A Fresh Analysis on Filthy Frank

We’ve all heard of our good ol’ pal Francis of the Filth. Some other names you may know him by are Filthy Frank, Pink Guy (his altar ego), Papa Francis, or even Joji. So let me get right into it- Wait... What’s that? You don’t know who this dude is? The YouTube guy? You really don’t?? Okay... well I guess I can do a little summary.

Filthy Frank was first introduced to YouTube in 2013 under the channel ‘DizastaMusic’. If you don’t know what he got famous for, then i’m so sorry i’m the one who has to tell you. He and four other maniacs dressed up in like... morph suits? Yeah I think that’s what they’re called- And danced to the ‘Harlem Shake’ which- If you don’t know- was a horrible and meme driven song created when I was in junior high. These idiots danced really grotesquely and somehow attracted a terrifying crowd of pimple- faced, smelly, big foreheaded junior high children. This wave of kids flocked to this 36 second long video like flies on s*** and unoriginally mimicked its chaotic dancing and energy. Walking down the hallway, i’d see twelve year olds looking like they were having full-on seizures waiting by the door of their next class to be let in... When in reality they were just hopelessly trying to dance to the Harlem Shake. It was nothing short of horrifying.

So now that you have some ill background on just what this man can induce- i have the job of telling you all the other stunts he’s been able to get away with on YouTube somehow without getting (many)
 videos taken down. Sadly I can’t find a lot of worthy blogs or articles to reference... So i guess i’m One of the first people to really dive into the chaos behind Filthy Frank. I did find an Urban
Dictionary definition of this guy, I’ll add it in just to have it here. It doesn’t do a lot to explain the madness surrounding Frank’s videos or energy, so I guess i’m here to do that.

Let me explain why so many people flocked to this channel. To make it easier to understand, I’ll reference something I learned in Comp. 2. Have you ever seen ‘The Room’? If not- i’m so sorry you’ve never experienced it. It is to say at the least... a very slight form of “camp”. ‘The Room’ is a horribly made movie that breaks every rule cinema has... So why do so many people love it? Well apparently- the crowd that sh*tty cinema attracts is mostly made up of intelligent people. It’s something that’s hard to explain but I think the overall reason is that it is entertaining either when someone doesn’t give a f*** (Frank) or when something is unintentionally horribly bad (The Room). In Filthy Frank’s case of not caring what other people think- this energy attracts a crowd because in a way- I think all of us crave that feeling of not being able to care.

Within his videos, Filthy Frank does a short series where he reads YouTube comments from his haters for fun. This is one of the most entertaining ideas for me. He titles the videos, “LOSER READS
HATER COMMENTS” part 1, 2, 3, etc... And he finds the most rude and hateful comments he can find- which isn’t hard considering his anti-fan base is enormous but can’t compare with his fans. People will say things with horrible grammar probably because their anger reduces them from getting their point across clearly. Some examples are things like “I hate u u made my sister move to Iowa with my aunt for watching ur videos” or “k*ll yourself” or “i’m a weeaboo and im proud” or “anime is cool dont hate on anime”... And so on. It’s hilarious because everything Frank attacks has good reason to be attacked- then the fanbases of anime or furries or depressed people prove his point even
more that the people involved are stupid. This dude knows how to work.

So there’s been a theory floating around for a long time that Filthy Frank created his channel of chaos for publicity- so that when he wanted to become famous for his music career- it wouldn't be as difficult. This worked out extremely well somehow. He has left his Filthy Frank days behind him (I think officially ending his channel in 2016-2017) and slipped into his persona of Joji; a huge musical artist listened to by tons of people. It's crazy that he got this worked out so easily... Well he did stick with the channel for about four years... but other than that- if he did have this master plan to make himself famous by doing crazy s***- It worked extremely well.

If you haven't for some reason come across Francis of the Filth on YouTube yet- I'd recommend at least seeing one video. Just to understand the chaos.

