Privacy is the new celebrity
In a recent interview with Fast Company, Ashton Kutcher – the celebrity-turned-Internet-mogel – said that privacy is more valuable than celebrity. This makes sense to me.
On the Internet everyone is a celebrity. I think Rebecca Blood was the first person to introduce this concept to me when she said Generation Y manages itself like celebrities online, so privacy is not necessary for them. I think the proof of this is that gen Y prefers communicating via social media rather than email; news travels faster, via larger groups of people.
Marketers and publicists have made a science out of getting benefits from being a celebrity—sponsors, a fun network, great opportunities that lead to even greater opportunities. In the age of transparency Gen Y can see how to do this and they don’t need permission from MGM or Capitol Records to act like a celebrity.
I am constantly telling people to get a strong career by managing their professional profile online . The way to a solid career is to be known for what you’re good at. All good workers are celebrities—a far cry from Horatio Alger and the Protestant work ethic, but a much more relevant trope for the new millennium.
Pace University reports that 99 percent of Gen Y is on Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn, and Redbook reports that one out of five moms is blogging. In this era, if you’re at all relevant in this day and age, you can google your name, and you will find photos, quotes, and some sort of history of your life, in a few lines or a few million lines. If you already have everything that being a celebrity can get you, then you can be private.
I am struck by the way Prince William and Kate Middleton handle the media in England.
The paparazzi are all over Kate, who has been dating William for nine years and is pretty much a lock-in to be the next queen of England. (A testament to how in love the media is with William and Kate: The throne will skip William’s father, Charles, because he is so unpopular with the public, and go straight to William.)
William is still livid with the paparazzi because he blames the death of his mom, Princess Diana, on the car chase for photos of her with her date. So after Princess Caroline won a court battle against the paparazzi, William vowed to sue any photographer who violates Kate’s right to privacy. To this end, William is well versed in the laws, and Kate is well-versed in conducting herself in a way that exercises her rights on a regular basis.
This is a great video, for example: Kate is with her sister, both are non-royals at an unofficial event, so it is, by law, considered her private life. On video, Kate asserts (in a relatively kind way) that she is not taking her hand from her face because “this is my private life.”
Once she says that, the photographers leave, because it is true that it’s private, and they have, officially, violated the law. (Still, William pressured Kate to sue, in an effort to keep the paparazzi in line. She won and gave the money to charity.)
William and Kate can do this because they do not need any benefits as celebrities. They will definitely become king and queen, they definitely know enough people for the rest of their lives and do not need to widen their circle of contacts, and they definitely do not need more money. Celebrity is not valuable to them any longer. Privacy is more valuable.
Royal family member Peter Phillips, on the other hand, is eleventh from the throne and almost a commoner. He needs cash, so he sold the rights to his wedding to Hello! Magazine for roughly $1 million.
The problem is that what he really did was sell privacy. Not just his but William’s and Kate’s. There were thirteen photos of Kate in Hello!, which did not violate the law because the publication paid for access.
Now, circle back to the commoners of the Internet. Most people making money from the Internet do, in some way, sell their privacy. I remember, for example, hanging out at SXSW with Guy Kawasaki.
We drove around in a limo to a bunch of parties, and everywhere people swarmed to take photos with Guy. I said, “How can you cope with all this?”
He said, “I don’t mind it, and anyway, it’s my job. And I always remind myself there are way worse jobs than this. At least I’m not a garbage collector.”
He has a point. But still, I ended up sitting in the limo while he went into parties. I needed quiet.
I need quiet, but I am not in a position to guard my privacy like Kate Middleton. I want too much more that mere celebrity status can get me. I want to trade interesting ideas with interesting people. I want to create a constant flow of fun opportunities. I want to write for an audience rather than just for myself. So I have to show myself.
