is
practiced through the appearance and performance of ‘backstage’ access. Celebrity practitioners
reveal what appears to be personal information to create a sense of intimacy between participant
and follower, publicly acknowledge fans, and use language and cultural references to create
affiliations with followers. Interactions with other celebrity practitioners and personalities give
the impression of candid, uncensored looks at the people behind the personas. But the indeterminate
‘authenticity’ of these performances appeals to some audiences, who enjoy the game playing intrinsic
to gossip consumption. While celebrity practice is theoretically open to all, it is not an equalizer or
democratizing discourse. Indeed, in order to successfully practice celebrity, fans must recognize the
power differentials intrinsic to the relationship.
Keywords
celebrity, intimacy, micro-celebrity, performance, self-presentation, Twitter
Introduction
Networked media is changing celebrity culture, the ways that people relate to celebrity images,
how celebrities are produced, and how celebrity is practiced. Gossip websites, fan sites, and blogs
provide a plethora of new locations for the circulation and creation of celebrity, moving between
user-generated content and the mainstream media. The fragmented media landscape has created a
shift in traditional understanding of ‘celebrity management’ from a highly controlled and regulated
institutional model to one in which performers and personalities actively address and interact with
Corresponding author:
Dr. Alice Marwick, Microsoft Research, 1 Memorial Drive 12th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
Email: amarwick@microsoft.com
Convergence: The International
Journal of Research into
New Media Technologies
17(2) 139–158
ªThe Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1354856510394539
con.sagepub.com
fans. We conceptualize celebrity as an organic and ever-changing performative practice rather
than a set of intrinsic personal characteristics or external labels. This practice involves ongoing
maintenance of a fan base, performed intimacy, authenticity and access, and construction of a con-
sumable persona. Increased access to technologies of content creation and distribution has popu-
larized techniques of ‘micro-celebrity’, using social media to develop and maintain an audience
(Senft, 2008). Micro-celebrity can be understood as a mindset and set of practices in which
audience is viewed as a fan base; popularity is maintained through ongoing fan management; and
self-presentation is carefully constructed to be consumed by others. Just as we now see ‘regular’
people adopting micro-celebrity tactics to gain status online, we also see famous people using
similar techniques on social media sites to maintain popularity and image. We argue that ‘celebrity’
has become a set of circulated strategies and practices that place fame on a continuum, rather than as
a bright line that separates individuals.
To investigate these changes, we look at celebrity practice by famous people on the
microblogging site Twitter. We draw from Erving Goffman’s dramaturgical metaphors to consider
how celebrity practice is performed with the help of others. Through analysis of tweets from
237 highly followed Twitter users, we find that celebrity practice involves presenting a seemingly
authentic, intimate image of self while meeting fan expectations and maintaining important
relationships. Three case studies – pop star Mariah Carey interacting with fans, teen queen Miley
Cyrus demonstrating public connection to other teen starlets, and gossip columnist Perez Hilton
uneasily walking a line between insider and outsider – show how Twitter is rife with complex
negotiation of multiple audiences including intimate friends, practitioners, and fans. For these
individuals, celebrity is successfully practiced when it provides the illusion of ‘backstage’, giving
the impression of uncensored glimpses into the lives of the very famous. Although there is no way
to determine the ‘authenticity’ of any celebrity practice, this uncertainty appeals to some audi-
ences, who enjoy the game playing intrinsic to gossip consumption (Gamson, 1994). Celebrity is
maintained through mutual recognition of power differentials by fan and practitioner, and main-
tenance of one’s fan base through performed intimacy, affiliation, and public acknowledgment.
Celebrity Theories
Celebrity is a complicated cultural construct. In the popular sense, celebrity is a noun meaning
‘a famous person’. This is a binary, personal quality: you are either a celebrity, or you’re not
(e.g. ‘Angelina Jolie is a celebrity’). Celebrity can also refer to a state of being or cultural phe-
nomenon (e.g. ‘celebrity culture’ or ‘celebrity magazines’). Media and cultural studies scholars
similarly conceptualize celebrity as several different things (Gamson, 1994; Marshall, 2006;
Turner, 2004). Celebrity has been framed as a historical process (Braudy, 1986); as part of the mass
culture industries (McLeod, 2002; Rojek, 2001); as a semiotic system (Dyer, 1986; Rahman,
2006); and as the apex of democratic individualism (Marshall, 1997). Graeme Turner argues that:
Celebrity is a genre of representation and a discursive effect; it is a commodity traded by the
promotions, publicity and media industries that produce these representations and their effects, and
it is a cultural formation that has a social function we can better understand. (Turner, 2004: 9)
Turner outlines three primary scholarly definitions: (1) celebrity as a way that people are represented
and talked about; (2) a process by which a person is turned into a commodity; and (3) an aspect of
culture which is constantly being reinscribed and reformulated.
140 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
Although famous people represent an increasingly significant part of mass media, for many
academics, they personify the trivial, dangerous decadence of American culture (Ewen, 1989;
Lowenthal, 1961). In keeping with this viewpoint, people who enjoy consuming celebrity culture
have been pathologized, portrayed as miserable or lonely, or seen as cultural dupes (Feasey, 2008;
Jensen, 1992). However, celebrity images are culturally pervasive; they have become part of our
day-to-day lives (Turner, 2004: 17) and part of the raw material through which we construct iden-
tities and engage in public discourse (Feasey, 2008; Gamson, 1994). More recently, fandom has
become a subject of study in its own right (Baym, 2000; Jenkins, 1992, 2006b). In the tradition
of active audience studies, theories of ‘participatory culture’ examine how people draw from media
texts to create and produce their own cultural products (Jenkins, 2006a; Lessig, 2004). Understand-
ing not only how the celebrity construct functions as a product within media industries, but how
and why people make meaning from celebrity culture in their daily lives, is essential as we see the
process of celebrification trickling down to blog writers, social network site participants, YouTube
stars, and other social media users (Senft, 2008). Celebrity can now be practiced by a greater
number of people.
The logical conclusion of these theories and shifts is to look at celebrity as a learned practice
rather than an inborn trait (what American Idol calls the ‘X-Factor’). Reality TV popularized a
behind-the-scenes, self-conscious examination of celebrity construction; online, this goes one step
further. Theresa Senft defines ‘micro-celebrity’ as a technique that ‘involves people ‘‘amping up’’
their popularity over the Web using techniques like video, blogs, and social networking sites’
(2008: 25). ‘Micro-celebrity’ describes a prevailing style of behavior both online and off, linked
to the increase in popularity of ‘self-branding’ and strategic self-presentation (Hearn, 2008; Lair
et al., 2005). This phenomenon was first noted in camgirls, young women who broadcast images
of themselves 24/7 to interested audiences (Snyder, 2000). Their strategic micro-celebrity is
distinct from the inadvertent fame resulting from internet memes, such as the ‘Star Wars Kid’ and
‘Tron Guy’. Micro-celebrity involves viewing friends or followers as a fan base; acknowledging
popularity as a goal; managing the fan base using a variety of affiliative techniques; and constructing
an image of self that can be easily consumed by others. As we will see, these resemble techniques that
extremely famous people use to manage audiences on Twitter, rather than relying on formal access
brokers like managers and agents to maintain the distance between themselves and fans.
While the distinction between micro-celebrity and ‘real’ celebrity might once have been a
question of popularity, approachability, or mainstream status, this article looks at how ‘traditional’
celebrities have adopted techniques formerly characterized as ‘micro-celebrity’. We view celebrity
practice as a continuum that can be practiced across the spectrum of fame rather than a schism.
