A new power: how celebrities can use social media to influence social movements

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content A NEW POWER: HOW CELEBRITIES CAN USE SOCIAL MEDIA TO INFLUENCE SOCIAL MOVEMENTS by Ani Istanboulian A Thesis Presented to the FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree MASTER OF ARTS (STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS) May 2012 Copyright 2012 Ani Istanboulian ii Dedication This thesis would not have been possible without the support of my wonderful family and friends. Thank you to my amazing parents, Gary and Flora, for being my loving, caring, #1 fans—you have willingly supported me through everything I’ve decided to get my paws into and I love you for that. You are the best parents anyone could ever ask for. I can only hope to grow up to be just like you two. I would also like to thank my uncle (and fellow Trojan!), Paul Chaderjian, for guiding me through countless assignments, questions, and concerns while completing my degree at USC Annenberg. You have been quite the positive influence, and I admire you for everything you are—both as an uncle and a journalist. I hope I have made you all proud. Thank you! iii Acknowledgements This thesis, as with any huge writing project, was quite a piece of work. Had it not been for my wonderful support team, I would be lost. I would like to thank my thesis committee chair, Kjerstin Thorson, for her constant support and encouragement. I can’t even begin to count how many frantic, confused e-‐mails I sent her. No matter what, however, Kjerstin was a calm, reassuring voice and guide through this entire process, and I cannot thank her enough. I would also like to thank my second committee member (and digital/social media expert) Matthew Leveque for his much appreciated feedback and constructive criticism. Finally, I would like to thank my third committee member, Brenda Lynch, for her helpful commentary and direction. All three of the aforementioned wonderful mentors were the perfect support system for me—USC Annenberg is lucky to have them. iv Table of Contents Dedication......................................................................................................................................................ii Acknowledgments....................................................................................................................................iii List of Tables................................................................................................................................................vi Abstract........................................................................................................................................................vii Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 1: Celebrification of Culture.................................................................................................6 Chapter 2: Advantages of Celebrity Social Media for Social Action or Causes..............10 Chapter 3: Disadvantages of Celebrities in Social Media.......................................................13 Chapter 4: Celebrity Social Media for Non-‐Profits, Charities, and Causes......................17 Table 1: Content Analysis of Celebrity Tweets (January 22, 2012—February 8, 2012)........................................................................................................................................................23 #prayforJapan......................................................................................................................................26 #MalariaNoMore.................................................................................................................................29 Non-‐Profit..............................................................................................................................................31 Raising Awareness.............................................................................................................................34 #Carmageddon....................................................................................................................................37 Chapter 5: Celebrity Social Media Impact on Politics .............................................................39 Obama 2008..........................................................................................................................................39 Tiers of Engagement.....................................................................................................................43 Empowering Super Users...........................................................................................................44 Providing Source Materials for User Generated Content.............................................45 Going Where the People Are.....................................................................................................45 Using Tools People Are Familiar With..................................................................................45 Celebrity Influence on Political Activism.................................................................................47 v Conclusions................................................................................................................................................53 Bibliography..............................................................................................................................................56 Appendix A: Interview with Caitlin Maguire of Rock the Vote............................................59 Appendix B: Interview with James Pitkin of PeerIndex..........................................................61 Appendix C: Interview with Jereme Bivins of The Foundation Center............................64 Appendix D: Online Survey.................................................................................................................69 vi List of Figures Figure 1: "I have learned about causes or social issues from a celebrity online.".......21 Figure 2: "I have looked at a website or read an article about a cause/social issue because of a celebrity's post."............................................................................................................21 Figure 3: LA Times Online poll, February 1, 2012....................................................................36 vii Abstract This thesis aims to provide a better understanding of celebrities and how they can use social media to influence social movements or social good. This paper analyzes the way celebrities use social media to promote political and social issues and will explore their ability to influence their publics. A social movement will be defined as political or charitable activism for the purposes of this paper. The purpose of this study is to investigate social media “influence,” what causes people to react to a celebrity’s social media post, and to study what makes a celebrity influential on the Internet. Qualitative primary research consisted of interviews with social media monitoring professionals and public relations professionals. Interviewees included Caitlin Maguire from Rock the Vote, a non-‐profit organization whose mission is to engage and build political power for American youth, uses music, pop culture, new technologies, and grassroots organization to motivate and mobilize young people to participate in elections; James Pitkin of Peer Index, a social media analytics company that helps social media contributors assess and score their influence and benefit from the social capital they have built up; and Jereme Bivins, a nonprofit digital marketing and communications specialist for The Foundation Center, a nonprofit organization that aims to provide knowledge about philanthropies in the US. viii Additionally, a survey was conducted to see how celebrities can influence their publics with social media. I wanted to see why people chose to support a celebrity’s call to action and what factors determined their support. 1 Introduction Justin Bieber is one of today’s most famous pop stars. Like many celebrities, Bieber has a track record of countless awards, millions of fans around the world, and platinum album sales. Bieber, however, is a different type of celebrity—one that rose to fame via social media—a true representation of today’s digital generation. The teenager became a global sensation thanks to his mother, who uploaded videos of the young singer to YouTube. After receiving millions of views on his videos and becoming an Internet star, Bieber was discovered by music industry executives. Bieber, 17, has remained humble despite his success and is well known for his charitable contributions. Recently, Bieber used his star power and social media influence to save a life. The popular teen singer, with over 16 million Twitter followers as of January 2012, literally became a lifesaver thanks to a simple tweet. A young Canadian fan in need of a lung transplant tweeted 1 at Bieber, asking him to raise awareness about organ donation. Helene Campbell, 20, was diagnosed with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and turned to social media to raise awareness. “Hey @justinbieber! I BELIEB you should use that Canadian voice of yours and help save lives like mine #beaanorgandonor beadonor.ca.ca #giveblood,” Campbell tweeted on Jan. 19 from her Twitter account @alungstory. 1 Note: A “tweet” is a post or status update on Twitter, consisting of 140 characters. 2 Bieber retweeted Campbell's message to his 16.5 million Twitter followers and followed it up with a plea of his own, asking followers to help spread the word. “In the first few days the numbers surged,” said Ronnie Gavsie, the president and CEO of the Trillium Gift of Life Network, which operates the BeADonor.ca website. “Just the fact that Hélène reached out to him caused the numbers to trigger,” Gavsie said on Canada AM ("Woman Who Asked Bieber to Promote Organ Donation Shares Story "). Since Bieber and Campbell’s Twitter conversation, more than 500 people registered on beadonor.ca, the website of the Ontario-‐based organ tissue donation agency Trillium Gift of Life Network. The website also received thousands of visits over the weekend ("Organ Donor Registrations Soar after Justin Bieber, Barenaked Ladies, Bif Naked Tweets"). This is a prime example of the reach and power of a celebrity’s social media influence. A celebrity with millions of followers has the opportunity to influence anyone and inspire social movement by creating content that inspires “likes” on Facebook, retweets on Twitter, comments on YouTube, and much more. Influence is defined as “the ability to drive action”; namely, effecting change in another person’s attitudes, opinions, beliefs, or behavior (Bartholomew). In his blog post, “Bringing Some Clarity to Social Media Influence,” public relations professional Don Bartholomew writes, “Influence is purposeful. In real life or digital life, when we set out to change the opinion, attitude, beliefs or behavior of another person or group, we do so with a downstream motivation – for them to take a 3 specific action.” When celebrities use their star power in social media to influence the masses, positive social change can happen. This thesis aims to explore how celebrities can engage the masses with their ability to influence via social media and ultimately contribute to a social movement or facilitate positive social change. What makes a celebrity so influential? What causes people to act upon a celebrity’s social media post regarding politics, charity, or activism? I hypothesize that celebrities can successfully leverage social change through social media because they are powerful influencers with a strong following; that effective celebrity activists can use their fame to bring attention to representatives of social movements and non-‐profits. I aim to explore how celebrities can use social media to build a following that can be utilized toward social movement and reform—can a celebrity influence the masses enough raise awareness about a social issue? Be the catalyst for political action? What drives people to support a celebrity? What are the advantages and disadvantages to having a celebrity attached to your non-‐profit or cause? This thesis is designed to help organizations determine how to use celebrity influence to achieve social change through social media public relations in practice. I will conduct research to explore the different kinds of influence a celebrity can have over the masses—whether it is raising public awareness for a social issue or cause, fundraising for a non-‐profit or charity, encouraging the masses to vote for a politician, or lobbying to change a law. 4 Although there are many celebrities on Facebook and Twitter with armies of followers, there are also far more individuals and organizations with active networks of retweeters, bloggers and fast-‐growing social spheres of influence (Bivins). Change can be achieved quickly by using social media to build relationships, engage with decision-‐makers, and ultimately organize movements or followings. I believe that an influential celebrity’s online involvement is the key to garnering considerable attention and funding for worthy causes and non-‐profits and ultimately making a positive social change. This report draws on evidence from primary research in the form of interviews with social media professionals, a survey of people who follow celebrities on Twitter, and a content analysis of celebrity tweets. In my interviews, I chose to seek professional opinions on if celebrities can successfully influence social movement using their social media influence. I asked why people support celebrity-‐ backed causes or charities, and if and why people were likely to support the cause or social issue. In my survey, I wanted to see what social networks people used most often, if they followed celebrities, and how far a celebrity’s influence could go— would people vote for a politician a celebrity supported or donate to a charity a celebrity tweeted about? Would they visit a website or read about a worthy cause that a celebrity posted about? And finally, I critically analyzed popular celebrities’ tweets. Were people more likely to support a celebrity that often tweeted about social issues? Did the number of followers matter or did the content matter? 5 Social media is an easy and effective way for large groups to organize and band together. The sheer weight of numbers allows people to realize they’re not alone in their dissatisfaction or needs (Shirkey). The convenience of social media allows people to find each other—whether they are across the globe or in the same neighborhood, social media allows people to unite almost effortlessly in digital communities. For a charity, worthy cause, or non-‐profit looking to successfully engage the masses, garner media attention, and gain a strong following, I believe that a celebrity’s social media involvement will set the stage for success. 