The farmer and I have this conversation all the time: He wants to be with a woman who is intellectual and worldly and who will live on the farm in the boondocks. Very few women would choose this life without being able to make this life better by supporting the family financially. And the way I support myself is writing about myself, and the way I stay engaged in the world is to write about it. Which means I give up my privacy in exchange for being able to live where I want and write about what I want. It seems like a good trade to me.
Did you know that on a farm, dinner is lunch and supper is dinner? The only people who lunch, I guess, are city people. I mix this up all the time and my kids correct me, which is how I imagine it is for immigrants who cannot learn the new language as fast as their children.
Anyway, here is a photo of the farmer and me having dinner on the farm. And it’s telling that I share a private moment, of my own volition, because I’m not next in line for the throne.
It’s fascinating how this blog is evolving into an essay on the misconceptions and innocent ignorance people from urban areas have about rural areas. Having lived in both, I can strongly confirm there is VERY little privacy in small communities. Some excel in that environment and many of those people will never leave. Others, like myself, find it suffocating and decide to seek anonymity by moving to an urban area or attending a large college.
What gets more interesting is when the desire for anonymity conflicts with other changing priorities. I’m now at a point of life where I understand that the other benefits offered by living in a smaller community, particularly for children (school, safety, opportunities), outweigh the negatives related to everyone knowing everything about you. We have reluctantly moved back to a smaller town to give our children a better life, and need to figure out how to adapt to the lack of privacy.
There’s another great blog topic inside of this one: why IS there a turning point at which lack of privacy becomes a major negative? It has to be more than just dealing with requests for autographs. I suspect it has something to do with the magnification of mistakes that can happen when everyone’s watching for them. Or perhaps its the inability to reinvent yourself when you’ve been typecast as having certain characteristics. Would love to hear more thoughts what makes celebrity negative after you’ve gotten the materialism out of it.
It’s mogul, not mogel (in the first paragraph).
I nodded through much of this post. Slightly different, but I married someone from the opposite side of the country. He knows everyone, people know him. I, for the most part, get introduced. There is a pricelessness to having the cloak of obscurity, no assumptions of knowledge, as there are so many years that were not lived here. I like having a part of myself that will always be mine, not the community’s. I cannot imagine having that taken. I also can’t imagine having millions.
You have something w/ the Catholic thing…that’s what the nuns always used to call lunch. “Get in line now, silence please, and go have your dinners.”
I can hear it now.
I think the bottom line is, some people want privacy, some want to be a celebrity.
For example, I’m a introvert and really don’t want to be around people all the time…I prefer being alone (not always, of course, otherwise I’d get depressed.)
The example with the royal family is an extreme in my opinion…wanting too much attention can lead to many bad things. I think, however, the same holds true for wanting too much privacy!
wanted to apologize for a previous comment. but also you’re an amazing writer and the green of that grass behind f. is stunning. i don’t know what you are chasing beyond celebrity but u’ve done something great. urban and ex-urban (thanks shelter mag, dwell) at once.
I miss Yahoo Finance, I miss you having 4-5 blogs per week, I miss the topics revolving around your work instead of paint colors. It’s curious because your personal posts were always the most interesting, but when you only have personal stuff, it’s boring. I can’t stand the pictures, it feels like you’re writing around a good picture instead of using a picture for a topic you want to write about. Quit being that other farmer chick you love and just be you! Are you still working from the farm? What ever happened with your coporate credit card? How are the Ryans? Could one of them guest blog?? I used to love your stuff, but the infrequent posts and lack of substantial material is burning me out.
It’s interesting in the world of google, a person with the name Joan Smith has more privacy
That’s because she’s been hanging out with Maria Killam, of colourmehappy.com. And is that a bottle of Wollersheim on the table? Yummm.
Nice post, P!
I think the most important aspect of privacy is control. Control over the content and how it’s disseminated or not. We all desire control of our private life and details to varying extent whether it is online or offline. Sometimes we get ‘control’ and sometimes we don’t and many times it doesn’t really matter. I think privacy becomes a real issue when you expect it for whatever reason and you don’t get it. I like the photo ‘justice’ – two for the royalty and two for the commoners.
