Open Mike: The Perils of 'Audience Capture'!

If you are reading this, it appears I owe you more of a debt than I thought! This is one of the strangest articles I've read in many a month: "The Perils of Audience Capture," by Gurwinder, who is described as "Writer exploring the ways we are fooled in the Digital Age." I'd say this is a "must-read"—it applies to all sorts of things, not least of all politics—and thanks to Navin Upendran for the tip.

"Audience capture" means that a performer is changed, and becomes trapped by, the demands of his or her audience. I think you will appreciate that the top two photos are shocking. They show a young man ("Nikocado Avocado") whose previous identity (Nicholas Perry) became blurred into his online persona (or "brand" as the article has it). But isn't his story just a sad tale of slow-motion suicide by a form of addiction? Addiction to food, and self-destruction via food, but also to approval. To me it simply smacks of mental illness of some sort. Is it really a characteristic of...well, of people like me?

I've always thought something approximately the opposite of myself. I started my own website (in November, TOP will celebrate its 17th birthday) because I wanted to create a "space" online that would reflect my values. I was tired of what used to be called "flame wars." My belief is that I've attracted the audience I want, rather than that I've twisted or distorted my real self into a pretzel to meet your demands.

However, I do know about the seductive lure of having a large audience. Yesterday TOP got about 6,700 pageviews, although that's down a bit because I've been on vacation. But I wonder what I would be willing to do for an audience of 100,000, much less one million. I do think it would be a temptation to "do anything" for that. I mean, I hope I wouldn't—I hope I would still be my authentic self, and have integrity, and that I wouldn't abandon my values for popularity. But I get the attraction of it, is all I'm saying.

I'm going to be very interested to hear what you think about Gurwinder's article. As I've gotten older I've noticed that it sometimes feels like I'm "living in the future." The ideas in this article seem almost freaky in their bleak futuristic feel. And unfortunately it's a dystopian future. Anyway, about that debt I mentioned: thanks for not goading me into going crazy over all these years! Not that you would do that.  :-)

Just Plain Mike

Book o' the Week

Home Fires Volume II: The Present. There is of course a Volume I: The Past.  TOP reader Bruce Haley has produced documentary work relating to conflict, humanitarian crises and environmental/industrial/land use issues for 30 years. He received the Robert Capa Gold Medal for his coverage of the ethnic civil war in Burma.

These book links are a portal to Amazon.

Today at B&H Photo

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

robert e: "MWAHAHAHAHA! Give it time. Just kidding, of course. I think of TOP as a 'Field of Dreams' type situation. It's got such a distinctive ethos that your audience is mostly self-selected, plus you've trained us well—gently but firmly. You also put an awful lot of work into keeping order. It's too bad that you have to, but it also reflects your priorities. We your audience then try to emulate your standards, because we like how it is here. That then contributes to the distinctive ethos, which...etc.

"In other words, this is the positive version of that feedback loop. I think it's a matter of priorities and sticking to your guns. And in your case about being quite transparent about them and why they matter to you. You clearly think about it often. Others have lost their way or were in it for the attention from the beginning, but their priorities run in a different direction. Have no fear, Mike, you're in control, as long as you want to be."

David Dyer-Bennet: "Sometimes it's the approval. Performers of many types all report encounters with it with live audiences (and there's a range of dependency on it, not surprisingly). Also sometimes it's the money. You have made your living at this for some time. One or two orders of magnitude more page views would presumably make rather a difference to that as well. It's hard to convince somebody to disbelieve something when their standard of living depends on believing it!"

Nick Reith: "To say that the article and especially the before and after pictures shocked me would be an understatement. Equal feelings of pity, revulsion and despair all combine in a hopeless attempt to make any sense of this."

David Miller: "The final passage in Gurwinder's article sums it up: '…if you chase the approval of others, you may, in the end, lose the approval of yourself.' This caution was appropriate long before computers or the internet existed, and is applicable to how we make photographs and how we live our lives."

