]ubure

r, in S.

n, New

Iarshall

tardom,

'ealityw

-welfare

rvember

cpulate-

)uelletteniversity

Fraxring

lewYork:

"demotic

Trap,65,

24

Producing "Reality"Branded Content, Branded Selves,

" Precarious Futuresa Alison Hearnl

{"rrr,^ } C.^^q"-i.-}, Q--*') r{,-:-e'r ' L 'O*-e\t<

U; . @> gwc-t""2{, lo r'L\ .

As economic conditions worsen around the globe, one in three workers are noweither unemployed or poor (International Labour Organization, 2012). Youthunemployment, specifically, has reached unprecedented new levels, and over 50percent of youth who are working are consigned to part-time, short-term-contract,and low-wage precarious employment (Estanque and Costa, 2012,p.264). As theInternational Labour Organization warns of a "lost generation" (Saltmarsh, 2010)of young people who have little faith in the value of traditional forms of work,young and old people alike are taking to streets and squares from Egypt to Montreal,demonstrating against political priorities and capitalist economic values that are

clearly flawed and failing. In the midst of this economic and political turmoil,however, transnational media corporations and television networks in developedcountries, specifically the United States, continue to accumulate record profitsdriven in large part by the success of reality television.

CBS, home to reality television pioneer Survivor, which had its 26th cycle in theUnited States in 2013, posted an I percent increase in advertising sales in the firstquarter of 2012 (James, 2012), rvhile Viacom's profits grew by 33 percent in 2011,propelled by MTV's breakaway "semi-scripted" hit, Jersey Shore (Chozick, 2011a).

Bravo's popular Real Housewives docusoap franchise was valued at half a billiondollars as of 2012 (Hollywood Reporter,2012) and Bravo, along with sister cable

company Oxygen, is credited for the financial resurrection of its parent companyNBC-Universal, whose earnings rose by over 38 percent in 20i0 (Friedman, 2011).Fox's American ldol,which had its 12th season in early 2013, is routinely within thetop-three-rated shows on US television and has made Fox the lumber one networkamong L849-year-olds for eight years in a row (Gorman, 2011); the show garnersat least $800 million in advertising every season (Flint, 2010), and it made an

A Companion to Reality klevision, First Edition. Edited by Laurie Ouellette.O 2014 }ohn Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 20l4by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

fl

fl

fl

N

I

I

i',..

'..$

J::,i,4

'$

r,j*

,.*', :.i:ii

::?

,,j

jj::.

:.i:

,.i

ft. ("rt)

l-

438 Subjects of RealitY

all-time high of s903 million in 2009 (wyatt, 2009a). Horv is the astounding profit-

abiiity of reality television connected to the current global economic crisis?

This chapter will argue that reality television's innovative production and busi-

ness model have made it a powerful site of ideological and material production,

situated squarely at the intersection of culture, economics, politics, and technology

in the trventy-first century. Far more than banal or degraded television texts, I argue

that reality ielevision shows stand at the forefront of new modes of capitalist value

generatiori and, as such, both exemplifi and help to constitute current economic

and social crises. As reality television s mode of production bypasses unionized

actors and writers, it creates a new production model in which workers are required

to have flexible skills, work long hours for little pay, and have no employtnent secu-

rity; workers can easily be fired because there are always other keen young people

to take their place. Reality television has generated new marketing arrangements,

intensiffing tle role of advertisers in the creation of "branded" television content,

and has led efforts to create new branded entertainment formats that are exchanged

on media markets around the globe, online, and across new media and mobile

platforms. ',Reality" has inspired new ways to monetize online user-generated'content,

including"reality advertising" (Shalv, 2010), and has worked to produce a

wide variety of "brand extensions": goods and services, such as live events, DVDs,

music, boois, and fashion lines, developed in and through show narratives go on

to generate lucrative franchising fees.

Reality television not only produces branded content, show formats, and branded

goods and services, however; it also produces branded selves. Lured by the glittering

f.ornise of temporary celebrity, participants offer themselves up to the cameras for

little remuneration, model ideal iorms of subjectivity and life in a "work-free world"

for viewers, and produce public personas that might be traded for cash down the

line. This "monetization of being," best characterized by reality television personas

such as Snooki or Kim Kardashian, is now generalized across new forms of social

media. Individuals' online self-presentation and sociality have become fodder for

the extraction of monetary value by Internet social rnedia entrepreneurs, advertis-

ers, reputation managers, and other corporate interests. Iust as capitalism's crisis

has iniensified and work has become increasingly precarious, rnany people have

sought monetary and social value by accruing visibility and reputation online and

on television.The real story behind reality television, then, cannot be disentangled from the

story of its political-economic origins and methods of production, and involves

the productiol urrd dispersal of Hollywood television's economic and political

imperatives, codes of visibility, and promotional values throughout society at large'

tn ihis sense, realit,v teler.ision's texts, audiences, and modes of production are all

bound up together, effectively working to narrate, propagate' and advance the

broader ltgics of conte,rporary capiralist production and accumulation. So, while

reality television may claim to document the lived reality of its participants, the

truth is that its proliferation effectively helps to palliate, legitimate, and produce a

a

Producirtg "Reality" 439

nerv reality for the West. In u,hat follorvs, I rl,ill trace and further explore thesedevelopments, focusing specificallv on the n avs reaiity television mythologizes andrnaterially enacts ihe production of branded, monetized selves.

Producing the Industry: The Genesis of "Reality Television"and Its Low-Cost Production Model

In the simplest sense, "realit), telei,ision" nafftes a sei of cost-cutting measrires inmainstream television production enacted by management as a response to theeconomic Pressures faced by the television industry transnationallf in the late 1980s

and 1990s. Sot-ne of these pressures included increased cornpetition ir-r mediamarkets and growing audience fragrnentation as a result of cabie and nervmedia technologl., legislative deregulation, the rveakening of public broadcasting,and, specifically in the US, spiraiing costs associated r,vith the inflated deraands ofexisting media celebrities (Magder, 2004; Raphael,2004). The no-brainer soiutioninvoived lowering production costs by producing programming "just in time" -quickly, cheaply, and avoiding unionized actors and rvriters in favor of flexible,lou-paid, multitasking r.vorkers. Reality programming producers also worked tocapitalize on the m),ths and fantasies of unlirnited wealth and porver akeady associ-ated rvith celebrity culture in order to entice "reguiar people" to offer up their iaborfor free as participants.

This approach is in keeping n ith the broader economic processes of post-Fordistcapitalism, described by David Harvey as "flexible accumulation," rvhich includepermanent innovation, mobility and change, subcontracting, and just-in-time,decentralized production (Harvey, 1990). The post-Fordist mode of production isnorv dominant, albeit crisis-ridden, and is heavily dependent on cornnlunicationnetn'orks and on lateral f-lorvs of information and production. It tends to emphasizethe production and consumption o{ klowledge and symbolic products - includingpackaging, image design, branding, and rrarketing - over concrete material produc-tion ( Harvey, 1990; Goldman and Papson, 2006). As Harvey notes, "investment inimage-building . . . becomes as irnportant as investment in ne'lv piar-rts and machin-ery" (Harvey, 1990, p. 288). French socioiogists Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello(2005) describe work under the netrvorked conditions of post-Fordism and flexibleaccumulation as increasingly precarious and unstable; jobs are marked by flexibiiity,casualization, segrnentation, intensit;., and increased competition. These processeshave led to the formation of a "dual market," composed of a stable, high-wagedrvorkforce of professionals and rvorkers on one side and precariously employed,underpaid, and unprotected rvorkers on the other (Boltanksi and chiappello,2005).

