The above two are right, but if the Internet today into a new "society", or even compared to the "new energy" is too funny.
Strictly speaking, computers began to appear in first-tier cities in China in the late 1980s, and the Internet began to be used in the 1990s. But in relatively developing areas, it was only after 2010 that the Internet became widespread. For the population of first-tier cities, basically, the Internet has been used as a living and working appliance for a long time, and most people from children to 70-80 years old are not strangers to the Internet, and most of them use it.
So, people won't understand the Internet in isolation from real life. A celebrity that reality knows and likes is still a celebrity whether he is on the internet or not. But if someone you don't think of or don't know is packaged as a "star", they may not be defined as such, regardless of whether they are on the Internet or not, and whether they are on the Internet in a large or small amount of water.
But for those who are new to the Internet, they may see it as a brand new field, or even as something so advanced that it will replace the realities of today's society, rather than complementing its functions. It is possible for them to understand whether they recognize the real society as the same as whether there are people who pay attention to them on the Internet. This kind of friends will think that the network is not popular enough is not a star, online water flow is very large, even very ordinary people are traffic stars and so on.
This point is more obvious in the microblogging, in fact, the amount of water is too large and false persona is not necessarily pleasing. Many of the reality of making a movie are tens of millions of pay big stars, in the above persona of the popularity of the pitifully small, simply because do not focus on this type of platform to perform or share. And many of the above stream of water amount of stars, the reality of no one knows and recognized, but was "set red", more and more like going up to play a virtual game, are the virtual world of people.
Some people say that this is the traditional media to send the water army up to mess up, destroy the network social media means, so purposely make a very messy and false, it is difficult to convince the public. Over time it will lose credibility, but credibility and trust is the first condition of survival of the media, otherwise it will only become a worthless advertising distribution platform, no vitality.
In fact, the Internet is a tool to shorten all the distances, including the distance between people, including the time distance. All kinds of platforms on the Internet, including the derivation of the cell phone, but also a variety of different characteristics of the "social circle" only. Some are suitable for shopping, some for gaming, some for obtaining information and entertainment content, etc. The current development has not been able to jump out of these categories. It's no surprise that these platforms are generating interest in people and events.
But whether or not everyone thinks of the people who get attention in these different "places" as "stars" depends on everyone's definition and understanding of what a "star" is. For example, someone who is loved and recognized by hundreds of millions of people because he/she sings exceptionally well is indeed a "star" in terms of popularity and professionalism. Then he/she should be considered a star whether he/she appears on online platforms or on TV.
Another person who pays to have all the stalls in a bazaar to post her/his picture, and everyone sees her/him at once. Switching to the internet is called swiping and traffic now, then taking a hard look, not finding anything about the person that people recognize and like, and then everyone scatters. That's a classic example of not fitting in with where the star is going, but having big traffic, I guess.
Both types of people want to be stars in reality, and get the professional value and income of a star, but as for how you and I define a "star", we can't be separated from a few of the same views:
1.There is a superiority, there are better than most people, such as professional level, or The first thing you need to do is to get your hands on some of the most popular products and services in the world, and then you can get your hands on some of the best ones.
2. There are a certain number of people recognize, shouting on the street, everyone will know who is talking about. But in the long past everyone recognized the "superstar era" today, in addition to the already famous and recognized stars, most of the other can only be said to be the public figures in various circles. It's almost impossible to find a person who can make everyone focus on her/him nowadays.
3. In today's internet world, where everyone thinks they are a star, it can be honestly said that the threshold for becoming famous on the internet is too low, and it is not too difficult for people to get on the "stage". From this starting point, whether one is a traffic star or not is not the point at all. But after the word "flow" is affixed to the word, the investment in online business can raise the price tag a little bit, such as filming a web series or something. Just may not flow stars gently smiled and said, "As long as I am interested, I can add traffic at any time, or even the star himself invested to shoot a few online dramas, but the level and recognition is not measured by flow or not flow."
Recently saw an international brand of a network of "jokes", the brand first looked for a song endorsement of its clothing, but because a song is not a flow star class, just the real world is more or less recognize and like, so they looked for a certain little boy to add inland network of endorsements, reportedly the flow of.
Objectively speaking, a certain song's temperament and representative works as well as give people a sense of professional grade, are to support the positioning of this brand. Many people want to buy it after seeing Hong Kong full of a certain song's endorsement, feeling that it is the analogous person and the representative who deserves to be analogized.
After entering the store, I saw that the flow of young boys attached to the endorsement, there are actually people exclaimed "I'm not this level and grade of people ah, do not buy." So, you really need to be careful when looking for a spokesperson, or else you'll be spending money on a product that lowers the consumer's self-positioning, and that's not a good thing.
This means that the definition of a "star" today should be one who feels like a representative of his kind, not an idol. As for traffic or no traffic, it feels like a girl discussing the number of relatives visiting each month, and it lacks the class needed for mainstream stardom.
Strictly speaking, there's still a relatively big difference between traffic (PV) and ratings (rate) and the like at the moment. Whether the kinds of stars routinely produced in ratings are equivalent to traffic characters in PV may really depend on different people's different perspectives.