At what point is the limited number of people who view us as celebrities small enough to deny us celebrity status and remove any claim to fame we may have? It might seem that the term "microcelebrity" refers to someone who's celebrity status is bestowed on him or her by only a handful of people, making his or her fame basically insignificant if not fully non-existent. But apparently that's not really the case. According to the Urban Dictionary, a microcelebrity is:
One who gains a cult or mainstream following due to viral internet distribution. Does not refer to those who have gained limited or cult followings through traditional media. Does not refer to has-beens or "B-list" celebrities.Frankly, I find this definition rather distressing, though not because I'd hoped that it would refer to a different category of people. What bothers me with this definition is that it maintains a distinction between online life and "real" life. That particular definition, the top one on the site, dates to 2006. Things have changed in the last decade, though I'm not sure that the more recent (from 2014) definition on the site is more helpful:
A celebrity (Usually an actor/actress) who has not gained enough popularity to have their own Wikipedia page, but can still be considered a celebrity.Yes, there's something accurate about not meriting a Wikipedia entry being the measure of someone who hasn't quite made it, and this definition doesn't seem to distinguish between online or "real" life, but something is still lacking here. And the topic of microcelebrity, rather than being dismissed so easily, has actually earned rather thorough examination.
My hypothesis is that young people are asked to function today in what amounts to a celebrity economy. In this economy, all they have to rely on is their own “brand” and name. Their celebrity-hood is micro, because it doesn’t transpire on the big screen or in larger-than-life proportions, but in the capillaries of social media, reality tv, and Twitter. It’s an inner experience of self rather than an objective state of being famous.For Haag there still seems to be a distinction between online and "real" life (with "reality tv" being closer to the online than the "real"), but the more significant aspect of microcelebrity for her is the "inner experience" rather than a particular number of followers or fans. In that same piece she remarks on "reality tv" that:
These shows make fleeting celebrities out of ordinary people, precisely for being ordinary, and instruct the viewer in how to be a (micro)-celebrity –even when simply living, and being normal; even when unknown, and unremarkable.so again, microcelebrity status becomes more a state of mind that an outwardly identifiable status.
a leading news platform and worldwide conference that curates and shares the best ideas, innovations and insights into how social media and technology are changing business, society and culture around the worldposted an article titled Instafame: The Rise Of The Microcelebrity that gave us a different perspective on the subject. There we learned that:
A cultural shift is happening. Fame is no longer an out-of-touch dream. 31% of teens aged 14-18 believe they’ll be famous one day. That’s more than one out of four teens. And they may have reason.And apparently what Social Media Week wants us to do is to learn from them (probably at a price) how to go about branding ourselves and becoming (at least micro-ly) famous.