Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus

MSC
IN
DIGITAL
ANTHROPOLOGY
DISSERTATION

MAKING
UP
ART,
VIDEOS
AND
FAME

The
Creation
of
Social
Order
in
the
Informal
Realm
of
YouTube
Beauty
Gurus

JULIANO
SPYER

Dissertation
submitted
in
partial
fulfilment
of
the
requirements
for
the
degree
of
MSc
in

Digital
Anthropology
(UCL)
of
the
University
of
London
in
2011.

WORD
COUNT:
18,000

UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE
OF
LONDON

DEPARTMENT
OF
ANTHROPOLOGY

1

Abstract

This
research
focused
in
an
informal
group
called
“YouTube
beauty
gurus”.
They

invest
time
and
resources
attracting
attention
to
(and
thus
gaining
publicity
from)
videos

they
produce
mainly
about
how
to
perform
makeup
routines.
I
used
the
ethnographic

material
the
research
generated
to
analyse
the
production
of
social
order
in
a
virtual

space
where
everyone
has
the
same
infrastructure
to
act.
I
drew
from
Munn’s
(1986)

theory
of
value
to
analyse
a
digital
artefact
called
“Tag”
used
for
bridging
together

smaller
networks
of
users
through
the
spatiotemporal
expansion
of
those
who
trade
it.

Gell’s
(1998)
theory
of
art
provided
the
larger
framing
to
examine
video
makeup
tutorials,

a
sophisticated
construct
that
entraps
its
audience
by
creating
the
impression
of
affinity

of
the
guru
with
her
viewers.
The
final
chapter
applied
Munn’s
phenomenological

approach
to
map
debates
around
performance,
professionalization,
friendship
and

beauty,
which
are
central
to
this
group’s.
In
all
cases,
the
research
confirmed
that

conceptualizing
action
as
the
origin
of
value
creation
represented
a
rich
alternative
to

examine
how
this
group
engineers
its
social
organization.
Also,
this
work
discusses

methodological
possibilities
to
conduct
ethnographic
research
on
YouTube.

Key
words:
YouTube,
makeup,
fame,
theory
of
value,
agency

2

List
of
Contents

Title
page
.......................................................................................................................
1

Abstract
.........................................................................................................................
2

List
of
contents
..............................................................................................................
3

Acknowledgements

........................................................................................................
4

Introduction
...................................................................................................................
6

Structure
of
the
Dissertation
..................................................................................................
9

Chapter
1:
Introducing
YouTube
and
Beauty
Gurus
......................................................
11

YouTube’s
Beauty
Gurus

.......................................................................................................
14

Chapter
2:
History
of
the
Project,
Method
and
Ethics
...................................................
22

Preparation
for
the
Research
................................................................................................
23

Methods
for
Gathering
Data
.................................................................................................
25

Definition
of
Informants
.......................................................................................................
28

Ethical
Choices
......................................................................................................................
29

Chapter
3:
Value
Production
and
Spatiotemporal
Expansion
through
Tag
videos
.........
30

General
Aspects
of
Comparison
between
Kula
and
YouTube
................................................
30

Tag
Videos
as
Virtual
Objects
of
Exchange
............................................................................
32

Value
Production
and
Intersubjective
Spatiotemporal
Expansion
.........................................
34

Conclusion
............................................................................................................................
35

Chapter
4:
YouTube
Makeup
Tutorials
as
Traps
............................................................
37

Agency,
Trap
and
‘Distributed’
Mind
....................................................................................
38

The
Artificiality
of
Makeup
Tutorials
.....................................................................................
38

‘Context
Collapse’
and
the
Trap
of
Context
Recreation
.........................................................
40

‘Privately
Public’
and
the
Trap
of
Controlling
the
Release
of
Information
.............................
42

‘Videos
of
Affinity’
and
the
Simulation
of
Closeness
.............................................................
43

Conclusion
............................................................................................................................
45

Chapter
5:
Fake
or
Real:
the
Production
of
Value
among
Gurus
....................................
46

The
Dialectical
Creation
of
Self-‐Other
...................................................................................
46

Authenticity
vs.
Performance
...............................................................................................
48

Amateur
vs.
Professional
......................................................................................................
49

Friends
vs.
Fans
....................................................................................................................
50

Interior
Beauty
vs.
Exterior
Beauty
.......................................................................................
53

Haters
and
the
Subversion
of
Positive
Value
.........................................................................
55

Conclusion
............................................................................................................................
56

Conclusion
...................................................................................................................
58

Bibliography

.................................................................................................................
63

3

Acknoledgements

I
must
thank
first
the
academic
team
of
our
programme:
Danny
Miller,
Lane
De

Nicola
and
Stefana
Broadbent,
for
the
intellectual
insights
provided
through
the
year
as

much
as
for
the
availability
to
help
and
to
give
meaningful
academic
guidance.
I
especially

thank
Danny,
who
supervised
the
development
of
this
dissertation,
for
offering
rich

feedback
to
improve
the
work.
Christopher
Tilley
and
Ludovic
Coupaye
from
the
Material

Culture
programme
also
offered
valuable
attention
and
guidance.

I
am
grateful
to
the
office
staff
of
our
department,
more
directly
to
Diana
Goforth

and
James
Emmanuel,
for
the
professionalism
and
interest
they
demonstrated

throughout
the
year.
I
must
also
acknowledge
a
small
but
helpful
grant
from
UCL,
which

allowed
me
to
buy
two
books
and
pay
for
a
basic
makeup
course.

My
colleagues
at
the
postgraduate
level
at
the
Anthropology
Department
were
a

constant
source
of
support
and
intellectual
motivation.
I
would
like
to
mention
the
names

of
Andrew
Merril,
Cosimo
Lupo,
Hannah
Rose
Van
Wely,
Hussah
Al
Tamimi,
Jennifer

Robinson,
Jewel
Thomas,
João
Matta,
Laurence
Byrne,
Lida
Papamathaiaki,
Luiz
Vieira,

Matilda
Marshall,
Mika
Pasanen,
Nick
Gadsby,
Peter
Westman
and
Susanna
Inzoli.
I
am

also
in
debt
with
researchers
Jane
Cameron
from
the
London
College
of
Fashion
and

Sarah
Winkler
Reid
from
Brunel
University
for
the
opportunity
of
discussing
and
receiving

feedback
about
the
research.