Living in the Past

It seems as if every time I go onto social media now, there is some sort of reboot of an old show in the works or being released. Just think about Lizzie McGuire, Fuller House, Girl Meets World, and now most recently, Friends (and this list goes on and on and on). Oh, and don’t even get me started about all of the reboots going on with the Star Wars franchise and their Lego recreations. Nearly every time that I go on Facebook, I can almost guarantee that I will see something about an old TV show or movie being recreated, it’s constant. I don’t think we will ever really outgrow our past because it seems as if we are always reliving it. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m excited about many of these reboots, however it seems that we are constantly in an era of nostalgia and we can’t move on from shows that were good in their own time.

Netflix & Split Up

I think this all has to do with the creation of so many new streaming platforms in the coming years. Netflix used to have a monopoly over the streaming industry (I remember back when you had to get the DVD’s sent to you in the mail, back in the ancient times). Then it seemed as if all of a sudden, every TV network either had its own platform or was in the process of creating it’s own streaming service separate from Netflix. Now Disney, Peacock (NBC), Apple TV+, and Discovery, just to name a couple.

Netflix has had to play a lot of catch up, but luckily for them the service continues to stay popular because of its new content, including shows such as Stranger Things, You, and Cheer, just to name a few. Netflix has a disadvantage because their content is so new that they don’t have the ability to revive old shows for the modern day, but they make up in their new content for what they lack in terms of nostalgic content. They did have some classic shows and their reboots available in it’s library, however most of these shows are being pulled into their parent company’s new streaming services.

The Past Defines Us

Beyond old TV shows coming back to life, there are also plenty of old movies being recreated as well. With the launch of Disney+, we are seeing many movies being recreated for the new Disney streaming service in order to bring in more potential customers. Movies such as The Lion King, Mary Poppins, and Lady and the Tramp are just a few of the recreated movies that have come out within the past few years that are a modern take on Disney classics. Disney seems to be leading the pack when it comes to reboots, they know that they’re a great way to earn money because people respond well to them.

I mean heck, we even see old music coming back. Think about all of those reunion tours with My Chemical Romance, The Jonas Brothers, The Spice Girls, Hootie & the Blowfish, etc. It’s pretty smart on their part though. When these people get old and realize they’re running out of an income, they know going on a reunion tour is a great way to put money in their pockets. It’s only for a year or so, might as well? Concert tickets + merch sales + music streams = profit.

These people know what they’re doing. They know the relationships their audience has with their product. Just imagine if One Direction were to ever go on a reunion tour… the madness.

Play It Safe

It seems with all of these reboots, Hollywood is really just trying to play it safe. They know that people have responded well to these particular shows and movies in the past, so why not just feed into that energy and get extra income? Movies cost a loooot of money to create, so when you have an original motion picture with a brand new concept, it’s risky business because you have no idea how your audience is going to react to it.

Hollywood has been unoriginal for a long time, however. Many of the movies that we see are based on books, and I mean a lot. Some of the most successful franchises based off of books would include Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Twilight, and etc. People love to see their favorite books come to life, and usually leave disappointed, but still go back to watch the sequels anyway. People are too invested with titles they are already familiar with and have a connection to, whereas you have to fight for people’s attention for a movie or show that is new.

Also, I think that Hollywood is really tapping into the younger generation’s interests. Those of us who are around the ages of 18-30 or so are old enough to have seen TV shows and movies come and go, and some of them we remember as being a fond memory of our childhoods. We are seeing many of those shows and movies that we grew up with come back to life with a twist, better technology and production. Companies know they are guaranteed to grab our money when they create nostalgia for us. And that’s really what it all comes down to: money. It’s safe, it’s easy, and it’s a sure way of making an income; why even bother creating anything new at this point?

For now, you can catch me watching Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again with no shame, but I am holding onto my nostalgia of a childhood full of Mamma Mia.