The trends associated with processes of flexible accumulation and flexible pre-carious ivorkers are clearly in evidence in reality television production practices.Due to the gron ing dernand by networks and cable broadcasters for compelling,cheap, and quickly produced shon s, production cornpanies are regularly competing

,.;'l:'*'t:

l:.

iI,I

440 Subjects ofRealitY

with, and undercutting, each other; as a former reality television editor who has

chosen to remain anonymous states, "Everyone is pinching pennies everywhere. It's

very diffrcult to score contracts with the networks, so producers are under constant

pr.rrrrr. to deliver top-quality product under ever-shrinking budgets and delivery

tim.fra-es" (personal communication, April 1, 2008). While reality television pro-

ducers and marketers insist that the shows are unscripted and do not involve writers

or srory editors, in fact they rely on editors to build the story in the editing bay,

simply renaming writers "segment or field producers" (Writers Guild of America,

west,'2007; Elisberg, 2008) and paying on-air participants a minimal "apPearance

fee,, (Podlas, 2007,p.147). workers, such as production assistants, drivers, segment

producers, assistani editors, and loggers, are often asked to work 18-hour days' seven

duy, u week, and to go without lunch and dinner breaks, healthcare, benefits, pen-

sions, or overtime pay (Elisberg, 2008; Laist,2008). These exploitative conditions

threaten the safety of all involved in the productions. For example, the nonunion

drivers often work l8-hour days and do not receive alcohol or drug testing (Elisberg'

2008).Nonunionized reality television workers are also forced to accept precarious

short-term contracts, which can easily be terminated without cause' A former

American ldol production assistant reports that, when he averaged his wage over the

hours he was forced to work, it came to $4.50 an hour. He goes on to state that

"when I even mentioned the possibility of getting a raise I was threatened with

losing my job, told that I was replaceable, and that I'd be blacklisted from working

on ,riy oiher show if I spoke out" (Writers Guild of America, West, 2008). An assist-

ant editor who worked inThe Hills andhas chosen to remain anonymous describes

the situation:

These reality houses are making a lot of money, but the person who o\{ns the company

is making the money, whereas the production company people aren't getting health

insurance and they're working their asses off. They're willing to do it because it's a

norm. MTY especially, if they see a problem coming where they have to spend money

they'll just cancel a show. (personal communication, March 25' 2008)

In effect, the production practices of reality television function to destabilize the

labor relations of the television industry as a whole by instituting a whole new

bottom tier of worker who sees the industry as glamorous and is willing to put up

with the abuse to get a foot in the door. As a result of strict nondisclosure agree-

ments, the lack of any traditional job protections, and a very informal economy of

job distribution based on word of mouth, executive producers are able to pressure

ih.r. yo.rng people into silence and simultaneousiy demand they do "whatever it

tak"s io g", th" lob done" (Writers Guild of America, West,2008). At the same time,

prodr."is can avoid having to provide industry-standard wages, benefits, and

appropriate working conditions. The phrase "reality televisioni'then, simply names

irr"rpensiv", just-in-time production practices that avoid unionization and attempt

to extract as much unregulated labor as possible from workers'

Reali

of thwoulfor st

2004spon.

b.,y '

integthe c

wherprodthemBaudone ronEwhosShort

ationAberclothFitch

Dr

drarrrealitTheirnetwConttwocont(

broa,p. 1).

direcof prrealil

In,

in tefinanAs fcnowtisers

ii;

441tr

'iirLl,rr)iti'ltr.:,

ilitl. ll:'ri

'':.i,

::

*

'lri:

,:;*ili

lli

Producirtg "RealitY"

who has

rhere. It'sconstantI deliverysion pro-/e writersiting bay,

America,pearance

segment

lys, seven

fits, pen-

)nditionsronunion

.Elisberg,

recarious\ formerr over the

;tate thatned rvithrvorking\n assist-

describes

mparl,Y

healthe it's a

money

bilize the

role nert

o put rlrre asret-)n0lx\- Gi

Pretsr:r.taterr.I;:.!rf iili-1*,.f = .-::iit:..1--!

,lv c.rm*,ii E::e::::

Business MakeoverrM: Reality Television, Branded content,Branded Formats, and Brand Extensions

Reality television has also signihcantlv alteretl the traditional business practices

of the television industrl, escie*'i,]g the older busir.ress .rodel rvhereby netlvorks

rvould pay licensing fees to iirdependent shorv producers and then collect revenue

for selling spot adrrertising aro,rnd the sirorvs thev licensed (Carter, 2002; Magder'

2004). Fo:llo;ving the leaiof the producer of SLrrt'i,or, r\'lark Burnett, r'ho found

SponsorsfortheprogramdirectlyandsplittheprofitswithCBs,advertisersnowbuy the rights to spollsor an entire Program or to have their product centrally

integrated |r the shorv itself, in addition to spot advertisements' What differentiates

the furrent sponsorship model from the one used i, the early days of tele"'isio'r -where a corporation ,"ould sponsor the entire ruu of a series - is that the sponsoring

products and s.ruices ur" fui more deepiy embedded in the narratives of the shorvs

themselves; indeed, they often become central characters in the stories (Manly, 2005;

Bauder,2ol2).Onstn.yivor,starvingContestantsendureintensecompetitionforone mouth-rvatering package of Doritos or some Mountain Dew. The friendly folks

on Extrente Makeover: Hotie Edition take shopping trips to Home Depot or Sears,

wlrose "reaI" employees often pla)' a part in the makeover' Or' in the case of Jersey

Sltore, acorporate brand, Abeicrombie and Fitch' and a personal brand' The Situ-

ation, create synergistic real-rvorld news stories together to their mutual benefit'

Abercrombie and Fitch publicly offered to pay The Situation to stop rvearing their

clothes on the p,og.u*, ..,.n as it simultaneously produced a T-shirt that read..The

Fitchuation" (ilifforcl, 201 1 ).

Due to their lorv production costs - often less than one-third the cost of scripted

drama(Podlas,2007,p.146)-andthespeedrvithlvlrichtheycouldbeproduced,reality programs lnitiatl,v made excellent and affordable off-season replacements'

fn"i. groriing poprloritt' a'd prohtability' however' succeeded in convinci,g

*etworl borre, and producers that shows could be introduced throughout the year'

Continuous programrning, \\,here shorvs debut all year long, sometimes compieting

two l4-rveek ".|.i.r" ,'iit ln a year, facilitates greater development of "branded

content,,- shorvs explicitly designed to market a specific product or service becaltse

broadcasters are able to "accommodate clients by their fiscal year" (Elliott, 2008b'

p. 1). As deregulation has allorved net'tvorks to become producers and prodttcers to

directly solicit corporate sponsors and advertisers for their sirolvs, intensified forms

of product integration and branded content have become the core raison d'etre for

reality television Production.Indeed, reality television business n-rodels have introduced a "rew paradigrn"

in television production, in rvhich shorvs are deveioped with "multiple sources of

financing - includlr.g foreign production companies and advertisers" (Carter, 2002)'

As former NBC Entertainment chairman Ben Silverman describes, networks are

now directly dedicated to "building programming assets in partnership" rvith adyer-

tisers (quoted in Elliott, 2008a, p. 3). Increasingly, sho$'sponsors and marketers are

442 Subjects of ReatitY

on board with show development from the very beginning, often devising show

concepts, sitting in the write;s'room' and developi"g 1it"^tll:,::n*ttt"'tties and

storylines.Inadditiontothesekindsofcoproduction,Weareseeingmoreandmore"advertiser-producedcontent"-realityshows'shortvideos'andfi1ms-developedand produced directly Uf to'potut" brands to showcase products and services' For

example, recently, ro,ip*#"red a reality-show titled Escape Routes built around

the Ford "Escape" .u, iBt"', 2a0);on the Food Network' Loblaws Supermarket in

CanadapremieredRecipestoRiches'acompetitionrecipeshowthatpromisestoturn the winner into orie of its products lEiliott, 2012); and Office Max produced

a reality show for tft" AgC fumlty channel about preteens getting ready for a new

school year, titled s,n.ooua (Story, 2006). Advertisers insist that..brands have the

potentialtobegoodcharacters"(Story'2005)'ancladvertiser-producedcontentisseen as a win-win situation for everyone lnvolved; advertisers are willing to offer

shorvs to networks fo' f'"t, and netrvorks' in return' can fllI air time and control

their licensing and production costs (Story' 2006)' This conflation between show

design and marketing works both ways as networks have become more and more

expert at marketing and advertising; MTV has been so successfui at targeting "mil-

lenials,,(viewersagedbetweenl0and28)thatitrecentlylaunchedafree-standingmarketingdepartment,calledMTVScratch,toworkindependentlywithcorporatebrand clients (Gelles, 2010)'

Thismovetowardbrandedandadvertiser-producedcontentandtheriseintheimportance of branding and marketitg *o'" generally are symptomatic of what