6 Chapter 1: Celebrification of Culture American culture places celebrities on a pedestal, making their popularity and influence appear almost completely unattainable to the everyday person (Meyer and Gamson). Yet social media has made celebrities seem attainable—virtually connecting them to fans and, in some cases, sparking seemingly intimate relationships. “The culture of celebrity is marked by power, influence, and consumer interest and judgment, thus making a celebrity, a voice above others, a voice that is channeled into the media as being legitimately significant” (Marshall). The powers celebrities possess distinguish them from “everyday individuals” as personas of great expertise and influence. In the book Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture scholar David Marshall says celebrities “move on the public stage while the rest of us watch; express themselves quite individually and idiosyncratically while the rest of the population are constructed as demographic aggregates; represent success and achievement within the social world,” although they need no “requisite association with work” (Marshall). If the world is watching them anyway, why not utilize celebrities for the greater good? The ability of celebrities to make a social impact is debatable. When a celebrity parlays his or her marketing savvy into the social movement arena and markets political participation as a t-‐shirt, the possibility exists that the celebrity 7 stands for little more than advancing his own celebrity (Gitlin). Yet some celebrities have actually made a positive difference in the world, whether it is in politics, charity, or activism—and social media has definitely played a huge role in their successes. With the growing power of social media combined with the power of celebrity, one can infer that celebrities can make a difference by using their star power to positively influence the masses. The cultural function of “celebrity” is an intriguing exploration. The theory behind how and why people come to worship celebrities (and why some are more affected than others) is a pop-‐culture question almost as old as pop culture itself (Bouchez). According to a 2010 CBS News Healthwatch article by Colette Bouchez, experts say that as long as there have been those who pull ahead of the crowd in fame or fortune, there has been a curious crowd wanting to follow. This is beneficial information for non-‐profits and activist groups looking to make a change. We can confirm that people are indeed curious about celebrities and have some interest in their lives; confirm that there is some potential in using celebrities for effective messaging, potential social change, and positive influence. Stuart Fischoff, Ph.D., spokesman for the American Psychological Association and professor emeritus of media psychology at the California State University at Los Angeles, is quoted in the article saying that society’s obsession and fascination with celebrities is perhaps innate in human DNA. “What's in our DNA, as a social animal, is the interest in looking at alpha males and females; the ones who are important in the pack,” says Fischoff. We are 8 sociologically preprogrammed to “follow the leader,” he says, and notes that we are biochemical sitting ducks for the Hollywood star system; even the stars themselves get caught up in the mystique (Bouchez). “I know celebrities that are star struck by other celebrities -‐ even major politicians are more likely to sit up and take notice of an issue when a celebrity is doing the talking. So this is clearly something that really is in our DNA,” says Fischoff (Bouchez). Why not use this knowledge to a non-‐profit’s advantage? If it is natural for humans to “follow the leader,” why not utilize our “leaders” for social good? Historian Daniel Boorstin is responsible for one of the most widely quoted aphorisms about celebrity: “The celebrity is a person who is well-‐known for their well-‐knownness” (Turner). “Fabricated on purpose to satisfy our exaggerated expectations of human greatness,” says Boorstin, “the celebrity develops their capacity for fame, not by achieving great things, but by differentiating their own personality from those of their competitors in the public arena. Consequently, while heroic figures are distinguished by their achievements or by ‘the great simple virtues of their character’, celebrities are differentiated ‘mainly by trivia of personality” (Turner). Things have changed in recent years, especially with the rise of social media. Whereas celebrities used to be untouchable, mysterious people that the public was obsessed with, social media has created an incredibly direct line of communication for celebrities and the public. Celebrities eventually become famous for being famous—and society eats it up. It seems as though their notoriety has less to do 9 with why they’re famous, or with how they can directly affect lives, than with what and who they are. But what happens when the famous use their fame for social good? The increasing celebrification of American culture brings with it a set of important possibilities for social movements and activists interested in reaching the masses. There are many advantages to having celebrities get involved with an organization or cause. Celebrities may be influential for multiple reasons. They have millions of followers on their social networks—when they post about a social issue, they have the ability to garner considerable media attention and raise public awareness; they can use their social media accounts to connect with fans and build seemingly intimate relationships; they can use their fame and number of their followers to help shape public opinion and lobby governments to support chosen causes; they have the resources to get their voices heard. 10 Chapter 2: Advantages of Celebrity Social Media for Social Action or Causes For an organization looking to raise awareness about an issue or cause, there are many advantages to having celebrities actively use social media. Celebrity social media involvement can offer three key advantages to social causes: media attention, fundraising, and validation. Celebrities have thousands, even millions, of followers and can use their fame to influence said followers for social good. They possess huge fan bases, some of which can be converted into supporters for a non-‐profit, voters, or activists. Non-‐profits and charities can use celebrities to reach an entirely new demographic with social media as a new communication channel—one that lacks all the costs and limitations of past communication channels like television, radio, and print journalism. Additionally, celebrities have the ability to make things newsworthy, relevant, and timely. Rock The Vote’s Caitlin Maguire 2 says, “Many people, especially young people, idolize celebrities and those in the public eye. Social media has allowed fans new and huge opportunities to gain access to celebrities; thus, many fans follow what their favorite celebrities have to say on Twitter and Facebook. If a celebrity decides to tout a good cause through social media then it will reach many eyes and ears. If someone cares about the celebrity enough, he or she may be inspired to research and take action on the cause more.” 2 Feb 2012 Interview with Caitlin Maguire of Rock The Vote, a non-‐profit organization whose mission is to engage and build political power for American youth, uses music, pop culture, new technologies, and grassroots organization to motivate and mobilize young people to participate in elections. 11 Celebrities can (often successfully) garner media attention for their social issue or cause. In The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements, Meyer writes, “The chief asset that celebrities can offer social movements is the visibility that comes with their participation; celebrities carry a spotlight with them.” In addition to the thousands of followers and online communities, the celebrity possesses the ability to garner media attention. “Once an individual has been certified as newsworthy, he or she has been empowered within limits, to make news” (Meyer). The presence of a celebrity can make the event or worthy cause they are posting about inherently newsworthy. Celebrity participation can draw in other participants and potential supporters, even other celebrities. “People with no previous interest in pesticides, for example, may listen to a public service announcement because Meryl Streep appears in it” (Meyer). Additionally, celebrities can provide critical fund-‐raising to help various organizations, non-‐profits, charities, political campaigns, and the like. “The greater visibility and media coverage that comes with celebrity participation are in themselves fund-‐raising assets” (Meyer). Celebrities are generally wealthy on their own, can donate, and can attract donors or other celebrities. A celebrity can also help validate a charity campaign—in the sense of branding. A celebrity, at the end of the day, is a “brand.” Branding is obviously an integral part of social media, and celebrities will inevitably brand themselves with worthy or popular brands. 12 According to Jereme Bivins, social media manager of The Foundation Center, the leading source of information about philanthropy worldwide, people want to be a part of great things. “When we donate money to charity, we’re investing in something good together, to do something that we couldn’t do alone,” Bivins says. “Worthy causes supported by celebrities meet success because we have confidence in the cause and the celebrity’s ability to recruit other supporters.” When a celebrity brands his or her name with an organization, the organization has the opportunity to become immediately validated and seemingly relevant. When that celebrity posts on their social media account about the organization, followers will be likely to at least click on the link to the organization’s website or article about the social issue, and potentially donate or take action. A celebrity can definitely bring attention to the cause. While all of these advantages of celebrity involvement are clearly beneficial to social causes looking to make a difference, one must not look over the obvious disadvantages. 13 Chapter 3: Disadvantages of Celebrities in Social Media While celebrities clearly are advantageous to a non-‐profit or cause looking to gain media attention, fundraising, or raise awareness, there are risks involved with celebrity involvement. One disadvantage of a celebrity in social media is that he or she can become overexposed. This poses a risk to the organization—if the overexposed celebrity is involved with the organization’s name, he or she may cause people to turn away and not bother supporting the celebrity in yet another project. Author Dr. Mark Drapeau refers to a celebrity’s overexposure as “spamanthropism.” Some wonder if the use of personal Twitter accounts will damage celebrity brands (and, as a result, damage the organization the celebrity is supporting) and if their “spamanthropism” is going too far. In Drapeau’s article, Networked Nonprofits: The Eva Longoria Case Study, he asks whether celebrities have effectively used the platform for “spamanthropism,” or are spamming Twitter feeds with too many tweets on nonprofits (Turpin). One response was that to some, those tweets are valuable, and if someone doesn’t like them, they can easily unfollow that particular person. The question of philanthro-‐tweeting ethics, however, is still up in the air for the time being, as social media is still a relatively new and constantly evolving way of communication. “Overall, the use of celebrity endorsed tweets has created a huge impact for thousands of nonprofit organizations” (Turpin). 14 Another potential disadvantage with celebrities using social media for social change or good is that the spotlight a celebrity brings to a worthy cause or movement may focus only on him or her. There exists a risk of overshadowing the social movement because of their celebrity stature. Additionally, stars are difficult to schedule, and generally don’t know the intricacies of the cause they are supporting (Sniderman). This is the primary reason why celebrities seem to be “in-‐and-‐out” spokespeople; involved enough to engage the masses but leaving the heavier work to the non-‐profits and charities that are knowledgeable about their respective causes. Finally, a celebrity needs to engage their social media audience. A celebrity cannot simply post once or twice about an organization or social issue because they were paid to do so. Engagement is absolutely necessary in addition to an authentic voice. The celebrity and organization must focus on fan acquisition—building and acquiring the audience. With proper engagement, an organization can attract fans and eventually build a successful following. Popular singer Alicia Keys created an interesting social media campaign in 2010, where she and fellow celebrities signed off their respective social networking platforms—a “digital death”—until they met their $1 million fundraising goal for the charity Keep a Child Alive. “The world's top celebrities are sacrificing their digital lives to give real life to millions of people affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa and India,” the campaign’s website stated. “That means no more Twitter or Facebook updates from any of 15 them. No more knowing where they are, what they had for dinner, or what interesting things are happening in their lives. From here on out, they're dead. Kaput. Finished.” The celebrities involved—spanning from Lady Gaga to Kim Kardashian to Elijah Wood—all had huge Twitter followings and signed off the popular social networking site on December 1 st , 2010, or World AIDS Day. Celebrities even went so far as to pose “dead” in caskets (photos were printed as advertisements and magazine spreads) and record video statements before their “demise.” Digital Death organizers promised fans that their beloved celebrities would be back online as soon as $1 million was donated. While the concept was unique and clever, the campaign took off to a slow start. Digital Death had barely hit $300,000 after five days. It wasn’t until billionaire pharmaceutical executive Stewart Rahr donated $500,000 in the eleventh hour that the campaign reached its goal ("Billionaire Revives 'Dead' Celebs With Huge Donation"). While Keys’s intentions were undoubtedly good, the campaign wasn’t as successful as one could have hoped. The individual pieces seemed to be in place for a successful online campaign: a great idea, strong branding, and celebrity power. When critically analyzed, we can conclude that the campaign was flawed for multiple reasons. It was an egotistical idea—did fans really care that much about celebrity tweets that they’d pay to get them back online? No. Also, maybe they were asking for too much—the minimum donation for this campaign was $10. This could 16 have turned fans away in the initial stages. Were the celebrities involved considered “influential?” Not necessarily. The most important problem and the key element overlooked—engagement. Social media is based on engagement. It thrives off engagement. In fact, it basically worked against the celebrities and the campaign. The celebrities weren’t able to engage their audience because they were “dead.” The fans follow the celebrities, and without celebrities, there is no campaign. 