Innovation: Stardom, Celebrity, and Influencers

Innovation: Stardom, Celebrity, and Influencers ???????????

Innovation is palpable throughout the interrelated constructs of stardom, celebrity, and social media influence. The impact of innovation in these areas is tangible and intangible and in numerous forms, such as product, process, service, technological, business model, disruptive, radical, and design innovation types. Each distinctive form of fame shares the quality of evolving multidimensional dynamics due to innovation in media and marketing landscapes. Change is evident through the disintermediation of legacy media outlets and hierarchical celebrification processes to the shifting and symbiotic interaction among influencers, practitioners, and online communities. For example, it is essential to note that many scholars view celebrification and celebrity as a process instead of a mere status. In addition, stars, celebrities, and influencers are regarded as businesses requiring various core business functions comparable to large corporations. Throughout each construct, there should be some degree of innovation aspiration across multiple levels, including the work environment, staff, management, and organization. Moreover, the new digital marketing ecosystem has shifted the operationalized methods by which each type of fame is attained.

Stars and Stardom

Marshal explains “stardom as being a particular kind of authority generated by achievement or expertise.” The complexity of stardom can be seen considering subjectivist, structuralist, and poststructuralist viewpoints. A poststructuralist view differentiates individual stars and their professional network from the sociological and cultural economic phenomena of stardom. From this perspective, stardom stems from the significance ascribed by artists, their fans, new and old media outlets, consumers, etcetera. Accordingly, a fundamental concept of consideration is the longstanding problematic relationship between art and commerce. Popular music works are practically no different than cereal or bar soap; however, the magic is in having supporters believe that stardom (or a star) is separate from the industry (or labels) that create it. The disruptive nature of digital transformation and technological innovation has obscured major-label business models and processes toward commercial success in the music industry. The notion of stars and stardom as we know it will either survive or cease to exist depending on the level of radical innovation generated and implemented by major labels and related industries.??

Celebrification and Celebrity

According to Boorstin, a celebrity is “known for his or her well-knownness” instead of a more productivity (expertise or achievement)-based reason. However, an individual cannot become a celebrity without the process of celebrification. Celebrification involves recurring media representation and increasing recognizability that boosts their level of celebrity capital as opposed to entrepreneurial work and attention labor via new media platforms. A traditional celebrity works for brands (i.e., as a hired face) or advertisers to transform their celebrity capital into economic and social value. However, with the rise of new media platforms and influencers, social media, and everyday people present a level of process innovation and competition in a new digital marketing ecosystem. In the face of technological and business model innovation, a traditional pure celebrity (as opposed to an influencer) maintains a high degree of reliance on an economy of brokered celebrity capital and institutional intermediaries such as radio, television, agents, studios, and cinema. Thus, the traditional process of celebrification contends with opposing factors, such as endorsement deals versus sponsored content and curation by an agency versus an online audience. Therefore, the distinguishing component of existent celebrity is more about how an individual accumulates well-knownness on a continuum of unique opportunity instead of a unique voice, whereas “traditional celebrities seek their big break” and social media influencers “break themselves.”

Social Media Entrepreneurship and Influencers

Brooks shows that influencer celebrification is distinct from stardom and other forms of celebrity. The critical element that separates a social media influencer from other forms of fame is the domain, which is the internet. The most pertinent innovation types related to social media influence comprise business model, disruptive, and radical innovation. Social media influence directly impacts how organizations market, advertise, and promote, particularly regarding sponsored content. Furthermore, social media influence is disruptive because of the correlated disintermediation of traditional advertising and promotional gatekeeping elements. This phenomenon is evident through the changes in power dynamics from advertising practitioners and agencies toward influencers and their supporters. Radical innovation is a factor in social media influence apparent through the creation of influencer management divisions in digital analytic agencies, public relations firms, and other marketing-oriented businesses. Accordingly, social media influence has altered the responsibilities of traditional advertising and promotional account managers into new roles such as creative concierges (or impact analysts).

?

References

Brooks, G., Drenten, J., & Piskorski? , M. J. (2021). Influencer Celebrification: How social

media influencers acquire Celebrity Capital. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 528–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1977737

Edwards-Schachter, M. (2018). The nature and variety of innovation. International Journal of

Innovation Studies, 2(2), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijis.2018.08.004

Marshall, L. (2013). The Structural Functions of Stardom in the Recording Industry.?Popular

Music & Society,?36(5), 578-596.?https://doi.org/10.1080/03007766.2012.718509

Meyer, J.-U. (2014). Strengthening innovation capacity through different types of innovation

cultures. Technology Innovation Management Review, 4(12), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.22215/timreview/853 ??????

?

?

?

?

?