Andrew Wernick ."ffr::ir"*otional cul"ture." Piomotion is a mode of communica-

tion, a ..species of rhetiri.,, more notable for what it does than what it says. Pro-

motionaldiscourseisthoroughlyinstrumental;itsfunctionistobringaboutsomeform of "se1f-advantagi'g t"tf"i'ge" (Wernick' l99l' p' 181)' Wernick argues that'

throughout the twentjeti t"t""ty' goods came to be designed less for their direct

usefurness and more io, tt " *"urilrg, and my,ths they were able to mobilize and

represent. ,.f,. mt"nJn.ation and gln"ruliraiion of the processes of promotion

and marketing ln ,..t"t decades hal produced what Wernick ( 1991) terms a "pro-

motional culture,, and an era of ..spin,,, where what matters most is not ..meaning,,

per se, or "truth" "r;;;;f b't

""i"t'i"g" .- attention' emotional allegiance' and

market share. Goods, services, corporatlons' and' most centtally'people are all impli-

cated in these developments (p' 192)'

Branding and bru'nds ur"'."n,rul marketing practices within a promotional

culture. lnitially intended to link products aJd -r".ric"s

with resonant cultural

meanings through 'it "t of narratives and images' a brand now refers to an entire

..virtual context,, for consumption; brands wo,k to conslruct a particular ambience,

comprisingsensibilitiesandvalues'whichmaythenconditionconsumerbehavior(Arvidsson, 2005, p. 244)'In a world marked by increasing flexibility and flux'

brands work to fi-x, albeit temporarily ond t"ntaiirely, cultural meanings around

consumption,producingaestheticizedmodesofjustificationforlifeundercapital(Goldman and Papson, iooe ) e brand is also a value-generating form of property

in its own right, recogJoa u' "tf' by trademark licensing law and' since the 1980s'

by,inte

mei

hea

agi

has

ecc

act

b

C

a

I

tel,

col

pnTh

telalti(tel

intr:

inre

pr

a1

o

t(f<

e

2

row

md.ore

ped

For

-rnd

tinstoced

tewthert is,ffer

trol10w

10re

rril-lingrate

thevhatiica-Pro-

SIne

ihat,irectandtionpro-irg"andrpli-

onalluraintirelnce)

rviorflux,luudpitai)erty)80s,

,,1:ll:

rti:

it

,::i.

Prodttcitrg "RealitY" 443

bycorporateaccountingpractices,rvhichconsiderthebrandasadistinct'albeitirrtorrgiUl., comrnerciai

"asset. Brands generate value b,v monetizing the symbolic

*.u'rfrg-*uking activities of consumers' As flerible accumr'rlation has come to rely

hea,ily In the ptduction of knor{edge and slmboiic products, emphasizing pack-

aging, image, desig,-,, and marketing o\'er Col.tcrete nrateria} production, brarrding

has become an ..i,stitutionalized method of practicallr' materializing the political

economy of signs"(Goldn-rzrn and Papson,2006' p' -118]' As stich' it is now"a core

activity of capitiriisnr" (Holt, 2006, p' 300)'

As we have seen, the iogics of promotion and brar-rding llo1r dominate reality

television production. ln udditiol} to intensilied product placement and branded

content, manv reality shorvs are now "branded" ibrmats - tbrms of intellectual

property bought ancl solcl around the globe. Big Brother, ldol, Real Horrscrl,lr,es, and

Tlrc x Factor are jusi a ferv of the reality formats norv available for licensing by

televisiolr production colrpanies. Like a recipe for a program, a format cau.r include

u p,og,u* bible, production guideiines, requisite soundtracks, set.design irrstrtrc.

tions,"and graphii elernents that are then filled r'ith local content' The *-rarket in

television shor,v formats has gro"vn steadily frorn almost zero in the 1990s to 259

in 2002 2004 and 445 in 2008 (Esser, 2010' p' 272)' Overull' the growth of globally

traded show formats spe;rks to the need to fincl new ways to cut costs and avoid risk

in tele,ision production; formats have been tried and proven in other markets and

reduce the time ar-rd costs associated r,r,ith progr:am deYelopment' They serYe as a

perfect schedule-fil1er rvhen original progran-rming or "canued" progralnming is not

available, ancl, whel a tbrmat hits internationalll', its returns in licensing fees far

outstrip anything a fuil.v fleciged shon, sale might earn (Esser, 2010, p. 288). \\4ri1e

teiet ision formats can includJ scriptecl or unscripted sho'vs, reality atld game-show

formats ha'e lecl the pack in the establishment of this trelld. The Biggest Loser' fot

examp}e, has been proclr:ced irr 25 countries ancl shown in more than 90 (Chozick,

201 1b).

With the er.er-i*creasing promotior.ral orientation of reality television, it has

become very clear that theiirphasis is no longer on television content per se but

on horv that content ca, firnctiln as a clearing house for products and services and

as a source of diverse revellue streams beyond the shows thetnselves' As lvlark

Bnrnett himself has stated rvith reference lo Survivor:

It is as rnuch a marketing vehicle as it is a television shot'. lvly sho\vs create an interest'

ar'rdpeoplelvilllookatthem,buttheerrdgamehereissellirrgproductsinstclres_acar, deodorant, running shoes' It's the futr'rre of television' (Sager and Burnett' 2001)

Individual shon s serve as brand portais through r,vhich any number of other com-

modities can be generated. A mericafi klol,for example, has extended its brand across

a plethora of products from ice cream to trading cards to summer camps (wyatt,

zoosa). NBC,s The Biggest Loser is another example of the polver of a brand-exten-

sion model; it "u..r.d

6jO0 million in 2009 from its brand franchises, including cook

books, fitness videos, diet drinks, and gym equipment (Sauer' 2009; Wyatt' 2009a'

444 Subjects of RealitY

2009b).Inadditiontoproducts,realitytelevisionalsoworkstogenerate..para-shows," such as American Idol Rewincl or MTV's The After Show' which comment

on and deconstruct the original shows or air previously unaired footage' The cable

network Bravo is often citeias exemplary of the brand-extension model; it routinely

spins new reality series from the thematic components of previous shows' For

example, its first hft, a;r;; Eye for the Straight Guy'wlsspun into lfverat

new series'

such as Top Chef and. iop i"ig''Bravo a;o. explicitly positions itsetf as a lifestyle

"brand," selling .oot uooi' ut'j 'tylt

guides b'anded with its own logo (Dominus'

2008).As}amesNgo,aproducerofAmericanldol,states,it\all..abouttheproduct,and the potential r", ,t" pr"arct to live beyond the tele,ision sho'" (quoted in

Elliott, Zll2).The goal of reality programming' then' is to generate more promo-

tional opportunities ut'i *o'* p'od'ittu in the form of shows' goods' or services'

perhaps the most lucrative revenue stream generated in and through reality televi-

sion productlon, f,o*.,"i comes in the lorm of the shows' branded peoplei

participants.

Producing "Selves": Reality Television and

tlie Monetization of Being

As reality television becomes a marketing vehicle for various corporate brands, the

stories it tells will, inevitabiy, reflect those same processes of marketing and selling'

No matter what their ;;#; content is - home or wardrobe renovation' ice road

truckers, or parties at the |ersey Shore - reality television shows also work to

promotetheculturalvalueoficonicvisibilityandfame(Hearn,2009).Showssuchas American ldol and America's Next Top Model explicitly narrate the hard work

involved in becoming u ttftUtity brand' while makeover shows such as What Not

to wear or Ten Vrrrl vorngn tell stories about the construction of a rhetorically

persuasive body u.corii"gio ttt" dltt:l"t-:l'he television industry and its celebrity

culrure. other shows,r"lfr ", MTV,s The Hillsor Bravo's Real Housewives franchises,

areportraitsofalifefreeofwork;richandprivileged,t.hestarsoftheseshowseffectively model what it is like to "live on teGvision'and make money doing it'

The overarchirg ,rur.;iir. line of much reality television, then, involves promoting

the value of high visibility and the authorizing power of the.television cametis gaze'

As one pleased .orr*iur,, on what Not to war states: "I should always live as

thoughthereweretelevisioncamerasoutsidemyhouse!,,Towhichthehostsreply,"Noiu bad ideal" (quoted in Hearn' 2008)'

But,aswehave,.t','"utitytelevisiondoesnotjusttellstoriesaboutprocessesoflucrativeself-production;itmateriallyenactsprocessesofcommodificationandpromotion Uy *urt

"ii,tg goods, services' and' *t't significantly' people' The indi-

viduals featured o, ,ttoiJ"' ch as The Hills' Jersey Shore' and -Real

House'wives' for

example, ura ,i,,,rttu,,"o"ty "people" u"d'lutto""'or hybrid "person-characters"

(Bellafante,2009).Asthey*o'ttu"at*infrontofthecameras'theirworkllives4fp ,nnarentlv. one seamless flow of value generation. Here, "being" is labor and

.),1

i:l:'

'':t"

produ<

and ntcontes'

TheformsmousLazzar

workehistor'tion, tmust ,

revolu(Dyerimmarise tc

, ofemher o,

into tlare re

and e

follorDowlto wiknouand tfamilworknetwandpoliterod,

availadve

capa

in, nPi

comguis

to b,

emp

theiworofcther

"para-

mmentre cable,utinely,vs. Forr series,

ifestyle

minus,roduct,rted in)romo-

:rvices.teievi-

reople/

ds, the;eiling.

e roadcrk to's such

rvorknf Notricallyebrity:hises,

sholvs

ing it.roting;qaze.

ive as

reply,

CESSCS

n andindi-

us, forcters"Jlir.es

r and

Producing "Reality" 445

produces value, both for the individual person-characters and for their producers

and networks, such as MT\z or Bravo. Bv appearing on reality television, then,

contestants can become saleable image commodities - or branded seives.