17 Chapter 4: Celebrity Social Media for Non-Profits, Charities, and Causes. Social media analysts believe that social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter are changing the playing field for social issue campaigns. There is obviously tremendous opportunity for non-‐profits and organizations to cultivate followers and donations using social media, especially with celebrity involvement and influence. Change can be achieved quickly by using social media to build relationships, engage with decision-‐makers, and ultimately organize movements or followings. I hypothesize that an influential celebrity’s online involvement is the key to garnering considerable attention and funding for worthy causes and non-‐profits and ultimately making a positive social change. Social media is perhaps the perfect modern-‐day platform for non-‐profit organizations and charities to raise awareness, increase donations and actively engage a wide online audience. Online communities for virtually any issue or cause can be created with ease (a simple hash tag on Twitter, a fan page on Facebook, a YouTube channel, the possibilities are endless), allowing people of similar interests across the globe to find each other and band together. Celebrities have always been able to use their fame to advance social causes (Bivins). While celebrities are no strangers to the media, it has its obstacles— celebrities don’t always have access to it, media can be expensive, and they won’t 18 always attract the right attention. Social media is the key to successful, easier engagement. “By using social media to connect with their most ardent fans, celebrities are reaching a voluntarily captive audience,” Bivins says. “Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter followers are there because they want to hear what he has to say, not because someone left What Happens in Vegas playing on the living room TV. This is the edge that social media gives all of us, but one that is particularly sharp for celebrities because their reach is so broad. So provided the cause is worthwhile (and resonates with their audience) and the celebrity is credible, they can absolutely influence social movements.” Bivins’ analysis shows that two key variables affect the success of a celebrity/cause relationship: the match between the celebrity and the cause and the authenticity of the celebrity. The cause should be worthwhile and resonate with the audience. The celebrity should also genuinely care about the cause and often engage with fans. Additionally, we can gather that the celebrity must have an authentic voice. Does Kim Kardashian have as big an impact on a social issue as Lady Gaga? One can argue that Lady Gaga would probably be more effective in influencing change with her social media presence, since Gaga is open about her support of gay rights and political activism. Gaga’s message to fans is “Born This Way,” which is coincidentally the title of her hit single and multiplatinum record. Kardashian, however, stands for… nothing in particular. Gaga has an authentic voice and genuine passion for 19 equal rights and social issues; Kardashian, a reality TV star who is famous for being famous, doesn’t have the same presence. Rock The Vote, a non-‐profit organization whose mission is to engage and build political power for American youth, uses music, pop culture, new technologies, and grassroots organization to motivate and mobilize young people to participate in elections. In my interview with company spokeswoman Caitlin Maguire, I asked why she thinks people would choose to support a celebrity’s charity or cause. Maguire said, “People look up to celebrities who speak to them in some way. If they idolize the celebrity enough or even fantasize about being that celebrity, then they will take action regarding what the celebrity does and says.” James Pitkin of Peer Index, a social analytics website, said that celebrities possess two key factors: reach and impact. In my interview with Pitkin, we discussed if people were likely to support a cause or organization because of a celebrity’s tweet. “I think that it’s certainly more likely to be supported than if a celebrity hadn’t tweeted,” Pitkin said. “This is because of two key features that celebrities’ messages possess; reach and impact. By tweeting, a celebrity can potentially highlight a worthy cause. Having said this, it is arguable that social media as a communication channel gaining support for a worthy cause is a weak one, because it can be perceived as lacking authenticity.” For another aspect of my primary research, I chose to create a survey to see how celebrities can influence the masses with social media. I wanted to see why 20 people chose to support a celebrity’s call to action and what factors determined support. I sent survey links to every 10 th follower of popular celebrities on Twitter for a proper sampling. Additionally, I sent survey links to celebrity fan page Twitters. On Facebook, I posted a link on my personal profile. I gathered results from 141 respondents, and 88% were 18-‐30 years old. The majority of respondents (70%) indicated that they used Facebook most often; 19% of respondents primarily used Twitter, and the rest primarily used Tumblr, YouTube, or other social media platforms. In the survey, 38% of respondents indicated that they followed 0-‐100 people on Twitter, with 56% of those followed being celebrities. As for Facebook, 36% of respondents indicated they had over 750 friends, and 88% had 0-‐50 celebrities/fan pages as friends. A large majority of respondents (64%) indicated that the celebrities they followed (on either social media platform) would sometimes post about politics, causes, or social issues. Survey results showed that 41% of respondents were undecided if they were likely to donate to a cause or charity because a celebrity supported it or posted about it. However, results indicated that respondents were willing to explore and learn about said cause or charity. In Figure 1, we can see that the 43% of respondents have at least learned about a cause or charity because a celebrity they follow online posted about it. In Figure 2, we can see that a large majority of respondents (73%) have made the decision to look at the website of a cause or social issue because of a celebrity’s post. Non-‐profits and charities can take 21 advantage of this valuable information—we can confirm that a celebrity will at least bring attention to the cause or social issue, and, most importantly, drive followers to the cause or social issue’s website. Figure 1: "I have learned about causes or social issues from a celebrity online." Figure 2: "I have looked at a website or read an article about a cause/social issue because of a celebrity's post." Another interesting finding from the survey research was that more than half of respondents (55%) were neutral concerning whether they would take action 22 after reading the celebrity’s post about a cause or social issue—vote, attend an event, protest, etc. The celebrities that were influential enough for people to take action seemed to be the ones that were genuinely engaged and involved in their cause or social issue or often posted links to multimedia—the celebrities with an authentic voice. Additionally, respondents were asked to list up to three celebrities that posted about social issues. Of the celebrities most often listed, I conducted a content analysis of their respective tweets to see how often they tweeted about social causes between January 22, 2012—February 8, 2012. I wanted to measure how often they would post about social issues and how often they provided links or photos to measure engagement with fans and authenticity. 23 The table above shows the number of tweets per celebrity for the three weeks I chose to analyze, the percent of tweets that are social issue related and unrelated, and the percent of tweets that are links or photos. For an example of a social issue related tweet, we can examine a post from Ellen DeGeneres’ on February 7, 2012: “Feb 7: Today we took another step towards equality. #Prop8 was found unconstitutional again. I couldn't be happier.” Not only did DeGeneres tweet about a controversial social issue, she chose to add a hash tag when mentioning “Prop 8.” According to Twitter, people use the hash tag symbol (#) before relevant keywords in their tweet to categorize those tweets to show more easily in Twitter Search; clicking on a hash tagged word in any message 24 shows you all other tweets in that category; hash tags can occur anywhere in the tweet; hash tagged words that become very popular are considered Trending Topics (popular topics on Twitter’s homepage). This is an interesting and rather strategic choice for social engagement—by adding a hash tag, DeGeneres’ tweet immediately became part of the online community that was already discussing Prop 8, which made her tweet more easily identifiable and connected to the Twitter world. Additionally, I wanted to see if there was a correlation between engagement and influence—if a celebrity that often posted photos or links to other websites seemed more influential because they were more “connected” to their fans, more open. If a fan feels like they know the celebrity on a bit more personal level due to behind-‐the-‐scenes photos or links to videos, would they be more open to being influenced by them? Celebrities that weren’t necessarily engaged and genuinely involved in a cause but chose to put their face to a name were still able to garner support and attention—but seemed to have been overshadowed by the cause itself. Bivins said people are likely to support a cause or issue based on how deeply someone cares about the cause and or the celebrity. “If you admire George Clooney as an actor, for example, then you might be more inclined to listen to his position on Darfur,” Bivins said. “Conversely, hearing that someone famous advocates for a social issue that you support will reinforce your beliefs, and also increase your respect for that celebrity. Celebrities and social 25 good organizations both develop strong followings because they connect with us emotionally, and that’s what moves us to action.” In the following analyses of a series of real-‐world examples where celebrities got involved in various causes, it is evident that celebrities were able to garner considerable media attention and public support with their respective social media accounts. For example, Katy Perry doesn’t post often about social issues and isn’t necessarily associated with the American Red Cross, but chose to band together with other celebrities to ask fans to donate to the Red Cross’s fundraising efforts for Japan’s tsunami relief in 2011. At the very least, the following celebrities’ social media involvement was beneficial in the sense that they led people in the right direction for donations and support for a worthy cause. “If a celebrity Tweets about anti-‐malaria campaign in Africa, we might click through to learn more about the program, but donations will really only come from people who feel connected to the cause, who feel like they’re investing in something worthwhile and good,” Bivins said. “The celebrity acts as an intermediary connecting a fan to a worthy cause, but he’s not evangelizing them from a single Tweet. Once they’ve been made aware of an issue, it’s the organization’s role in helping them become a supporter, donor, or volunteer.” The following case studies are examples of celebrities taking to their social media accounts to raise awareness, gather donations, and garner media attention for various non-‐profits, worthy causes, and charities. I will be reviewing specific 26 campaigns to garner insights and subtle nuances that could be beneficial for potential social movements to learn from. #prayforJapan Social media effectively revolutionizes communication for natural disasters. Not only is social media a valuable way for friends and family to communicate with each other during natural disasters, it can act as a tool for law enforcement and emergency management officials to communicate with the public. Social media can also be used to spread the word about natural disasters faster than traditional media outlets. The record-‐setting 8.9 earthquakes and tsunami that rocked Japan in 2011 caused millions around the globe to turn to social media networks to see how they could donate to help victims. YouTube saw hundreds of first-‐person videos of homes falling apart, grocery store shelves falling over, and water flooding the streets. On Twitter, hash tags such as “#prayforJapan”, “#Fukushima”, and “#Sundai” rose to the top of the site’s Trending Topics index as people spread news and images of the devastation. Aid organizations also rushed to social media networks to collect donations for victims. “Text Redcross” rose as a trending topic on Twitter as the organization began to collect $10 to assist victims in Japan (Blackburn). Celebrities immediately took to their various social media platforms to lend a helping hand. Lady Gaga, with over 14 million followers at the time, chose to sell $5 bracelets with the words “Pray for Japan” emblazoned on the band. On March 11 th , 27 2011, Gaga tweeted, “I Designed a Japan Prayer Bracelet. Buy It/Donate here and ALL proceeds will go to Tsunami Relief Efforts. Go Monsters.” On March 15 th , just four days later, Gaga tweeted, “Monsters: in just 48 hrs you’ve raised a quarter of a million dollars for Japan Relief. RT: http://bit.ly/f0aYwZ. It’s important we help. X” (Pasetsky). This is a prime example of the influence and power celebrities possess on Twitter—within 48 hours, Lady Gaga was able to raise $250,000 and reach a massive audience simply by tweeting about a bracelet she created for charity. According to Rolling Stone, overall, Gaga raised $3 million (Perpetua). The key insight here is that Lady Gaga had a call to action, and rewarded her followers with an item they could show off as a sense of pride (perhaps even as a prop for raising more awareness) for helping a worthy cause. “In the case of Lady Gaga and her Japan earthquake fundraiser, people supported it because of Lady Gaga’s strong reputation for activism and their desire to help the Japanese afflicted by the tragedy,” Bivins said. “These donors likely wanted to help anyway and Lady Gaga afforded them an opportunity and a community to give together.” Other celebrities also took to social media to garner support for Japan. The Red Cross appeared to be the charity of choice among celebrities, who encouraged their fan bases to make donations via text message (Payne). Pop star Katy Perry, with over 11 million followers at the time, tweeted, “Imagine... if we ALL texted 28 REDCROSS to 90999 we'd have raised over 60million dollars for #JAPAN REFLIEF! BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE! BE!” Among many celebrities, talk show host Conan O'Brien and R&B singer Chris Brown also asked their followers to help the victims of the disaster. Charlie Sheen announced that he was going to donate $1 from each ticket that he sold from his live tour My Violent Torpedo/Defeat is not an Option Show. The money went to the Red Cross Japanese Earthquake Relief Fund. “Celebrities generate media, media delivers awareness, awareness motivates people to help those in need,” said Julie Whitmer, the director of celebrity and entertainment outreach for the American Red Cross (Dickler). “We've seen an incredible outpouring of generosity from the entertainment community and we are most appreciative.” The Red Cross immediately set up a social media presence for tsunami aid. According to their website, “Those who want to help can go to www.redcross.org and donate to Japan Earthquake and Pacific Tsunami. People can also text REDCROSS to 90999 to make a $10 donation to help those affected by the earthquake in Japan and tsunami throughout the Pacific.” P. Diddy, with over 4 million followers at the time, was one of many celebrities that chose to raise awareness for the Red Cross. He tweeted, “EVERYONE KEEP TEXTING!! The quake & tsunami victims in Japan NEED US!!!” As of August 2011, the American Red Cross announced that its total contribution to tsunami relief efforts in Japan topped $260 million (Bivins). Social 29 media is clearly a powerful tool, especially in this case—news and messages quickly reached millions of people—and people were able to take action by donating. An interesting note in this case is that the tsunami and earthquakes could also be considered a catastrophe. Attention was on the issue as soon as possible, then died off—there wasn’t necessarily a sustained “#prayforJapan” presence online because a cause or organization wasn’t building an audience, a following. Perhaps the celebrities also banded together via social media because of the dire need for help, for humanity. People were already attentive to the catastrophe at hand, and the celebrities helped the situation gain more press and attention. Regardless, the combination of influential celebrities using their social media presence for the greater good turned out some incredible results. #MalariaNoMore Actor Ashton Kutcher essentially pioneered and revolutionized the power of celebrities on Twitter. In 2009, Kutcher famously beat CNN to become the first Twitter user to attract a million followers—well before the Gaga days. In the pre-‐ social media days, the time to bring this entire campaign together would have been costly, time-‐consuming, and exhausting. Social media got rid of the need for a press conference, advertisements, organization, and traditional