During
the
initial
stage
of
my
fieldwork,
I
interviewed
six
women
about
their

experiences
with
cosmetics.
This
material
was
not
directly
used
on
this
dissertation,
but
it

was
nonetheless
a
very
helpful
introduction
to
the
subject.
They
are
Alex
Guado,
Chloe

Cook,
Dafne
Louzioti,
Helen
Saunders,
Kathleen
Sattore
and
Phoebe
Frangoul.
(Thanks

also
to
Jude
Saunders
for
putting
me
in
contact
with
Helen).
I
was
also
fortunate
to
have

4

received
a
practical
training
in
basic
makeup
from
Astra
Wren,
an
excellent
teacher
and

makeup
artist
from
the
Rouge
London
Makeup
School.

I
own
the
YouTube
“gurus”
that
guided
me
through
their
world
for
a
significant

portion
of
the
enthusiasm
that
fuelled
this
project.

This
dissertation
is
dedicated
to
José
Carlos
Sebe
Bom
Meihy.
His
loves
of

knowledge
and
of
writing
and
his
belief
in
the
importance
of
addressing
public
themes

are
a
source
of
inspiration.
And
also
to
my
wife
Thais,
who
teaches
me
about
the

important
things
of
life
and
said
I
should
study
anthropology.

5

Introduction

The
process
of
producing
this
dissertation
began
with
a
period
immersion
in
the

daily
lives
of
a
group
of
people
that
gather
spontaneously
on
YouTube
to
discuss
makeup.

They
call
themselves
“gurus”
and
their
routines
centre
on
attracting
attention
to
(and

thus
gaining
publicity
from)
videos
they
produce
using
portable
cameras
and
normal

computers.
For
this
reason,
part
of
the
contribution
this
work
intends
to
offer
relates
to

the
use
of
experimental
methodological
approaches
to
conduct
ethnographic
research
on

YouTube.
Since
teenagers
compose
a
significant
portion
of
the
group,
the
choices
I
made

also
respond
to
the
ethical
challenge
of
researching
subjects
who
are
underage.

These
gurus
invest
substantial
quantities
of
time
and
resources
to
crafting
videos

with
the
objective
of
gaining
recognition.
Some
have
risen
from
their
channels
to
achieve

the
status
of
celebrities
in
different
media
outlets,
arrived
at
distinguished
career

opportunities
or
launched
lines
of
cosmetic
products
with
their
names.
Many
are
not

quite
as
notorious
but
have
built
an
audience
with
tens
of
thousands
subscribers
who

regularly
watch
their
videos.
At
the
same
time,
it
was
clear
from
the
early
stages
of
my

fieldwork
that
acquiring
visibility
inside
this
group
did
not
result
from
the
simple

knowledge
one
had
about
makeup;
fame
resulted
from
an
intense
process
of
engaging
in

conversations
and
building
relationships.

I
chose
Munn’s
(1986)
theory
of
value
as
the
broad
conceptual
framework
to

analyze
the
ethnography
of
these
“beauty
gurus”.
Originally
developed
from
a
research

conducted
on
the
distant
island
of
Gawa
in
Papua
New
Guinea,
it
offers
a
model
to
study

an
informal
realm1
similar
to
the
one
I
found
on
YouTube,
where
users
have
the
same

1

Winkler
Reid
(2010:
13)
conceptualizes
the
notion
of
“informal
realm”
in
the
contexts
of
schools,

where
it
represents
“a
network
of
pupil
action
creating
and
sustaining
intersubjective
relations,
and

producing
value
outside
that
recognized
by
formal
schooling
[but
also]
shaped
by
it.”
Similarly
to
what
I

6

power
and
limitations
to
upload
videos
and
interact
with
others.
Although
companies
are

gradually
becoming
aware
of
this
“tribe”,
material
reward
does
not
represent
the
main

incentive
for
its
existence.
In
this
setting,
users
build
relationships
through
actions
such
as

watching,
evaluating,
commenting,
subscribing
and
uploading
videos.
Social
order
results

from
the
evaluation
of
these
actions
and
provides
individuals
and
groups
with
different

levels
of
status
(Winkler
Reid,
2010:
10-‐11).

I
also
draw
from
Gell’s
(1998)
anthropological
theory
of
art
to
examine
the

“technology
of
enchantment”
used
to
produce
these
videos.
(One
could
call
it
“the
art
of

self-‐representing
the
act
of
self-‐decoration”.)
I
chose
Gell’s
more
general
framework
and

not
those
offered
by
anthropological
studies
of
self-‐decoration
(see,
for
example,

Strathern,
1979;
O’Hanlon,
1989;
Gell,
1993;
and
Ewart
and
O’Hanlon,
2007)
because
his

work
was
conceived
as
a
corpus
of
theory
disembodied
from
indigenous
ethnography
to

be
applied
to
different
manifestations
of
art.
By
understanding
the
art
object
as
an
actor

that
mediates
social
relations,
it
is
possible
to
consider
that
these
objects
“mediate
a

technology
to
achieve
certain
ends,
notably
to
enmesh
patients
in
relation
and

intentionalities
sought
or
prescribed
by
agents”
(Thomas,
2001:
5).

(As
makeup
enthusiasts,
many
beauty
gurus
see
the
use
of
cosmetics
as
an

unrecognized
form
of
art
that,
as
such,
has
agency
and
creates
different
opportunities
for

empowerment.
Michelle
Phan’s
video
entitled
Catch
My
Heart
(2011)
could
be
a
starting

point
for
a
discussion
about
makeup
and
agency
just
by
considering
that
it
is
a
video

about
makeup,
directed
and
enacted
by
the
same
person,
exploring
new
grounds

regarding
the
narrative
of
makeup
tutorials
and
has
attracted
over
1.4
million
views
in

observed
among
beauty
gurus,
“the
most
successful
pupils
in
the
informal
realm
are
those
who
are

best
able
to
negotiate
their
investiment
in
order
to
create
the
most
value
.
.
.
through
their
acts
and

practices.”

7

less
than
two
weeks.
Phan’s
welcome
message
for
her
YouTube
channel
says:
“I
was
born

an
artist,
a
self-‐taught
painter
for
10
years
and
went
through
an
additional
3
years
at

Ringling
College
of
Art
and
Design.
Makeup
is
another
medium
to
me.”
One
of
my

informants,
a
guru
of
17
years
old
and
one
thousand
subscribers,
echoes
this
idea
in
her

channel:
“.
.
.
when
I
was
introduced
to
makeup
I
looked
at
it
as
an
art
and
it
helped
me

gain
confidence
in
myself.”)