The rvork performed b,v participants on realitv shorvs is exemplary of the nerv

forms of immaterial labor no'r, common under contemporary capitalism. Autono-mous Marxist critics, such as Antonio Negri, N'Iichael Hardt, and MauricioLazzarato, oppose economically deterministic forms of I{arxist criticism and see

r,vorkers' struggles against the constraints of capitalism as the driving force ofhistory. In their vierr, the rvorker is paramount and is "the active subject of produc-tion, the 'ivell-spring of the skilis, innovation and cooperation upon rvhich capital

must drarv" (Dver-Witheford, 1994, p.89).As these critics rvork to define a "new

revolutionar,v subject that might succeed the craft rvorker and the rnass rvorker"(Dyer-\Vitheford, 2001, p. 70), they argue that flexible accumulation's demand forimmaterial commodities such as images, design, symbols, and knowledge has given

rise to nen, forms of iabor that involve creativity, innovation, and the manipuiationof emotion and affect. This "immaterial labor" demands that the rvorker put his orher orvn life experience, communicative competency, personality, and sense of self

into the job (Neilsen and Rossiter, 2005). More and rnore, for example, retail u'orkers

are required to represent the brand of the store they rvork for by wearing the clothes

and embodying the correct "attitude;'and service and call-center workers mustfollorv a set script so as to alivays offer "service rvith a smile" (see Pettinger, 2004;

Dou,ling,2007). Immaterial laborers can include everyone from software designers

to rvaitresses and sex-trade lvorkers to academics. Information, computer, and

knorvledge rvorkers; performers and artists; technicians and service rvorkers;

and even those n,l-ro do not receive a wage, such as caregivers lvithin and outside

families, are immaterial laborers. Because it draws on the subjective attributes oflvorkers, in-rrnaterial labor produces distinct communities and relationships, social

neh.r,orks, social meanings, subjectivities, "and ultimately sociai life itself" (Hardt

and Negri, 2004, p. 109); it blurs the lines betrveen the economic, the social, the

political, and the cultural. As the boundaries betrveen working and nonrvorking life

erode due to ne\\, communication and computer technologies that rnake tts alr,vays

available to work and always publicly accessible for corporations, governments, and

advertisers to track, measure, and monetize, we can argue that human creative

capacities and social relationsl-rips increasingly are conditioned by, and subsumed

in, new modes of capitalist accurnulation (Lazzaralo, 1996; Hardt and Negri, 2000).

Paolo Virno, in his book A Grammar of the Mthitude (2004), names these key

components of immaterial labor, rvhich include creative, communicative, and lin-guistic capacities, "virtuosity." He claims that all working people are now required

to be "virtuosos" in some form or other; employees are expected to represent theiremployer's brand, to socialize and build relationships with customers, to contribute

their thoughts and insights to the workplace, and to build social networks rvith other

workers. In other rvords, we are expected to perform an employer-approved version

of ourselves in order to succeed at work. Under current post-Fordist conditions,

then, Virno argues, "productive labor, in its totality, appropriates the special

446 Subjects of Reality

characteristics of the performing artist"(2004, pp. 54-55), and, in turn, the culture

industries, including reality television, become centrally important - indeed, they

becorne pirradigmatic of the dominant mode of production (Lazzarato , 1996, p. 142;

Virno, 2004, p. 28). As more and more individuais are required to create their

olvn profit-producing self-brand or purblic persona, the culture ir-rdustries provide

the templates for forms of profit-generating seif-performance in all sectors of the

economy.

Elsewhere I have defined the "branded self" as an entity that rvorks and, at the

same time, points to itself working, striving to ernbody the values of its rvorking

environment. Andrerv Wernick describes the process this lvay: "a subject tirat pro-

motes itself, constructs itself for others in line with the competitive imaging needs

of the market. Just like any other artificiall1, imaged cornmodity, then, the resultant

construct is a persona produced for public consumption"(Wernick, 1991, p. 192).

The self as commodity for sale on the labor market must also generate its orvn

rhetorically persuasive packaging, its olvn promotional skin, within the confines

of the don-rinant corporate imaginnry Self-branding may be considered a form ofaffective, immaterial labor that is purposefull1, r,rndertaken by individuals in order

to garner trttention, reputirtion, and, potentiall1,, profit. Self-branding is a function

of an image economy, where attention is monetized and notoriety, or fatne, is capital

(Hearn, 2008) and reality television is ground zero for the production of lucrative

branded selves.

As the performance of personality and job-appropriate selfhood becotnes a forinof cornmodity labor power, immateriai rvorkers are encouraged to see themselves

as inrage entrepreneurs (Heam, 2006). h-rdeed, many reality sholvs have provided

previously unknorvu people u,ith rnonetizabie self-brands, rvhich they parlay into

iucrative endorsement deals and branded goods and sert'ices. Every mernber of the

Jersey Shore cast, for example, has nutnerous personai brand extensions and can

norv demand appea]:ance fees in the tens of thousands of dollars (Galloway, 201 1).

The Sittration, rvho arguably arrir.ed on lersey Slnre prebranded, notl'has nutnerous

branded products, including rvorkout videos, diet supplen-rents, exercise eqtripnrent,

a tell-all book, a rap single, a clothing line, an iPhone app, lip ba1m, a lirundrl'

bag, a water bottle, flipflops, baseball caps, cooler bags, torvels, t-shirts, hand sani-

tizer, and lollipops, to llante only a ferv. He is estimated to have earued over $5

million in brand deals and endorsements in 2010 (Brr,tce,2010). Similarll',5,rooUt

has a signature line of slippers, a best-selling tlovel, a perfttme', and a diet supple-

ment, among 1tllli-terotls other brand extensious, and lvirs recently paid S32 000

to give a coml-nencement speech at Rutgers Universit,v (Hedegazrrd,201l). The

Kardashian tamili,, of Keeping tJp tvith tlrc Kardashinrts, is estimated tt.r have made

565 ruillion in 2010 as a result of the shou', pirid endorsements, appearance fees,

and branded products. In addition, the familv l-ras ir total 13 million T\vitter follorv-

ers (Newman ar-rd Bruce,2011), nhich enhances their monetizable influeuce, Cast

members of the Renl Houseryit,es iianchise have published over a dozen books com-

binecl and have endorsed er.erlthing frorn jenelry to sex to)'s (Hollywood Reporter,

2012). Irrdeed, llllZarin, one of the original cast members of the Real Hottsev'ives

of Ne*, \1trl

by f'ellorv frthe shorv ar

l\4ost of tor distriburcome at a s1

lermented tl"break out'television pdorvn a perr

channel El,

2004 by cr

becorne jr-rs

(Har-npp, 2

producers

contriicts tL

including e

half a billicfranchisingpercentase

sion, then,producers, i

and via bin,over their p

Realitl, tbecanse eyt

required toing airy ir-rlthemseives

and lif'e stoi

reveal ancl/,

ing, defarr.r,

foctuol arrdt

MT\,'Reallit the poterr

or physical

rights to threcordings,

also allorvs

and any gor

or "portrai'participatenoti-produ,program ai

l€ cultureieed, ther')6. p. i.12r

:lte theirs proi'ide

-:rs of the

*rl, at the

' :torkingihat pro-

.ing needs

: resultant

1. p. 192).

.r its orvn

: conhnes

;r lirm oi

= in orderr lunction:. is capital

i lucrative

:es a formhemselr'es

: provieledrarlar. iutorber of the

is and can

tar'. 101 1 i.

nLlmeroLlS

qr-riprnent.

a lar-rndr',-

hand sali-ed or-er SJ

rlr', Snooki

iet sr-rppie-

id s3l00i11011). Thc

hiite macl*

rrance fees.

ttcr lbllort-rence. C.r>i

rcrclks coi:: -

,ri Rettr.-rirr.