publicity, among many other elements formerly necessary for campaigns such as this one. Kutcher had publicly challenged CNN to see who could get to a million followers first, in an attempt to raise money for mosquito nets to prevent malaria in 30 Africa (Turpin). As part of his victory, and in recognition of World Malaria Day (April 25), Kutcher donated $100,000 to Malaria No More, a nonprofit that aims to provide nets for 600 million Africans at risk of malaria. Despite losing the Twitter face-‐off, CNN also donated 10,000 mosquito nets to the cause. Other celebrities (and fellow Twitter users) quickly followed suit, including Ryan Seacrest, Larry King, Oprah Winfrey, and Demi Moore, among others. This was a great example of celebrities who can garner support from other celebrities—a positive snowball effect that creates a successful, influential social media presence. The key insight in this is that there is power in a number of celebrities joining together, because people want to be a part of a positive movement. Malaria No More's Emily Bergantino said the Twitter-‐inspired mosquito net donations would include education, monitoring, and evaluation (Than). In National Geographic’s article, “Twitter-Celeb Mosquito Nets: What Good Will They Do?” Derek Willis, a scholar at Princeton University in New Jersey who studies malaria-‐control programs and the economic burdens of the disease, was quoted saying, “If you asked most Americans about malaria [before the Twitter contest], they probably would have told you they thought it was already eradicated” (Than). According to PR News Online, the campaign garnered more than 15 million Twitter impressions, 45 million media impressions, 8,000 new followers to the @MalariaNoMore Twitter handle and 500 tweets with the #TwitterNets hash tag. 31 The #TwitterNets campaign also received the “Honorable Mention” title for PR News Online’s 2010 NonProfit PR Awards. Malaria No More now uses online comedians on the website FunnyOrDie.com to share its message. The ensemble cast of celebrity comedians helps cut down time commitments for each star, while also showing broad solidarity for the cause. Since pairing with those stars, awareness of the non-‐profit has also shot up. An internal poll showed that in 2006, 26% of Americans thought malaria was a serious issue. The number jumped to 50% in 2010 thanks in large part to celebrity and public exposure, and more than $750,000 in donations and about 300,000 supporters across Facebook and Twitter (Sniderman). This is yet another example of the positive impact celebrities can have on society with social media. The celebrities in this case used their online influence to raise awareness for this worthy cause and ultimately created positive social change by saving hundreds of thousands of lives. The key insight here is that Malaria No More experienced the power of an organic online movement. Today, they are trying to keep up the momentum and associations with celebrities by continuing to work with FunnyOrDie.com. Non-Profit Pauley Perrette is a television actress and a recent Twitter activist. Perrette plays Abby Sciuto, the gothic scientist who runs the crime lab for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service team on CBS’s hit television show, NCIS. She is also well known 32 for her support of many charitable organizations, including animal rescue, the American Red Cross, civil rights, and gay rights. On Twitter, Perrette is known as @PauleyP, an energetic presence with almost 250,000 followers as of February 2012. Her Twitter bio reads, “Official Tweets of Actor Pauley Perrette NCIS-ABBY, Civil Rights Activist, #StopMakingFriends singer/songwriter & wanna make you smile #NoNegativityZone #NoH8.” Perrette is no stranger to activism and social rights, and often tweets about equality and politics. In 2011, CBS sponsored a panel discussion on how its stars use Twitter, and Perrette shared some of her tweeting philosophy and experience (O’Hare). A women and children’s shelter that Perrette cared about in Sylmar was closing. Perrette said, “We take people off downtown streets of L.A. and put them in this beautiful place. We have got about 100 women and 75 kids and about 90 elderly people there, and it was closing. I was freaking out. I talked to my pastor, I'm like, 'What do we do? What do we do?” (O’Hare). Perrette’s friend encouraged her to create a Twitter account. Within 48 hours, $2.5 million was raised and the shelter was saved. With the surplus of money, Perrette helped move more people into the shelter. “I became a Tweetaholic, and I hold nothing back.” Perrette said. “Because my people are all around the world, I had everybody in every country in the world do the 'I love you' sign, from every country in the world, which was insane. It was crazy how it all came back” (O’Hare). 33 Perrette’s story is just one example of a successful celebrity social media story, and a unique one at that. The shelter in Sylmar wasn’t supported by any national, well-‐known organization. She saved it with her celebrity stature and social media presence alone. Perrette’s viewers and fans felt the connection instantly thanks to her authentic voice. Interestingly enough, according to Bivins, a celebrity endorsement will carry more weight for a social issue that’s supported by an organization. People give to organizations because of the issues that they support. Successful organizations understand this, so their communications are centered on what donations, volunteer hours, or other forms of support are actually doing to advance the cause. “The St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital ads are a great demonstration of this idea,” Bivins says. “In their TV spots, St. Jude’s often has celebrities sitting with children undergoing cancer treatment, while the celebrity tells the story of the child and the hospital’s work toward helping her. The ads aren’t sad, they inspire hope, and the celebrities lend their credibility and storytelling prowess in telling how St. Jude’s helps these children through supporter donations.” According to Bivins, if you were to take the same commercial, remove the information about St. Jude’s, and only focus on the issue of childhood cancer, you might get the same emotional response from the audience, but few actions would be taken. The biggest impact a celebrity can make is advocating for a worthy cause, but they must direct people to a specific place to make a difference. This is where social 34 media comes in and makes the difference. Social media allows celebrities to impact thousands of people with financial and social ease. Raising Awareness Ellen DeGeneres is a famous American comedienne, television host, and actress with over 10 million Twitter followers. She often engages with her social media followers, with nearly 60% of her tweets involving a photo, link or interactive opportunity. DeGeneres also uses her social media accounts to raise awareness about social issues and gay rights. Examples of DeGeneres’ social issue related tweets include statements such as, “We're close to having a generation without HIV. I'm proud to support this cause. Find out more. bit.ly/wlfiGm #GenHIVFree” (Jan. 27, 2012) and, “Who do you think can do more push-‐ups -‐-‐ me or @MichelleObama? Watch tomorrow #LetsMove say.ly/buU1lVd” (Feb. 1, 2012). In January 2012, DeGeneres was named the new spokeswoman for retail giant JC Penney—and not everyone was thrilled about it. OneMillionMoms.com, a division of the American Family Association 3 , took to their website to demand that JC Penney replace DeGeneres because she is a lesbian. “Funny that JC Penney thinks hiring an open homosexual spokesperson will help their business when most of their customers are traditional families,” the 3 The American Family Association is a pro-‐family nonprofit, which promotes traditional family values, focusing primarily on the influence of television and other media on society (www.afa.net). 35 group wrote on its website. “DeGeneres is not a true representation of the type of families that shop at their store. The majority of JC Penney shoppers will be offended and choose to no longer shop there. The small percentage of customers they are attempting to satisfy will not offset their loss in sales.” The group’s statement concluded: “By jumping on the pro-‐gay bandwagon, JC Penney is attempting to gain a new target market and in the process will lose customers with traditional values that have been faithful to them over all these years.” On February 8 th 2012, DeGeneres, who is openly gay, addressed the controversy on her television show, YouTube channel, and social media accounts (Facebook and Twitter). In a three-‐week content analysis of DeGeneres’ Twitter, we can see that she often posts about equality and other social issues. After DeGeneres had her say, the social media world was flooded with hash tags in support of JC Penney, DeGeneres, and LGBT/equal rights. DeGeneres’ Facebook was immediately filled with supportive comments from fans and her tweets about the issue were retweeted hundreds of times. Since DeGeneres’ tweets, YouTube video, and Facebook posts, thousands of fans attacked the One Millions Moms Facebook page. Facebook accounts such as “One Million Moms Behind Ellen,” “One Million & One Ellen DeGeneres Supporters,” and “1 Million Moms against One Million Moms” popped up all over the social networking website. Additionally, the LA Times posted an online survey asking readers what JC 36 Penney should do. The answer was overwhelmingly positive and supportive of DeGeneres. Figure 3: LA Times Online poll, February 1, 2012. The power of DeGeneres’ social media presence raised considerable awareness and media attention for equality and LGBT rights. The same day, One Million Moms deleted their Facebook page. DeGeneres’ story is just one example of a celebrity using social media to raise awareness about an issue. Celebrities, however, can use their fame and social media presence to talk about virtually any issue across the spectrum of social issues spanning from gay rights to potential traffic problems. 37 #Carmageddon Celebrities can reach so many people with social media, in fact, that government officials have asked them to spread the word about certain events and issues to raise awareness and inform the general public. In June 2011, the Los Angeles Police Department took to Twitter to spread the word about “Carmageddon,” when 10 miles of the 405 freeway in Los Angeles was shut down for a weekend of construction. In addition to using traditional media outlets, officials chose to reach out to celebrities like Lady Gaga (11.3 million followers at the time), Ashton Kutcher (7 million followers at the time), Demi Moore (3.7 million followers at the time), and Kim Kardashian (8 million followers at the time) to tweet about the situation. More than 30 celebrities responded to the LAPD's request. When added together, the celebrities who participated had over 100 million followers on Twitter—thus, reaching at least 100 million people (“‘Carmageddon’: LAPD Thanks Celebrities for Twitter Help”). Examples of celebrity Carmageddon tweets: o Kim Kardashian(@KimKardashian) “Stay away from the 405 Fwy the weekend of July 16 & 17, it will be closed btwn the 10 Fwy and 101 Fwy North & South!” (Cont’d) o Rob Corddry (@robcorddry) , “LAPD asked me to warn you to avoid the 405 Fwy July on 16-‐17. But I'm not going to. Matter of fact, come to my party @ the LAX exit Sat!” 38 o Conan O’Brien (@ConanOBrien) “The LAPD asked me to warn you to avoid the 405 Fwy on July 16 & 17, or else the red light photo of me driving in a satin slip goes viral.” o Ashton Kutcher (@aplusk) “LAPD askd me 2tweet: 405fwy btwn 10 & 101 will b closed July16-‐17. In xchange I would like a free pass on that stoplight tickt IT WAS YELLOW.” o William Shatner (@WilliamShatner) “LA friends, the 405 closes this weekend in what surely will be Carmageddon Remember also that @TheCaptainsTV airs on @EpixHD on 7/22!” o Adam Levine @ adamlevine I think I want to throw a tailgate party for Carmageddon. Meet me at the 405 tomorrow. Let's party. o Christina Applegate @1capplegate Maybe the old dude who predicted end of days meant CARMAGEDDON! And for that I say bravo old crazy guy! o Ryan Seacrest @RyanSeacrest Wait, what!? There's stuff to do in LA that doesn't require a car? #nobodywalksinla 39 Chapter 5: Celebrity Social Media Impact on Politics Hollywood celebrities and Washington politics have a long history. Throughout the 19 th century, politics was a primary form of entertainment and “politicians were the nation’s first aristocracy of celebrity” (Grier and McLaughlin). Today, social media has become a driving force in the political landscape. Facebook has grown in prominence in political campaigns since 2008 — for example, more than 12 million people clicked the "I Voted" button in 2010, signifying that they had cast ballots, compared to about 5.4 million in 2008 (Thomas). Recently, with the uprising of social media, celebrities have become more visible in the political spotlight. Celebrities actively take to their social media accounts to share their thoughts on politics, and in turn, share said thoughts with their millions of followers. In some cases, a celebrity is so influential that he or she has successfully been able to persuade people to vote for him or her. Obama 2008 Perhaps the most popular Presidential campaign of all time, Barack Obama’s 2008 run is a prime example of using celebrity power through social media for social change. Not only did Obama use social media to his full advantage, he essentially became a celebrity and used his “celebrity power” to influence voters and eventually change the world. 