Memes: New, Forgotten, and Immortal

http://bit.ly/3ccgTlw

Memes, There’s So Many 

Our class discussion on Friday was one that really grabbed my attention. The idea of residual media, especially memes, was something that I have never put much thought into and it very much peaked my interest. The idea that there are new memes, residual memes, and dominant memes is something that I want to explore and look more into for this blog post. 

http://bit.ly/32nIE5P

Meme of the Month Calendars

New memes are pretty much self explanatory. These are the memes that are created, get popular, are overused, and then end up being outdated, annoying, and uncool in a week or two. At this current time the new memes have been lacking a bit. Previously, I would see a new meme trend on Instagram first, but I haven’t found much except for the Ice Age baby memes that we talked about during class. Now for the most part, I am finding new meme content on TikTok. However, TikTok has started to gradually become more original content, funny clips, and dancing than meme trend. But that isn’t to say that they don’t exist on the platform because they do, they’re just not the main focus of the app. New memes cycle in and out of the internet now that it’s so hard to keep track of all the trends. Around 2016, people started making Meme of the Month calendars. These pictures had a block for every month of the year and would get filled in with a picture of the most dominant meme from each month. While this is fun to keep up with and look back on at the end of the year, the problem with these was that only one meme per month makes the cut. Since new memes are dead in about two weeks tops, a lot of memes can happen in a month. Especially because multiple memes can be popular at one time. With the Meme of the Month calendars many memes were forgotten and will find themselves in the long, lost dark corners of the internet. Eventually the Meme of the Month calendars joined this part of the internet as well. 

http://bit.ly/2HNMvQa

Keanu Reeves in 2070

Despite all this, some of these memes that find themselves in the long, lost dark corners of the internet are not always forgotten forever. The memes that you thought were long gone and stuck in 2011 but somehow pop back up on your feed once or twice a year are residual memes. Some examples of these are Minions, Bad Luck Brian, the History Channel guy, The Matrix, etc. Memes that everyone can see so clearly in their head but have been out of trend for a long time. However, these are memes that you see your best friend’s mom post on Facebook, and for some reason she won’t let them die and still thinks they’re the funniest thing ever and has since 2009. For the most part these memes are being used ironically now by internet users. If you somehow find yourself or a really weird meme page, you’re most likely going to see these somewhere if you scroll long enough. And they’ll probably have some super inappropriate or cringey caption that makes you shiver from the inside out. Residual memes don’t go away, and they might not ever. As time goes on it’ll be interesting to see how many of these residual memes will and won’t make it. Who knows, maybe we’ll still be seeing classic Keanu Reeves memes pop up in 2070. I personally hope not, but you never know. 

http://bit.ly/2PmmmMO

But That’s None of My Business

Dominant memes are kind of like residuals except they come around more consistently and can change and adapt many times to stay relevant. One of the big ones is Kermit the Frog. Kermit memes seem to never die and every time a new one gets created it’s funnier than the last one. Kermit memes were funny back in 2011 on iFunny and when I see a new one on TikTok now I laugh just a hard, if not harder than I did when they started. These dominant memes are ever changing and will be alive for many years to come. For some reason or another dominant memes don’t seem to lose their sparkle after two weeks. While dominant memes can fade in and out of trends, you’ll see them multiples times over the course of a year and with a lot of strength behind them. There have been few dominant memes over the past five years and it’ll be interesting to see which memes become dominant in the five years ahead of us. Maybe some of the new memes that are popular now will become dominant memes. The Ice Age baby might still be popping in 2025. Honestly, I highly doubt it but that would be really funny. 

The Gift Economy and Everyday Interactions

                                                  So, y’all know about the gift economy, right? (The wiki article can give you a decent idea, just in case you don’t.) I’d like to talk about it in sort of casual terms here. Like, how it happens casually whenever we’re just hanging out with one another, and how that can be fine or escalate badly. Here are some examples.

                                                  In platonic friendships, we take each other’s feelings into consideration, right? I mean, unless you’re just a terrible friend or something, you do. You try to make your friend laugh. You try to make your friend smile. In exchange, they do the same. This solidifies and strengthens the friendship over time. Doesn’t that count as a gift exchange? I mean, the most default reason we form friendships because it’s mutually beneficial for us to do so, even if that benefit is just a laugh together here and there. But I’m not at all saying that this should cheapen friendship. I’m not even saying that it’s bad. I’m just saying that that’s the way it is. Although, it can be bad sometimes. For example, if your friend were to do something nice for you, and then use that to push you into a position of helping them with something you don’t feel comfortable helping with/something that’s much more difficult than what they did for you, that’s an example of a toxic friendship.