This essay examines how celebrity is practiced by the very famous, yet we are interested in the
larger cultural shifts indicated by these celebrity performances and recognize the need for research
on the daily practice of celebrity by non-famous individuals.
In this article, we define celebrity as a practice. Whenever possible, we refrain from referring to
people as celebrities, preferring to use ‘celebrity practitioners’ or ‘famous people’ to avoid the
binary implications of the noun. However, since celebrity-as-noun is the prevalent usage within
both scholarly and public discourse, we use it in reference to other works and discourses.
Twitter and Method
The microblogging site Twitter lets people post quick 140-character updates, or‘tweets’, to a network
of followers.Twitter asks participants ‘What’shappening?’ resulting in a constantly-updated stream of
Marwick & boyd 141
short messages ranging from the mundane to breaking news, shared links, and thoughts on life. In
Twitter’s directed model of friendship, users choose others to ‘follow’ in their stream, and each
user has his or her own group of ‘followers’. There is neither a technical requirement nor social
expectation of reciprocity (particularly with famous people, although this differs by user group).
Tweets can be posted and read from the web, SMS, or third-party clients for desktop computers,
smartphones, and other devices. This integration allows for instant postings of photos,
on-the-ground reports, and quick replies to other users. The site launched in 2006 and broke into
the mainstream in 2008–2009, when user accounts and media attention exponentially increased.
Twitter had approximately 18.2 million users in May 2009 (Nielsen Company, 2009), increasing
to 27.2 million by January 2010 (Quantcast Corporation, 2010). As of 2010, the most-followed
Twitter users are well-known organizations like CNN and Whole Foods, very famous people and
public figures, from President Barack Obama to actor Ashton Kutcher and pop star Britney Spears.
While Twitter can be used as a broadcast medium, the dialogic nature of Twitter and its ability to
facilitate conversation has contributed substantially to its popularity.
This popularity has contributed to media fascination with the site. Unlike individuals famous
primarily for their affiliation with social media properties, such as Tila Tequila on MySpace or Tay
Zonday on YouTube, Twitter attracts actors, pop stars, authors, politicians, and others with
established fame, such as Oprah Winfrey, Senator John McCain, Shaquille O’Neal and Weird Al.
Although people known primarily for their online presence, like marketer Pistachio and video
blogger iJustine, are well-represented on Twitter, the most-followed Twitter users are, for the most
part, the conventionally famous.
Given this, we used Twitter to understand how celebrity is practiced through interactions
between famous people and fans, friends, and other practitioners on Twitter. Part of the appeal of
Twitter, as we will discuss, is the perception of direct access to a famous person, particularly
‘insider’ information, first-person pictures, and opinionated statements. Those celebrities who use
Twitter primarily to ‘broadcast’ publicity information are seen as less authentic than those using
the tool for dialogue and engagement with fans. One of our first methodological tasks was to work
out who authored accounts of famous people.
We collected data from all people in the 300 most-followed Twitter accounts (as measured by
Twitterholic.com during May and June 2009), including actors, musicians, technologists, politi-
cians, reality television stars, and so forth for a total of 237 individuals; the remaining 63 accounts
were media, companies, and organizations. We captured all tweets from these individuals and
logged the total number of tweets, average tweets, and frequency of popular Twitter practices to
understand how the most-followed individuals used the site. We sent ‘at-replies’ to all 237 people
and 100 other highly followed people, and corresponded with those who replied. We closely
observed more than a hundred accounts of famous people and their fans, and engaged in a deep
qualitative analysis of 20 verified Twitter accounts that we identified as representative types of
well-known actors, musicians, politicians/pundits, and technologists. We read the most recent
2–3 months of tweets from these users, noted each content type or use, and aggregated types across
users.
We are aware that not all ‘celebrity’ accounts are authored by the celebrity in question.
To account for this, we analyzed a sample of highly followed accounts in an attempt to determine
how many were authentic. It is very difficult to determine whether or not an account is authored by
its purported owner, an assistant, or someone hired for that purpose. All of the accounts that we
considered are verified, which means that either the famous person or their representatives vouch
for the account. While some accounts are clearly identified as written by a team – tweets from the
142 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
‘Britney Spears’ account are attributed to Britney, her manager, and her website – others are
written by ‘ghost twitterers’ in the voice of the celebrity (Cohen, 2009). This is distinct from
fan-written or imposter accounts; celebrities hire impersonators for a variety of reasons. Some
famous people lack the time or interest to maintain an account but view it as a good marketing tool;
some have managers who discourage direct access to fans; and still others are under contract to a
team, studio or production which expressly forbids candid tweeting (Wallenstein and Belloni,
2009). From a sample of 144 highly followed accounts, we determined that 105 were written by
individual famous people, 7 by a team (publicists, assistants, and so on), 11 by a team plus the
celebrity, and 21 were indeterminate. In making our assessments, we used a number of measures,
including whether tweets were identified as coming from a team member or assistant; whether the
account was mentioned in news stories about ‘ghost twitterers’; references to the account by
Twitter or other technology experts; the proportion of publicity versus personal messages; the use
of first-person voice; the presence of misspellings or grammatical errors; whether tweets seemed
‘safe’ (as in vetted by a PR team) or covered controversial or negative topics; and so forth. We
analyzed the applications used to post tweets, noted whether pictures were posted directly from
a cameraphone to a service like Twitpic or YFrog, and categorized pictures as candids or formal
publicity stills. Finally, we investigated whether the celebrity answered questions or directly cor-
responded with fans. Obviously, these are subjective judgments. We are confident that the majority
of accounts maintained by famous people are written, at least in part, by the individual themselves.
While some Twitter users choose to protect their accounts, the majority of those with high
follower counts make their feed public. All the accounts we looked at were public. The messages
we analyzed are also public; we use the actual usernames of both fans and highly followed people
in this article, since the tweets are publicly searchable and accessible (while tweets are only
publicly searchable for 21 days, they can always be directly accessed from the user’s page).
Twitter allows for private, person-to-person tweets that do not appear on public pages, called direct
messages (DMs). This article references several practices that Twitter users have developed to
facilitate conversation on the site, namely @replies, retweets, and hashtags. @replies, or
‘at-replies’, are public tweets that use a ‘@þusername’ convention to refer to other Twitter users;
these can be used to identify people, address tweets to particular users and attribute quotes
(Honeycutt and Herring, 2009). @replies are common on Twitter and 42 per cent of tweets in our
sample are @replies. The second type of common user practice we tracked was the retweet (RT),
a repost of another person’s tweet (see boyd et al., 2010, for a comprehensive look at retweeting).
This is less common, and only 5 per cent of tweets in our sample were retweets. Hash tags, or the #
sign followed by a word, mark tweets with descriptive terms. On sites like Delicious, Amazon.com,
and Flickr, tags are used for many purposes, only one of which is classifying the tweet’s subject
matter (Golder and Huberman, 2006). On Twitter, tags are typically used to group tweets together by
subject, such as a conference or meme; 6 per cent of the tweets in our sample included hashtags.
Performing Celebrity on Twitter
Like other public genres of social media, Twitter requires celebrity practitioners to negotiate a
complicated social environment where fans, famous people, and intermediaries such as gossip
columnists co-exist. These multiple audiences complicate self-presentation, since people present
identity differently based on context. Erving Goffman’s 1959 work The Presentation of Self in
Everyday Life suggested that people, like actors, navigate ‘frontstage’ and ‘backstage’ areas in any
given social situation. This can be understood in terms of place. For instance, a restaurant’s floor is
Marwick & boyd 143
frontstage, since employees must interact in front of an audience of bosses and customers.
