Online image management has become a routine component of contemporary self-presentation. While popular media have concentrated on covering issues related to privacy, individuals in a social environment that prizes visibility face a more implicit mandate to balance concerns about overexposure against the perceived dangers of invisibility. A new class of promotional intermediaries, those that sell personal online reputation management services, have emerged to help individuals navigate the inevitability of “being seen” online with the urgency of image management. These companies apply strategies familiar in advertising and public relations to online self-presentation. This article explores how industry efforts to sell image management as an individual imperative draw on metaphors—including digital tattoo, digital footprint, and digital doppelgänger—to foster anxieties about how our digital identities are constructed, encountered, and interpreted. It argues these metaphors, which warn of the dangers of both visibility and invisibility, reveal a tension that informs popular discourse around digital self-presentation. Ultimately, this article considers how “strategic transparency” is offered to assuage fears, thereby generating a market for personal image management services.
AbidinC. (2016). Visibility labour: Engaging with influencers’ fashion brands and #OOTD advertorial campaigns on Instagram. Media International Australia, 161(1), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X16665177
2.
AllenA. L. (1999). Coercing privacy. William & Mary Law Review, 40(3), 723-757.
3.
AnannyM.CrawfordK. (2018). Seeing without knowing: Limitations of the transparency ideal and its application to algorithmic accountability. New Media & Society, 20(3), 973-989. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444816676645
AronczykM.EdwardsL.KantolaA. (2017). Apprehending public relations as a promotional industry. Public Relations Inquiry, 6(2), 139-155. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X17706411
6.
AustenJ. (1918). Pride and prejudice. Scribner’s Sons. (Original work published 1813)
7.
Banet-WeiserS. (2012). Authentic™: The politics of ambivalence in a brand culture. New York University Press.
8.
Banet-WeiserS. (2018). Empowered: Popular feminism and popular misogyny. Duke University Press.
9.
BealA.StraussJ. (2008). Radically transparent: Monitoring and managing reputations online. Wiley.
BucherT. (2012). Want to be on the top? Algorithmic power and the threat of invisibility on Facebook. New Media & Society, 14(7), 1164-1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444812440159
15.
Cheney-LippoldJ. (2011). A new algorithmic identity: Soft biopolitics and the modulation of control. Theory, Culture & Society, 28(6), 164-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276411424420
16.
CôtéJ. E. (1996). Sociological perspectives on identity formation: The culture–identity link and identity capital. Journal of Adolescence, 19(5), 417-428. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.1996.0040
DraperN. A. (2019a). Reputation anxiety: Consumer background checks and the cultivation of risk. Communication, Culture & Critique, 12(1), 36-52. https://doi.org/10.1093/ccc/tcz010
20.
DraperN. A. (2019b). The identity trade: Selling privacy and reputation online. New York University Press.
21.
DraperN. A.TurowJ. (2017). Audience construction, reputations, and emerging media technologies: New issues of legal and social policy. In BrownswordR.ScotfordE.YeungK. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology (1st ed., pp. 1143-1165). Oxford University Press.
DuffyB. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work. Yale University Press.
24.
DuffyB. E.HundE. (2015). “Having it all” on social media: Entrepreneurial femininity and self-branding Among fashion bloggers. Social Media + Society, 1(2), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115604337
DuffyB. E.PooleyJ. D. (2017). “Facebook for academics”: The convergence of self-branding and social media logic on Academia.edu. Social Media + Society, 3(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117696523
27.
EdwardsL. (2020). Transparency, Publicity, Democracy, and Markets: Inhabiting Tensions Through Hybridity. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(11), 1545-1564. doi:10.1177/0002764220945350
28.
EnriquezJ. (2013, March). Immortality, big data, and tattoos [Video]. TEDxSiliconAlley. https://youtu.be/YZ0qughIbCI
EubanksV. (2018). Automating inequality: How high-tech tools profile, police and punish the poor. St. Martin’s Press.
31.
FertikM.ThompsonD. (2010). Wild West 2.0: How to protect and restore your online reputation on the untamed social frontier. American Management Association.
32.
GandiniA. (2016). The reputation economy. Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
GillespieT. (2010). The politics of “platforms.”New Media & Society, 12(3), 347-364.
34.
GillespieT. (2017). Algorithmically recognizable: Santorum’s Google problem, and Google’s Santorum problem. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 63-80.
35.
GitelmanL. (Ed.). (2013). “Raw data” is an oxymoron. MIT Press.
36.
GodkinE. L. (1890). The rights of the citizen to his own reputation. Scribner’s Magazine, 8(1), 58-67.
HaggertyK. D.EricsonR. V. (2006). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. In HaggertyK. D.EricsonR. V. (Eds.), The new politics of surveillance and visibility (pp. 3-25). University of Toronto Press.