Of course she can. Commoners have become consorts before.
1) For the throne to skip Charles, he’ll have to renounce his claim on it, and no one really thinks he’ll do that. Your wording suggests that the media determines who will inherit the British throne, and that isn’t the case.
2) Why aren’t comments nesting anymore?
I totally agree–today privacy is a trade-off between having a voice and being invisible. Though I have met people in heavily non- (perhaps anti-) technical fields that are proud of their lack of internet presence, I think that is an unsustainable position. When I trade in my privacy by having a blog (or 3), I am gaining a voice online. Those who prioritize privacy above their digital voices are betting that they do not need solid web presences to get hired. This seems like wishful thinking to me.
Your job is so cool. It must be a hectic schedule you must have. I think the issue with privacy is with the celebrity’s personality. Some people are just a people person while others rather be secluded to themselves. For me personally, if I was a celebrity being followed everywhere I would be a bit upset that these paparazzi are taking picture of my family and I, but I am that protective person. But people are entitled to their privacy. First time on this blog and hope you keep up with the good work! :)
I doubt that the throne will skip Charles. I’m not even sure that’s constitutional.
“For the throne to skip Charles, he’ll have to renounce his claim on it, and no one really thinks he’ll do that.”
Not true. Edward, “The Black Prince” would have been Edward IV, but he died before his father did, and so his son became Richard II, when Edward III, Richard’s grandfather died.
Penelope, a few things raised by this post of yours.
1. The British Royals have a different relationship, generation by generation. I think it was Elizabeth’s father or grandfather who decided to go from the crown in the palace and a symbol to having a media presence. Really, you could write a thesis or book about how each generation has tried (and failed) at creating a different membrane between the palace and the town. William is doing a royal Gen Y thing, rather than just a royal thing.
2. Fame, celebrity, renown and notoriety are very different statuses and sometimes they overlap. Steve Martin is famous and renowned as a writer, standup and comic. But doesn’t seem to have either celebrity or notoriety like Lindsay Lohan or Tiger Woods or Marilyn Monroe or Elvis Presley do respectively. Meryl Streep would be another example of someone who’s famous and renowned. Yet, we know every little of her personal life.
What would you rather have? Without any judgment intended, it seems at times that you’re comfortable with notoriety because it can be as useful as celebrity. I’m thinking how great you did on CNN about your miscarriage even though the host was a prat: it seems you were treated as someone who’s notorious for oversharing or sharing inappropriately, but you treated it as an opportunity of a completely different kind — and won out.
I think a lot of what’s scary for people is that we don’t necessarily choose what kind of spotlight we get. One person gets celebrity, another notoriety. And it can morph.
3. The farmer in pics. This is a hot button in the comments and I have to say I’m disappointed. He’s been built up as mythic in your words. I was hoping he’d retain some mystique even as you experimented with images. I’d rather he be like the neighbor on Home Improvement, always present, always important, always slightly obscured.
Also, as an avid reader, I kind of want him to win some battles with you, and have one of them be anonymity. Maybe pieces of his heart and soul are bared to the world when it’s germane to your sharing or oversharing, but he could keep his face and voice out of the limelight. Really, if you’re winning an award somewhere and waltzing down the red carpet, I want to see him then, but I was really hoping he’d assert his veto on some level so I might know he doesn’t like pink but I’d never recognize him on the street.
But I suppose part of life is always putting people on some kind of pedestal so that they fall from it. I realize I’ve sort of read into your narrative that he’s the strong, silent type, and I’ve grown to expect that there’d be some visual parity with that idea of him I had.
It seemed really odd that I could see him clearly and the back of your hat.
Please do keep posting more often.
Your blog is an eye catchy, I have to agree with you and Maureen, it makes me think.
Keep blogging.