                                                  As you can probably guess, this also applies to romantic relationships. I mean, all of the exchanges in genuinely platonic friendship can apply here as well, but there are some extra ones in romantic relationships. Or at the very least, the platonic ones can be pushed in different directions here. Like, you know, toxic partners trying to guilt you do things you don’t feel comfortable doing. Because they did A for you, so shouldn’t you give them B? Yeah, that’s the gift economy all right, and it’s a super toxic form of it. Again, it’s not always terrible like that though. A healthy relationship-based gift economy is sincere mutual enjoyment of one another’s company.

                                                  Expanding on that, you know nice guys? If not, you may just want to leave here and now. Turn back while you still can, it’s better the way you have it. They embody the worst parts of both platonic and romantic gift economies. (And before anyone says it, yes, I know that anyone of any gender can be a “nice guy.”) They will typically act like a friend, but then start demanding that, rather than receiving mutual friendship in exchange, you’re obligated to date them. And of course, if you don’t see this as a reasonable exchange (as any sane person wouldn’t), they insist that you’ve abused the gift economy. They gave you their gift and received “nothing” in exchange.

                                                  Can I stop here for a moment and talk about a personal experience? I think it might aid the discussion if I can offer a more specific example. I was homeschooled for basically all of my pre-college education. For my last couple years of high school, I took math at a (very religious) co-op in a neighboring town. If you, like most people, were not homeschooled, a co-op is a place where homeschoolers gather to take select classes together on certain days. My math class, for example, only met twice a week, and we’d have daily work to do at home. And, as anyone who knows me at all will tell you, I’m lesbian and femme-aligned nonbinary or a demigirl or whatever. There’s a point here, I promise. I had trouble making friends there, and maybe that’s because the other people there were more “gross, that scientist’s name is pronounced ‘gay,’ ha-ha,” type of students. But as time went on, I did, eventually make a friend. Let’s call him Derek. He was the only other nerd in our tiny class at the time, and it was great to find someone who I could discuss my geeky interests with. Our friendship formed around the exchange of us both wanting to talk about our interests and having one another to discuss it with. Even when it was an interest that we didn’t both share, I’d get to talk about mine for a while, then he’d get to talk about his for a while. The gift exchange was pretty clear-cut, and we seemed to be getting along really well. But then, we hit the second in-class day of my senior year. My first in-class day had been kind of rough, and I was kind of dreading that second one. With my mom assuring me it would be fine, I went back to class. But let’s pause there for a second. Remember how I mentioned that anyone who really knows me knows I’m queer as a three-dollar bill? Well, longish story short, it came up in text-conversation, and I mentioned that I had a girlfriend. Back to that second in-class day, Derek confronted me on the way to my classroom. I don’t want to get into the specifics, because that’s personal, and I don’t feel comfortable talking about it on the internet. Let it suffice to say that I managed to keep the situation calm with nauseating amounts of politeness and praise, but he kept saying how it was unfair to him that I “chose” to be a lesbian, because he wanted to be with me.

                                                  I wanted to share that particular story because it offers specific real-life examples of a seemingly healthy platonic friendship exchange, how that morphed into a more toxic one-sided-romantic relationship, and how one can easily become the other. I encourage anyone reading this to think about how their own relationship-based gift exchanges morph over time.

                                                  All in all, I think that gift economics can help us better understand the way that relationships operate, and the way that we interact with each other. Maybe think over some instances of this from your own life and ask yourself if it was an equivalent exchange. You can use it to evaluate which relationships in your life are healthy or unhealthy, if you look at it right.

Residual Media, Star Wars, and just a dash of Haunted Dolls

Matthew DeLeon, using footage from My Brother, My Brother, and Me

How do you know when something uncool (like a trend, or a story, or a character, or whatever) becomes old enough that it circles right back around to being cool again? How do you know if something is worth bringing back, or if it should stay in obscurity where it belongs? Can anything really stay "dead?" Could it be that it just hasn't been long enough for all the formerly cool stuff to have worked their way back again? Who are those three nerdy looking white guys?

