“THESE VLOGS AREN’T REAL”
Authors: Kennedy Ümit 
Published: November 2024

Introduction – Family Influencers
Family vlogging on YouTube is a practice gaining in popularity and scope. An increasing number of couples are giving up their jobs to become full-time “vloggers” or, in industry terms, “creators”. This involves parents filming their everyday lives with their children and uploading the footage to YouTube in daily or weekly instalments for others to watch and respond to. Vlogging reflects a current Western obsession with documenting and recording the self. The digital practice of recording life on YouTube is part of a “broadcast era” (Garde-Hansen et al.). YouTube is a product of a participatory (Jenkins; Burgess and Green), peer-to-peer (Merrin), “memory boom” (Huyssen), where ordinary people are obsessed with recording and saving their lives (Arthur). YouTube, with its infamous byline “Broadcast Yourself”, allows and encourages everyday individuals to document, edit and share their lives, acting as a “memory bank” (Smith and Watson) and building autobiographical archives that we later use to identify ourselves (Eakin). 
The success of family vloggers is in their presentation of “ordinary” life that is both relatable and relational, as it invites connection with others (Kennedy "Arriving"; Strangelove). As Michael Strangelove wrote in his seminal work Watching YouTube, the appeal of YouTube “is that it’s authentic and about people” and “there is nothing more interesting to real people … than authentic stories about other real people” (65). It is the sharing of everyday ordinary life by everyday ordinary people that makes vlogging significant. This type of content is raw and intimate, deeply vulnerable, and incredibly popular (Kennedy "Arriving"). As ordinary lives gain in popularity, sometimes reaching mass audiences of millions, the practice of vlogging has been professionalised and commercialised culminating in a new industry known as the influencer (Chen et al.; Abidin). Influencers can be understood as microcelebrities (Abidin; Marwick; Turner). Their professionalisation is largely due to their ability to influence the consumer behaviour of their audiences. Brands pay influencers to include their products and experiences in their social media content, in this case, YouTube videos. This form of sponsored content has become the main source of income for many influencers (Chen et al.; Zimmerman).
Vlogging, therefore, serves family influencers in multiple ways: as an identity-forming record of family life, and a commercially viable consumable product. These competing functions of the vlog are equally important and must be carefully managed. I argue elsewhere that vlogging is an important identity-forming practice (Kennedy "Transformative"). The process of recording and sharing everyday life brings the subject into being (Kennedy Becoming; "Arriving"). Vlogging is an example of automedia (Kennedy and Maguire): the convergence of self with networked digital media and all its participants, including platform, technology, viewers, brands, and products (Kennedy Becoming). While this convergence has afforded new narratives and identities, it has also conflated audiences with markets, and intimacy and authenticity with commercial gain. Authenticity is critical to the social success of vlogging identities and narratives, and it is precisely this authenticity that is attractive to brands as a lucrative marketing strategy. Family influencers must therefore carefully manage their authenticity to maintain their relatability with the audience, while also generating an income for their chosen profession. 
In this article I explore a particular type of content that one British vlogging family, The Michalaks, have developed for their sponsored content. They call this type of video content “Silkey”. Silkeys are heavily stylised, affective montages of family life. They sit in stark contrast to the normal conventions of family vlogging: “the highly contextualised snapshots of everyday lives” which are “raw, unfiltered, spontaneous, and more intimate” (Abidin 4). Rather, Silkeys are more like cinematic feature films offering beautiful montages of idyllic family life, often shot in holiday destinations, and usually sponsored (paid for by brands). In a social media context built on a value of authenticity (Strangelove; Kennedy Becoming), where audiences are quick to reject anything they deem inauthentic (Baym), I explore how The Michalaks get away with the Silkey—how they maintain their authenticity as a real family while offering their viewers a sponsored product. Ultimately, I demonstrate that The Michalaks succeed with Silkeys in two ways: firstly, by calling out the Silkey as inauthentic, and secondly, by inviting the audience to participate in their construction. Using a method of virtual ethnography (Hine), I draw on sixteen months of footage and social media engagement by The Michalaks to demonstrate the strategies they use to maintain their authenticity as family vloggers. I conclude that in addition to its individual, creative, and commercial functions, the Silkey also performs an important function as a protective strategy for all members of the family, but especially their son, Grayson.
Family Video Diaries 
Vlogging, like blogging before it, is significant because it allows parents to share the “unexciting, everyday, in between stuff” (Lopez). Like blogging, vlogging is a “radical act” (Lopez) that brings the everyday domestic experience into the public sphere allowing parents to negotiate their roles and identities in real time and in public. While this has been celebrated and extensively explored among mothers (see Lopez; Morrison; Moravec; Kennedy Becoming), the same is true for families who participate in sharing life and finding connections and community online. The resulting content is intimate and diary-like (Kennedy "Arriving"), leading vloggers such as The Michalaks to call their videos “family video diaries” (see fig. 1).
Many families say they begin vlogging in order to “document life” and “making memories to look back on”, and this expressed motivation continues throughout their presence on YouTube. The Michalaks share this motivation. In a question-and-answer (Q&A) video, in which Stefan and Hannah sit in front of the camera in their living room and answer preselected questions from their viewers, Stefan encourages everyone to vlog:

I think that if you have the opportunity to vlog then you should vlog because you’re creating an archive for you to watch back in years to come. So what if it’s been saturated, it’s a good thing to do it’s a good thing to have to look back on. (IT’S Q&A TIME)

Later in the same video, Hannah says that she uses the videos to revisit their child’s milestones, and she discusses the value of having a record of their younger selves that they can watch back in the future. “I think when we’re like 80 … it’ll be nice to watch the videos back of our younger selves” (IT’S Q&A TIME).
The first few seconds of many of The Michalak vlogs begin with the same shot, their channel name “The Michalaks” underlined with “family video diaries” (see fig. 1). Accompanying this opening shot is Grayson’s laugh (see FALLEN IN LOVE), reminiscent of the Nickelodeon laugh. The channel name over “family video diaries” is also the banner on their channel home page.

Fig. 1: Screenshot, THESE VLOGS AREN’T REAL.
The use of the word diary is significant as these family diaries are recorded daily and uploaded in weekly instalments comprising Monday through Friday. Family video diaries provide an archive of everyday family life, of children growing older, and of parents developing themselves. In this way, vlogs emulate the diary as an arena for the self: a place for self-negotiation, self-knowledge, and self-improvement (Cardell; Kennedy Becoming). Stefan often has heartfelt conversations with the camera, telling his viewers what he thinks about the issues facing the world and comparing himself to who he used to be. Family vlogs, like diaries and journals, encourage self-reflection and continual development. Even if the content is menial daily activities, the recording of them is significant as an archive of the self. Unlike the private recordings of the diary, or private storing of family objects to which memories are connected, vlogs are public and are heavily influenced by the technologies used to create them and the media through which they are shared. Vlogs, therefore, extend the genre of the published diary online, as explored by scholars such as Kylie Cardell.
Importantly, these public family video diaries are shaped and influenced by all participants in the network, including technology, viewers, brands, and products (Kennedy Becoming). The raw, intimate, daily representations of family life are incredibly popular, and this popularity makes them a lucrative marketing opportunity for brands. Vloggers have enjoyed rapid success in recent years, building large communities with millions of followers (Chen et al.). This success has resulted in the professionalisation and commercialisation of vlogging (Abidin; Hou; Chen et al.) and the age of the influencer and microcelebrity (Marwick; Turner). Crystal Abidin writes that “family influencers on social media are a new genre of micro-celebrity … chiefly premised on being ordinary, everyday, and mundane” (4). Unlike the mainstream entertainment industry, their content production is self-directed and shared on social media (Abidin). The professional role of family influencers significantly impacts their family video diaries.
“Make It Silkey”
Peppered throughout their family video diaries are what The Michalaks call “Silkeys” (fig. 2). Silkeys are heavily produced, aesthetically beautiful, affective montages of family life. They include filters, multiple camera angles, and special effects. They require specialised camera equipment, and rather than narration or background noise, they are often edited with emotive music to enhance their cinematic and affective quality. Silkeys sit in stark contrast to the raw, unfiltered, intimate snapshots of family life and they serve The Michalaks in multiple ways.

Fig. 2: Screenshot, THESE VLOGS AREN’T REAL.
Silkeys serve The Michalaks as an opportunity for individual creative expression and development—particularly for Stefan, an aspiring filmmaker. They form a significant part of the family’s success, as they attract both sponsorship and views. Silkeys could be understood as what Abidin describes as “anchor” material, that is material “produced with more care and effort, utilizing higher end equipment such as moving image recorders, audio mixers, lighting, and props” (4). Abidin suggests that anchor material is the primary product of family influencers, generating the most views and success. In contrast, “filler” material features “raw, unfiltered, spontaneous, and more intimate” (4) snapshots of domesticity, which Abidin argues is crucial to maintain an impression of an amateur.
Abidin’s discussion of anchor material and filler material outlines two different kinds of videos produced by family influencers, where one (anchor) is the money-making material and the other (filler) is the authenticity-maintenance (or social-survival) material. The Silkey is different, however, because rather than creating separate videos for Silkeys, The Michalaks use Silkeys throughout their video diaries. Silkeys are short montages that feature within the family vlog. Filler material bookends the Silkey, highlighting the contrast between the two.
While some researchers argue that filler material is carefully constructed to create an impression of the amateur, and exists entirely for the purpose of maintaining authenticity and relatability (Hamilton; Abidin), I suggest that The Michalaks have alternative, and much more successful, ways of maintaining authenticity (discussed in the last section). And importantly, rather than simply generating an income, the Silkey serves critical functions in addition to sponsored entertainment. One of the most important functions of the Silkey for The Michalaks is as a strategy to protect their son, Grayson.
Silkey as Protective Strategy