Hoti,.ull'il';r

Producing "Reality"

of New York City, recently argued that she should get a cut of anything developed

by fellorv former castmate Bethenny Frankel, because she helped bring Frankel to

the shorv and, thereby, aided in the development of her self-brand (Bruce, 2012).

Most of these image entrepreneurs, horvever, do not fuily control the construction

or distribution of their self-brand; indeed, in many cases, these personal brands

come at a steep price. While in 2005 pioneer reality producer iV1ark Burnett publicly

lamented the fact that he did not "have access to the future value" of The Apprentice

"break out" participant Omarosa (Carter, 2005), nou', almost 10 years later, reality

television producers actively rvork to cultivate mini-celebrities "in house" and lock

dor.vn a percentage of reality participants' future money-making potential. The cable

channel El, for example, has increased its advertising revenue by 50 percent since

2004 by creilting "an alternative universe of reality-based celebrities n'ho have

become just as ftrmous as the sitcom and dratna stars in netlvork prime-time"

(Hampp, 2010); rhe most valuable of these are the Kardashians. Anrcrican ldol

producers 19 Entertainment sign potentially valuable contestants to management

contracts that entitle the producers to 1 5 percent of ali of the contestants' earnings,

including endorsements and appearance fees (Wyatt, 2010). MTV generated over

half a billion dollars in profits in 2010, a significant portion of which came from

franchising ler-se1t 511ory merchandise, but provides cast rnen-rbers with only a srnall

percentage (Bruce, 20i0). The branded selves that emerge from most reality televi-

sion, ther-r, are not freely chosen or expressed btlt are strictly controlled by shorv

proclucers, both in the editing room, rvhere personas and storylines are constructed,

and via bincling contracts, lvhich effectively strip the participant of any legal control

over their person-character.

Reality television contracts are notoriously difficult to track dorvn, partially

because elreryone rvho rvorks on reality sholvs, from the star to the lorvly driver, is

required to sign a strict nondisclosure agreement that Prohibits them from disclos-

ing any information about the shorn, or its productiou practices. The contracts

thenselves often require participants to sign au'ay control of their voices, iurages,

ancl life stories. A sectior.r af an American ldol contract reads: "other parties ' . .lnay

reveal andlor reiate information about me of a personal, private, intimate, surpris-

ing, defamatory, disparaging, embarrassing or unfavorable nature, that may be

factttal anrl/or fction c/" (quoted in C)lsen, 2002, emphasis added). A recently leaked

MTV Real l4rorld contract stipulates that participation in the program "carries rvith

it the poteltial for death, serious phy5i.ol injun, extreme emotional distress, mental

or physical illness or property loss"(Dodero, 20 i 1). It grants the shorv producers all

rights to the participants'life stoly, voice, iurage, and likeness and to any sound

recordings, photographs, emails, or web sites created in relation to the prograrn. It

also aliorvs the producers access to the participant's credit history, school records,

and any government forms and requires that the participant agree to be humiliated,

or "portrayed in a fhlse light," during the program. Cast members are required to

participate in all producer-arranged press and are forbidden from engaging in any

non-producer-endorsed media, including Internet exchanges, for one year after the

program airs. They are also required to take part in any assigned book or ','ideo

447

j

i$:

Subjecrs of RealitY

projectsfortwoyearsaftertheshowends,andmustbeavailableforreunionspecialsfor up to five years (Dodero,2011)' Ultimately, a reality television participant,s

public persona, or ..right to publicity,,, is considered a form of property under the

law and, as such, is fully alienable and appropriable by others (Madow' 1993)' As

these contractual requirements shorv, urrd u, entertainment labor larrtyer Jonathan

Hander describes,,.th";;;;.r has all the reverage and the participant has none"

(personal communication, May 7' 2010)'

Inaddition,thelaborofrealityparticipantsisnotasfree,unfettered,or..real,'aswemightbeledtobelievebythenarrativesoftheshowsthemselves.Whilethereisnodoubtthatthelaborofrealityparticipantsiscreativeanddrawsfromtheirlifeenergy or personality, ii *n b" argo"a that these emotional responses and behavior

are also disciplined br;;;'"t"";e of the television camera and the instrumental'

aesthetic, and economic interests of the television producers and networks' Former

Real Housewivu of Orange CountyParticipant Peggy Tanous quit the show because

she "started getting u,,*i?'y thinkirig about all the forced drama that does happen

on occasion" (Holtywood Reporter,zllz)'And Audrina' from The Hills' has stated'

"because it's for TV y;; fo'n yo""tlf to do things that you normally wouldr't"

(Gay, 2008, P. 46).Alother anonymous reality television editor who has worked on

The Hilkinsists that, insofar as "the act of observation influences the result ' ' ' Ithe

participants]become,L*ptt'otutheshowcreatesforthem"(personalcommunica-tion, APril 14, 2008).

Given reality television,s conditions of production, then, it is fair to argue that

"the exercise of 'personality' is closer to the futfillment of a task specification than

a process of "tpr"rsi-"i

iO"r, 2007 'p'320)' Reality participants learn to "perform

to a format"; their pttfo"rrJ"t"s of selfhood are completely conditioned by the

shows, narrative conceits, aesthetic concerns, production exigencies, and sponsor-

ship imperati.r"r. rn".r.utive immaterial laboi of reality participants "is the creativ-

ity of capital. tirls .reaiivity is free insofar as it has introjected the needs of capital,

the objective constraints of the market and its laws" (Aufeheben,20a6' p' 35)' Any

affect,emotio,,,o,p".,o,alityondisplayarrivesalreadyhighlydisciplined,antici-patingthedemandsu,,d",p".tutionsofitsproducersandaudienceandexistingindialectical tension rvith its conditions of possibiliiy. So, no matter how rich a reality

participantlikeSnookimightgetfromherbrand'aslongassheisundercontractto MTV ,h" i, ,r.r., "'ttitJly

iI control of rvhat that brand will be exactly' or how

it will be developed or distributed'

Itiscrucialtorememberthat'asrealityparticipantsotrerl|rSirlivesupweekafterweek to the MTV cameras, working to become piofitable self-brands and modeling

how effective self-branding might be done, their apparently "free labor" is under-

girded and made porriUfJ by-extremely exploitaiive^labor practices behind the

scenes. Assistant editors and loggers, for example, are often locked in rooms for over

12hoursatatime,reviervingandloggingthousandsofhoursoftapeofthebrandedlives of reality p*;;;;. so, -h".".."I the narratives of reality shows and their

profit-producingperson.characterspromotethevalueofbeing..ontelevision,,,theolernorrr of immaterial work, and the promise of labor-free celebritS producerr

.rgi

:iE:

$,.(.'5

:,31:.M:

..@

'.::&,':ffi

,:w

extra(

televiinext:it carthe p

its w,

proIInumlThes,

reve

ally t

R

Therealit

onlirof so

rial I

natuboolself t

or b.

of fo

andyoulandonli:can

incr,thes

aPP'

B

has

ofrthertele'and

usuabogen

theexa-

cials

mt's'thet. As:han

)ne

l" as

re is

life

'riorrtal,Tler

use

?en:ed,

n't"ontheca-

Producing "Reality,, 44g

extract as much labor time as possible from the workers who make the show. Realitytelevision's branded selves and its precariously employed production workers areinextricably bound together in a capitalist logic that actively extracts value whereverit can in rvhatever way possible. And, ironically, as the shorvt narratiyes celebratethe promise of successful self-branding by showing off the glamorous lives ofits wealthy, successful participants and telling stori.l about tieir efforts at self-promotion, show producers rely on these myths to summon into being endlessnumbers of young peopie wiliing to work for nothing to get closer to the dream.These practices recapitulate a rvell-established truth t"hat io u*o.r.,, of dramatic"reveals" or designer duds can change: "capital needs a class of people r,r.ho materi_ally benefit from the daily alienation of others,, (Aufuheben,200e , p. 33).