More candid talk between servers can take place backstage, away from the watchful eye of the
employer. These concepts can also be understood in terms of content. For instance, intimate details
about one’s life are understood as part of the ‘backstage’ while professional communications can
be seen as a ‘frontstage’ performance. However, frontstage and backstage are always relative as
they depend on audience, context, and interpretation.
Goffman’s work is related to symbolic interactionism, a sociological perspective which
maintains that meaning is constructed through language, interaction, and interpretation (Blumer,
1962; Strauss, 1993). Symbolic interactionists claim that identity and self are constituted through
constant interactions with others – primarily, talk. Individuals work together to uphold preferred
self-images of themselves and their conversation partners, through strategies like maintaining
(or ‘saving’) face, collectively encouraging social norms, or negotiating power differentials and
disagreements. What Goffman refers to as ‘impression management’ takes place through ongoing
adjustment to perceptions of audience judgment (1959).
Very famous people constantly navigate complex identity performances. The ostensible
disconnect between a famous person’s public persona and ‘authentic’ self is fueled by tabloid
magazines, paparazzi photos, and gossip columns that purport to reveal what a particular starlet is
‘really’ like. Celebrity scandals often involve the exposure of personal information to the public,
such as outing someone as queer or the dissemination of photos, ‘sex tapes’, answering machine
messages, emails, and other purportedly backstage documents. This tricky territory has tradi-
tionally been navigated with the help of assistants, agents, public relations personnel, bodyguards,
and other mechanisms that broker access between famous person and fan. On Twitter, however,
this infrastructure is not available. As we will see, celebrity practice involves the appearance and
performance of backstage access to the famous, presuming that the typical celebrity persona
involves artifice. In Joshua Gamson’s taxonomy of celebrity watchers, he writes:
A good chunk of the audience reads the celebrity text in its own language, recognizing and often
playing with the blurriness of its vocabulary. They leave open the questions of authenticity and along
with it the question of merit. For them, celebrity is not a prestige system, or a postmodern hall of
mirrors, but ... a game. (1994: 173)
Determining whether readers are watching an ‘authentic’ individual or a performed ‘celebrity’
persona is not entirely the point; it is the uncertainty that creates pleasure for the celebrity-watcher
on Twitter.
Simultaneously, celebrity practice reinforces unequal power differentials. While Twitter users
who do not use the site instrumentally may think of their followers as friends or family (Marwick
and boyd, 2010), celebrity practice necessitates viewing followers as fans. Performing celebrity
requires that this asymmetrical status is recognized by others. Fans show deference, creating
mutual recognition of the status imbalance between practitioner and fan. In return, fan–practitioner
relationships move beyond parasocial interaction, the illusion of a ‘real’, face-to-face friendship
with a performer created through watching television shows or listening to music (Horton and
Wohl, 1956). In parasocial relationships, or what John Thompson calls ‘mediated quasi-interaction’
(J Thompson, 1995: 98), a fan responds to a media figure ‘as if s/he was a personal acquaintance’
(Giles, 2002: 289); in contrast, Twitter suggests the possibility of interaction. There is no singular
formula for celebrity practice; it consists of a set of learned techniques that are leveraged differently
by individuals.
144 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
Public Recognition and Fan Maintenance
Like much social media, Twitter creates a ‘context collapse’ (boyd, 2008) in which multiple
audiences, usually thought of as separate, co-exist in a single social context. The practice of
celebrity involves negotiating these multiple audiences to successfully maintain face and manage
impressions. Celebrity practitioners use public acknowledgment, in the form of @replies, to
connect with others. Fans @reply to famous people not only in the hope of receiving a reply, but
to display a relationship, whether positive or negative. If fans receive @replies back, they function
as a mark of status and are publicized within the fan community. Celebrity practitioners’ public
acknowledgement of friends, peers, and colleagues is rarely critical, primarily adhering to
frontstage norms of public appearance. Famous people mention fans to perform connection and
availability, give back to loyal followers, and manage their popularity.
Celebrity practice requires constant interaction with fans to preserve the power differentials
intrinsic to the performed ‘celebrity’ and ‘fan’ personas. Celebrity practitioners approach this in
different ways. For example, Soleil Moon Frye, better known as 1980s child actress ‘Punky
Brewster’, frequently tweets inspirational and funny anecdotes about parenting:
Moonfrye: RT @bklyndafna @Moonfrye DAILY QUOTE The future belongs to those who believe in
the beauty of their dreams. – Eleanor Roosevelt
Today, Frye runs a children’s boutique in LA; her followers are primarily women with children. In
this example, bklyndafna tweets an Eleanor Roosevelt quote to Moonfrye in a gesture that
resembles gift-giving. This marks bklyndafna as a fan and affiliates her with Moonfrye’s general
values. To show appreciation, Moonfrye publicly retweets (RT) the quote to her followers, retaining
bklyndafna’s original attribution. This mutual public recognition of commonality allows Moonfrye
to articulate ongoing connections with her followers.
People spending time with other Twitter users online or in person often mention it in their
tweets, identifying the other person through the @username convention. For example, when
MariahCarey tweets about her friend Jasmine Dotiwala, an MTV producer and gossip columnist,
she chooses to identify her by her Twitter username:
MariahCarey: @jasminedotiwala just sang the Vegas remix of ‘‘these are a few of my favorite things
and did a little dance in a terry cloth robe’’ hilarious
This establishes intimacy between Carey and her followers by sharing personal details from her life
while publicly identifying jasminedotiwala as a friend – a performance of backstage access – and
inviting her followers to check out Jasmine’s Twitter stream. This maintains the power differential
between an average fan and the singer’s intimate friend, since Jasmine is marked as someone who
spends time with Mariah in person. It also provides a public endorsement of Jasmine’s Twitter
stream. While some highly followed users reference others without being prompted, others will
acknowledge friends as a favor to direct attention their way. This is particularly visible through the
practice of retweeting:
KevinRose: RT: @garyvee announcing my 1st business book http://tinyurl.com/garyveebook –
congrats to @garyvee, crush it!
Greggrundberg: RT @WilfridDierkes ‘‘watch My Name is Earl tonite cause if it gets canceled my fam-
ily is moving in w/you.’’ Peeps please watch. Save us all!!
Marwick & boyd 145
Both these tweets demonstrate publicly articulated relational ties: between Digg founder Kevin
Rose and motivational speaker Gary Vaynerchuk, and between actor Gregg Grunberg and
producer Greg Garcia. This practice suggests insiderness between the participants, but it also
highlights the dynamics of attention on Twitter.
Public acknowledgment, of either friends or fans, is not always positive. Twitter user Leproff
sends an angry tweet to Republican politician Newt Gingrich about Reagan, who responds
tersely:
Leproff: @newtgingrich I do not agree when you say that USSR collapsed because of Ronald Reagan.
This is a historical lie!
NewtGingrich: @Leproff do you really believe the soviet union would have disappeared without rea-
gab. Read peter schweizers book reagans war
Gingrich’s tweet reinforces his image as an ornery conservative, but the act of responding also
shows that he takes time to talk directly with followers. The potential of such interactions implies
that fans are faced with accountability to the actors and singers they gossip about. Some famous
people directly address gossip, for instance:
LilyRoseAllen: and no i didnt say that stuff, ive never met cheryl, or her husband , noe david beckham.
please dont believe that rubbish.
NewtGingrich: A false story was planted this morning about my sueing twitter. This is totally false and
we have repudiated it with the media
Hollymadison123: @PerezHilton Criss and i r not back together . . lol!
