An influencer’s own image can become merely one product within a broader conglomerate

Evidence

In turning away from “interesting” content, Star shows that he sees himself not as an influencer, properly speaking, but as a manager of a vertically integrated conglomerate, which covers media, real estate, cosmetics, marijuana, clothing, and more. Star’s brand is a business, but not the business; in fact, Star’s image should be understood as one product of the broader Jeffree Star media and manufacturing empire. We should imagine Star not in the mold of those with whom he associates—James Charles, Shane Dawson—but of Martha Stewart, of Oprah Winfrey. He is like those people who are owners and CEOs of multinational conglomerates, as well as being the public face of many—but not all—of their operations. Star cannot be cancelled, at least in the way that Charles and Dawson can (temporarily) be (pseudo)cancelled, because he is not a precarious worker laboring under the same conditions as other influencers. — Grant Bollmer, Katherine Guinness, The Influencer Factory, 300

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s Corpocene teaching goal — Star inverts the corporate-personhood circuit: instead of a company getting the rights of a person, a person becomes the firm whose own image is just one asset. Ties to labor theory of value (which product realizes whose surplus).