You Aren’t Fooling Me: Unethical Internet Marketing and the Shift in Audiences

How Australian influencer ‘Sarah’s Day’ and her recent controversy demonstrates the shift in how we view audiences in the digital age


The morning of New Years Day, lying in bed with a raging hangover as a result of the festivities from the night before, I open Instagram (habitually, of course). I am not a huge follower of influencers, however, on this day, the Instagram algorithm blessed my feed with Sarah Stevenson’s (@Sarahs_Day) newest reel promoting her upcoming fitness-based eBook release.

The strategic marketing behind the release of this clip on January 1, along with toxic diet culture and the idea of ‘new year, new me’ , prompted me to watch the clip – and I was absolutely appalled.

Essentially, the clip (which has since been deleted) promoting Sarah’s new eBook fitness program seemed to directly target people who are exhibiting signs of an eating disorder (ED).

As you’d expect, the internet was not happy- the post was flooded with comments from concerned viewers, r/SarahsDayUnfiltered on Reddit had a frenzy, and ED professionals took to YouTube to comment on the advertisement.

Video uploaded to Youtube by ‘What Mia Did Next”, in response to Sarah’s original post
(Findlay 2022)

Reflecting on the content discussed in this week’s lecture, I believe this perfectly demonstrates the shift in how audiences are viewed in the digital age.

Passive vs Active Audiences

There is a long history of media audiences being viewed as ‘at risk’ of the content they are consuming- also known as ‘passive’.

Dating back to early forms of media, the theory of a ‘passive audience’ has existed, and assumes that, as an audience member, you don’t have the capacity to think for yourself and are susceptible to being ‘injected’ with messaging – based off the hypodermic needle model.

In contrast, the theory of an ‘active audience’ reconsiders this view and instead perceives the audience as capable of making sense of the media they are consuming.

For context, see below the characteristics of a passive and active audience

PASSIVE AUDIENCEACTIVE AUDIENCE
Does not make sense of media
Easily influenced by media
Gullible
Are ‘injected’ with ideas, values and attitudes
Actively engages with media
Critical thinkers
Decodes and evaluates media messages
Forms opinions and provides feedback

Shifting views of media audiences in the digital age

With the development of new technology and the establishment of social media in today’s society, the idea of a ‘passive audience’ and the hypodermic needle theory seems to have tapered off.

In a research paper by Hulya Onal, she summaries the shift:

New media enables interaction with the target audience during which users communicate interactively regardless of time and space. Moreover, thanks to new technology, users not only claim the role of producer or consumer of media contents but become both the producer and consumer of them in this new communication style.

(Önal n.d.)

Relating back to Sarah’s Day, I think the shift from viewing media audiences as ‘passive’ to ‘active’ is evident. My personal response, as well as the wider audience’s response, demonstrates the mass ability for audiences to make sense of the clip, rather than just absorb the information.

In contrast to the ‘old forms of media’ (such as TV), the emergence of new technology and media forms has allowed audiences to directly interact with the media they are consuming, and are therefore given the opportunity to publicly express opinions and provide feedback.

Through the use of interactions made available by social media (commenting, unfollowing, disliking, etc.), we as the audience of Sarah’s video clearly demonstrate characteristics of an active audience – not accepting the messages advertised as fact and not falling for her unethical marketing tricks.

The internet’s response to the video:


Reference List