I can't answer any of these. Scratch that. I can answer those last three. Yes, things can definitely stay dead, especially if they weren't documented, if they were documented poorly, or if they were documented but those documents were somehow destroyed or made inaccessible. Oh. And those are the McElroy brothers.

Let's talk about haunted dolls.

This is Where the Fun Begins...

ImgFlp.com

It is no secret that the reason this blog exists is because I have a deep-seeded fear of failure. Perhaps I should clarify. Because of this fear, I like to get good grades at my university, so when my professor says "git 'urself a blog, young'un" I do so.

Maybe I should have just said that I made this blog for a class...

Because it's academic, my blog posts should in some way address what we've been talking about in said class (i.e. Dolls what got themselves possessed).

We recently studied the work of Henry Jenkins, Sam Ford, and Joshua Green who help us students to understand our digital culture in their book, Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. In that book they introduce four key terms that help us to wrap our minds around the various phases of popularity in which any single piece of media must reside. These terms also help provide language to what would otherwise be amorphous, ill-defined ideas. And no one wants that.

The terms are as follows: Dominant (whatever's most popular), Emergent (whatever's newest [literally hasn't had enough time to be popular]), Residual (whatever isn't super popular but isn't quite dead yet), and Archaic (whatever is culturally dead [no one is even trying to keep it alive]).

I'll tell you right now that the most interesting are the Dominant and Residual categories. To me anyway.

Rose Lilah

For an example, Star Wars as a concept is culturally Dominant right now, because Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker was just released, and The Mandalorian is also pretty huge. Really a good time to be a Star Wars fan right now, if you're simply measuring by the amount of content being produced. But if we take a look at the various aspects of the franchise, we can see how different variations fit into the four categories. Those were the popular ones. For other examples, look to that image. You see it. That one. Right there. That one. On the right. →

The most Emergent one I can think of would have to be the return of The Clone Wars, that's about to air soon. This is a bit of a weird one though, and doesn't fit the definition super well. Yes, it hasn't even been released yet, so it has to be the "newest" but because of its attachment to Star Wars as a franchise, and the previous seasons of LITERALLY THE EXACT SAME SHOW, I'm not sure you can even call this "new" per say. But it is the closest thing Star Wars has to Emergent media in my opinion. Maybe I should rethink this whole Star Wars metaphor.


And don't worry, I'm going to work my way back to Haunted Dolls soon enough!

Acid Pix Some Rights Reserved

In terms of what's Residual, I'm going to say the prequels are an obvious choice. When they first came out, there were mixed reviews. There are still mixed reviews. But from my own experience (maybe I'll get someone to back me up after I've written the rest of this post), more people are willing to declare their undying love for, and loyalty towards the prequels today, than there were when they came out. Some of this love might derive from irony, but I believe that most of the people who create prequel memes today do so out of a pure and passionate love for them. Some of them even think that it has been long enough that it is now safe to say that they enjoy the prequels over the original trilogy itself. Blasphemy to be sure, but I don't really care enough to make my opinion about it into a whole thing.

And lastly, the Archaic. What part of Star Wars has been forgotten? Does such a thing exist? And even if it did, how could I, a plucky youth with nary a thought for any kind of deep research, possibly find it? Well, I may not be able to find it directly, but I'll bet you that I can reference it and you'll be surprised by what it is about Star Wars that is archaic. Are you ready for me to tell you?

...

Star Wars itself.

The original version of Episode IV: A New Hope, back when it was just one movie that was literally called Star Wars. You remember how I said that one of the conditions for a piece of media being "culturally dead" is if it was documented poorly, or whatever documentation that exists has been made inaccessible? That's exactly what happened with Star Wars. Because George Lucas (and I'm sure a team of other executives and creative partners) were so keen on updating and "improving" the original movie so much, they have prevented anyone from seeing the one "true" copy of the movie. You can read all about it in this New York Times Opinion piece: "We Can't See 'Star Wars' Anymore".