As
a
telescope
uses
different
formats
of
lenses
and
mirrors
to
process
luminous

information,
I
sought
conceptual
tools
that
could
attach
to
the
more
robust
framing
of

Munn
and
Gell
and
allow
the
examination
of
social
relations
mediated
by
digital

networks.
I
initially
drew
from
Miller’s
(2001)
application
of
the
notion
of
“art
as
a
trap”

to
examine
websites
in
Trinidad,
demonstrating
the
possibilities
of
applying
this
framing

to
virtual
artifacts.
I
also
looked
for
analytic
tools
developed
for
previous
research

conducted
on
YouTube.

Those
less
familiar
with
YouTube
are
usually
indifferent
to
the
ways
people

appropriate
it
as
a
device
for
decentralized
group
communication.
Conversations
evolve

from
a
distinct
set
of
conditions.
For
instance:
exchanges
are
not
synchronous
and
may

be
directed
to
an
unpredictable
range
of
spectators.
If
the
experience
of
virtuality
throws

humanity
“off-‐balance”,
as
Boellstorff
(2008)
suggests,
it
also
changes
the
way
people

perceive
the
world.
In
this
context,
notions
such
as
“privacy”
seem
insufficient
to
describe

a
type
of
shared
content
that
displays
intimacy
but
limits
information
about
identity.
I

draw
on
studies
conducted
on
YouTube
by
Lange
(2007
and
2009)
and
Wesch
(2008)
to

bridge
the
wider
analytic
framing
with
the
specificity
of
the
topic.

In
order
to
address
categories
of
socially-‐interconnected
users
like
YouTube
gurus,

one
is
tempted
to
use
the
term
“community”,
which
is
largely
adopted
for
that
purpose

8

by
journalists
and
also
by
academics.
I
have
also
applied
it,
for
convenience
and
lack
of

better
alternatives,
as
a
synonym
for
“large
and
informal
social
group”.
I
do
so
being

aware
of
Postill’s
(2008)
discussion
of
this
topic,
which
considers
the
term
problematic

due
to
its
vagueness
and
emotionally
charged
character.
As
he
summarized,
“community

merits
attention
as
a
polymorphous
folk
notion
widely
used
both
online
and
offline,
but

as
an
analytical
concept
with
an
identifiable
empirical
referent
it
is
of
little
use.”

I
should
also
clarify
that
I
use
“she”
and
“her”
in
all
cases
except
when
the
person

referred
is
masculine.

Structure
of
the
dissertation

This
first
chapter
introduces
the
general
ground
where
the
research
takes
place.
I

explain
the
service
YouTube
offers
to
Internet
users,
give
a
general
idea
of
how
it
works

and
present
“makeup
gurus”,
which
are
the
subject
of
this
dissertation.
The
following

chapter,
which
focus
on
research
methodology,
exposes
different
aspects
that
I
found

relevant
about
the
process
of
engaging
ethnographically
with
YouTube
and
with
this

particular
group
of
users.
It
gives
the
reader
the
roadmap
I
followed
which
includes

indications
of
dead-‐ends,
but
also
of
promising
paths
that
other
researchers
might
want

to
experiment
with.
It
is
there
I
describe
a
technique
also
used
by
Tarlo
(2010)
to

indirectly
participate
in
conversations
through
various
channels
of
interaction
used
by
the

subjects
of
the
research.

In
chapter
3
I
apply
Munn’s
(1986)
model
for
explaining
value
creation
through

acts
of
exchange
to
conceptualize
the
emergence
of
a
particular
category
of
videos
that

circulate
mostly
inside
the
beauty
community
of
YouTube,
called
“Tags”.
Chapter
4
draws

from
Gell’s
(1998)
theory
of
art
to
discuss
the
video
tutorials
created
by
gurus
as
virtual

9

artifacts
forged
through
techniques
to
captivate
the
minds
of
viewers,
particularly
by

making
them
appear
to
be
produced
spontaneously
as
the
result
of
an
amateur
and

personal
labour
of
love.
I
develop
this
argument
using
the
notions
of
“context
collapse”

(Wesch,
2008),
“privately
public”
(Lange,
2007)
and
“video
of
affinity”
(Lange,
2009).

The
last
chapter
draws
mostly
from
Munn’s
(1986)
phenomenological
approach
to

attempt
to
map
key
aspects
that
derive
from
the
polarity
between
the
notions
of
“fake”

and
“real”.
This
chapter
also
focuses
more
on
ethnographic
material,
as
I
reflect
of
the

central
polarity
of
debates
around
the
topics
of
performance,
professionalization,

friendship
and
physical
beauty.

This
dissertation
contributes
to
the
emerging
field
of
digital
anthropology
as
it

explores
the
possibilities
of
applying
Munn’s
theory
of
value
to
study
the
creation
of

social
organization
and
hierarchy
in
decentralized
environments
on
the
Internet.
It
also

proposes
an
alternative
theoretical
path
to
the
study
of
self-‐decoration
through
digital

technology,
as
most
of
the
production
on
the
topic
remains
focused
on
tribal
or
formally

tribal
groups.
My
work
is
also
intended
to
bring
a
contribution
to
the
anthropology
of

YouTube
as
it
deploys
an
analytic
toolkit
of
combined
notions
to
examine
the
agency
of
a

particular
type
of
video
and
how
it
mediates
relations
to
produce
particular
effects.

10

Introducing
YouTube
and
Beauty
Gurus

In
this
section
of
the
dissertation,
I
will
briefly
introduce
the
website
YouTube,

explain
the
service
it
offers
to
Internet
users
and
give
a
general
idea
of
how
it
works.
By

presenting
the
various
ways
users
participate
in
YouTube,
I
will
arrive
at
the
informal

community
of
“gurus”
and,
particularly,
the
subcategory
of
“makeup
gurus”,
with
whom
I

conducted
fieldwork.
In
the
following
sub-‐section,
I
will
address
the
types
of
contents

they
produce,
the
various
motivations
for
participating
in
the
community,
and
how
these

gurus
measure
success.
This
introduction
is
necessary
to
the
understanding
of
the

ethnography
presented
and
discussed
in
the
dissertation.

YouTube
is
a
social
networking
site2
based
on
the
distribution
of
audio-‐visual

content
published
by
its
participants.
It
is
available
in
34
languages
and
it
is
the
third
most

visited
site
on
the
Internet
after
Google
and
Facebook3.
Participation
is
free
but
users

must
register
to
be
able
to
upload
content
and
perform
other
actions
like
rating
or

commenting
on
videos;
unregistered
users
may
only
watch
the
videos.
There
are
various

ways
of
accessing
a
given
content.
Users
can:
search
the
website’s
database;
select
one
of

the
options
suggested
by
the
content
editors;
or
receive
(from
an
acquaintance)
a
direct

link
to
open
a
video.
Once
content
is
made
available,
any
Internet
user
can
watch
it
at
any

time.