Rumor-mongering, whether by follower or gossip columnist Perez Hilton, can theoretically be
directly corrected. Of course, fans may choose to believe the rumor even if the famous person
chooses to reject it and not all fans read all tweets written by a celebrity. As with any other medium,
correcting a rumor on Twitter can be more challenging than starting one.
While gossiping about celebrities is a common practice that creates social bonds and provides a
frame for discussion of larger issues (Feasey, 2008), participants on Twitter run the risk of being
publicly shamed by the individual they are discussing:
Trent_Reznor: Perfect example of the kind of complete parasitic delusional asshole that makes you
regret fame: @AngieZherself.
Trent_Reznor: And you’re not anonymous dear, you are Angela L. Zajac from Worcester with a crim-
inal record.
While Trent Reznor’s decision to publicly shame one of his fans may be seen as an attempt to gain
control and push back against someone that he perceives as an ‘asshole’, this too may backfire.
There are plenty who seek attention and will settle for negative attention. While public relations
professionals and magazine editors traditionally managed information flow through spin control or
strategic censorship (Sternbergh, 2004), Twitter gossip may be silenced through direct acknowl-
edgment from celebrity practitioners. At the same time, it may also be ignited.
146 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
Affiliation
Affiliation is the process of publicly performing a connection between practitioners and fans using
language, words, cultural symbols, and conventions. Teen rapper Soulja Boy’s use of language is
virtually identical to that of his audience, primarily young hip-hop fans (‘That song me & Lola did
is Bumpin in the whip my speakers goin ham!’). P Diddy uses inspirational and inclusive language
to ally himself with his followers: ‘Let’s stay focused to day people!Today can be the start of a
positive change in our lives. Claim it and do it!!!! Just do it!!!’ Soleil Moon Frye tells stories about
the difficulties of childrearing that emphasize the similarities between herself and her primarily
female followers. Mariah Carey’s fans have a language (‘HBF’, ‘lambs’, ‘LYM’) that create
linguistic ties with each other and their favorite singer.
Links and retweets provide good examples of the affiliative use of cultural markers and symbols.
Generally, highly followed users RT or link to items that interest them and presumably their followers.
In these examples, liberal pundit Rachel Maddow and actor Ashton Kutcher send out URLs:
Maddow: Remember that wicked scary job loss chart? Here it is among budget docs with some of its
wicked scary chart friends (pdf!) http://is.gd/l1AJ
@aplusk: this is amazing thanks 4 sharing RT @ShaynaSkim: A guy single-handedly starts a dance
party!MUST WATCH http://bit.ly/wh4cA
Maddow linksto a White House-provided PDF of economic charts, implying that her followers – news
junkies, policy wonks, and armchair economists – would find it interesting. Maddow is not tweeting
about her life, but a commoninterest she shares with her followers. In contrast, Ashton Kutcher RTs a
funny video of a concert-goer dancing to indie artist Santigold. (Note that both are using URL short-
ening services, which abbreviate long web addresses to fit Twitter’s 140 character limit.) The cultural
markers in this tweet – hip music, an outdoor music festival, goofy dancing – affiliate Kutcher with his
teen and 20-something base. These links are presumably chosen both to provide value to their fan base
and to emphasize commonalities between the practitioner and his or her followers.
Intimacy
Twitter allows celebrity practitioners to create a sense of closeness and familiarity between
themselves and their followers. Highly followed accounts vary in performed intimacy; while some
mostly broadcast information about an upcoming tour or book, others write about personal sub-
jects, post exclusive content, or chat about their daily lives. This type of strategic revealing found
on confessional talk show appearances, tell-all autobiographies, and magazine interviews has been
criticized as ‘second order intimacy’ (Rojek, 2001: 52) or the ‘illusion of intimacy’ (Schickel,
1985: 4; Turner, 2004). This point of view maintains that performed intimacy is synonymous with
parasocial interaction and a poor substitute for actual interaction.
While it is true that the practice of celebrity involves strategically managed self-disclosure, we
should not be so quick to judge the closeness created by Twitter as false and second-best. First,
Twitter does provide the possibility of actual interaction with the highly followed person, in the
form of a direct message or @reply. Second, the ‘lifestreaming’ function of Twitter encourages
‘digital intimacy’ (C Thompson, 2008). The many seemingly insignificant messages serve as
phatic communication (Miller, 2008); rather than sharing meaningful information, many tweets
serve a social function, reinforcing connections and maintaining social bonds (Crawford, 2009).
If we accept that Twitter creates a sense of ongoing connection with one’s real-life acquaintances
Marwick & boyd 147
and friends, following a famous person’s tweets over a period of time may create an equally valid
feeling of ‘knowing’ them. Finally, as we will see in the following case studies, users can and do let
things slip via Twitter that would never be revealed in an interview with People magazine.
On Twitter, performative intimacy is practiced by posting personal pictures and videos,
addressing rumors, and sharing personal information. Picture-hosting services, such as YFrog and
Twitpic, allow users directly to post cameraphone pictures to Twitter. Famous people frequently
use these services, creating the illusion of first-person glimpses into their lives. Ashton Kutcher, for
example, tweets pictures of himself on set, during talk-show appearances, and posing with his wife
Demi Moore and celebrities such as actress Mischa Barton and R&B singer Usher. Pop singer Katy
Perry posts pictures of her nails, her tour bus, and her meals while performing around the world.
Similarly, streaming video services like uStream are used by musicians like Bow Wow and Snoop
Dogg to broadcast studio recordings and live performances, while others post funny videos, take
questions from fans, or host live events. Shaquille O’Neal, for instance, filmed himself lip-
synching and tweeted the link to his followers. While these pictures and videos add a visual dimen-
sion, they are still strategically chosen by the practitioner, in contrast to the unauthorized candids
found in tabloids and gossip blogs.
As we have seen, other famous people use Twitter to directly address rumors. The same
technique is used to respond to fan criticism or comments. For instance, Shaq retorted to a follower
who said his sneakers were ugly:
@Naimthestar yea dats why I sold 80 million pair since 1992 at 3 dollars per pair comn to me, do the
math
In addition to publicly recognizing and responding to a fan concern, this information makes the fan
feel that they possess insider, candid knowledge about the sports star. Contentious discussions are
not uncommon:
Jake_Banks: @ddlovato the Jonas Brothers, are just a disney fabrication who did not earn their fame
and thusly are undeserving of such a large spotlight
Ddlovato: @Jake_Banks It’s funny that you call them a ‘‘disney fabrication’’ but they have fans of
ALL ages and they do deserve the spotlight.
Ddlovato: They’ve been touring and working extremely hard for years and they still haven’t stopped.
They’re the hardest working people I know of.
Lacey22211: @lilyroseallen why dont u just accept anyone on ur myspace? its a fucking music page!
wtf??? Cunt
LilyRoseAllen: @lacey22211 because people spam my page, and post loads of noise as comments.
These exchanges demonstrate how Twitter has contributed to changes in the parasocial
dynamic. While parasocial interaction is largely imaginary and takes place primarily in the
fan’s mind, Twitter conversations between fans and famous people are public and visible, and
involve direct engagement between the famous person and their follower. The fan’s ability to
engage in discussion with a famous person de-pathologizes the parasocial and recontextua-
lizes it within a medium that the follower may use to talk to real-life acquaintances. As
we have seen, Twitter makes fans accountable for rude comments, taking the subjects of gos-
sip out of the realm of fantasy and repositioning them as ‘real people’. Traditional settings for
148 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
in-person celebrity–fan interactions, such as autograph signings and award ceremonies, are
highly managed and limited in scope. In contrast, although Twitter conversations are
mediated, they appear off-the-cuff, contributing to a sense that the reader is seeing the real,
authentic person behind the ‘celebrity’.