Doo doo do doo dodoo dooo... Haunted Doll Watch

So, we're talking about all that stuff in class right? But then, as part of the same lesson, we were told to read this article and this one about the wild and wacky world of haunted dolls. You don't have to read them, but I feel that if I didn't explain how I got to this point you might be confused.

So, this old wild form of "media" that used to be super popular (Dolls), has now drastically changed itself by appealing to a new kind of curious audience: believers in the paranormal. Maybe it's because on an inherent level, all dolls are somewhat creepy. "He had black eyes. Like a doll's eyes..." I don't know what that's from, but the context is not good, I assure you. Is it Jaws? I'd bet it's probably Jaws.

There are a million different reasons as to why people would wish to sell "haunted" dolls, but there are a million more reasons as to why people would be morbidly curious in buying a "haunted" doll.

I don't mean to spark a discussion about if ghosts are real or not, or if they are, discuss all the reasons as to why they would possess a doll. I'd like to discuss the monetary transaction of what for all intents and purposes, both the buyer and seller agree are haunted (usually evil) dolls. I was always told to stay away from evil, but hey, maybe I'm the exception.

Alyssa L. Miller

Believe it or not, reading those articles was not my first trek into the weirdly expensive economy of Haunted Dolls that exists on Ebay.

The first time I discovered that this was a thing, was through my beloved podcast, My Brother, My Brother, and Me.

Those are the three brothers that I put into a small collage at the beginning of this post. It's advertised as a Comedy Advice Podcast, where listeners can write in and ask for advice, and the brothers will give them some ludicrous answer that supposed to be funny. But they've been doing it for over ten years now, and as a way to keep the show fresh and exciting, they've turned to doing small segments in the middle of an episode, that don't need to be connected to advice at all. One of these segments is called Haunted Doll Watch, where one of the brothers (the oldest, Justin) gets to introduce the others (and the audience) to one particular listing of a haunted doll on Ebay. They laugh and make fun of the situation and style of writing involved in most of these listings. It is very fun, and only a little bit like bullying.

I don't know if my professor is a fan of the podcast or not, but I guess we'll see after he reads this post, huh?

Personally, I could understand wanting to buy a nice haunted doll, or a haunted doll that wouldn't leave scratch marks on my door at night, that wouldn't whisper temptations into my child's ear during playtime. I could certainly understand why I would want to get rid of what I believe to be an evil haunted doll.

But this entire sub-genre, this little economy, showcases perfectly the potential of the Residual as a category. The Dominant category is always going to be incredibly important, because that is what largely determines what views we as a culture tend to hold and believe. As technology and techniques for documentation become more advanced however, as a category, the Residual is starting to grow and so too is its importance in culture.

Star Wars would never have been able to be forgotten if it were to be released for the first time today. Even bad things, even Archaic things, will continue to exist, even if no human on the planet wants to keep it around due to some false belief in its intrinsic value. For instance if I say some string of nonsense like....

w,aksjLWIOE84KJIDSMSlsksksm nw'slwlsa[a[wkw]w[w[w [kksksisnaa;a;aof jf

There is absolutely no reason to have documented and saved that particular sequence of characters in that order, but now, the internet will remember it forever so that I don't have to.

Roy Blumenthal

Haunted Dolls are just one category of newly discovered mutual interest that some humans have with each other, and the advance of technology is the only thing to have given them their "new life." As a testament to this fact, whenever the podcast that I listen to includes this segment onto the show (something that happens somewhat infrequently), the listing in question is immediately bought up by one of their listeners as soon as the podcast episode is released. In making fun of this economy, these podcasters are directly contributing to its continued success! Wild, right?

But of course, just because the internet will remember something forever doesn't mean that it will all of a sudden become culturally significant (I doubt my random keystrokes will inspire an entirely new mini-economy). But now, there is a potential outcome (however small) that that exact string of text will become culturally significant, specifically due to its having been recorded a thousand years ago in the past by a soon to be discovered genius named Matthw DLon(in the future, the letter "E" won't exist).