2

YouTube
is
normally
described
as
a
“video-‐sharing
site”,
which
stresses
the
audio-‐visual
sharing

aspect
that
makes
it
different
from
other
social
networking
sites
and
also
represents
the
element
that

makes
the
site
valuable
to
the
majority
of
users
who
only
access
it
to
watch
–
and
not
to
upload
–

content.
As
noted
by
Lange
(2007),
this
definition
eludes
the
social
motivation
behind
the
website’s

success.
The
service
it
provides
matches
the
description
of
social
networking
site
offered
by
boyd
and

Ellison
(2008):
“We
define
social
network
sites
as
web-‐based
services
that
allow
individuals
to
(1)

construct
a
public
or
semi-‐public
profile
within
a
bounded
system,
(2)
articulate
a
list
of
other
users

with
whom
they
share
a
connection,
and
(3)
view
and
traverse
their
list
of
connections
and
those
made

by
others
within
the
system.”

3

Data
collected
by
Alexa
(http://www.alexa.com/)
in
September
of
2011.

11

Founded
in
February
2005,
YouTube
radically
simplified
the
process
of
sharing

audio-‐visual
documents
(Wesch,
2008).
The
problem
users
faced
before
the
arrival
of
this

kind
of
web
publishing
was
that
video
files
were
typically
very
large,
and
the
ability
to

share
videos
was
limited
to
those
who
had
access
to
broadband
connections.
Due
to
its

success,
Google
bought
the
company
in
2006.
In
2008,
users
were
uploading
200,000
new

videos
to
YouTube
per
day4
(Wesch,
2008).

The
same
study
showed
that
88%
of
this

content
was
new
or
original
and
was
made
for
audiences
of
100
or
less.
Most
of
these

“amateur”
uploads
consisted
either
of
users
displaying
a
certain
expertise
(i.e.
playing
the

piano),
or
personal
recordings
of
everyday
life.
Out
of
the
total
daily
amount,
10,000

videos
were
directed
to
the
YouTube
community
itself,
adding
to
on-‐going
debates
of

users
on
topics
of
common
interest
(Wesch,
2008).

Users
interested
in
publishing
content
on
YouTube
must
first
create
their
own

channels,
but
there
is
no
limit
to
the
number
of
channels
a
user
can
have.
Participants
are

not
obliged
to
use
their
real
names;
only
a
valid
email
address
is
required,
as
is
the
norm

among
similar
websites
like
Facebook,
Wikipedia
and
Twitter.
The
channel
they
create

will
then
be
the
repository
of
the
user’s
uploaded
content
and
it
is
through
this
channel

that
the
subscription
system
works.
If
a
registered
user
likes
a
given
channel,
she
can

subscribe
to
it
and
be
notified
when
new
content
is
published.
Not
all
users
are

interested
in
measuring
the
attention
their
videos
generate,
but
those
who
are
do
so
by

comparing
numbers
of
views
a
video
has,
and
subscribers
a
channel
has.
The
most

successful
accumulate
a
greater
number
of
views,
a
measure
of
the
attention
they

gathered
up
the
present
and/or
a
greater
number
of
subscribers,
which
represent
the

channel’s
potential,
given
that
it
shows
how
many
people
want
to
watch
the
channel’s

4

At
that
rate,
in
a
period
of
six
months
the
website
gathered
more
content
than
all
the
material

broadcasted
by
the
three
major
TV
networks
of
the
United
States
combined
(Wesch,
2008).

12

future
videos.
This
success
might
be
converted
in
to
money
or
material
benefits,
either
by

becoming
a
YouTube
partner
and
receiving
part
of
the
channel’s
advertising
revenue,
or

by
making
deals
with
other
companies
to
promote
their
products
or
services.

The
different
motivations
users
have
for
sharing
their
content
on
YouTube
will
be

discussed
at
a
different
part
of
this
dissertation.
For
the
moment,
it
is
enough
to
mention

that
there
are
many
levels
of
involvement
with
the
website
and
its
community
as
well

many
different
types
of
content
published.
This
varies
according
to
variables
such
as

experience
in
using
virtual
social
environments
and
access
to
and
knowledge
of
video-‐

processing
software
and
equipment.

YouTube
organises
categories
of
information
based
on
types
of
content
and
types

of
accounts.
The
category
of
content
–
similar
to
that
of
types
of
magazines
–
is
defined
at

the
moment
the
video
is
published.
Before
uploading
the
document,
the
author
has
the

option
to
choose
from
the
following
possibilities
in
order
to
best
describe
their
content:

Autos
&
Vehicles;
Comedy;
Education;
Entertainment;
Film
&
Animation;
Gaming;
Howto

&
Style;
Music;
News
&
Politics;
Nonprofits
&
Activism;
People
&
Blogs;
Pets
&
Animals;

Science
&
Technology;
Sports;
and
Travel
&
Events.

The
easiest
way
one
arrives
at
these
categorist
is
by
accessing
the
homepage
of

YouTube
and
clicking
on
the
option
“browse”,
located
at
the
top
of
the
page,
to
the
right

of
the
search
button.

Type
of
account
is
a
category
chosen
at
the
time
the
user
creates
or
edits
the

information
on
her
channel.
The
options
provided
follow
a
different
rationale
to
that
of

traditional
media
outlets
and
represent
major
topics
of
interest
mapped
by
the
website’s

team.
Those
topics
are:
Comedians
(humour
content);
Directors
(fictional
content);
Gurus

(instructional
content);
Musicians
(musical
content);
Non-‐Profit
(social
responsibility-‐like

13

content);
Partners
(institutional
content);
Reporters
(editorial
content);
and
Sponsors

(advertising
content).

These
categories
are
not
easily
accessible,
but
allow
registered
users
to
access

channel
rankings.
The
list
of
account
types
can
be
found
at
this
address:

http://www.youtube.com/channels,
on
the
left
hand-‐side
menu
which
integrates
content

types
and
account
types.
By
choosing
an
account
type,
the
website
will
offer
two
options

of
rankings:
by
number
of
views
or
by
number
of
subscriptions.
These
alternatives
can
be

changed
according
to
parameters
of
location
and
time
span
–
i.e.
a
certain
guru
might
be

the
7th
most
subscribed
this
month
in
Brazil
or
a
certain
comedian
maybe
the
31st
most

viewed
this
week
worldwide.