Authenticity and Sincerity
In Sincerity and Authenticity, Lionel Trilling (1972) distinguishes authenticity from sincerity.
He conceptualizes authenticity as a display of the hidden inner life, complete with passions and
anguish, while sincerity is the opposite of hypocrisy – honesty without pretense. Both these
elements matter on Twitter. The intimacy engendered by celebrity tweets provide the glimpse into
the inner life that fans want, while at the most basic level, fans want to ensure that the person
tweeting is sincerely who they claim to be. Twitter is generally a site where personal disclosure and
intimacy are normative (Marwick and boyd, 2010), so access, intimacy, and affiliation are
valueless if an account is fake or written by an assistant. The process involved in vetting whether a
person is really who they claim to be reveals the appeal of celebrity practice for fans: the
potential for disclosing the ‘truth’, the uncensored person stripped of PR artifice and
management.
Users frequently debate whether Twitter accounts are written by who they claim to be. The
site truthtweet.com verifies or debunks accounts like Tina_Fey and The_Pitts. During our
research, accounts for Seth Rogen, Michael Phelps, and Tina Fey were identified as impostors
and subsequently shut down (Tina_Fey was renamed ‘FakeTinaFey’ and the comedian Tina
Fey took over Tina_Fey). Some of these demonstrably false accounts are valued for their
satirical value or effective impersonation, such ‘FakeSarahPalin’ whose tweets include things
like ‘This ‘‘death panel’’ thing is really taking off!Suck it, Luntz, you got p0wned Palin style.
Srsly!!!’ In June 2009, Twitter introduced verified accounts that certify ‘genuine’ famous
people. As previously discussed, not all ‘celebrity’ accounts are written by the purported
individual. In our own efforts to account for authenticity of Twitter accounts, we focused on
the signals of authenticity. Judith Donath discusses how subtle online signals function as
identity cues, given the dearth of physical evidence (1998). Given the presence of typos in
most participants’ tweets, we expect that ‘real’ celebrity practitioners will make grammatical
or spelling mistakes. Tweets that are personal, controversial, or negative – in other words, that
contradict the stereotype of the overly managed ‘celebrity’ account – signal greater authen-
ticity than safely vetted publicity messages. If the writer interacted with fans, used the first-
person voice, and posted candid snapshots, they seemed more authentic, as did their use of
mobile clients such as Tweetie or Twitterberry. Of course, our assessment is only based on
the available signals; we have no way of validating our best guesses. Similarly, fans carefully
evaluate the sincerity of celebrity accounts.
Trilling’s alternative meaning of authenticity, as passion and interiority, is also crucial to
Twitter’s appeal. ‘Authenticity’ is a social construct that is ultimately always relative and context
dependent (Bendix, 1997; Cheng, 2004); it seems that self-disclosure, and therefore what it means
to be authentic, is expected more on Twitter compared to other venues. While we accept that a
Cosmopolitan cover story on pop star Katy Perry will probably be a bit boring, we anticipate
that Perry’s Twitter feed will be in keeping with her glamorous, wacky image. Celebrity prac-
tice that sticks to the safe and publicly consumable risks being viewed as inauthentic, while
successful celebrity practice suggests intimacy, disclosure, and connection. In the next
Marwick & boyd 149
section, we look at three case studies of celebrity use of Twitter to see how the co-existence
of fans, friends, other celebrities, and gossip columnists are navigated differently using these
and other practices.
Three Case Studies
Mariah Carey: Fan Relationships with Celebrities
The pop singer Mariah Carey has been releasing successful albums for 20 years, and has a devoted,
loyal fan following which she calls her ‘lambs’. While Carey is the best-selling female artist in the
USA, her volatile career has included two highly publicized marriages, a divorce, the failed film
Glitter, and a televised mental breakdown. Perhaps because of these personal tribulations, her fans
send her intimate public messages that often resemble a quick text to a friend:
OMJitsReva: @MariahCarey On my way to NYC be there in 21 hours, yep I’m catchin teh
greyhound... hope ur in town and i c u
halima12: @MariahCarey hey, been in the garden with sugapie dunking her in the pool & givin her a
ride on the lilo. been playin E¼MC2 :) watcha up 2?
ShayneFly: @MariahCarey Had to put our family dog to sleep tonight. I know you know how it hurts.
Im missing a piece and my stupid face is all wet :(
These messages both demonstrate the power of parasocial interaction and how Twitter changes
it. Fan LaurenDayMakeUp responded to our question about her Twitter interaction with Mariah,
‘I follow @MariahCarey becoz she has been with me through her music everyday of my life 4 the
last 15 years!She inspires me!’ But unlike listening to music, social media suggests the possibility
of the media figure responding, which intensifies the interactive credibility.
MariahCarey: Trying to DM as many nice folks as possible. Thanks for all the love as always. I love
twitter cos I can really stay in touch w/you.(Cont)
Fans know that Mariah uses Twitter to communicate directly with friends and fans, meaning she
may potentially respond to them. As a result, fans directly ask for responses:
Rochyta: @Mariahcarey We miss you, Mariah!I had a terrible day today. It would be great to read a
‘‘hi’’ from you.Te quiero muchı´simo. Rocı´o- Spain.
OriginalJengsta: @MariahCarey Today is my birthday and my birthday wish is to get a Twitter shout-
out from MC - can you swing it?? -Nancy Jeng
Receiving a message from a highly followed individual is a status symbol in itself. User
OMJitsReva writes on her profile, ‘Check my FAVs [favorite tweets] for celebs that have tweeted
me back!I feel like a mini-celebrity.’ This is also a public performance of access. Users tweet to
Mariah not only to feel a sense of connection with her, but also to publicly acknowledge the lack of
distance between themselves and the singer.
AviHBF: @dieguitoLAMB Mariah DM’d me today!
DieguitoLAMB: @AviHBF OM*G!!! YOU LUCKY GURL!
LoyalLamb88: @AviHBF Wow!That’s awesome ...
150 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
AviHBF brags about receiving a direct message; the responses show the value of this within the fan
community. One fan, MiMiGreat, posted ‘Mariah wrote me a DM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!’ upon receiving her
own message. Notably, Mariah uses private direct messages rather than public @replies.
This could be a way to avoid public accountability, but it also means that fans can claim that
Mariah wrote to them even if she did not. Mariah’s tweet about ‘loving Twitter’ and the excited
responses from fans comprise a performance of fan interaction. Mariah could claim to interact with
fans privately without actually doing so, or could have an assistant write DMs. For Mariah Carey
and her fans, Twitter seems to be about the perception of availability and fan access.
Miley Cyrus: Celebrity Relationships with Celebrities
Celebrity practitioners also interact with other famous people on Twitter, creating revealing
performances of what appear to be intimate interactions. Truly private interactions between
famous people, with no public audience, are invisible to fans. Highly publicized romantic
relationships and friendships covered by gossip magazines create the illusion of insider access, but
are still public. Twitter allows the public visibility of casual friendships between famous people,
which both creates a sense of insiderness for fan observers and requires celebrities to navigate
carefully. Celebrities must constantly shift between performing their stage persona, concealing or
revealing personal information, and creating intimacy and authentic self-presentation for the
benefit of their fans. At times, it becomes difficult to discern what is performance and what is
‘real’; this is precisely the kind of juxtaposition that fans love.