40 Rock The Vote’s Caitlin Maguire said, “The President is always some sort of celebrity. Any President has the power to be a role model and he is certainly always one of the most famous people in the world. Barack Obama may be a bigger celebrity than other figureheads like him because in 2008, he resonated with young people, who typically follow celebrities more than any other demographic.” According to “The Social Pulpit” by global PR firm, Edelman, Obama won the 2008 presidency by “converting everyday people into engaged and empowered volunteers, donors, and advocates through social networks, e-‐mail advocacy, text messaging and online video” (Lutz). According to Bivins, the President’s social media campaign was successful because he took social media seriously as a legitimate tool for change. In previous elections, statistics showed that the greatest voter apathy was among young people—people 18 through 20—and they lacked the career stability to be heavy campaign contributors. “So basically as the traditional thinking went, even if you had a solid base of ardent young supporters, their donations wouldn’t be sufficient to run a campaign and they likely wouldn’t show up to the ballots with strong enough numbers to tip the scales,” Bivins said. “Therefore politicians spent more of their time engaged with older audiences at house parties, ‘Meet the Candidate’ nights while lobbying for their votes and contributions.” According to Bivins, Obama shirked the traditional campaign by embracing a younger demographic with his message of hope and his campaign’s emphasis on 41 digital tools. Even though social media was still in its infancy, young people were leading the charge in its adoption. The campaign also had a considerable number of professionals with a strong digital strategic vision and knowledge on staff, including Chris Hughes, one of Facebook’s co-‐founders, who “championed and masterfully commanded these tools” (Bivins). The Obama campaign could post messages, updates, photos, hear stories, and keep everyone online involved while still attending traditional rallies, diner pop-‐ins, state fairs, and the rest of the whistle stops along the trail. “Now as social tools become more pervasive, we see an increasing number of candidates embracing digital technology to lower the cost of organizing and fundraising, while increasing their overall reach for volunteer recruitment, donor cultivation, and campaign updates,” Bivins said. “The past has taught most campaigns that they need to take technology far more seriously and engage with voters in the places and ways that they want to be engaged with. That’s why this cycle will have a striking emphasis on the use of mobile tools, platforms, and location-‐based services.” Obama had a powerful combination of celebrity support and social media strategy. Celebrities give candidates increased media coverage, which helps candidates gain exposure and spread their ideas (Madans). Social media gives candidates the power to directly connect with people from across the country and engage the masses. Obama had both. 42 Celebrities definitely have an impact on a voter’s decision-‐making process, but not necessarily by convincing those voters who to support (Madans). Rather, what a celebrity can do is get voters to pay more attention to a candidate than they would under other circumstances. In this case, Obama was a celebrity through his innovative use of social media—and had the support of influential celebrities behind him. Forbes magazine conducted a study in 2007 in which they presented a list of celebrities to 2,213 men and women over 18, then asked how they would respond if the celebrity was to endorse a candidate. The study found that an endorsement from Oprah Winfrey would have a 14 percent positive impact on the perception of the candidate and an endorsement from George Clooney would have an 11 percent positive impact (Andelman). Obama’s 2008 campaign is an instance where a celebrity endorsement positively affected a campaign—and where the world saw the “birth” of a celebrity. A study conducted by Craig Garthwaite, an assistant professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University, and Timothy Moore, a Ph.D. student at the University of Maryland, found that Winfrey’s endorsement of President Barack Obama during the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary increased the number of votes he received—Winfrey’s endorsement was responsible for 1,015,559 votes for Obama, with a 95 percent confidence interval (Garthwaite and Moore). One can conclude that celebrity endorsements do in fact have a positive impact on political elections. What sets Obama’s case apart from any other political 43 campaign, however, is his prevalent use of social media. Rock The Vote’s Maguire said, “[Obama] utilized social media to its fullest capacity and used these platforms the same way that young people utilize them. People wanted to hear what he had to say and he was smart enough to speak through social media, which most young people communicate through.” The Obama campaign used multiple aspects of social media to engage supporters of varying degrees. The following excerpts from Edelman’s The Social Pulpit, Barack Obama’s Social Media Toolkit, are examples of how Obama used social media to his advantage to win the Presidency. Tiers of Engagement Obama’s clearly used social media to his advantage in every way possible. He chose to engage young people on a personal level, chose to make them feel important. By allowing anyone to friend request Obama on Facebook, for example, Obama created a very direct line of communication. A seemingly intimate relationship is created when two people become “friends” on Facebook—one could directly communicate with Obama by writing on his wall, look through his photos and videos (and comment on them), and click on any links Obama would post. Creating a “friendship” with social media was one of the most strategic moves Obama made—social media allowed him to seem closer to his fans. 44 On a personal level: One could start by friending Obama on a social network. Then, one could sign up for text messages and e-‐mails to stay informed at all times, and could even make a donation or register to vote. On a social level: people were then able to post comments to a friend’s profile, telling them why Obama was the right candidate to vote for. There was even an opportunity to join MyBarackObama.com and create an account, then go back to social networks and find other people that were equally as involved or interested in the campaign. As an advocate: campaign supporters could post pictures, write blog posts, or upload YouTube videos declaring their support. The campaign was able to provide materials and insight to just about any supporter online, thus creating a social movement across the nation (Lutz). Empowering Super Users The Obama campaign provided further support in addition to the aforementioned tiers of engagement—the campaign tracked volunteers and took note of their most reliable activists. The campaign was able to identify these powerful activists early on and gave them the tools necessary to engage others online, creating a web of Obama supporters and followers (Lutz). 45 Providing Source Materials for User-Generated Content The MyBarackObama website contained vast amounts of videos, speeches, photos, and guides for people to have the raw materials necessary to create their own supportive content. Activists created over 400,000 Obama campaign videos and posted them to YouTube in addition to blog posts on the MyBarackObama website (Lutz). Going Where the People Are Edelman states that 60 percent of adults in the United States belong to a social network. However, most do not belong to more than one. In The Social Pulpit, Obama adviser Scott Goodstein is quoted as saying, “Some people only go to MySpace. It’s where they’re on all day. Some only go to LinkedIn. Our goal is to make sure that each supporter online, regardless of where they are, has a connection with Obama.” Obama had profiles on more than 15 social networks, including Facebook and MySpace—and was also the first presidential candidate to have a profile on AsianAve.com, MiGente.com and BlackPlanet.com, influential social networks for the Asian, Hispanic and African-‐American communities (Lutz). Using Tools People Are Familiar With Today, there is a social network for every distinct social niche. There also are umbrella networks that span all interests. In 2008, Facebook had 150 million 46 members; MySpace had 110 million; LinkedIn was approaching 50 million. These users had invested time, energy and social capital into developing their profiles and engaging other people on their network(s) of choice. The Obama campaign leveraged these existing platforms to maximize the social velocity of its outreach efforts. For instance, while Obama had more than three million Facebook friends, supporters also used the tools that they were familiar with in Facebook to find creative ways to spread the message in support of his candidacy. More than 900,000 people joined the “One Million Strong for Obama” group on Facebook. There were Facebook groups for Obama for almost every college in America. The campaign leveraged participation on these existing networks to reinforce messages across platforms and create as many touch points as possible (Lutz). The above excerpts are examples of a celebrity using social media to engage the masses and eventually create social (political) change. Obama’s campaign chose to get people involved on a seemingly personal level— virtually anyone could friend request Obama, making him immediately accessible to anyone that was interested in him. Then, Obama’s camp encouraged advocacy: people were encouraged to post just about anything that declared their support for Obama. The power of social media allowed Obama supporters to easily find each other on their respective social media platforms and easily post just about anything they wanted. Obama’s use of social media engagement essentially formed a digital grassroots type of social movement. 47 Obama’s 2008 campaign is a perfect example of the power of celebrities on social media. He was passionate, involved, and engaged. He believed in his message of hope and change and got others to believe in it as well. He successfully used social networking and his authentic voice to create a movement—to gather the masses and create social change by garnering support under a common message. Celebrity Influence on Political Activism Lady Gaga is arguably the most popular (and perhaps one of the most influential) celebrity on social media today. Gaga has managed to spread her influence culturally, artistically and even politically. Her message of equality for all, self-‐acceptance and self-‐love is all over the world, especially following the global success of her latest album “Born This Way.” Her “Little Monsters” fan base boasts more than 19 million Twitter followers and more than 46 million Facebook fans as of February 2012. She is also the first artist to have 1 billion video views online. Women's Wear Daily reported that Gaga’s magazine covers were the top sellers for 2010, most notably the July 8 cover for Rolling Stone magazine with 245,000 copies sold—the magazine's biggest-‐selling issue of the year and a total that was nearly three times better than its 2010 average (France). Forbes reported she was expected to earn $100 million in 2011, putting her at in the same bracket as artists like U2 and AC/DC (Greenberg). Lady Gaga is the one of the biggest celebrities in the world and on the Internet today. 48 In September 2010, Gaga delivered a speech to thousands of people in Portland, Maine, urging the repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy. The media began to refer to her as an “activist” among her many other titles, and fans seemed to follow suit with Gaga’s “activism.” The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) is a group dedicated to “ending discrimination and harassment of military personnel affected by 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'” the policy that prevents gays from serving openly in the military, according to its Web site. Four members of the SLDN escorted Lady Gaga to the MTV Video Music Awards in September 2010 to help Lady Gaga publicize her campaign to repeal “Don't Ask Don't Tell.” Five days after Gaga encouraged fans to check out the SLDN, the group said 107,159 people clicked on its site within 72 hours after Lady Gaga had urged her fans to check it out. The group said that nearly 93 percent were first-‐time visitors to the action site (Parker). Lady Gaga also tweeted to her [at the time] 7 million followers, “Gay Veterans were my VMA dates. Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell. CALL HARRY REID to Schedule Senate Vote.” Nearly 50,000 Gaga Facebook fans clicked the “Like” button about her comment (Parker). On a Thursday, Gaga also asked viewers on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” to call Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule a vote on “Don't Ask, Don't Tell.” The following Monday afternoon, Reid said he intended to bring the Defense Authorization Bill, which included a repeal of DADT, to the Senate floor the next week. 49 Reid replied to Lady Gaga via his campaign Twitter account on Tuesday: “@ladygaga There is a vote on #DADT next week. Anyone qualified to serve this country should be allowed to do so.” Another tweet said repealing DADT “is the right thing to do. Come back to Vegas soon!” Late Tuesday, Lady Gaga answered: “God Bless and Thank you @HarryReid, from all of us, like u, who believe in equality and the dream of this country. We were #BORNTHISWAY.” Gaga, who obviously wasn’t the sole reason for the DADT repeal, is an example of a celebrity with an incredibly powerful social influence. She influenced thousands of people to at least learn about the cause and check out the website— some even became actively involved. The Reid campaign continued to show support for Gaga, when they posted a link to a YouTube video from a Nevada KVVU newscast that discussed Lady Gaga's efforts on the issue (Parker). On September 20, 2011, Gaga tweeted, “What a tremendous and beautiful day, DADT is officially repealed & the new order is in place. Sending all my love and gratitude to service members” Gaga fans also took to their social media platforms to post thank-‐yous and supportive tweets to Reid on Wednesday morning. One Gaga fan tweeted, “if gaga believes in you then u got us on ur side.” Another Gaga Facebook follower posted, “I'm GAY AND LIVE in Harry Reid's distirct! I will vote for HARRY REID because he is the ONLY choice. I LOVE YOU LADY GAGA!!!!!” These are examples of the power of celebrity influence—Lady Gaga’s followers supported Harry Reid because she supported him. This speaks volumes 50 about the influence a celebrity can have over massive audiences; in this case, a positive influence. According to CNN’s article, Lady Gaga’s Monster Influence, “Being able to influence is all about the numbers of people who can be reached and the effectiveness of the message…For instance, while celebrity Kim Kardashian might be able to tweet in support of one of her charities and have fans give, such actions have to be more than just a one-‐time deal” (France). Gaga is authentic in her words and engagement. She used her star power, authentic voice, and social media presence to engage her massive fan base—to leverage positive social change and social movement by garnering awareness and support for worthy causes. Celebrities are clearly effective in raising public interest for any given charity. According to UNICEF’s website, “Celebrities attract attention, so they are in a position to focus the world’s eyes on the needs of children, both in their own countries and by visiting field projects and emergency programmes abroad. They can make direct representations to those with the power to effect change. They can use their talents and fame to fundraise and advocate for children and support UNICEF’s mission to ensure every child’s right to health, education, equality and protection.” Today’s charitable organizations crave visibility and media attention. The rather fickle society of today’s world is bombarded with news every second of the day. Most of the issues that are generally considered boring, irrelevant, or too 51 overwhelming to solve would never have a chance to take center stage if it wasn’t for celebrities. “ ‘Politicians don't really have to address [debt or trade] because the issue isn't in the public domain,’ says Glen Tarman, coordinator for Britain's Trade Justice Movement and a co-‐founder of Make Poverty History. ‘The reality is that unless you get your issue out of the business pages and into the broader media, you won't build the climate for change. It's just an absolute reality of the modern age’” (Johnston). Celebrity activism can hardly be considered a novelty. In World War II, countless war bond rallies and shows featured celebrities selling war bonds and exhibits of the weapons and other equipment that war bonds were supplying to the troops (Ryan and Schlup). In 1971, Beatles star George Harrison performed a concert for Bangladesh to raise money for starving refugees and later persuaded Bob Dylan, Ringo Starr, and others to join him in a concert to raise money for the United Nations Children's Fund. In the eight-‐year period from 1973 to 1981, Harrison raised about half a million dollars a year to fight hunger (Leslie). Audrey Hepburn worked for years as a Goodwill Ambassador for UNICEF and was appointed the prestigious ambassador title in 1989. (UNICEF) Celebrities have the ability to catapult issues into the public eye. Political satirist Stephen Colbert has joked of celebrity activism, “Brangelina is raising awareness of the Darfur situation, but he/she also has the courtesy to captivate us with his/her baby bump” (Johnston). 