Yes its true, very true…
Thanks for all you blog, very beautiful.
=)
How can they have privacy?
Kate and William are a great couple.
There’s nothing to worry of being a commoner.
Actually, dinner isn’t *exactly* the same as lunch–because it’s possible to have 4 meals in the day, especially in a setting involving either hard physical labor or very old-fashioned ways, and long hours. I used to sell both lunch and dinner to railroad workers who came into my family’s grocery, feed and seed store; it was my understanding that before their shift they had breakfast, and after their shift they had a little supper, just as my grandfather usually did. But it does make sense for the word “dinner” to have become identical to either “lunch” or “supper” depending on region–I guess it depends on which of the other meals you drop.
She’ll most likely get some grace and favor Duchess title.
“… privacy is more valuable than celebrity.”
This statement certainly holds true for Chelsea Clinton as most recently evidenced by all the speculation of the guest list and location of her wedding on 7/31. Similar to William and Kate, Chelsea and future husband Marc “definitely know enough people for the rest of their lives and do not need to widen their circle of contacts, and they definitely do not need more money”. Chelsea had and still has the luxury of foregoing celebrity as something to be sought for in the first place and has always cherished privacy above celebrity. The most recent article in the NY Times regarding the secret nature of Chelsea’s wedding is located at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/fashion/18CHELSEA.html .
Celebrities want to use the media to their gain when it suits them. What in life does anyone get for free? Theirs is a price to be paid for media coverage, celebrities or famous people unless children make a concsious decision to go down the road they do, why should we care if they forget to look at what would happen from all angles. Kate Middleton wants a private life? Don’t put up with being girlfriend for 8 years move on if you want privacy, there is no such thing as privacy when you choose to date one of the richest men in england.
I agree that celebrities do use the media when it is most convenient for them – right before an album or movie release. But then when they actually do want privacy they complain that the paparazzi won’t leave them alone. You can’t have it both ways. Celebrities and Royalty know what they are getting into and invasion of privacy comes with the job. If you don’t like it then get another job. I personally would not like paparazzi following me around everywhere but if I was pulling in 100 million a year maybe it wouldn’t be so bad :)
She can. His great Grandmother was an upper middle class commoner as well.
Celebrities love privacy when is bored, right ?
My boyfriend has absolutely nothing about him online and it still boggles me that goggling his name brings up nothing. I even did a background check on him and nada! Of course he is a professed paranoid individual when it comes to his privacy, but I do can understand why. For me blogging is a way to share my life experiences, what’s worked for me and where I would like to be in the future.
Now, if your trying to just achieve 15 minutes of fame, then your obviously doing it the wrong way and you will disappear as quickly as you arrived. You have to really manage what you will allow about yourself online and what you feel is off limits. It’s like telling someone a secret that you know blabs like the National Enquirer, where you only tell them what you want them to know. Everyone has to be responsible in the information they share to always ensure that your still in control over your private life.
Being a celebrity equals no privacy. You are a public figure. They do deserve some time for themselves though.
I also liked your post and agree with your analysis of the spectrum of privacy and celebrety. I also like that your fans are such hard core fans that they pour over every detail of the photo you post. It reminds me of my daughter who recently informed me that Justin Beber changed his favorite candy to PEEPS.
It is a great post
This post is very relatable. This generation has turned to social media, and a lot of people don’t care about their privacy on their pages. What our generation does not realize is that their facebook profiles and twitter pages might be looked over by future employers, and if they have raunchy posts and photos of them partying or whatnot, they might not get hired. If more people realized this, they could possibly help themselves in the future by having good looking profiles that will impress them. Social media is a lot more powerful than people think.
I agree that most stars and celebrities are starting to use social media in the wrong context. Stars are looking at social media as a new outlet to gain there next 15 minutes of fame. This makes each star wanting to create or put on a new show or persona every couple of weeks. It is better when these stars keep these ideas and thoughts private instead of using them to be higher in public.