Teen star Miley Cyrus began a public feud with fellow singer/actors Demi Lovato and Selena
Gomez after posting a mocking parody of the girls’ home-made video series on YouTube (Beer and
Penfold-Mounce, 2009). Speculations on the origin of the feud include internal Disney rivalry; conflict
over Gomez being labeled the ‘Next Miley Cyrus’ by the press; and tension after Lovato dated Cyrus’
ex-boyfriend, teen idol Nick Jonas. The feud was heavily covered by the entertainment press, fueled by
Nick’s brother Kevin wearing a ‘TeamDemi and Selena’t-shirt in public. Cyrus,Lovato, and Gomez
have publicly denied a feud and were photographed in late 2008 having dinner, presumably a staged
event as damage control to counteract fallout from the rumors (Kidzworld, 2009). While Lovato and
Gomez are publicly ‘best friends’ who continue to present themselves as such, Cyrus and Lovato
engaged in a somewhat surprising ongoing series of public interactions on Twitter:
Ddlovato: Now I’m with my other two best friends in the entire world... @selenagomez and
@mileycyrus. What an amazing day. :D
MileyCyrus: @ddlovato is one of the bestest friends in the world :)
Ddlovato: @mileycyrus I’m comin’!You better visit me on tour!!! Idk how long I can go without seeing
you :)
MileyCyrus: @ddlovato I dont know if I’ve ever needed someone as badly as I need you right now.... I
miss you sweet girl.
Ddlovato: @mileycyrus awww :( make me tear up why don’t ya?!I love you so much. I’ve ALWAYS
got your back.
These tweets can be viewed as strategic frontstage performances. It’s irrelevant whether or not
Miley, Demi and Selena actually are friends, since the frequency and emotional tone of the
messages mark them as performative – Cyrus and Lovato want their fans to know that they are
Marwick & boyd 151
friends. Notably, there are no interactions between Gomez and Cyrus on Twitter. This creates
the possibility that the performances are not entirely false; instead, they may be a self-conscious,
exaggeratedly ideal view of teenage girl friendship.
This performance of friendship changed shape a few months later, when Demi broke up
with Miley’s brother, Trace. Miley and her mother (MommyTish) tweeted about the breakup,
presumably referring to Lovato:
MommyTish: It really makes me sad that most people find it so easy to hurt other people. Why is that?
I never want to hurt anyone...... EVER
MileyCyrus: @mommytish We can’t control the path of their wicked hearts mama. All we can do is
shine a light & guide their way back home. Smile mommy.
MommyTish: I wish I was the one hurting. I wish I could switch places with you right now, because I
would. You love so deeply, you deserve that back...
Miley’s apparent reference to Demi’s ‘wicked heart’ might suggest that she and Lovato are no
longer the best buddies they claimed to be. Lovato and Trace Cyrus traded tweets back-and-forth
that could be read as passive-aggressive:
DDlovato: I know there’s such thing as a Mr. Right... But can there be such thing as a Mr. Not Right
Now...?
DDlovato: Now listen I think you and me have come to the end of our time.. What’d ya want some kind
of reaction? Well, okay that’s fine. :)
TraceCyrus: Another storybook ending.
Ddlovato: I’m sorry, was that supposed to hurt? Hm... Oh well :)
TraceCyrus: I just got really confused... Is it possible to breakup when you were never together with
someone and only friends? Hmm this is new to me
This appears to be a backstage conversation involving the whole Cyrus family and a very personal
subject, going on in public. While an agent or manager may have been the impetus for Lovato and
Cyrus’s public declarations of friendship, similar public declarations take place on social network
sites among non-celebrities every day. Interactions between users create publicly visible relation-
ship lines, marking friendship, romantic entanglements, breakups, flirtations, rivalries, and alli-
ances. It is not surprising that celebrities – particularly teenage girls whose peer group conduct
their social lives via social media – do the same thing. The scrutiny may become too much; in
October 2009, Miley Cyrus left Twitter in a whirlwind of publicity, stating in a home-made rap
video posted on YouTube ‘Everything that I type and everything that I do, all those lame gossip
types take it and they make it news (MandyMiley 2009).
The Cyrus–Lovato ‘feud’ demonstrates that reading conversations as performative or real is
neither neat nor easy. Celebrity is practiced through scripted attempts to give backstage access. But
just as actually getting backstage at a rock show does not provide true access to the band, neither
does reading tweets provide insider access. The performance of celebrities interacting with no
thought of fans, press, or managers on Twitter is actually managed interaction that creates the
perception of intimacy. That is not to say that celebrities do not let things slip on Twitter; this is
precisely why studios such as Disney and Dreamworks see Twitter as a liability (Wallenstein
152 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
and Belloni, 2009). There is indeed a tension between deliberate self-presentation – what Erving
Goffman called impressions ‘given’ – and unintentional self-presentation, or information ‘given
off’ (1959). It is the inability to tell what is strategic and what is accidental, as well as what is truth-
ful and what is not, that makes Twitter so enjoyable for fans.
Perez Hilton: Celebrity Intermediaries
The gossip columnist, a perennial fixture in mass media, has gained a new importance as a result of
the explosion in tabloid journalism, paparazzi, and celebrity websites. The gossip columnist has
traditionally provided the fan with ‘insider’ access to celebrities, thereby giving a sense of the
backstage environment. Gossip columnists functioned as a middleman between celebrities, who
were traditionally managed and protected, and fans, whose access to celebrities had to be brokered.
However, in the past the gossip column was highly managed, with carefully chosen and orche-
strated stories planted to drum up publicity. Perez Hilton, ne´e Mario Armando Lavandeira, built a
large following by posting criticism of celebrities and defacing tabloid pictures. Perez is open
about his desire to be part of the world he covers, and tweets and posts pictures of himself hob-
nobbing with the very people he used to condemn. Gossip bloggers like Perez revel in posting
topless photos, unverified rumors, public outing of gay celebrities, and other unauthorized snippets
of information. Perez trolls Twitter for juicy bits of gossip, responding indiscriminately to his fans
and to celebrities. His liminal status – not quite a celebrity, but not a fan – is made clear through his
tweets, which manage to be both sycophantic and abrasive. But what function does he serve as a
middleman when celebrities are directly interacting with fans?
The following tweets were sent by Perez to tabloid and reality TV fixture Heidi Montag, who
had been tweeting frequently about religion:
PerezHilton: @heidimontag Do I need to stage an intervention???? You and @SpencerPratt are out of
control!!!!!!
PerezHilton: @heidimontag P.S. Did you stop smoking weed? Are you going through marijuana with-
drawals? Why have you been acting so strange?
HeidiMontag: @perezhilton because Jesus has really woke me up!He is coming back soon and I need
to save as many souls as i can!this life is so short!
Hilton’s followers commented on the discussion:
winyeemichelle: is rofl’ing at the conversation/argument between @PerezHilton and @heidimontag
Crystlemethod: @PerezHilton Thank you for trying to quiet down Heidi’s Jesus talk!I’m thinking
about unfollowing her too!xoxo Canada Loves You!!!!!
The conversation between Hilton and Montag appears to be public in an entirely different way than
the Miley Cyrus and Demi Levato conversations. Hilton insults Montag, who is generally
unpopular, in a way clearly visible to his audience, primarily readers of his blog. He is performing
as an insider, demonstrating access. Hilton may criticize Montag, but she @replies to his com-
ments. He simultaneously performs outsider status by acting as a harsh critic of the entertainment
community. This conversation gives readers the impression of intimacy, but it is done in front of an
audience. Hilton’s interactions can be understood as a practice of social grooming. The concept of
‘social grooming’ comes from apes, who spend hours picking bugs from each other’s fur.