52 But despite the bizarre juxtaposition of the realities of poverty with what passes for reality in Hollywood, America's obsession with the glitterati can be extremely useful to nonprofit organizations. (Johnston, 2006) In her article “Celebrity Activists”, Johnston quotes Claire Lewis of Oxfam International, a confederation of 15 organizations working together in over 90 countries to find lasting solutions to poverty and injustice. “Celebrities can turn something that is an issue in boardrooms and grey-‐suited meetings into a water cooler moment and bring these subjects into cafés and pubs.” Johnston goes on to quote Jennifer Coulter Stapleton, a spokesperson for founding ONE member Bread for the World. “‘I'm not sure why we're so fascinated with celebrities, or why people listen to them-‐but I know that we do,’ she says. ‘So as a person who's trying to move people toward the movement to overcome hunger, then I have to recognize that and use that in every way I can. And God bless the celebrities for letting me.’” 53 Conclusions This paper has offered a new angle of how we look at celebrities and social media. They possess the power to influence thousands of people, gain a considerable amount of media and public attention, raise millions of dollars, and even save lives. The aforementioned Ashton Kutcher and Twitter battle with CNN for Malaria No More not only gained considerable media attention, but also drew in other celebrities and supporters. In fact, Kutcher’s Twitter extravaganza had another benefit—it highlighted the act of celebrity efforts to use their online popularity to draw attention to other important issues. Most importantly, this thesis has added a great deal of nuance to our understanding of how celebrities can contribute to social issue campaigns. We can confirm that celebrities are better at raising awareness than mobilizing action; they are incredibly useful in raising public awareness for an organization or social issue, but the heavy lifting is done by more traditional organizations. If rapid mobilization is needed, a celebrity with a strong online presence and following is beneficial. For sustained support of a charity or organization, however, the charity or organization must carefully select a celebrity with a respected, authentic voice to be the face of their social issue or cause. The cause will benefit from celebrity involvement if the celebrity is real—that is, they genuinely care about the issue they are tweeting or posting about, not just the dollars they are receiving for doing so. 54 Upon further examination, however, we can conclude that engagement is the key to successful social media influence—sometimes it takes more than a celebrity that boasts a large online fan base to move people. It takes an influential celebrity that stands for something, someone who can genuinely engage. Non-‐profits and charities shouldn’t turn to just any celebrity with a large online following if they want results. While any celebrity with millions of followers will no doubt bring attention to the cause or issue, true social awareness, engagement, and fundraising requires an active, authentic voice, with continued involvement from the celebrity. Influence is defined as “the ability to drive action.” In today’s social media driven world, “the ability to drive action” can be interpreted as anything. We have discovered that online celebrity influence can drive people to vote for the next President of the United States—Obama 2008—or encourage thousands of followers to act upon your call to political action and human rights—Lady Gaga, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. We have learned that the celebrity must possess more than just a large following, but an influential demeanor, an authenticity. We can look back at Lady Gaga’s success with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and Pauley Perrette’s success with the women’s shelter in Sylmar. Both celebrities in these instances had powerful messages that they often conveyed and posted about. The celebrity must genuinely stand for something, and stand for it often. The gatekeepers of traditional media content are quickly fading into the background; TV stations, newspapers, press conferences, telethons have all taken a 55 back seat. As social media progresses, influence and the ability to reach bigger networks will grow. Social media allows things to get done quickly, news to travel fast—practically in real time. Non-‐profits, charities, and activist groups can take this information and improve the reach of their respective causes. When the power of an engaged, authentic celebrity using their star power and social media influence is coupled with a call for social good or social change, the possibilities are endless. 56 Bibliography Andelman, David A. "Celebrity Power?" Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 17 Oct. 2007. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/17/forbes-‐tracker-‐celebs-‐oped-‐ cx_daa_1017celebs.html>. Bartholomew, Don. "Bringing Some Clarity to Social MediaÂ Influence." Bringing Some Clarity to Social Media Influence Â«. WordPress, 10 Dec. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://metricsman.wordpress.com/2011/12/10/bringing-‐some-‐clarity-‐to-‐ social-‐media-‐influence/>. "Billionaire Revives 'Dead' Celebs With Huge Donation." PopEater. AOL Music, 07 Dec. 2010. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.popeater.com/2010/12/07/keep-‐a-‐ child-‐alive-‐donations-‐stewart-‐rahr/>. Blackburn, Bradley. "Japan Earthquake and Tsunami: Social Media Spreads News, Raises Relief Funds." ABC News. ABC News Network, 11 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/japan-‐earthquake-‐tsunami-‐drive-‐ social-‐media-‐dialogue/story?id=13117677>. Bouchez, Colette. "A New Age Of Celebrity Worship." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 03 Mar. 2006. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/03/health/webmd/main1366162.sht ml>. "'Carmageddon': LAPD Thanks Celebrities for Twitter Help." Los Angeles Times 15 Jan. 2011. Print. Dickler, Jessica. "Shop for Japan: Lady Gaga, Levis, Charlie Sheen All Donate Sales to Relief Efforts." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 18 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://money.cnn.com/2011/03/18/pf/lady_gaga_japan_relief/index.htm>. France, Lisa. "Lady Gaga's Monster Influence." CNN. CNN, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2011-‐01-‐ 20/entertainment/lady.gaga.career_1_lady-‐gaga-‐endorsement-‐creative-‐ energy?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ>. Johnston, Kate Bowman. (July 2006). Celebrity Activists. Sojourners Magazine, 35(7), 38-‐39,41-‐43. Retrieved January 23, 2012, from Humanities Module. (Document ID: 1074626331). 57 Gitlin, Todd. The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making & Unmaking of the New Left. Berkeley, CA: University of California, 2003. Print. Grier, P., & McLaughlin, A. (2003). Politics as another rung on celebrity ladder. Christian Science Monitor, 95, 1. Greenburg, Zack O'Malley. "Why Lady Gaga Will Earn $100 Million in 2011." Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 12 Jan. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2011/01/12/why-‐lady-‐ gaga-‐will-‐earn-‐100-‐million-‐in-‐2011/>. Leslie, L.Z (2011). Worldwide Perspective. In Celebrity in the 21st Century: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-‐CLIO. Retrieved from http://ebooks.abc-‐clio.com/reader.aspx?isbn=9781598844856&id=A2974C-‐690 Lutz, Monte. "The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama's Social Media Toolkit." Edelman. Edelman, 2009. Web. 1 Mar. 2012. Madans, Hannah. "Celebrities' Effect On Elections." Neon Tommy. USC Annenberg, 19 Dec. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.neontommy.com/news/2011/12/celebrities-‐affect-‐elections>. Marshall, P. David. Celebrity and Power: Fame in Contemporary Culture. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1997. Print. Mester, Ilan. "Justin Bieber Uses Twitter to Help Young Canadian Fan Who Needs Organ Donor." - AOL Music Blog. AOL, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://blog.music.aol.com/2012/01/24/justin-‐bieber-‐twitter-‐organ-‐donor>. Meyer, David S. "The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements."Sociological Inquiry 65.2 (1995). Web. O'Hare, Kate. "'NCIS': Pauley Perrette Makes Friends, Feels Empowered, on Twitter."CBS. CBS, 21 Aug. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.cbs.com/forum/posts/list/162305.page>. "Organ Donor Registrations Soar after Justin Bieber, Barenaked Ladies, Bif Naked Tweets." Ottawacitizen.com. The Ottawa Citizen, 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/Organ donor registrations soar response Justin Bieber tweet/6038553/story.html>. Parker, Suzi. "Lady Gaga's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Activism Is Getting Results." Politics Daily. AOL, 1 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/09/16/lady-‐gagas-‐dont-‐ask-‐dont-‐tell-‐ activism-‐is-‐getting-‐results/>. 58 Pasetsky, Mark. "How Lady Gaga Raised $250,000 for Japan Thanks to Twitter."Forbes. Forbes Magazine, 15 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/markpasetsky/2011/03/15/news_lady_gaga_japan _twitter_1891/>. Payne, Ed. "Celebrities Take to the Web, Text and Tweet for Japan." CNN Entertainment. CNN, 14 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://articles.cnn.com/2011-‐03-‐14/entertainment/celebrities.help_1_japan-‐ relief-‐efforts-‐text-‐and-‐tweet-‐lady-‐gaga?_s=PM:SHOWBIZ>. Perpetua, Matthew. "Lady Gaga Denies Japan Relief Fundraiser Scam."Rollingstone.com. Wenner Media, 29 June 2011. Web. 2 Feb. 2012. <http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/lady-‐gaga-‐denies-‐japan-‐relief-‐ fundraiser-‐scam-‐20110629>. Ryan, James Gilbert., and Leonard C. Schlup. Historical Dictionary of the 1940s. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 2006. Print. Sniderman, Zachary. "Do Celebrities Really Help Online Causes?" Mashable Social Media. Mashable, 29 June 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://mashable.com/2011/06/29/celebrities-‐social-‐good/>. Than, Ker. "Twitter-‐Celeb Mosquito Nets: What Good Will They Do?" National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 21 Apr. 2009. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/04/090421-‐twitter-‐ashton-‐ kutcher.html>. Press, Ken Thomas. "Obama 2012 Campaign to Go Beyond Email, Text." ABC News. ABC News Network, 28 June 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=13949225>. Turner, Graeme. Understanding Celebrity. London: SAGE, 2004. Print. Turpin, Laura. "Social Nonprofits." Social Nonprofits. WordPress, 23 Mar. 2011. Web. 01 Mar. 2012. <http://nposocmedia.wordpress.com/>. "Woman Who Asked Bieber to Promote Organ Donation Shares Story | CTV News."CTV News. Bell Media, 31 Jan. 2012. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20120131/justin-‐bieber-‐organ-‐ donation-‐effect-‐120131/>. 59 Appendix A Caitlin Maguire of Rock the Vote Interview Questions Feb. 8, 2012 1. Do you think celebrities can successfully influence social movement using their social media presence? Why? Yes, many people, especially young people, idolize celebrities and those in the public eye. Social media has allowed fans new and huge opportunities to gain access to celebrities; thus, many fans follow what their favorite celebrities have to say on Twitter and Facebook. If a celebrity decides to tout a good cause through social media then it will reach many eyes and ears. If someone cares about the celebrity enough, he or she may be inspired to research and take action on the cause more. 2. If a celebrity tweets about a worthy cause or social issue, do you think people are likely to support said cause/social issue? Why? See above. 3. Why do you think people support celebrity causes or charities? a. Example-‐ Regarding Japan’s earthquake and tsunami devastation in 2011, how do you think Lady Gaga was able to raise $250,000 in 48 hours simply by tweeting about her bracelet she created for Japan? People look up to celebrities who speak to them in some way. If they idolize the celebrity enough or even fantasize about being that celebrity, then they will take action regarding what the celebrity does and says. 4. Why do you think Obama was so successful with his social media presence compared to his opponents? He utilized social media to its fullest capacity and used these platforms the same way that young people utilize them. People wanted to hear what he had to say and he was smart enough to speak through social media, which most young people communicate through. 5. Do you consider Obama to be a celebrity? Why/Why not? a. What makes Obama more of a ‘celebrity’ compared to someone like Mitt Romney? I think the president is always some sort of celebrity. Any president has the power to be a role model and he is certainly always one of the most famous people in the world. Barack 60 Obama may be a bigger celebrity than other figureheads like him because in 2008, he resonated with young people, who typically follow celebrities more than any other demographic. 6. I want to explore the difference between celebrities supporting politics as a social movement and celebrities supporting worthy causes/charity as a social movement. a. Which, in your opinion, is more influential on social media? Oprah supporting Obama or Lady Gaga supporting anti-‐bullying? It depends if the celebrity doing the supporting resonates more with young people compared to other celebrities. I think a celebrity that is particularly popular with young people can get any cause, political or not, off of the ground. 7. Regarding a “social movement,” do celebrities make more of an impact on their followers regarding politics, non-‐profits, or worthy causes? a. Examples: Obama’s celeb support; Ashton Kutcher’s “Malaria No More” support; Lady Gaga’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” campaign. Yes, because they have more followers than the average person and serve more as a role model than the average person. If a celebrity is particularly unpopular than it may have the reverse effect on the cause. 61 Appendix B James Pitkin of PeerIndex Interview Questions Feb. 12, 2012 1. Do you think celebrities can successfully influence social movement using their social media presence? Why? a. That’s a good question, and I think it varies from case to case. Celebrities are certainly able to bring issues to the forefront of the publics’ attention. A case which illustrates this point was Giles Cohen’s tweets relating to the Ryan Gigg’s (an English footballer) superinjuction. Although Gigg’s superinjuction prohibited anybody to reference the injuction and the affair with his brothers wife, Giles Cohen tweets exposing the truth and is generally acknowledged to of generated a considerable momentum against the whole premise of the superinjuction issue. 2. If a celebrity tweets about a worthy cause or social issue, do you think people are likely to support said cause/social issue? Why? a. I think that it’s certainly more likely to be supported than if a celebrity hadn’t of tweeted – this is because of two key features that celebrities’ messages possess; reach and impact. By tweeting, a celebrity can potentially highlight a worthy cause that could otherwise gone. Having said this, it is arguable that social media as a communication channel gaining support for a worthy cause is a weak one, because it can be perceived as lacking authenticity. But like with all effective marketing, the most effective messages are spread through multiple marketing channels. 3. Why do you think people support celebrity causes or charities? a. Example -‐ Regarding Japan’s earthquake and tsunami devastation in 2011, how do you think Lady Gaga was able to raise $250,000 in 48 hours simply by tweeting about her bracelet she created for Japan? b. It is very difficult to separate out the influence a celebrity has over their audience and the merits of a given charity. How can one be certain the people who donated the funds to the Japanese tsunami fun wouldn’t of donated money irrespective of Lady gag’s tweet – or any other charity? However, for the most part, in the cases where an individual’s contribution can be directly 62 attributable to, I think is a question of alignment. Individuals who buy into an image and brand of celebrity like to values as them, and thus, are likely to support the causes they adopt. 