Gordon Lewis: "'The Perils of Audience Capture' is about so-called influencers, which you are not. You're a blogger and, by your own admission, text blogs have lost popularity to video blogs. You have also proven yourself immune to reader requests to change your blog format, show more photos, stay on topic, and so on. One can only imagine how more radical suggestions might be received. So I think you're safe for now."

Mike replies: I also turned down a lucrative ad from Nikon when the D3 was introduced, because of my existing decision not to allow flashing or animated advertisements. That was in the days when advertisements supported the site—that is, me and Xander—and it was very hard to turn down that big check, let me tell ya. The advertising agency was incredulous and very annoyed that I would take such a stand, and Nikon never approached me again. But I think moving ads are distracting to readers, so that was that.

James: "After reading both articles I saw the title of the feature book as 'Home Fries.' I only realized my error after reading the description and looking at the title again in confusion. I’m not sure if this was the power of suggestion, hunger, or both."

Mike replies: Too funny!

Scott Abbey: "Clearly, the poor fellow in the article has severe problems. And the consensus of this readership is that he made bad choices. But this really has nothing to do with the Internet. Let’s be honest with ourselves: we all bend to the will of those who pay us to some degree. It can range from what we generally consider acceptable, like a dress code or working hours, or it could be more impactful on our person: jobs with physical risks, jobs with mental risks, jobs with moral risks. One can hope that they make mostly good choices, but we all deal with this.

"In my case, I traded time at home with my wife for (a lot of) business travel in order to enjoy a challenging and financially rewarding job. Was I succumbing to unreasonable demands? Some might think so, others not. What about people with hazardous jobs? Are coal miners making a bad choice when it is the best paying job in their area? What about football players risking brain damage? What if the guy who ate himself sick felt it was the only way he could raise the money to pay a loved one's medical expenses? Again, this is not an Internet problem, but a problem of life choices in pursuit of one’s livelihood. It existed long before the Internet."

Comments

[Keith]

I feel sorry for photographers and other creative artists chasing 'likes' on social media. They've sold their souls for nothing. You have a million 'followers', or so you say, and what does it get you? A group of people that will complain when you follow your inner vision and produce something different than what your followers like.

[Geoffrey Wittig]

A fascinating and disturbing read to be sure. I have to confess that I find such a compulsive desire to please and to court audience approval incomprehensible. The whole point of art (any form) is to share ones' own very individual way of seeing the world with others. Praise or approval from consumers of your art may be nice, but basically misses the whole point of the endeavor.
Commercialized art, where the entire point is moving product and making money, is a separate enterprise. Peter Lik's photography or Thomas Kincade's paintings come to mind. The extreme 'audience capture' phenomenon substitutes 'likes' or clicks for dollars, but the process seems analogous.

[John Krumm]

The article is interesting, but he still sounds captured in his own way, bragging about being so vague as to be inconsequential after he carefully crafted his “brand.” Today’s Lenswork podcast discusses this, to risk being foolish. Art requires that you are willing to be perceived as foolish, according to Jensen.

[PaulW]

What an incredibly insightful and well written article. I found myself nodding in agreement to everything Gurwinder wrote. Thanks for the link!
BTW, I think his entire blog is a must-read.

[John]

Reminds me, in a less extreme sense, of photographer Joe Edelman’s transformation from his early to his later YouTube persona.

[Kirk]

The link to "The Perils of Audience Capture" was pure gold. I thank you profusely for the gift.

[Navin gets the credit for that. I'm merely the passer-alonger. --Mike]

[Wolfgang Lonien]

Maybe looking at numbers - like pageviews for example - is the root of all evil? Isn't just being you enough to have *some* people love you? And isn't that the greatest gift of all?

[Dave]

Mike,

These people who chase viewers, not to mention do everything they request without being able to say "No!", have got to have some mental illness.

What we "oldsters" call common sense, appears to be lacking in the youngsters who grew up with digital media.

One more reason I'm glad I don't belong to any of the social media sites.

Thanks for that link, Mike.

I'm sending it to my nieces.

[Lee Rust]

It's all about the difference between "more" and "enough".

In our competitive e-culture, where everything can be measured, a high score makes you a winner and anything less makes you a loser.