Marwick & boyd 153
This pastime has a bonding function: apes who groom each other are less likely to fight, and more
likely to help each other. Robin Dunbar points out that language is highly efficient compared to
physical grooming; while apes only have the grooming time to maintain limited relationships,
language lets people sustain relationships with complicated social networks (Dunbar, 1996). In
other words, gossip and small talk perform a grooming function in human societies. People
check in with each other and trade pleasantries and tidbits about current events, mutual
acquaintances, or television shows (Donath, 2007; Dunbar, 1996). The publicly accessible
back-and-forth small talk that Hilton engages in with famous individuals is a form of per-
formed social grooming:
PerezHilton: I’ve been listening to @TaylorSwift13 this weekend about as much as @HeidiMontag
and @SpencerPratt have been shouting-out Jesus!
TaylorSwift13: @PerezHilton Aww thank you :) :) :)
PerezHilton: @taylorswift13 I see a lot of Grammys coming your way, young lady!xoxo
PerezHilton: @AubreyODay I love how much you love your dog!Dog is God spelled backwards, a
wise blonde once said. ;-)
AubreyODay: @PerezHilton lol. she’s honest, pure, and forever forgiving. i don’t know that i can say
that about anyone else i know other than children.
Hilton has to balance satisfying an audience that wants candid information about celebrities and
tempering the perception that he has become an insider. Simultaneously, this type of back-and-forth
solidifies Taylor Swift and Aubrey O’Day’s status as famous singers; the deference they are shown
by fans and borderline figures like Perez separatesthemfromtheaverageperson.Thisbalance
creates friction between Hilton and his readers:
Motherlode47: @PerezHilton do u not have a job to go to instead of harrassing Spencer and Heidi
Myka234: I <3 when celebs call out @perezhilton for posting fake stuff. Like @hollymadison123 just
did. Brilliant. #perezsucks
auracooperman: Really wishes @perezhilton would stay the f in hwood and stop trying to be buddy w.
Taylor and kellie, sorry perez they have morals!!!!
These tweets show detractors complaining about Perez’s conversations with Spencer Pratt and Heidi
Montag, his seemingly inauthentic attempts to be friendly with Christian country stars Taylor Swift
and Kellie Pickler, and his practice of posting unverified gossip. At the same time, some of his less
famous followers criticize him for responding to celebrities rather than regular people:
tweeeeeeeeeeety: @PerezHilton you never reply to me!!
His liminal, outsider status is reinforced by Twitter users, who do not treat him with the awe
appropriate for a famous actor or musician, but as a regular person who should not attempt to rise
above his status. While to some people, Perez successfully performs celebrity – ‘celebrity’, after
all, is relative – his in-between status requires careful management.
154 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
Significance
The internet has had an enormous impact on celebrity culture. It has created a plethora of new
outlets through which discourses of celebrity circulate. Internet gossip sites such as Perez Hilton,
Pink is the New Blog, and The Superficial are less regulated and subject to commercial pressures
than magazines or television shows, and user-contributed content sites like Oh No They Didn’t
often scoop the tabloids. Simultaneously, the past decade has seen a massive increase in
celebrity-related magazines, tabloids, television programs and ‘celebreality’ shows, increasing
spaces for celebrity images and discussion. Some scholars argue that the popularity of celebrity
gossip has increased the public’s capacity to ‘exercise control’ over the processes of celebritization
(Feasey, 2008; Turner, 2004: 20); this process is compounded in online venues where people can
contribute content, post comments, or simply view a larger set of opinions than those presented in
the mainstream media. Arguably, this ‘new media democracy’ (Braudy, 1986; Turner, 2004: 79)
allows celebrity personas to be constructed and interpreted in an ongoing process that exists
between reader, fan, and celebrity, both on and offline.
Concurrently, the increasingly uncertain economics of the entertainment industry have led some
performers and personalities to seek alternative means of publicity. Following in the footsteps of
tabloid staple Paris Hilton, reality television stars such as the women of MTV’s The Hills or
Bravo’s Real Housewives franchise try to extend their 15 minutes of fame by courting the
entertainment press, staging pseudo-events (Boorstin, 1961), and reaching out to fan communities.
Similarly, the fall of the multi-national record industry has forced musicians to take control of their
careers. Up-and-coming bands book tour dates, arrange press opportunities, create fan clubs,
release music over blogs or social networking sites, and manage fans using YouTube, MySpace,
Twitter, and other social media tools (Knoppner, 2009). Fans organize renewal campaigns for
programs such as Veronica Mars and Jericho to pressure television networks, while increasingly,
producers and showrunners are adopting these well-organized and often successful techniques
(Becque, 2007; Murray, 2004). Publishing houses encourage authors to organize book tours, to blog,
and to reach out to readers using sites like GoodReads (Kachka, 2008). This independent self-
promotion is not done by real superstars, who stick to the talk show and Vanity Fair circuit (Julia
Roberts, George Clooney, and Angelina Jolie are not on Twitter or MySpace), but for most workers
in the entertainment industry, social media is a necessary part of creating and maintaining a fan base.
Our analysis of the practices of famous people on Twitter reveals how social media can be used to
maintain celebrity status. Entertainers, public figures and technologists actively contribute to the
construction of their persona through public interaction with fans. This type of active labor is strikingly
similar to that practiced by bloggers, online glamour models, social media gurus, and other people
practicing micro-celebrity. However, we do not mean to suggest that micro-celebrity is a democratiz-
ing practice. Micro-celebrity practitioners do not see the returns on their efforts that mainstream
famous people do; their dreams of financial success or trappings of wealth are rarely achieved.
Moreover, celebrity performance of access and affiliation reveals the inner workings of unequal status,
making power differentials clear. Responsiveness on Twitter is variable: while Ashton Kutcher may
not write back to his fans, a fan will typically write back to him, and Ashton Kutcher will typically
respond to other celebrities. This type of public recognition marks certain people as more important
than others. We see these tensions embodied in people like Perez Hilton, who occupies a liminal space
where he is criticized for responding to celebrity practitioners rather than fans. Celebrity is by necessity
a co-performance that requires fan deference and mutual recognition of unequal status to succeed –
otherwise, the practitioner is famous only in his or her own mind. Twitter does, to some extent, bring
Marwick & boyd 155
famous people and fans ‘closer’ together, but it does not equalize their status. Rather, it reveals that the
reasons for power differentials between ‘celebrities’and ‘non-celebrities’ are performative constructs
that can be leveraged by anyone with a webcam, social network site profile, or Twitteraccount for their
own uses. But practicing celebrity and having celebrity status are different. It remains to be seen
whether the opening-up of these techniques will create spaces for different types of celebrities.
New media not only provides new outlets for the exploration of celebrity, but complicates
the dynamics between celebrity practitioners, their audiences, and those who occupy spaces
in-between. Interactions between famous people are typically brokered through entertainment
media or kept from public view; Twitter allows famous people to make their conversations publicly
visible. This requires celebrity practitioners to navigate skillfully the performative friendships,
feuds, and negotiations with others, all in front of their fans and the mainstream media. Twitter also
disrupts the expectation of parasociality between the famous person and the fan. The study of celeb-
rity culture has primarily focused on fans as separate from celebrities, but the ability of famous peo-
ple to read and reply to fans has given rise to new sets of practices and interactions. Celebrity
practitioners must harness this ability to maintain ongoing affiliations and connections with their
fans, rather than seem uncaring or unavailable. Thus, Twitter creates a new expectation of intimacy.