In any case, I'm glad that technology can give us these new possibilities. Maybe the Dominant won't be so domineering anymore, and we can actually start to choose what media we want to see and what beliefs we want to hold. That's probably never gonna happen, but if it were, I'd say the continual growth of the Residual is how we get there.

Clout Economy

How far will influences go in exchange for social media exposure?

Gift Economy

We have all been givers and receivers of gifts- Christmas, birthdays, and anniversaries. When a gift is given, there is an unspoken reciprocation to show appreciation and give back when the next occasion comes around.

In The Gift by Marcel Mauss, he presents the phenomenon of the "gift economy". This is when something of value is given to a receiver without explicit agreement of exchange; it’s a mutual understanding of reciprocation. The transaction between people is both a means of building relationship in society and preserving relationships. This bounds society to the obligation to give, receive and reciprocate. Further, this idea is understood in totality to society as series of collective exchange processes.

I argue that Social media allows and even amplifies the collective exchange process. We post pictures online to receive likes, comments and shares. In turn, we like, comment, and share when other’s posts show up on our feed. Often, this obligation to give arises out of self-interest tendencies to show our superiority. You know, like your last birthday or anniversary post. You may think the action of sharing comes off as generosity, but maybe you’re only sharing for the sake of preserving your side of the relationship and your reputation as that role.

Rather than turn a blind eye, it’s important to recognize the gift economy merging with capitalism. For most people, the exchange of pictures and likes remains free, but for influencers, the exposure equates to money behind the scenes. So, we can think about this as a perceived gift economy and call it clout economy.

Clout Chasers  

Urban Dictionary defines Clout as someone who is famous and has influence. To gain this social standing, creators are expected to produce content that viewer deem “like, comment and share” worthy. Influences gain exposure and followers grow. This cycle continues until their growing following hits a plateau. They are putting out content but not receiving their desired response from the audience. Now they are in a dilemma. If influencers income is based off a perceived gift economy, but there’s no reciprocation happening, what do they do?

The easy answer is to do something with shock value. Something scandalous that will make people talk and get them media attention and unfortunately, this often involves infamy.

Let’s talk Tana Mongeau and the Paul Brothers.

Tana Mongeau and Jake Paul are both influencers known for their tendency to chase clout. They started out as best friends. Then it turned into them joking about being in a relationship when Tana posted a YouTube video called “Muckbang In Bed with My Rebound Jake Paul”. From there, they ran with this idea, started dating, got married and broke up; all in the span of nine months.

It’s unclear if they did develop real feelings for each other over time but they did refer to their relationship as a “clout relationship”. So, they openly stated that they had the intentions performing a relationship in exchange for exposure.

They partnered together to sacrifice their relationship status for driving in exposure, attention and money. Essentially, a 'clout relationship' is a business strategy. Mauss recognizes that “morality is not solely commercial”, or at least, it shouldn’t be. The gift economy should not be just a means of upholding a reputation out of obligation. However, a clout relationship is structured off commercializing the reciprocation of a ‘moral’ relationship.  

But, wait, the clout doesn’t end here.

On February 20, 2020, Tana posted a video with Logan Paul, Jake Paul’s brother. Logan approached Tana with an idea to “get in a fake relationship, in front of the paparazzi and troll the entire internet”. Rather than stretching a relationship out across months, this was meant to only last about 48 hours. The goal put on a harmless prank to show the media that “everything they see isn’t always as what it seems”.

They carefully planned out their online gift exchange to prep the audience for their prank: Tana tweeted lyrics from her upcoming song “I know that it’s wrong, but I don’t care what’s right”, Logan favorited it and Tana posted a snap showing the corner of Logan bed. They would stage a date, give the media what they want, it would go viral and people would reciprocate the attention back to Tana and Logan.

Who’s to say if this is right or wrong, just a part of the game or going too far. There’s a lot to be concerned with here but most importantly is that this model of gaining attention relies on manipulating the public into giving back. Gift economy should be acts of generosity with only some level of self-interest. It should not be consumed by self-interest.