4. Why do you think Obama was so successful with his social media presence compared to his opponents? a. I think Obama’s social media presence is significantly more successful than his opponents for two reasons. Firstly, he was one of the first politicians to embrace social media to engage with audience – making a pioneer in this case and making it difficult for his opponents to social media with seeming like they’re imitating his initial success. Secondly, his image aligns better with the use of social media and aligns with the demographics of his target audience. 5. Do you consider Obama to be a celebrity? Why/Why not? a. What makes Obama more of a ‘celebrity’ compared to someone like Mitt Romney? b. To answer this coherently, we firstly need to define what a celebrity is. For the purposes of this question, I’ll define a celebrity as a person who is known by a large proportion of people whose interests are not necessarily within primary field of expertise of the celebrity. By this criterion, I would classify Obama as more of a celebrity than Romney – since not many people outside of politics have heard of him. 6. I want to explore the difference between celebrities supporting politics as a social movement and celebrities supporting worthy causes/charity as a social movement. a. Which, in your opinion, is more influential on social media? Oprah supporting Obama or Lady Gaga supporting anti-‐bullying? b. I suspect Lady Gaga’s social anti-bullying support was more influential. This is because there are many individuals who broadcast their support for political candidates on social media, and generally, the more that people broadcast a message on a topic, the more dilutive it is to an individual’s impact related on the subject. Whereas, in the case of Lady Gaga’s support of anti- bullying, I suspect that very few individuals were discussing such 63 campaigns on social media. Thus, when Lady supported this cause, it had a relatively large impact. 7. Regarding a “social movement,” do celebrities make more of an impact on their followers regarding politics, non-‐profits, or worthy causes? a. Examples: Obama’s celeb support; Ashton Kutcher’s “Malaria No More” support; Lady Gaga’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” campaign. b. I think that celebrities’ ability to influence support is time dependent – they’re able to create a spurt of interest amongst their audience but frequently not able to create sustained support for a cause. I believe long-term support relies on the trust between the source and the audience, which in turn relies on the expertise of the influencer (i.e a celebrity needs to be a trusted authority of the cause). 64 Appendix C Jereme Bivins of The Foundation Center Interview Questions Feb. 11, 2012 1. Do you think celebrities can successfully influence social movement using their social media presence? Why? a. Yes, I think so. Of course, celebrities have always been able to use their fame to advance social causes, (think: Sarah MacLaughin and the ASPCA) but traditional media has obstacles: celebrities don’t always have access to it, media can be expensive; and they won’t always attract the right attention. b. By using social media to connect with their most ardent fans, celebrities are reaching a voluntarily captive audience. Ashton Kutcher’s Twitter followers are there because they want to hear what he has to say, not because someone left What Happens in Vegas playing on the living room TV. This is the edge that social media gives all of us, but one that is particularly sharp for celebrities because their reach is so broad. So provided the cause is worthwhile (and resonates with their audience) and the celebrity is credible, they can absolutely influence social movements. 2. If a celebrity tweets about a worthy cause or social issue, do you think people are likely to support said cause/social issue? Why? a. It depends on how deeply someone cares about the cause and/or the celebrity. If you admire George Clooney as an actor, for example, then you might be more inclined to listen to his position on Darfur. Conversely, hearing that someone famous advocates for a social issue that you support will reinforce your beliefs, and also increase your respect for that celebrity. Celebrities and social good organizations both develop strong followings because they connect with us emotionally, and that’s what moves us to action. b. So if a celebrity Tweets about anti-malaria campaign in Africa, we might click-thru to learn more about the program, but donations will really only come from people who feel connected to the cause, who feel like their investing in something worthwhile and good. The celebrity acts as an intermediary connecting a fan to a worthy cause, but he’s not evangelizing them from a single Tweet. Once they’ve been made aware of an issue, it’s the 65 organization’s role in helping them become a supporter, donor, or volunteer. 3. Why do you think people support celebrity causes or charities? a. Example-‐ Regarding Japan’s earthquake and tsunami devastation in 2011, how do you think Lady Gaga was able to raise $250,000 in 48 hours simply by tweeting about her bracelet she created for Japan? b. People want to be a part of great things. When we donate money to charity, we’re investing in something good together, to do something that we couldn’t do alone. Worthy causes supported by celebrities meet success because we have confidence in the cause and the celebrity’s ability to recruit other supporters. c. In the case of Lady Gaga and her Japan earthquake fundraiser, people supported it because of Lady Gaga’s strong reputation for activism and their desire to help the Japanese afflicted by the tragedy. These donors likely wanted to help anyway and Lady Gaga afforded them an opportunity and a community to give together. 4. Why do you think Obama was so successful with his social media presence compared to his opponents? a. The president’s social media campaign was successful because he took it seriously. In previous elections, statistics showed that the greatest voter apathy was among young people -- people 18 through their 20s -- and they lacked the career stability to be heavy campaign contributors. Individual donors are invaluable, but most campaigns operate on large contributions from older, more established constituents because they can afford to max- out on their contributions. So basically as the traditional thinking went, even if you had a solid base of ardent young supporters, their donations wouldn’t be sufficient to run a campaign and they likely wouldn’t show up to the ballots with strong enough numbers to tip the scales. Therefore politicians spent more of their time engaged with older audiences at house parties, ‘Meet the Candidate’ nights while lobbying for their votes and contributions. b. However, then-Senator Obama shirked the traditional campaign by embracing a younger demographic with his message of hope, and his campaign’s emphasis on digital tools. Even though social media was still in its infancy, young people were leading the charge in its adoption. The campaign also had a considerable number of digital natives on staff, including Chris Hughes, one of 66 Facebook’s co-founders, that championed and masterfully commanded these tools. The Obama campaign could post messages, updates, photos, hear stories, and keep everyone online involved while still attending traditional rallies, diner pop-ins, state fairs, and the rest of the whistle stops along the trail. c. Now as social tools become more pervasive, we see an increasing number of candidates embracing digital technology to lower the cost of organizing and fundraising, while increasing their overall reach for volunteer recruitment, donor cultivation, and campaign updates. The past has taught most campaigns that they need to take technology far more seriously and engage with voters in the places and ways that they want to be engaged with. That’s why this cycle will have a striking emphasis on the use of mobile tools, platforms, and location-based services. 5. Do you consider Obama to be a celebrity? Why/Why not? a. What makes Obama more of a ‘celebrity’ compared to someone like Mitt Romney? b. Yes, I would consider the President to be a celebrity. We commonly don’t associate politicians with celebrities, but he’s well-known, influential, and admired by millions. Those are the general characteristics of someone we consider famous, from well-regarded local celebrities, like evening newscasters, to international ones like the President. c. President Obama is considered more of a celebrity by the nature of his office. Mitt Romney, although the presumptive GOP nominee, was only a state governor and is currently being courted by a far narrower swath of the electorate (despite the news cycle, many people tune-out during the primary season). President Obama, on the other hand, was elected by tens-of- millions of voters, and has spent the last 3 years in the international spotlight as our head of state, and commander-in- chief. The office of the president commands great respect and wields considerable power, so fame and celebrity naturally come with it. 6. I want to explore the difference between celebrities supporting politics as a social movement and celebrities supporting worthy causes/charity as a social movement. a. Which, in your opinion, is more influential on social media? Oprah supporting Obama or Lady Gaga supporting anti-‐bullying? 67 b. A celebrity endorsement of a cause is more influential on social media. Politics are polarizing and most causes are not. When we see that celebrities support a politician, that may only serve to reinforce our beliefs about that person or politician (good or bad); while a celebrity-endorsed cause can be supported regardless of your ideology. Endorsing a politician online might drum-up some support, but there will be opposition, too. And by the nature of social media, that opposition will likely be vocal (which is not always bad, debates serve to better society). c. So, while both political and cause campaigns affect us all personally, people prefer to share positive stories over negative ones, especially on Twitter. Causes, like anti-bullying campaigns, offer an indisputably hopeful and positive message about tolerance and acceptance. No matter your politics, it’s difficult to refute that bullying is a problem, so it’s a safer message for someone to share online. A celebrity helping to spread that message will face less contention, fewer debates, and will reach a wider audience of supporters. 7. Regarding a “social movement,” do celebrities make more of an impact on their followers regarding politics, non-‐profits, or worthy causes? a. Examples: Obama’s celeb support; Ashton Kutcher’s “Malaria No More” support; Lady Gaga’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” campaign. b. Generally speaking, a celebrity endorsement will carry more weight for a social issue that’s supported by an organization. People give to organizations because of the issues that they support. Successful organizations understand this, so their communications are centered on what donations, volunteer hours, or other forms of support are actually doing to advance the cause. c. The St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital ads are a great demonstration of this idea. In their TV spots, St. Jude’s often has celebrities sitting with children undergoing cancer treatment, while the celebrity tells the story of the child and the hospital’s work toward helping her. The ads aren’t sad, they inspire hope, and the celebrities lend their credibility and storytelling prowess in telling how St. Jude’s helps these children through supporter donations. d. If you were to take the same commercial, remove the information about St. Jude’s, and only focus on the issue of childhood cancer, you might get the same emotional response from the audience, but few actions would be taken. The biggest impact a celebrity 68 can make is advocating for a worthy cause, but they must direct people to a specific place to make a difference. 69 Appendix D Online Survey Transcript Celebrities in Social Media Q2 How old are you?  18-‐30 (1)  30-‐40 (2)  41-‐50 (3)  50+ (4) Q4 Which social media platform do you use most often?  Twitter (1)  Facebook (2)  YouTube (3)  Tumblr (4)  Other (5) ____________________ Q16 How many people do you follow on Twitter?  0-‐100 (1)  100-‐200 (2)  200-‐300 (3)  300-‐400 (4)  400-‐500 (5)  500+ (6)  N/A-‐-‐I don't have a Twitter. (7) Q17 Of those people, how many are celebrities?  0-‐50 (1)  50-‐100 (2)  100-‐150 (3)  150-‐200 (4)  200+ (5)  N/A-‐-‐I don't have a Twitter. (6) 70 Q18 How many friends do you have on Facebook?  0-‐150 (1)  150-‐300 (2)  300-‐450 (3)  450-‐600 (4)  600-‐750 (5)  750+ (6)  N/A-‐-‐I don't have a Facebook. (7) Q19 Of those friends, how many are celebrities/celebrity fan pages?  0-‐50 (1)  50-‐100 (2)  100-‐150 (3)  150-‐200 (4)  200+ (5)  N/A-‐-‐I don't have a Facebook. (6) Q23 Sometimes the celebrities I follow post about politics, causes, or social issues.  Agree (1)  Neither Agree nor Disagree (2)  Disagree (3) Q24 Please list up to 3 celebrities you follow that post about politics, causes, or social issues. Q5 If a celebrity I follow online posts about a cause/social issue, I will be more likely to repost it for all of my followers/friends to see. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      71 Q6 If a celebrity I follow online posts about a cause or social issue , I will be more likely to donate to that cause/social issue. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      Q8 I have learned about causes or social issues from a celebrity online. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      Answer If I have learned about causes or social issues from a celeb... -‐ Agree Is Selected And I have learned about causes or social issues from a celeb... -‐ Strongly Agree Is Selected Q25 Please list up to three causes that you learned about from a celebrity on social media. Q9 I have looked at a website or read an article about a cause/social issue because of a celebrity's post. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      Q10 I would be likely to take action after reading a celebrity's post about a cause/social issue (vote, attend an event, protest, etc.) Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      72 Answer If I would be likely to take action after reading a celebrit... -‐ Agree Is Selected And I would be likely to take action after reading a celebrit... -‐ Strongly Agree Is Selected Q12 If you agreed to take action, why would you choose to act upon the celebrity's post? (Select all that apply)  I'm a big fan of the celebrity and want to support him/her. (1)  I think the cause is worthy and want to make a difference. (2)  I am both a big fan of the celebrity and want to support the cause anyway. (3) Q13 I wouldn't have known a specific cause/social issue existed if the celebrity hadn't posted about it. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      Q14 If a celebrity I follow posts about a politician, I am more likely to support that politician. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      Q15 If a celebrity I follow posts about a political call to action, I will be more likely to support said political action. Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Neither Agree nor Disagree (3) Agree (4) Strongly Agree (5) Please rate. (1)      73 Q20 Why do you follow these celebrities online?  I'm a fan. (1)  I think they are influential. (2)  I am interested in what they are doing with their career. (3)  I am interested in their personal lives. (4)  Other (5) ____________________ Q1 How did you find this survey?  Twitter Link (1)  Twitter DM (Direct Message) Invitation (2)  Facebook Link (3)  E-‐mail (4)  Other (5) ____________________

