Doritos got a thousand submissions for its Super Bowl talent contest, and all the winner got was nominal prize money and a trip to Miami.

Was the submission any good? Did it in fact pay off to have the contest?

"The media has convinced people that fame is even more important than money."

Consider the heiress Paris Hilton, who was willing to humiliate herself by appearing on that grade z reality-tv show, "The Simple Life"...all for a lousy fifteen minutes in the spotlight.

Having said that, I fantasize about becoming famous too and I'm thrilled that Youtube etc. makes it easier than ever before.

New Unfogged collective action: Online Dating Coaches. This should be easy. Fame AND Fortune.

P. Hilton did not regard it as humiliating.

Donald Trump plays the celebrity game too, making an ass of himself jerking others around.

Little known fact: Seinfeld's Elaine is a Dreyfus and will eventually be richer than Hilton. But does she show her snatch to the whole world?

Well there was that scene on the Seinfeld Uncut tape that was circulating a couple of years back...

"The media has convinced people that fame is even more important than money."

Yeah, I'm not sure that's true. I think the assumption is that the only thing that really guarantees security and money is fame. Cf. everyone who goes on a reality show. We've just spent five years, after all, complaining that good journalists have turned into bad shills so that they can stay on TV, get famous, and rake in the bucks. If you have a valuable brand --The Moustache of Understanding!--you'll be able to make money off of it.

Insofar as youtube, etc., make searching for talent less costly, and therefore various gatekeepers less able to demand their tithe, it's a good thing, and democratizes access to money (or probably, access to opportunity that offers access to money).

This is an excellent topic, and there is an excellent book available on the subject. Check out "Hello, I'm Special: How Individuality Became the New Conformity". I think this URL should work http://tinyurl.com/249c8l.

FWIW, I think this is exactly right, and it may not be a bad thing. An opiate of the masses does stabilize society, and this one is less violent than religion.

I don't buy this at all. First of all, we're supposed to believe that friggin game shows used to be a significant redistributive force in our economy? Second, SCMT's point is a good one - one major effect of these media is lowering search costs.

Then why aren't rich people paying to be on TV?

All the niches are too small I don't know if anyone is "famous" anymore. Gerard Butler is probably reaching a completely different audience in 300 than the one that knew him from Phanton of the Opera. Y'all are always talking about people I have never heard of, since I am not one who ever watches reality competition TV. Yet how many have seen Dear Frankie?

Niches & demographics are as important as name recognition. I think John Edwards gets this.

why aren't rich people paying to be on TV?

Aren't they? Paris Hilton was always rich, but she's worked very hard at becoming and remaining a celebrity. Donald Trump, no matter how bobbly his finances might be, has also always been rich: why does he bother with a reality show? Even that weird art-collecting Lauder (Ronald?) couldn't resist the chance to be the subject of a New Yorker profile, and it ended up making him look like a fool.

Media Celebrity is a specific kind of creature that the wealthy may or may not become. The media celebrity gets recognised everywhere, even gets paid to show up somewhere, and for a while gets to ride the whirlie-tilt of boldface columns and People magasine interviews. The wealthy are recognised only by their peers and immediate underlings; that's not enough for some of them (Paris H., D. Trump, R. Lauder, and many more).

Paris Hilton was always rich, but she's worked very hard at becoming and remaining a celebrity.

I haven't seen it myself, but my understanding is that she's not working very hard in her most famous video.

Donald Trump, no matter how bobbly his finances might be, has also always been rich: why does he bother with a reality show?

Ego. He was disappointed to find out that, even though he's filthy rich, some people didn't give a shit about him.

And is there is some kind of link between rising feelings of insecurity over people's lives and the attraction of entertainment that provides the illusion of power?

Like blogging, perhaps.

The quoted Esquire letter strikes me as ridiculous on its face and whiney to boot.

(1) Corporations are supposed to hold million-dollar giveaways to create a just society? WTF?

(2) Just last week, the topic du jour was the massive powerball jackpot. Don't worry, people still want massive amounts of money. And spending all your time making Doritos commercials for free may not be the best way to get it. (On the other hand, YouTube exposure is helping some actors, musicians, and filmmakers break through to real success.)

(3) The whole user-generated content movement was kicked off by sites like YouTube and Flickr, created by entrepreneurs who in fact did achieve the good old-fashioned dream of making lots of money by providing a service millions of other people wanted. We might as well criticize Henry Ford because he only made it possible for people to drive around, while he sat back, took their money and became rich.

1. There's something free-enterprisish about the rise of fame as the ultimate carrot.

2. I think it started with the humilation-driven talk shows of the 90's. My dad and I used to debate whether or not Jerry Springer guests were paid actors. He thought yes, I said, "Why bother with actors when there's the real thing, willing to do it for free?"

In hindsight they're obviously real people, but at the time we just hadn't seen willing, abject humiliation like that before.

3. I don't think hunger for fame is a response to a lack of control in our lives. My bet is that, to many people, the modern world flips between feeling too big or too small, but never just-right. Too-small world makes you want to break out, too-big world makes you want to feel nontrivial. Both lead towards dreams of fame.

Remember those articles about how adults in some big survey had, on average, zero close friends? That's what I mean by a too small/too big world. Too few people know you well, but there's too many people total.

What Tim said. Fame and/or notoriety can very easily be leveraged into something lucrative these days, and it's impossible to achieve either without massive amounts of self-promotion. The internet makes this possible.

Are you telling me that Unfogged hasnt had a youtube contest yet?!??!?! Best video accompanying _________ song.

How about Best Youtube Video Accompanying An Unfogged Post?

(semi-regular pseudonymous poster using band name instead of handle)

I'll raise you Dylan:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fXZM3pq045Q

and Miles and Coltrane:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4FAKRpUCYY

18: poster s/b commenter, duh.

Is it the vocalist/picklist in Captain A that is the semi-regular pseudonymous commenter?

Yes. No fair IP-outing, either. This, though, is fair I suppose. The double-edged William Hung sword of 21st-century fame.