Reality Television, Sociar Media, and the Reputation Economy

The processes of self-branding and self-promotion entrenched and formalized byreality television have only intensified as they have been generalized across theonline population with the rise of social media. Indeed, the plpularity and ubiquityof social media seem to confirm the centrality of socialized proiuction and immate-rial labor, and have been heralded by some as initiating a wholesale change in thenature of capitalism (e.g., see Bauwens, 2005; Benkre r, 2-006). on sites such as Face_book, Twitter, Tumbir, and youTirbe, individuals can craft a public presentation ofself that is ostensibly a reflection of their "reality" - no need ftr television netrvorksor brand sponsors - and can "monetize" themserves by working to deverop legionsof followers or subscribers. For example,youTube contributors .lun b".o-" partnersand monetize their offerings via a range of advertising options.r The number ofyour Twitter or Tumblr followers, or Facebook o. coogl.i friends, can be trackedand aggregated and transformed into a digital reputatiJn, such as a Klout score, byonline reputation managers or social media inteiigence experts. your online Kloutcan then be traded for free stuff, or, eventually, a prych.ck., In a world marked byincreasing economic and social precariousnes urrd insecurity, it is easy to see howthese opportunities to develop and invest in a potentially lucrative r.rr fruJ.orraappear enticing to many.

But the rumors of a pubric sphere regenerated via social media, where everyonehas a shot at fame and fortune, are greatry exaggerated. while there are any numberof venues where people can communicate, jlay, create, rate, rank, and entertainthemselves, the logic of accumulation we have traced in the production of realitytelevision also obtains here; the packaging, distribution, *"urur.*.rrt, valorization,and control of these expressions of seli remain in the hands of a very few, andusually not the "self" doing the expressing. In the wake of web 2.0, as mentionedabove, a whole raft of marketing ug"rr.i"q technology firms, social media interi-gence experts, and other brand managers have arisen to mine and find the value inthe data contained in an individualt social networks and affective expressions. Forexample, Mark Burnett has tearped up with a technology company to find new ways

ratran

rmhe

)r-iv-al,

ny;i-inty-ct

rw

CI

r8

r-le

3r

'dirre

:s

450 Subjects of Reality

to monetize vie.vvers as they watch Burnett's reality shows. Viewers can interact and

socialize with their friends as they watch the shows in real time, but the socializing

is organized on this platform around a "host of program enhancements, line exten-

sions, quizzes, trivia, gaming and sales experiences" (Grotticelli, 2011)- Of course,

as the platform works to integrate viewers and their social networks into the show

brand and its afftliated sponsors, it also tracks and generates lucrative behavioral

metadata for marketers. In another example, Canadian Internet start-up Empire

Avenue works as an online reputational stock exchange, where companies and

individuals can track their reputations and influence and invest in the potential

influence of others. The reasoning runs as follows:

I invest in you based on the degree to which you actively participate in online

social media sites and your social capital could pay me dividends. Indeed, I can actually

earn online currency for making the right investments in other people's influence or

by maximizing my own share price by extending my social netn'ork, posting regularly

on Twitter or Facebook, and offering comments, ratings, and feedback wherever pos-

sible - in other words, by actively developing a "self-brand'"

The eventual goal for the site's developers is to sell the data about personal influence

accumulated on the site to advertisers. In yet another example, "social-media adver-

torial clearinghouse" Adly pairs up brands rvith celebrities on social media; Kim

Kardashian receives $10000 for every promotional tweet she makes' Of course'

Kardashian doesn't really compose those tweets; the role of "Kim Kardashian" on

TWitter is played by a "hungry young tr,veet ghostwritet" (Piazza,2012), most likely

someone working at the lower rungs of her management team' In the age of social

media and perpetual publicness, celebrities outsource themselves to marketing

firms who, like reality television production companies, are staffed by invisible,

precariously employed, badly paid young workers. It is crucial to remember that'

while the labor of the Twitter ghostrvriter or the reality television logger might be

immaterial, thousands of these rvorkers are required to support every one "Kim

Kardashian"; they form the exploited underbelly of the current promotional,

celebrity-fueled, crisis-ridden capitalist economy'

Producing Reality

In the 12 years since its formal arrival on the scene in North America, reality pro-

gramming has remade the television industry profoundly. Once seen as a cheap,

iow-rent version of television, "reality" now has its own Emmy Award category and

its producers and innovators, such as Mark Burnett and Ben Silverman, have gone

orrio become titans of the industry. This chapter has argued that reality television

is a representational exPression, and ideological legitimation, of television's orqn

economic rationalizations. lts production practices extend post-Fordist capitalism's

desire to externalize, make fiexibilize, download, or, indeed, entirely escape its labor

costs, and many of its texts serYe to promote television's own codes of visibility and

prorrsignitalso r

tablemarkhelpan ineditoand r.

Inth. g

the kzomtTher,or sel

socia

inchcIndetgogy

ordervalor

Bucause

syster

its br

para(

Reali

time.NCSS '

So, al

studi,indee

sites :

lSe2Se

Arvidi

'iLi '

:1:.

+,

a,}l,

a:''i,

,,.'ii,

*:lir, :

,tt:

l.r,::i

,:-tl

.:;.

iti! :

.ltlil

ti!..r,1l:.

r.:l,i:',

:'tl:t.

.::)li:.'.l].",l

',iri..:

. ,i|.: l

:ti6:

,.

.,::iril'

l:il$:r,

.:LS.'i rlr".r:jXS,.

,;r&r,

Producing "Reality" 451

promotional values, and the dream of a rvork-free l{orld. Reality programming is a

significant site of production, generating lralue not only through advertising butalso via program franchises, formats, and brand extensions; reality shorvs are veri-

tabie cyclones of synergistic marketing across commodities, platforms, and global

markets. Finaliy, via the logic of the brand extension, reality television progranrs

help to generate branded "seh'es," normalizing the monetization of being, rvhereby

an individuai's specific "personalit1"' is processed and standatdized by television

editors, producers, and netu-orks in order to be rendered functional, transferable,

and ultimately profitable.In spite of the high leveis of unemployment and precarious employment around

the globe caused b,v the innumerable and opaque sins of virtual finance capital,

the logics of promotionalism and ilexible accumulation continue to dominate; like

zombies, the1, are "ugly, persistent and dangerous" (Harvie and Milburn,2011)'There can be little doubt that the varieties of outer-directed promotional selfhood,

or self-branding, introduced bl'reality television production and generalized across

social media such as Facebook and YouTube are connected to a profound, albeit

inchoate, sense on tl're part of manv that processes of capital valorization are failing.

Indeed, it only makes sense that individuals rvould turn to the promotional peda-

gogy and aesthetic codes of comnercial media, technology, and social net\'t'orks inorder to reassure themseh'es that they exist and are worth something - indeed, to

valorize themselves.

But it is also crucial Io remember that personal ir-rsecurity is a symptom not a

cause; currentlv it is a highll. productive symptom upon rvhich a coliapsing capitalist

system, searching zombie-like for new forms of value, feeds. Reality television and

its branded content, tbrmats, products, services, and monetized self-brands are

paradigrnatic ol these ns11r proc€sSes of capitalist valorization and accumulation.

Reality shorvs are predicated on individuals' anxieties and insecurities at the same

time as they actively rvork to exacerbate material insecurity and rvorkers'precarious-

ness via their "just-in-time" production models and endless promotional appeals.

So, as large quantities of interchangeable peopie churn through realiti'televisionstudios keeping the profits rolling, in 2012 a new social and econotlic "reality" has

indeed been produced; processes of individual self-production have becorne central

sites for the extraction of economic value.

Notes

See details at 1vw1\,.youtube.com/ytlcreators/partner.html.See details at http://klout.com.

References

Lrvidsson, A. (2005) Blar-rds: a critical perspective, Jou'nal of Consunrcr Cubure, S (2), pp.

325-358.

452 Subjects of Reality

Aufeheben (2006) Keep on smiling: questions on immateriar rabor, 14, http://ribcom.org/Iibrarly'aufheben/aufheben-1+-zooolt ".p-on-smiling-quesrior.rs-on-immaterial-labour(accessed June lB, 2013).