A
person
that
chooses
to
describe
herself
as
“gurus”
tells
us
that
specific
the

content
of
her
channel
will
primarily
display
videos
with
instructions
on
how
to
perform

certain
tasks.
There
are
many
subcategories
that
exist
within
the
broader
category
of

gurus.
For
example,
there
are
channels
dedicated
to
teaching
fitness
routines,

showcasing
the
effects
of
different
types
of
weapons,
showing
the
positions
of
the
Kama

Sutra,
giving
lessons
on
how
to
programme
in
various
computer
languages,
discussing

topics
related
to
academic
centres
of
interest
(linguistics,
astronomy,
etc.),
giving
lessons

to
students
of
various
levels
and
basically
anything
that
can
be
imagined
to
mobilise
the

attention
of
groups
of
people.

YouTube’s
Beauty
Gurus

The
group
studied
for
this
dissertation
identify
themselves
as
“beauty
gurus”
or

“makeup
gurus”
for
the
obvious
reason
that
the
types
of
instructions
they
create

surround
the
themes
of
cosmetics,
beauty
and
fashion
in
general.
The
usage
statistics
of

14

YouTube
shows
the
importance
they
have
in
attracting
and
mobilising
attention.

According
to
YouTube’s
ranking
of
gurus
in
May
2011,
half
of
the
top
24
channels

produced
beauty
related
content
and
none
of
the
other
gurus
(non-‐beauty
gurus)
belong

to
a
single
category.
Michelle
Phan,
a
24
year-‐old
Vietnamese-‐American,
is
the
most

popular
beauty
guru
active
today
(Von
Pfetten,
2010).
She
has
nearly
1.5
million
users

subscribing
to
her
content
and
in
2010
became
the
most
subscribed
woman
on
YouTube.

In
order
to
evaluate
the
relevance
of
these
numbers,
it
might
be
useful
to
mention
that

the
BBC’s
YouTube
channel
has
close
to
268,000
subscribers.
Newcastle’s
Lauren
Luke,

the
most
famous
beauty
guru
from
the
United
Kingdom,
has
465,000
subscribers.

Based
on
my
broader
observation
of
English
speaking
participants,
most
gurus
are

either
teenagers
or
in
their
20s,
don’t
have
regular
jobs
and
record
their
videos
after

arriving
home
from
school
or
university.
(These
characteristics
seem
to
differ
from

country
to
country.
In
the
few
cases
of
Brazilian
beauty
gurus
I
observed,
a
number
of

them
related
their
activities
on
YouTube
to
earning
money
by
selling
the
products
they

use
to
create
“looks”.)
There
are
also
some
gurus
who
are
makeup
artists
that
adopted

the
“amateurish”
aesthetic
of
beauty
gurus
as
a
strategy
to
gain
popularity
and

consequently
open
up
new
career
opportunities.
These
gurus
tend
to
make
videos
only

about
makeup,
whereas
the
others
mingle
instructions
and
personal
accounts
of
their

lives
and
view
cosmetics
as
means
for
women
to
gain
self-‐esteem
by
improving
their

appearances.

I
call
them
an
“informal
group”
because
it
is
a
group
without
controlled

boundaries.
Nobody
owns
it
(apart
from
YouTube)
or
limits
who
gets
in
or
out.
All
one

needs
to
do
to
become
a
guru
is
to
sign
up
for
a
YouTube
account
and
post
videos
related

to
the
subject.
In
this
sense,
being
a
beauty
guru
has
more
to
do
with
being
seen
as
such,

15

being
identified
as
one
by
other
members
of
the
“sorority”5,
and
one’s
acceptance

implies
the
adoption
of
a
certain
aesthetic
for
producing
videos.
As
one
browses
through

the
production
of
different
gurus,
it
is
noticeable
how
the
videos
are
aesthetically

homogeneous,
independent
of
linguistic
or
geographical
differences.
Makeup
gurus

primarily
produce
videos
using
a
format
of
video-‐narrative
called
“tutorial”.
An
“online

tutorial”
or
an
“internet
video-‐tutorial”
is
a
step-‐by-‐step
instruction
on
different
topics.

As
I
observed
during
the
fieldwork

for
this
project,
beauty
gurus

worldwide
share
a
set
of
body

communication
techniques
to

create
makeup
tutorials.
Below
I

present
images
that
display
some

of
the
most
recurrent
types
of

Figure
1
I
n ever
saw
a
video
from
a
guru
that
was
not
recorded

in
their
rooms
or
at
another
personal
environment
(i.e.
the

body-‐action6.

bathroom
or
the
dresser
room).

Figure
2
The
camera
and
the
monitor
takes
the
place
of
the

mirror.
The
guru
moves
her
face
closer
or
further
from
the

camera
according
to
the
instruction
she
is
giving.

5

Although
there
are
male
gurus
–
mostly
gay
men
and/or
professional
makeup
artists
–
the

overwhelming
majority
of
gurus
devoted
to
beauty
related
topics
are
female.

6

All
the
images
of
gurus
portrayed
here
are
of
adults.
The
only
image
that
shows
a
full
frontal
face
is

the
first
and
it
is
from
a
celebrity
guru
with
over
100
thousand
followers.
I
do
not
inform
their

usernames
for
safety
reasons
that
will
be
discussed
opportunely.

16

Figure
3
When
a
new
product
is
used,
before
applying
it,
the

guru
brings
it
near
the
camera
to
show
the
label
with
the

product's
specifications.

Figure
4
When
displaying
colour
is
important,
they
show
the

product
-‐
i.e.
a
lipstick
-‐
against
the
palm
of
their
h ands
to

produce
a
clearer
visualization.

Figure
5
A
common
variation
of
this
gesture
is
to
apply
the

product
to
the
back
of
the
hand
to
show
its
effect
on
skin.

17

Together
with
acquiring
the
common
visual
language
presented
above,
a
beauty

guru
is
recognized
also
for
being
active
in
creating
specific
kinds
of
content.
The
tutorial
is

the
most
frequent
and
it
includes
instructions
about
makeup,
hair
and
nails.
Product

reviews
are
also
popular
and
there
is
a
subcategory
of
reviews
called
“haul”
where
the

guru
showcases
various
items
she
has
recently
purchased.
“Outfit
of
the
day”
or
OOTD
is

a
brief
description
of
the
composition
of
clothes
and
accessories
the
guru
is
wearing
at

the
moment
of
making
the
video.
“Vlogs”
are
a
type
of
content
similar
to
a
diary
entry;

popular
subcategories
of
vlogging
are
“A
day
in
the
life”
and
“Follow
me
around”.