"More" can never be satisfied, but "enough" is happy with sufficiency. That seems to describe your situation.

[darlene]

The photos of the young man descending into mental illness is macabre. I see it as one of the many diseases the internet has unleashed.

The many 'Mike editors' and quality commentators of TOP keep its river flowing clean and healthy. The voice of this blog expands, but does not change, and has proved to be a stable blip on the internet's radar screen.

[Robert Roaldi]

Was there no one in that poor kid's life that saw what was happening to him?

[Henning]

Well Mike, I will continue to read TOP and recommend you to my friends and acquaintances if you continue to take care of yourself and eat healthily, and continue to be the caring, decent person we all know you to be. So no reason to go off the deep end! :-)

In that spirit, congrats on your family reconciliation, and may it continue to grow and flourish.

[Stan B.]

I sometimes think of how many platforms I would be banned from if social media had been around in my youth, how many apologies (sincere and otherwise) I would have had to make.

I also once thought that saying what was really on one's mind was infinitely preferable to speaking in code (ie- politics)- people would finally be held accountable for their very own words and proclamations. Well, the last few years have shown me just how wrong I was on that one- people simply downplay, deny or just double down on what they said... it NEVER gets addressed honestly or thoughtfully. No one ever takes responsibility.

Finally, dangerous juggling act balancing the desire to be popular with your financial well being. Guaranteed formula for disaster, particularly when you throw in a young, fragile and immature sense of one's own identity and self worth.

Robert Roaldi- "Was there no one in that poor kid's life that saw what was happening to him?"

Each and every one of his... 'fans.'

[Kenneth G Voigt]

moving ads are an abomination.
The Luminous Landscape had the first one I remember seeing. I complained to Michael Reichmann and he took it down. I was surprised and eternally grateful to him. You too.

[Paulo Bizarro]

The need of human beings to be popular and accepted by others is as old as Mankind. Internet access only compounds that to "infinity and beyond". We all have this trait, some much more than others, and can result in sickness.

[Kye Wood]

Hmm. I can't see any correlation between the gentleman in the article, or the points raised later in the article - and you?

You moderate your word for your audience. That's just good manners, no?

I've been around. And to my visual ear, I hear no signs that you have ever moderated your 'thoughts'. It's what you think that matters. Think on that sir.

[Sroyon]

It's not just individuals, I feel like Leica (for example) has to some extent fallen victim to audience capture. The basic M design was so revolutionary, and attracted such a loyal following, that they're condemned to repeating it forever and ever with only minor tweaks allowed.

[Luke]

Rest assured, we WILL let you know if you have a problem, but I really don't think it will ever happen.

[Dan Gordon]

Thanks for introducing Gurwinder to me. Your audience might be interested in a second piece on his site - The Intellectual Obesity Crisis. It' relevant to me personally, since I find myself "gorging" on photograpy-related sites and articles. Very little of this stuff makes me a better (whatever that means) or a happier photographer. Why did I just spend x minutes watching a video evaluation of the autofocus capabilities of a new Canon? I don't own a Canon and I'm not likely to any time soon. Even encountering other people's very good work is only "nutritious" in moderation. How often, on a long museum visit, have I seen so much that I might as well have seen nothing?

I'll never recover any of those lost hours (days?) of mis-allocated attention; can I have the discipline, restraint and judgment not to lose too many more?

(None of the above applies to TOP, of course. Love ya.)

[Mark Sampson]

It's not just the internet. I can quickly think of two famous twentieth-century writers, Ernest Hemingway and Hunter S. Thompson, who became prisoners of their public personae. The alcohol and drugs didn't help either. Despite their real literary accomplishments, fame and fortune, both were suicides.

[Richard Skoonberg]

The article on "Audience Capture" is so insightful. Thanks for posting it. Audience Capture not only affects internet influencers but also performers, actors, celebrities, CEOs, artists, heck everyone in one way or another. It appears to be an example of what might be called "social behaviorism." It's how we become addicted to certain behaviors that are reinforced by outside conditions. The article reminded me of the following quote by Upton Sinclair, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
We are all subject to audience capture, but fortunately, most of us have very small audiences.