Bauder, D. (2012) Are you r.vatching a TV sholv or a commerciar? Advertisers are paying toplace products into shows, aithough some groups are bristling, Los Attgeres Times (Feb-rtary 2), p. 12.Baurvens, M. (2005) The political economy of r

.ctheory.net/a,,id;.;,p.?,c=;;;';:::,::ffi;:',"r5[1, ctheorv oa,,arv 12), www

Beljafante, G' (2009) west coast fashonista takes on Manhattan, N4anolos in tow, New yorkTimes (lanuary 4), tr'rzw.nytimes.com/200 9lula5/artsltelevision/05city.html (accesseclIune 18,2013).Benkler' Y' (2006) The l4realth of Networks: How social productiort Tiansforms Markets andFreedom, Nelv Har.en, CT: yale University press.Boltanski, L' and Chiapeilo, E. (2005) The Neiv spirit of capiralrs,u, London: verso.Bruce, L. (2010) Jersey Sioret situation to earn $! mii in 26rc, noUyrro))

^rporrrr(August23), wrvrv.hoilyrvoodreporter.com/news/jersey-shores-siturtiorr_eurn-5-26940

(accessedIune i8,2013).Bruce' I' Qa12) Reat Hottsetvives of New York's lillZarin dishes on her firing; rvants finder,.sfee for Bethenny Frankel, Hollywood Rrport", (Januarv 4), rvw,rv.hoiiywoodreporter

ffit'"t"tal-housewives-new-york-jiil-zarin-i'tervie ou-zlzna (a.c.sr.d June 1g,

Buss, D. (2012) "Escape Routes" reality TV sholv opens strong, as Ford sees it, Forbes (April2)' r'rvw'forbes'com/sites/dalebuss/2012/04/02/escape-routes-reality-r\-opens-strong-as-ford-sees-it (accessed lune lg, 2013).

carter' B' (2002) Agent offers one-stop TV production, New york Tintes(March 11), Busine.s.sp.14.carrer' B' (2005) Tough .dor

i^r yl! takes reaiity TV into the ring, Ne*, york Times ,anuary

jll;r**"nimes'coml2005/011t7/business/media/l7nbc.Ltd (accessecl ]une 18,

Chozick, A. (201 1a) Media decoder; Viacomt earnings, fueled by ,.Tr.ansformers,,,

ju mp 33o/o,New York rlrnes (No-vember^r 1), http://query.nytirnes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940cE3D7 I 53FF93 2A257 52C1 Ag 67 gD Bi63 io.."rr"a Iune I 8, 20 1 3 ).chozick, A. (20ub) Tioiling oyerseas ro. rv.nn."pts to mine, New yorkTiries (November20)' rfivw'nltimes'com/2011/11/21lbusiness/media/trolling-overseas-fbr-concepts-to-

^.. -^ -lr..ha-1?pagervanted=all (accessed June i g, 2013).

Clifford, S. (20i 1) Abercrombie vtants off Jerseyjlror, (*irrt _rvink), Ars1i, yark Tintes(August17), r'rvrv.nytimes. com/201rfigrig/busi'ess/abe.crombi"-off".r_;.rr"r_rrr".e_casr_a_

. paid-non-product_placement.html (accessed June lB, 2013),Dodero' c' (2oll)we have obtained a copy ortr,trvs standard Realr4orklcast-membercontract' village voice (August 1), http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscaredl20lll0B/mtr _rea\_rror\d.*con\ttc\.p\p \accessed, \une \8, 1S\3) .

\surrrrus,\. \a\\\) \\e rt\uerrcer,Nerv york Tinres Mogoziire \Ns.rercrber z\, p. 3a.Dorvling, E. (2007) Producir.rg the dining experience: rneasure, subjectivity and the affective

worker, Ephentero, T (1), pp. 1i7-132.Dyer-Witheford, N. (199a) Autonomous \,larxism and the information society, Capital aru1

Class, \B(1, pp. Bi-\25.Dler-'N'rtlletsr\,N.\2\S\)\-r'crp\te,rsrrratetra\\a\out't\e\e\ csm\o\qa\rossan&t\reg\s\'l\

rvorker, Rethinking Marxism, 1 3 (3-4)' pp- 70-80'

,:)

1

,:

Elisberg, tr

.huff,(accer

Elliott, S. (

TinrcsElliott, S. (

businrElliott, S. (

?qi a

Esser, A. (2

tion, B

Estanque, IcenturCroati,

Flint, I. (20

. Times

(access

Friedman,V

21), llr,18,201

Gallo.rvay, S.

pp.42-Gall I. (2008

to love,Gelles, D. (2

wr,rrv.ft.(accesse

Goldman, R.

(3), pp.Gorman, B. I

broadcar

.zap2it.c

-streak-i

Grotticelli, Msocial n:

engineer

-time-soHampp, A. (2

nettvorkAg" (Eel-el\ALt

H.ar&,\{.;Hardt, M.

York:Harve.v, D.Harx'r1]

aLrt

iiiri:,

ry

,t-

'd

kl

lst

ed

,r's

ter18,

)fli

IESS

rar)'

18,

3oia,

40c

nber

i-to-

lgust

st-a-

mber

1/08i

ective

i and

global

Producing "RealitY" 453

.'.

,.11

,l:.

*'.n

...

Elisberg, R' (200S) The amazing reality of "reality" TY' Huffingtor Posr (August 12)' wlwv

.huffingtonpo,,'t"Jltu3"-1-eiisberg/th "-u*u'ing-'"ality-of-re*b-i18433'html

,u,",:::l'fi $Ji,;li;l? i'1]"*"" on rearitv rv seems someho\\' more rearistic' N ew York

Tirires (Jaluary 23), Advertising p' 3' dow to alter the

Elliott, S. (2008b) Viewed froin all augles' who rvon? Ad agencies see a w1n

business of t.t.t'i'i*, N'* York"Tinrcs (February 12)' Adverthingp''1'

Elliotr, s. (2012) This ,ir;;;h. co-brand makes it into the title, Nerv York Tines (February

29), Advertising p' 3' 1 1,r-^r ^^-t,ot Dnnrt

Esser, A. (2010) Television formats: primetime staple' global market' Popular Contntunrca-

tion,8 (4), PP' 272-792'

Estanque, E. ancl Costa,-io' ("") Labour re-lations and social movelnents in the 21st

centur)', in D. erasga (eii'l'i"i"tos**l Landscape: Tlteories' Realities andTrends'Nieka'

Croatia: inTech, PP' 257 -282'

Flint, ]. (2010) Even *'iJt-tlomerican ldol" cant be bought for a song' Los Angeles

Tirrres(}uly6),http://articles'latimes.com/20i0/juli06/business/la-fi-ct.idol.20100706(accessed June 18, 2013)'

Friedman,\A/- (2011) Peacock plumage: NBC 4Q.profrts soar 3B7o' M edia Daily News (January

21), rr,r"rv.medt"p";;:i;;lications/artic letr433g4titaxzz2WZlNUlvi (accessed June

o.,,i:;r1!'/;0r) Three da.vs in the rife of a drama queen,Hollvttood Reporter (J.o.'v 22)'

""n llrt'o;1,1.t;n., for rear?r why MTV's Ttte Hillsis ttre shorv vou love to hate - or hate

' io ior., RollingSfone (lvIay 15)' p' 40-4B'-

Gelles, D. (2010) N4TV ;;* to fotu' o" youth brandin g' Financial Trmes (September 28)'

rvnnr,.lt.comlc*rlri,in.trr3 ta-cbld- t tdf-SScO-Odt++feab49a'html#axzzlusUPVjn5

".,0|,1,* [ll5iii:'3](zooo) cupitu's brandscape s, totrnat of cotrsunrcr cutture' 6

(3)'pp'327*353"eseason'achieveslongestrvinningstreakinGo.rr-rarr, B. (2011) Fox rtins seventh consecutN

broadcasthistoryamongadultslS-4g,TVbytheNun$ers(way26),http://wbythenumbers.zap2it.coml20r.iirliiirrr-r-ir.rs-seventh-consecutive-season-achieves-longest-winning-streak-in.broadcast-history.among-adults-18.49194a25(accessedJune18,2013).

Grotticelli,]V1'(2011)Pro<lucerMarkBurnetttocreatenervshor,vincorporatingreal-timesocial media lr,t.ru.tion, Broadcasting Engitteerittg (December 19), http://broadcast

engineering.c"*;;;.r;16"duc.r-,ro.k+,r?n.r,-.r'-.u,.-r,ew-shorv-incorporating-real-tiu-re-social.nredia-interaction(accessed,Iune18,2013).