In
all
the
cases
I
observed,
the
makeup
guru
was
responsible
for
performing
all

the
tasks
related
to
the
production
of
the
video,
including
defining
the
particular
theme

of
each
video.
These
are
either
themes
of
their
own
repertoire
–
i.e.
a
certain
makeup

routine
to
go
to
school
–
or
represent
more
complex
objectives
like
reproducing
a
certain

“look”
used
by
a
celebrity
or
a
character
in
a
TV
show
or
film
–
i.e.
the
“look”
of
Kate

Middleton
for
the
Royal
wedding.
To
record
the
tutorial,
they
select
the
necessary

makeup
equipment
and
products,
turn
on
the
recording
software
and
perform
the

sequence
of
tasks
in
order
to
arrive
at
the
proposed
objective.
After
this
stage,
they

normally
use
editing
programmes
to
cut
unnecessary
parts
and
add
the
desired
visual
or

audio
effects–
like
textual
instructions
on
the
top
of
the
image.
Beginners
find
it
easier
to

film
the
makeup
process
and
later
add
the
audio
with
the
instructions,
but
it
is
a
sign
of

seniority
or
technical
superiority
to
be
able
to
perform
the
makeup
and
simultaneously

explain
each
act.

The
routine
of
YouTube
gurus
involves
both
making
videos
and
participating
in
the

conversations
proposed
by
others
inside
their
community.
This
conversation
happens

18

through
YouTube
by
means
of
videos
and
text
comments,
but
also
exceeds
this
domain
to

include
several
other
online
destinations
like
Twitter
and
Facebook.

Part
of
these
conversations
represent
attempts
to
build
relationships
which
are

helpful
to
promote
one’s
channel
and
give
it
visibility.
The
easiest
way
a
user
can
increase

the
number
of
subscribers
is
by
proposing
an
exchange:
she
subscribes
to
the
channel
of

another
guru
and
leaves
a
message
asking
the
other
for
to
do
the
same.
This
practice
is

especially
common
among
those
who
are
just
beginning
to
build
an
audience,
but
it
is

criticised
by
more
experienced
users.
There
are
other
practices
that
equally
offer
the

possibility
of
developing
an
audience,
and
are
more
widely
accepted,
namely
the
creation

of,
or
participation
in,
“collabs”,
or
the
engagement
in
a
practice
called
“tags”.
I
will

discuss
these
in
greater
detail
in
the
following
sections
of
this
dissertation,
but
will

introduce
them
briefly
here.

“Collab”
is
the
casual
name
given
to
“collaborative
channels”,
which
are
channels

produced
collectively
and
that
ultimately
serve
the
purpose
of
promoting
the
work
of

their
participants.
A
collab
is
usually
started
by
a
higher
ranking
guru
because
she
needs

to
have
a
sufficient
reputation
in
order
to
promote
this
new
channel
and
attract
others
to

participate
in
it.
There
is
a
selection
process
conducted
to
choose
the
other
participants

and
this
happens
through
auditioning.
Those
interested
submit
video-‐responses
to
the

original
video
posted
announcing
the
new
collab.
Usually
a
collab
has
seven
participants

and
each
becomes
responsible
for
posting
a
new
video
on
a
certain
day
of
the
week.

Every
week
one
of
the
participants
comes
up
with
a
theme
that
all
the
others
will
use
to

produce
their
videos;
this
gives
consistency
to
the
content
of
the
channel.

Higher
ranking

gurus
display
their
influence
by
creating
collabs
while
lower
ranking
users
gain
visibility

19

and
experience
by
having
to
produce
more
videos
and
also
by
promoting
their
individual

channels
to
the
audience
of
the
collab.

If
collabs
produce
visibility
through
structured
social
organization,
“tags”
generate

visibility
through
the
engagement
in
a
collective
but
informal
activity.
The
term
tag
refers

to
two
ideas:
a
theme
for
a
video
and
the
naming
(“tagging”)
of
other
users.
The
themes

are
usually
about
one’s
personality
and
only
indirectly
about
makeup7;
for
instance,
in
the

theme
“My
perfect
imperfections”
the
users
are
challenged
to
make
a
video
talking
about

three
things
that
they
like
and
three
that
they
dislike
about
themselves8.
At
the
end
of

the
video,
they
may
“tag”
other
gurus
from
their
social
circle,
which
means
that
they
are

publically
inviting
them
to
produce
a
video
with
the
same
theme.
The
advantage
of

engaging
in
this
kind
of
activity
is
that
by
producing
videos
using
the
same
or
similar

titles,
gurus
expand
the
possibilities
of
these
videos
being
watched
by
a
wider
audience

since
YouTube
binds
similar
content
together.
A
person
that
watches
a
video
called
“My

perfect
imperfections”
will
automatically
see
other
videos
about
that
same
theme,

displayed
for
them
to
select.

Many
gurus
expect
to
gain
recognition
and
one
of
the
ways
this
happens
is
by

being
approached
by
cosmetic
companies.
It
is
a
sign
of
maturity
for
a
guru
to
be
chosen

to
review
products
and
many
include
contact
information
for
commercial
inquires
on

their
channel.
The
highest
ranking
gurus
with
hundreds
of
thousands
of
subscribers
sign

deals
with
makeup
companies
and
can
become
“online
ambassadors”
of
a
certain
brand

or
eventually
launch
their
own
makeup
products.
This
contact
with
the
commercial
world

7

I
haven’t
verified
if
tags
(and
also
collabs)
exist
in
other
communities
on
YouTube.
These
activities

may
result
from
the
high
number
of
beauty
gurus
and
from
the
fact
makeup
is
a
collective
activity

among
groups
of
women
interested
in
that
practice.

8

Since
beauty
gurus
normally
talk
about
beauty
related
issues,
videos
produced
following
this
theme

refer
to
part
of
their
bodies
that
they
find
more
or
less
attractive,
which
then
links
to
the
use
of

cosmetics
or
other
means
as
an
attempt
to
improve
their
looks.

20

is
sometimes
accompanied
by
tension
as
the
guru
becomes
vulnerable
to
criticism
by

competitors
for
giving
up
editorial
independence
and
producing
disguised
advertising.

21

Methodology

My
original
project
was
to
study
informal
learning
online.
I
wanted
to
observe
and

attempt
to
understand
the
process
in
which
Internet
users
gain
certain
skills
through
the

development
of
social
relations
in
informal
settings.
I
chose
to
conduct
this
research
on

YouTube
beauty
gurus
mainly
because
they
represent
an
informal
group
that
gathers

spontaneously
through
the
Web
and
share
the
purpose
of
exchanging
knowledge
and

experiences
related
to
fashion,
beauty
and
particularly
about
cosmetics
and
makeup
with

each
other.
At
the
early
stage
of
the
project,
while
I
was
still
considering
how
to
approach

this
community
and
conduct
the
research,
I
received
two
recommendations
from
my

supervisor,
one
of
which
I
could
not
adopt.