HoganB. (2010). The presentation of self in the age of social media: Distinguishing performances and exhibitions online. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30(6), 377-386. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467610385893
42.
HongS. (2020). Technologies of speculation: The limits of knowledge in a data-driven society. New York University Press.
43.
HowardP. (2005). New media campaigns and the managed citizen. Cambridge University Press.
44.
HuT.-H. (2016). A prehistory of the cloud. MIT Press.
JonesM. L.MillarJ. (2017). Hacking metaphors in the anticipatory governance of emerging technology: The case of regulating robots. In BrownswordR.ScotfordE.YeungK. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of law, regulation and technology (1st ed., pp. 597-619). Oxford University Press.
49.
LakeJ. (2016). The face that launched a thousand lawsuits: The American women who forged a right to privacy. Yale University Press.
50.
LakoffG. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 202-251). Cambridge University Press.
LuptonD. (1999). Introduction: Risk and sociocultural theory. In LuptonD. (Ed.), Risk and sociocultural theory: New directions and perspectives (pp. 1-11). Cambridge University Press.
MarkhamA. N. (1998). Life online: Researching real experience in virtual space. Altamira Press.
55.
MarkhamA. N. (2003). Metaphors reflecting and shaping the reality of the Internet: Tool, place, way of being [Paper presentation]. Association of Internet Researchers, Toronto, Canada. https://annettemarkham.com/writing/MarkhamTPW.pdf
56.
MarwickA. (2013). Status update: Celebrity, publicity, and branding in the social media age. Yale University Press.
MedeirosB. (2017). The reputation-management industry and the prospects for a “right to be forgotten” in the US. First Amendment Studies, 51(1), 14-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/21689725.2017.1308262
59.
NockS. L. (1993). The costs of privacy: Surveillance and reputation in America. Aldine de Gruyter.
60.
ParikkaJ. (2007). Digital contagions: A media archaeology of computer viruses. Peter Lang.
61.
PitcanM.MarwickA. E.boydd. (2018). Performing a vanilla self: Respectability politics, social class, and the digital world. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 23(3), 163-179. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmy008
62.
PooleyJ. D. (2010). The consuming self: From flappers to Facebook. In AronczykM.PowersD. (Eds.), Blowing up the brand (pp. 71-92). Peter Lang.
63.
PuschmannC.BurgessJ. (2014). Big data, big questions| Metaphors of big data. International Journal of Communication, 8, 1690-1709.
SchönD. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (2nd ed., pp. 137-163). Cambridge University Press.
66.
SchulteS. R. (2013). Cached: Decoding the Internet in global popular culture. New York University Press.
67.
SeaverN. (2017). Algorithms as culture: Some tactics for the ethnography of algorithmic systems. Big Data & Society, 4(2), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951717738104
68.
SoloveD. J. (2004). The digital person: Technology and privacy in the information age. New York University Press.
69.
SoloveD. J. (2008). The future of reputation: Gossip, rumor, and privacy on the internet. Yale University Press.
70.
StarkL.HoffmannA. L. (2019). Data is the new what? Popular metaphors and professional ethics in emerging data culture. Journal of Cultural Analytics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/2xguw
SweeneyM. E. (2015). The intersectional interface. In NobleS. U.TynesB. M. (Eds.), The intersectional internet: Race, sex, class and culture online (pp. 215-227). Peter Lang.
74.
SzpunarP. M. (2018). Homegrown: Identity and difference in the American war on terror. New York University Press.
75.
TiidenburgK. (in press). A wormhole, a home, an unavoidable place. Introduction to “Metaphors of the internet.” In TiidenburgK.MarkhamA. N. (Eds.), Metaphors of the Internet—Ways of being in the age of ubiquity. Peter Lang.
76.
VujnovicM.KruckebergD. (2016). Pitfalls and promises of transparency in the digital age. Public Relations Inquiry, 5(2), 121-143. https://doi.org/10.1177/2046147X16635227
77.
WagmanI. (2016). Forgiving without forgetting: Contending with digital memory. In PearlS. (Ed.), Image, ethics, technology (pp. 111-125). Routledge.
78.
WarrenS. D.BrandeisL. D. (1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
WoodT.AronczykM. (2020). Publicity and Transparency. American Behavioral Scientist, 64(11), 1531-1544. doi:10.1177/0002764220945359
82.
WyattS. (2004). Danger! Metaphors at work in economics, geophysiology, and the Internet. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 29(2), 242-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243903261947
83.
WyattS. (2008). Feminism, technology, and the information society: Learning from the past, imagining the future. Information, Communication & Society, 11(1), 111-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691180701859065