Fig. 3: Screenshot, FALLEN IN LOVE.
The highly stylised, skilfully constructed nature of the Silkey protects The Michalaks because it removes a layer of intimacy, creating distance between the vlogger and the viewer. Silkey representations of family life omit the tantrums, parental frustrations, and logistical mishaps inherent in family life. This is consistent with studies that demonstrate how parents manage the information they share about their children by limiting their posts to depictions of idealised family life (Blum-Ross and Livingstone; Ammari et al.; Chalklen and Anderson; Archer). The selective nature of Silkeys protects all members of The Michalak family, but particularly their son, Grayson. As Stefan suggests, part of the motivation for creating Silkeys is to respect Grayson’s privacy, as the Silkey is designed to offer a representation of Grayson that he can be proud of, rather than embarrassed by in the future.

We respect our privacy, but we respect Grayson’s a lot more than we respect ours. I mean, that’s why we do Silkeys. That’s why we spend so much time and effort on the videos is because, yeah, [Hannah interjects: he doesn’t have a choice] he doesn’t have a choice. We don’t want him growing up and being like ‘why’d you put out this crap?’ (IT’S Q&A TIME)

In a time where children’s privacy is increasingly of concern, as their world is “digital-by-default” (Stoilova et al.) and their digital footprint begins before they are born (Leaver; Leaver and Highfield; Tiidenberg and Baym; Stoilova et al.), families must consider how to navigate their children’s privacy. One of the most concerning aspects of family vlogging is a child’s inability to give informed consent, and it is now becoming clear that parental sharing of children online – or “sharenting” – can cause children embarrassment and distress (Hiniker et al.; Chalkson and Anderson; Ammari et al.). It can also have serious consequences on the child’s sense of self as it denies them the agency of crafting their own digital identity.
danah boyd writes, “just because people are adopting tools that radically reshape their relationship to privacy does not mean they are interested in giving up their privacy” (52). Social network sites, such as YouTube, challenge people’s sense of control over their personal information (boyd). As more and more people choose to share their lives online “we need to examine people’s strategies for negotiating control” (52). For The Michalaks, the Silkey is one such method of control. Importantly, The Michalaks recognise that their sharenting and strategies for protecting their son’s privacy will change over time. Consistent with studies that find that the parental right to share shifts over time as children get older (Blum-Ross and Livingstone), The Michalaks recognise that their protective strategies, and content, will change as Grayson gets older, and may one day exclude him altogether.

Hannah: I think we would probably just change the style of how we were vlogging. It would be more about what we were doing, and I think we would just both totally respect that. Once he has a choice, if he didn’t want to do it then of course we’re not going to force him to do it. It’s his life, if he doesn’t want to be on camera then I would never force him to be on camera.Stefan interjects: No way. No way. (IT’S Q&A TIME)