Firstly,
I
was
asked
to
research
not
gurus
but
the
audience
of
gurus.
Instead
of

looking
at
the
guru’s
individual
histories
to
explain
the
popularity
they
have,
I
should

study
those
who
choose
to
watch
videos
of
gurus
and
see
the
motivations
behind
that

interest.
I
attempted
to
follow
this
path,
but
had
to
reconsider
because
after
a
month
of

looking
for
people
who
matched
this
profile,
I
was
only
able
to
locate
and
interview
one

person.

I
faced
the
following
difficulties:
1)
considering
as
an
“audience”
those
who
do
not

participate
in
the
conversation,
I
could
not
look
for
them
through
YouTube
since
their

presence
watching
the
videos
does
not
leave
traces.
I
tried
to
find
these
people
through

recommendations
of
friends
but
this
strategy
is
not
efficient
for
a
research
project
that

has
to
start
and
end
in
four
months.
2)
What
is
the
definition
of
“audience”
in
the
context

of
the
Internet?
Prior
to
the
Internet,
the
audience
were
those
who
mostly
consumed

media
content:
readers
of
newspapers
and
magazines,
for
instance.
After
the
Internet,

being
the
audience
became
a
choice
for
those
who
were
online.
From
this
perspective,

22

when
does
a
person
move
from
the
position
of
being
in
an
audience
to
that
of
active

participant
in
the
public
sphere?
Are
users
that
don’t
publish
videos
but
comment
on

them
an
audience?
YouTube
users
with
less
visibility
might
influence
more
people
while

others
with
a
greater
number
of
views
might
be
communicating
only
within
a
circle
of

friends.
I
resolved
this
problem
by
choosing
to
observe
a
group
of
gurus
that
had
average

audiences,
as
I
will
explain
later
at
this
section.
In
the
end,
it
was
important
to
accept
that

being
a
guru
is
a
social
experience
and
that
it
is
part
of
being
a
guru
to
be
both
audience

and
producer.

The
suggestion
I
could
incorporate
was
to
go
in
to
the
field
without
a
specific
set

of
questions;
instead,
I
should
immerse
myself
in
the
world
of
these
gurus
to
find
out,

among
other
things:
what
it
is
that
makes
somebody
want
to
become
part
of
this
group?

What
do
they
talk
about
besides
makeup?
Do
they
have
specific
forms
of
organization?

How
does
one
moves
inside
this
group?
I
should
allow
my
curiosity
to
look
for
interesting

things
happening
and,
at
the
end
of
this
process,
produce
a
theory
explaining
what
is
like

to
be
a
guru.
That
is
how
I
conducted
this
work.

Preparation
for
the
research

Prior
to
conducting
participant
observation,
first
with
gurus
in
general
and
later

with
the
specific
network
of
actors
that
resulted
in
the
ethnography
used
for
this

dissertation,
I
learned
about
cosmetics
and
its
use
in
Britain
by
conducting
six
interviews

with
women
who
are
active
users
or
even
enthusiasts
of
makeup.
The
questions
I
asked

in
these
interviews
were:
1)
at
what
moment
in
life
they
first
acquired
an
interest
in

cosmetics?
How
did
it
start
and
with
whose
support?
And
2)
what
do
you
normally
keep

in
your
box
of
cosmetic
accessories
and
why?
I
considered
these
questions

23

straightforward
enough
to
produce
direct
answers
and
also
general
enough
to
allow
the

interviewees
to
formulate
the
answers
without
constrains
or
moral
judgments.

Alongside
the
interviews,
I
participated
in
a
daylong
intensive
makeup
course
for

amateurs
and
had
the
opportunity
to
get
to
know
the
different
properties
of
products

and
apply
the
products
on
my
own
face.
Being
the
only
man
among
eight
other

participants
including
the
teacher
and
her
assistant,
I
had
the
chance
to
experience
the

awkwardness
that
results
from
crossing
this
clearly
gender-‐related
border
and
also
feel

the
difficulties
related
to
the
execution
of
different
routines.
I
did
not
know
that
makeup

required
such
complex
procedures,
involved
so
many
utensils
and
followed
so
many

patterns
to
add
different
layers
of
products.
I
was
also
confronted
with
the
understanding

that
makeup
is
as
much
about
showing
as
it
is
about
concealing.
This
is
something
I
will

explore
later
on.

Figure
6
Figure
6
Photograph
taken
at
the
end
of
the
makeup
course
at
the
Rouge
London
Makeup
School,
2011.

24

Methods
for
gathering
data

I
spent
over
a
month
“living”
among
beauty
gurus
before
choosing
my
informants

and
then
I
dedicated
myself
to
observing
these
informants
full
time
during
two
weeks.
All

the
data
gathered
for
this
research
was
collected
online
and
through
this
process
of

immersion
in,
and
observation
of,
their
past
and
present
activities.
Observation
here

means
watching
their
videos
and
following
their
online
public
communication
through

comment
exchange
and
also
through
the
dialogues
developed
through
the
website

Formspring,
a
service
through
which
many
gurus
receive
and
respond
to
questions

posted
either
openly
or
anonymously.
Formspring’s
value
derives
from
the
fact
other

popular
social
websites
like
YouTube
and
Facebook
do
not
allow
this
feature
of

anonymously
publishing
questions.
Since
gurus
are
interested
in
being
known
and

expanding
they
range
of
relationships,
Formspring
gives
the
possibility
of
receiving
from

friends
and
fans
the
kind
of
personal
questions
they
would
not
dare
to
ask
openly.

Formspring
is
widely
adopted,
especially
among
younger
beauty
gurus;
all
but
one
of
the

six
actors
selected
had
an
account
with
this
service.

Aside
from
one
public
exchange
of
online
comments
with
one
of
the
adult

informants,
I
did
not
attempt
to
communicate
with
the
actors.
I
decided
not
to
talk

directly
to
them
because
four
out
of
six
of
my
informants
were
less
than
18
years
of
age

and
I
didn’t
want
to
conduct
interviews
with
some
of
them
and
not
others.
This
solution

proved
useful
for
two
reasons:
it
offered
an
opportunity
of
conducting
research
in
a
safe

manner
with
actors
that
are
minors,
and
it
also
created
an
environment
that
allowed

actors
to
speak
and
share
opinions
that
seemed
more
welcoming
than,
for
instance,
that

of
an
academic
interview.
Tarlo
(2010:
146)
arrived
at
the
same
conclusions
while

conducting
research
on
Muslims
and
fashion
in
Britain.
She
wrote:
“What
makes
Internet

25

discussion
forums
and
threads
so
interesting
from
the
ethnographic
point
of
view
is
that

they
represent
unmediated
conversations
between
people
who
voice
their
opinions
far

more
freely
than
they
would
if
interviewed
by
a
researcher.”
The
richness
of
the
data
that

emerges
from
this
online
research
practice
–
that
presupposes
an
active
form
of
being

present
–
might
justify
the
act
of
naming
it
“observant
participation”,
to
indicate
it
has

evolved
from
the
anthropological
tradition
of
research.