Harrrpp,A.(2010)Forgetbigbudgets,,,,.,,..',*t,.,utcanteachbroadcast:hor,vthecableneflvork scored by creating stars from scratch with reaiity prograrnming, Advertisirrg

Age (February r;ltd;;."."v*,ia.i*.diaworks/broadcast-w-nbc-learn-cabler-.lt+tS:+ (accessed June 1B' 2013)'

Hardt, M. ona N'g'i,;i (iaoil s*pi"' cambridge'1vIA' "']11-"'.:iversitv

Press'

Hardt, M. and Negri, A' (2004) Multitude: War inrt Democracy in the Age of Ernpire'Net^r

York: Penguir.t'

Harvey, D' (1990) Tlte Conditiott of Post-modernity'Oxford: Rlackweil''

Harvie, D. and ilaiibur'' "'

i'o" j The zomble of neo-liberalism can be beaten - through

nrass direct ac tion,The Guar;ioil (Augost al,*r*r.g*ardiun.co.uk/commentisfreel20l l/

aug/04/neolib.rrii"".z"*uie-action-phone-hacking (accessed July 3, 20i3)'

:r't

tia

lii:

l:::.

.r*:

*:

!.

' .iL:

.,t

,.i:,

'.ii

'r".

:.lll:

.s.

:j!

Hearn, A. (2006) "Iohn, a 20-1ear-ord Boston native rvith a greiit sense of hun.rour,,: on thespectacularization of the "self" and the inco.poration of identitr- in the age of realitytelevision, Internctianar rotrnnr of iutedirr anrl'ctrturnr ,;kth';'(r';: pp. 131-r47.Hearn, A. (2008) Meat, mask, burden: probing trre contours of the brande 4 serf, JoLu.rnr ofConsunrcr Culture, g (2),pp. 197_217.Hearn, A' (2009) Hoaxing the "real": on the metanarrative of reality television, in s. i\,lurray

and l. Ouellette (eds), Reality TV Rennking klet,ision Culture,2nd edn, Nerv yor*:New Yorl< University press.

Hedegaard, E. (20rr) snookir rhe lonely days ancl crazy nights of America,s no. i party girr,Rolling Stone, 1726 ( 1 7 March), pp. 39*47 , 21.

Hollytvood Reporter (2012) Catfights, controversl., fir'ings: the untold story behind Bravo,shalf billion dollar "Real Houservives" franchise" (January 4), .rwvrv.hollyrvooclreporter.com/ne*,s/real-houseu,ives-bravo_andy_cohen-cower_27g072 (accessecl.|une 1g,2013).Holt, D. (20o6) Torv;rrd a sociologv of bianding, Jotrrttar os co,rrrrr,rr"r-cttlttrre,63, pp.299_302.

hrternationai Labour Orgarization (2012) Global emplol.ment outiook, April 2012 projec_tiorrs, r.vrT v.ilo.org/empelmipubs/\{clv1S _179663llang-en/index.htm (accessed }une18,2013).

454 Sub.iects of Reali4,

]ames, N{. (2012) Company town; CBS profit soars on nelv2), Business p. 3.

media, Ios Angeles 7}rue-s (N.Ia1.

King, B. (2007) lvlodularitl'and the aesthetics of self-cornmociification, in A4. Beaumont, A.Hemingwal,, E. Leslie, and J. Roberts (eds), As Rarl/c al as Realit), Itself: Essays ou Mrtrxisntand Art Jor the 2jst Cetffur1,, Nerv york: peter Lang.

raisr (2008) \\rGA faces lealitl' (JLrl1' 17), http:/llaist.corn/2008/07l17lwga_faces_reality.php(accessed June 18, 2013).

Lazz-arato, x'{. (1996) Imn.raterial labour, in p. virno ar-rd A. Negri (ed.s), Rarticat Tltouglttin ltaly: A Potential politics, N,rinnearpolis, N,IN: univer.sity of },4innesora press, pp.132-146.

illadon', tuI. ( i 993 ) Prir.are orvnersl'rip of public image: popular cuitnre anci publicitl, rights,Calfornia Low Review, S1 (1), pp. t27_240.

N'lagder, T. (2004) The end of TV 10i, i. s lv{urray a,d L ouelette (eds), Reu[it1, T\/: Rentak-it'tg televisiort uiture, Neiv york: Nerv york University press.

N1anly, L' (2005) On television, brands go from props to stars, Nerr york Tirrrcs (october. 2),Business p. l.

Neiisen, B' and Rossiter N. (2005) From precarity to precariousness and back agail: labour,life and unstable networks, Fibrealhtre Jorutnl, 5, http://journal.fiblecultur-e.org/issue5/neiison_rossiter.htrll (accessecl June 1g, 201 3).

Nervrrra,, f. and Bruce, L. (201 1) Horv the Kardashians made $65 ,ri[ion rast year, Hoilyss64Reporter (Febrniary 16), lvlwr'.hslllwooclreporter.com/ner.vs/horv-kardashians-mac1e-65-million-100349 (accessed June lB, 201,1).

Oisen, E. (2002) Slaves of celebrity., Sa/otl (Septernber 18), rflfiv.salon.coml2002lA9llf)lidoi_contract (accessed June 1 g, 2013).

Pettinger, L- (2004) Brand culture and branciecl rvorkers: sen,ice rgork and aesthetic labour.irr fashion retaii, Coirsil,tptiort, Nlarkets 6 Ctiture,T (2),pp.165_18,1.

Piazza, l. Q012) How much car.r a celebritv make for trueetingi NyMag.cortt (]a,uary 2g),n'r'r'rv'vuiture .com/2a l2l0 i /ho'v- much - ca n- a - celebrity- make- for, trveeting. htm i(accessed June 18, 2013).

lrrr

.

:,,.

..:

ti-l

5.iS:rl

S;ttr

Sh:

Str

\-:

Producing "Reality,,455

he

ity

of

Podlas' K' (2007) Primetime crimes: are reality tele'ision programs ..illegal contests,,in viola-tiorr of federar raw, cardozo Arts and Entertaittrnerfi' Lalu Jourtmr,is ( r ), pp. 141-172.Raphael' c' (2004) Thepolitiral economic origins of reali-Ty in s. Murray a,cl L. ouelette(eds), Rearity TV Remaking Teret,ision cirttrrr,Ne'., york: Ner.v york university press,pp. 119_t36.

Sager, M. and Burnett, M. (2001) \t'hat I have learned , Esquir.e,l36(1), p. 94.saltmarsh, Ivl' (20r0) u.N. agencr, *,arns of a lost generation: grobal un.*proym.rrt among'voung is at a nerl' high ancl forecast to tise, Interttatiortal Herald T.ibune(August l3),P. 15.

Sauer' A' (2009) Biggest Loser brand rvins despite Ny ritttes expose, Bratyl clnrnel (No,em-ber 30), rvrft'.brandchanner.comrhome/post/2009/1 r/30/Biggest-Loser_Brand-wins

-Despire-Nl'-Tirnes_Expose.aspx (a.c"ssed june lB, 2013).shau" H. (2010) Ad-r'entures to the extreme: Tiopicala,s..brighter mornings,, stunt cam_paign ioins grorn'ing trend to'tvarcl using the Internet and"reality televrsion techniquesto promc'te prroducts, Natio,t:tr posl (/anuary 15), Financiar/Marketi,g p. iz.storl',;. (2006) tsrands produce their own,h;r, A;;;;;^;;;;;'i**._ber 10), rtir.,v'nltimes'conll2006/ I 1/10/business/media/ l0adco.html?pagervantecl=all (accessed June18, 201,3).

virno' P' (2004) d Grt t*tar of trte Mtrtittrde, Nerv york: Semiotexte.Wernick, A. ( 1991 ) prtrrtotional Cultrne,Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.writers Grrild of America, l{est (2007) Harsh Reality: wGa Repirt on stantlards itr RealityTelevisiort' r**v'rvga'org/uploadedfiles/news-and-e'entvpress-release/harsh_reality

.pdf (accessed )une ig,2013).writers Guild of America, lAlest (2008) The truth abor-rt Freemantle: Freemantle workersspeak or-rt, r'rr*-.truthaboulfremantle.corn/pg3.html (accessed June 1g, 2013).wyatt'E' Q,a9at Noslor'ingincash flowfor'i,ror,Newyorkrir'rrriu^ylr),sectionB

p. 1.

wyatt' E' (2009b ) on r}e Bi.g.qesr roser, health can take a back seat, Ne ,.v york Tintes(No,,,em-ber 24)' rnr'r""nt'titttes. coml20o9/11/25lbusiness/media/25loser.html?page*,anted=all(accessed June lg, 2011).

w1att, E. (2010) "Idor" rr.inrers: ,ot just fame but big bucks, Nery york Tinres (Febru,ary 23),wuv.nytirnes.com/2010i0rl24larts/terevision/24idoi.htmr (accessed June 18,20r3).

1y

k:

I,

s

'r

l.

I