Rather than handing off fan management to an agent or fan club, celebrity practitioners must expend
emotional labor maintaining a network of affective ties with their followers. Thus, even the famous
must learn the techniques used by ‘regular people’ to gain status and attention online.
Twitter demonstrates the transformation of ‘celebrity’ from a personal quality linked to fame to a
set of practices that circulate through modern social media.
References
Baym N (2000) Tune In, Log On: Soaps, Fandom, and Online Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Becque S (2007) Big Damn Fans: Fan Campaigns of Firefly and Veronica Mars. Senior thesis, Departments of
Sociology and Anthropology, Mount Holyoke College, MA, USA.
Beer D and Penfold-Mounce R (2009) Celebrity gossip and the new melodramatic imagination. Sociological
Research Online 14(2–3). URL (consulted July 2009): http://www.socresonline.org.uk/14/2/2.html
Bendix R (1997) In Search of Authenticity: The Formation of Folklore Studies. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Blumer H (1962) Society as symbolic interaction. In: Rose AM (ed.) Human Behavior and Social Processes.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 179–192.
Boorstin D (1961) The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. New York: Athenaeum.
boyd d (2008) Taken out of Context: American Teen Sociality in Networked Publics. PhD dissertation,
University of California, Berkeley.
boyd d, Golder S and Lotan, G (2010) Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter.
HICSS–43. IEEE: Kauai HI, 6 January.
Braudy L (1986) The Frenzy of Reknown: Fame and Its History. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cheng VJ (2004) Inauthentic: The Anxiety over Culture and Identity. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cohen N (2009) When stars Twitter, a ghost may be lurking, The New York Times, 26 March. URL
(consulted December 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/technology/internet/27twitter.html
Crawford K (2009) These foolish things: On intimacy and insignificance in mobile media. In: Goggin G
and Hjorth L (eds) Mobile Technologies: From Telecommunications to Media. New York: Routledge,
252–265.
Donath J (1998) Identity and deception in the virtual community. In: Kollock P and Smith M (eds) Commu-
nities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge, 29–59.
156 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
Donath J (2007) Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1).
URL (consulted July 2009): http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/donath.html
Dunbar RIM (1996) Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Dyer R (1986) Heavenly Bodies: Film Stars and Society. London: BFI Macmillan.
Ewan S (1989) All Consuming Images: The Politics of Style in Contemporary Culture. New York: Basic Books.
Feasey R (2008) Reading Heat: The meanings and pleasures of star fashions and celebrity gossip. Continuum:
Journal of Media & Cultural Studies 22(5): 687–699.
Gamson J (1994) Claims to Fame: Celebrity in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Giles DC (2002) Parasocial interaction: A review of the literature and a model for future research. Media Psy-
chology 4(3): 279–305.
Goffman E (1959) The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Golder S and Huberman BA (2006) Usage patterns of collaborative tagging systems. Journal of Information
Science 32(2): 198–208.
Hearn A (2008) ‘Meat, mask, burden’ Probing the contours of the branded ‘self’. Journal of Consumer
Culture 8(2): 197–217.
Honeycutt C and Herring SC (2009) Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter.
Proceedings of the Forty-Second Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS–42).
Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Press.
Horton D and Wohl RR (1956) Mass communication and para-social interaction: Observations on intimacy at
a distance. Psychiatry 19(3): 215–229.
Jensen J (1992) Fandom as pathology. In: Lewis L (ed.) The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular
Media. New York: Routledge, 9–29.
Jenkins (1992) Textual Poachers. New York: Routledge.
Jenkins (2006a) Convergence Culture. New York: New York University Press.
Jenkins (2006b) Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York: New York
University Press.
Kachka B (2008) Have we reached the end of book publishing as we know it? New York Magazine,
14 September. URL (consulted July 2009): http://nymag.com/news/media/50279/
Kidzworld (2009) Niley timeline: Nick Jonas and Miley Cyrus relationship 2009. Kidzworld.com. URL
(consulted June 2009): http://www.kidzworld.com/article/18635-niley-timeline-nick-jonas-and-miley-
cyrus-relationship–2009
Knoppner S (2009) Appetite for Self Destruction: The Spectacular Crash of the Record Industry in the Digital
Age. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lair D, Sullivan K and Cheney G (2005) Marketization and the recasting of the professional self. Management
Communication Quarterly 18(3): 307–343.
Lessig L (2004) Free Culture. London: Penguin Books.
Lowenthal L (1961) The triumph of mass idols. Literature, Popular Culture, and Society. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 109–140.
MandyMiley (2009). Goodbye Twitter. YouTube.com 9 October. URL (consulted October 2009): http://www.
youtube.com/watch?v¼2tSOTQPUQoU
Marshall PD (1997) Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Marshall PD (2006) The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York: Routledge.
Marwick A and boyd d (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the
imagined audience. New Media and Society. Published online before print, 7 July.
McLeod K (2002) The private ownership of people.In: McLeod K Owning Culture, New York: Peter Lang, ch. 6.
Miller V (2008) New media, networking, and phatic culture, Convergence 14(4): 387–400.
Murray S (2004) ‘Celebrating the story the way it is’: Cultural studies, corporate media and the contested
utility of fandom. Continuum 18(1): 7–25.
Marwick & boyd 157
Nielsen Company, the (2009) Nielsens Social Media QuickTake: May 2009. Nielsen.com. URL (consulted
June 2009): http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/nielsen_pr_090619.pdf
Quantcast Corporation (2010). Twitter.com. Quantcast.com. URL (consulted March 2010): http://www.
quantcast.com/twitter.com
Rahman M (2006) Is straight the new queer? David Beckham and the dialectics of celebrity. In: Marshall PD
(ed.) The Celebrity Culture Reader. New York: Routledge, 223–228.
Rojek C (2001) Celebrity. Chicago, IL: Reaktion Books.
Schickel R (1985) Intimate Strangers: The Culture of Celebrity. New York: Doubleday.
Senft T (2008) Camgirls: Celebrity and Community in the Age of Social Networks. New York: Peter Lang.
Snyder D (2000) Webcam women: Life on your screen. In: Gauntlett D (ed.) Web.Studies: Rewiring Media
Studies for the Digital Age. London: Arnold, 68–73.
Sternbergh A (2004) Cruise control: The publicist behind the movie star. Slate, 5 April. URL (consulted
December 2009): http://www.slate.com/id/2098277/
Strauss AL (1993) Continual Permutations of Action. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Thompson C (2008) Brave new world of digital intimacy. The New York Times 7 September. URL (consulted
February 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/07/magazine/07awareness-t.html?r¼1
Thompson JB (1995). The Media and Modernity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Trilling L (1972) Sincerity and Authenticity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner G (2004) Understanding Celebrity. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Wallenstein A and Belloni M (2009) Hey, showbiz folks: Check your contract before your next tweet.
The Hollywood Reporter: THR Esquire, 15 October. URL (consulted December 2009): http://www.
thresq.com/2009/10/check-your-contract-before-your-next-tweet.html
Biographies
Alice Marwick is a postdoctoral researcher at Microsoft Research New England and a research affiliate at the
Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School. She received her PhD from the Department
of Media, Culture, and Communication at New York University.
danah Boyd is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research and a research affiliate at Harvard’s Berkman Center
for Internet and Society. Her research focuses on youth engagement with social media. She is a co-author of
Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learning with New Media (2009).
158 Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 17(2)