A
possible
criticism
this
approach
may
generate
results
from
the
fact
the

researcher
does
not
meet
the
subject
in
“real
life”,
which
raises
questions
of
authenticity.

How
do
we
know
if
the
subject
is
who
she
says
she
is?
This
is
a
complex
issue
that
invites

further
debate
and
should
be
considered
in
light
of
the
particularity
of
each
case.
For

instance,
on
the
YouTube
beauty
guru
community,
users
follow
an
unwritten
rule
that

says
one
should
avoid
mentioning
places
or
other
information
that
could
lead
to
the

physical
localization
of
the
informant9.
They
also
prefer
not
to
use
surnames.
In
the
same

way
this
situation
might
make
it
easier
for
a
person
to
lie
about
herself,
it
also
makes
it

safer
for
her
to
discuss
topics
and
share
opinions
that
she
might
not
feel
comfortable

doing
under
different
conditions.
Regarding
this
matter,
I
agree
with
Boellstorff
(2008:
4,

60-‐86),
who
conducted
a
three-‐year
research
about
Second
Life
entirely
inside
the
virtual

world.
He
argues
that
the
users
that
choose
to
establish
relations
through
these
mediums

agree
to
do
so
knowing
that
most
likely
they
will
never
meet
face
to
face
the
people
they

met
online.
The
anthropologist
should
not
question
if
these
relationships
exist
but
study

them
“in
their
own
terms”.
That
is
why
he
considers
it
crucial
to
develop
research

methods
that
keep
up
with
the
“realities
of
technical
change”.

9

Lange
(2007)
discusses
the
practice
of
making
videos
that
are
promoted
beyond
one’s
social
circles

but
where
the
author
conceals
her
identity.
She
labels
these
videos
as
“privately
public”.

26

The
YouTube
project
conducted
as
part
of
the
Digital
Ethnography
program

(Wesch,
2008)
used
a
method
that
also
occurs
exclusively
online
but
incorporates
the

social
experience
of
inhabiting
the
world
of
the
actors
being
researched.
Each
participant

of
the
team
of
researchers
created
individual
channels
on
YouTube,
and
the
group

produced
a
video
which
was
posted
on
the
website
explaining
the
project
and
inviting
the

YouTube
community
to
engage
in
conversations
related
to
the
different
topics
of
the

study.
Choosing
this
path
made
the
interaction
with
the
community
more
transparent

and
honest,
which
motivated
some
users
to
participate
and
reflect
on
their
experiences,

not
exactly
as
if
they
were
being
interviewed
but
as
if
they
were
having
a
conversation

about
the
subject.
The
video
that
resulted
did
not
belong
to
the
researchers,
but
existed

alongside
other
videos
as
part
of
each
participant’s
channels.
In
other
words,
the

reflections
remained
in
the
community
together
with
the
videos
the
researchers
made
as

part
of
the
dynamics
of
embodying
the
activities
of
the
natives
and
experiencing
the

world
from
that
perspective.
Even
the
result
of
the
project
was
not
a
book
or
an

academic
paper,
but
a
lecture
using
audio-‐visual
documents
collected
during
the
research

and
published
on
YouTube.
By
making
this
choice,
the
team
gave
back
to
the
original

community
the
result
of
the
research
while
offering
those
interested
on
learning
about

the
study
to
do
so
by
accessing
the
same
channel
of
communication
studied
and
having

the
opportunity
to
move
further
from
there
to
explore
the
website.
I
attempted
to
do

something
similar
creating
a
YouTube
channel10
to
introduce
myself
and
the
research
to

the
beauty
guru
community,
while
establishing
conversations
with
different
actors.
I

abandoned
this
alternative
because
of
the
time
constraints
of
the
research
and
also

because
it
would
limit
the
contact
to
adult
gurus.

10

http://www.youtube.com/youtubanthropologist

27

Definition
of
informants

According
to
preliminary
observation,
the
community
of
gurus
dedicated
to

creating
beauty
related
tutorials
appears
to
be
one
of
the
larger,
if
not
the
largest,
on

YouTube.
I
did
not
have
access
to
quantitative
data,
therefore
I
base
this
speculation
on

the
fact
no
other
guru
community
has
as
many
representatives
in
the
top
of
the
rankings

of
subscriptions
worldwide.
Out
of
24
gurus
listed
among
the
most
popular,
half

produced
beauty
tutorials.
This
means
I
could
have
selected
many
different
groups
of

subjects
for
this
research.
The
first
criterion
used
to
select
participants
was
to
find
those

who
had
a
strong
drive
to
improve
their
skills
in
making
tutorials.
Aside
from
that,
I

looked
for
informants
that
were
close
to
each
other
online
(and
online
only)
and

experienced
the
beauty
guru
community
from
different
perspectives.

The
list
I
arrived
at
results
from
these
choices.
All
are
English
speakers:
five
are

Americans
(one
currently
living
in
Israel)
and
one
is
Scottish.
The
number
of
subscriptions

each
has
starts
at
60
and
goes
up
to
10,000,
and
their
ages
varied
from
13
to
26
years
old.

The
higher-‐ranking
gurus
were
YTGuru26
and
YTGuru14,
which
had
respectively
close
to

10,000
and
3,000
subscriptions,
and
had
created
their
own
collab
channels.
Two
of
the

remaining
girls
auditioned
and
were
accepted
to
these
collabs:
YTGuru20
had
around
600

subscribers
and
was
part
of
YTGuru26’s
collab.
YTGuru13a
had
close
to
1000
subscribers

and
belonged
to
YTGuru14’s
collab.
The
two
remaining
girls
auditioned
but
were
rejected

for
both
collabs.

Guru
Subscribers
Collab

YTGuru26
10,000
Collab
1
(owner)

YTGuru14
2,500
Collab
2
(owner)

YTGuru17
1,000
-‐

YTGuru13a
1,000
Collab
2
(subord.)

YTGuru20
600
Collab
1
(subord.)

YTGuru13b
60
-‐

28

Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus

Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus

Similar to Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus (20)

More from juliano spyer

More from juliano spyer (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Making up Art, Videos and Fame: The Creation of Social Order in the Informal Realm of YouTube Beauty Gurus