Asset Metadata

Creator Istanboulian, Ani (author)

Core Title A new power: how celebrities can use social media to influence social movements

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Annenberg School for Communication

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Strategic Public Relations

Publication Date 05/04/2012

Defense Date 05/04/2012

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag celebrity,Entertainment,OAI-PMH Harvest,social media

Language English

Advisor Thorson, Kjerstin (committee chair), LeVeque, Matthew (committee member), Lynch, Brenda (committee member)

Creator Email ani.istan@gmail.com,istanbou@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-30702

Unique identifier UC11289273

Identifier usctheses-c3-30702 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Istanbouli-768.pdf

Dmrecord 30702

Document Type Thesis

Rights Istanboulian, Ani

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This thesis aims to provide a better understanding of celebrities and how they can use social media to influence social movements or social good. This paper analyzes the way celebrities use social media to promote political and social issues and will explore their ability to influence their publics. A social movement will be defined as political or charitable activism for the purposes of this paper. The purpose of this study is to investigate social media “influence,” what causes people to react to a celebrity’s social media post, and to study what makes a celebrity influential on the Internet. ❧ Qualitative primary research consisted of interviews with social media monitoring professionals and public relations professionals. Interviewees included Caitlin Maguire from Rock the Vote, a non-profit organization whose mission is to engage and build political power for American youth, uses music, pop culture, new technologies, and grassroots organization to motivate and mobilize young people to participate in elections