The Silkey not only serves as a strategy to protect their son Grayson, but it also protects Stefan and Hannah, to some degree. Although many of their videos are raw and intimate, the Silkey gives Stefan and Hannah a brief reprieve from being vulnerable. I argue elsewhere that maintaining the level of vulnerability and intimacy that vlogging requires is unsustainable long term, and as a result, many vloggers tend to disappear from the space (Kennedy "Arriving"). For the Michalaks, the Silkey extends their longevity as it allows them to present both intimate and heavily stylised representations of everyday life. However, YouTube audiences are renowned for rejecting lives and identities that are inauthentic, and therefore Silkeys must be carefully managed.
Managing Authenticity 
Maintaining an impression of authenticity is a critical component in all human interactions and this is particularly true online. Erving Goffman called this “performance management” in his seminal work The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Managing the performance of authenticity online is especially important for influencers as their success in the space, with both viewers and brands, is dependent upon it. The Michalaks manage their authenticity through transparency and by inviting participation.
The Michalaks use disclosure and transparency throughout their vlogs to signal the inauthenticity of Silkeys. They use titles such as “THESE VLOGS AREN’T REAL” (figs. 1 and 2) which underline the entire video, both during Silkey segments and raw segments. They include “AD” at the end of the title videos that include sponsored content (figs. 1, 2, and 3) to indicate paid advertisements present in the video. They also offer reminders to the viewer during the vlog, as seen in fig. 2 “make it silkey,” signalling that the content is purposefully crafted. Lastly, the name they choose to call this type of content—Silkey—implies a product that is smooth, indulgent, luxurious, expensive, and sexy. All these disclosures suggest a deliberate attempt at transparency, which researchers have found is the most successful method to manage authenticity among influencers. In their study of the sponsored videos of 200 influencers on Bilibili (one of the largest user-generated video-sharing platforms in China), Chen et al. found that sponsorship disclosure resulted in higher audience engagement. Rather than putting viewers off, they found that “sponsorship disclosure (a transparency-based strategy), alone, and in combination with platform-generated disclosure, is associated with higher digital engagement with sponsored influencer videos” (199). 
In addition to disclosures, The Michalaks extend their transparency by juxtaposing the “real” with the “Silkey”, constantly reminding the viewer that the two are different. A Silkey montage might be followed by Stefan discussing the difficulties of shooting the Silkey, or the effort that went into it, or the painstaking job of editing it. Within the same vlog, the sleepy idyllic Grayson (as he was presented in the Silkey) may later be referred to as a “savage” or a “penis” (FALLEN IN LOVE). In their Q&A video, Stefan refers to the Silkey version of their lives as “the latte version” (IT’S Q&A TIME). Discussing the conscious crafting of the vlog reminds the viewer of its nature as a product for consumption, and rather than putting the viewer off, it increases viewer engagement as the viewer is invited to view the process of creation as well as the product.
Not only do viewers get to view the process of creation, but The Michalaks invite the viewers to participate in the construction of their vlogs by making decisions about their content. For example, in one vlog, Stefan introduced a new character to the family, his brother, Keith (EVERYTHING CHANGED). As evident in the side-by-side images of Stefan and Keith (see Figure 4), Keith is Stefan dressed in a wig, with glasses and using an unidentifiable accent. The segment featuring Keith was an attempt at a new type of content, which Stefan tries often (both for content and his own creative development). Shortly after the vlog featuring Keith, Stefan released a Twitter poll asking viewers whether they would like to see more of Keith (fig. 5). Considering the result of the poll was precisely 50/50 (fig. 5), Stefan decided that Keith was “more divisive than Brexit” and concluded that Keith had “to go” (CAMERA STOLEN?). Although Keith was never a serious addition to the family, the viewers were given ownership over the content they consume.

Fig. 4: Screenshots, EVERYTHING CHANGED.

Fig. 5: Screenshots, Twitter/X @StefMichalak.
By openly discussing the editing process and inviting the viewers to make decisions about the vlog, The Michalaks are effectively inviting the viewers “backstage” to participate in the “act” of producing family vlogs. The viewers become collaborators and co-constructors of the family video diaries, which moderates the question of authenticity. While Abidin suggests that “backstage” material is equally constructed and managed, I suggest that all performances of self are carefully constructed and managed, and it is the viewers who work together with the vlogger to shape and maintain authentic narratives online.
Conclusion 
Silkeys serve important functions for The Michalaks as an avenue for personal creative expression and development, as a commercial product that attracts sponsorship and generates an income, and as a protective strategy. The heavily crafted nature of Silkeys removes a layer of intimacy which is usually demanded in family vlogging, giving Stefan and Hannah a brief reprieve from being raw and vulnerable, and protecting Grayson from future embarrassment. Considering that YouTube is built on a core value of authenticity, and sponsored content directly challenges the authenticity of a vlogger’s content and identity, The Michalaks must strategically manage their authenticity despite their Silkeys. They accomplish this using two key strategies. Firstly, they use their vlog titles, and their diary-like content surrounding Silkey montages, to call out the Silkey as inauthentic. The inclusion of behind-the-scenes footage, discussion about the difficulty in, and labour of, capturing and editing the Silkey, notes within the vlogs, and the inclusion of “AD” in vlog titles, all work together to remind the viewer that Silkeys are constructed. By being transparent, disclosing their sponsorships and juxtaposing sponsored content with raw, unfiltered content, The Michalaks maintain viewer and brand engagement. The second strategy is to invite their viewers to participate in the decision-making about, and construction of, their vlogs. By inviting their audience to participate in decisions about the type of content and characters they like to see, the viewers become co-authors and co-constructors of the family video diaries, moderating the question of authenticity as all participants in the space contribute to creating the vlogs. The consistent use of these two key strategies has allowed The Michalaks to maintain their success on YouTube for over a decade, and they show no signs of stopping.
References
Abidin, Crystal. “#familygoals: Family Influencers, Calibrated Amateurism, and Justifying Young Digital Labor.” Social Media + Society 3.2 (2017). <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305117707191>.
Ammari, Tawfiq, Priya Kumar, Cliff Lampe, and Sarita Schoenebeck. “Managing Children’s Online Identities: How Parents Decide What to Disclose about Their Children Online.” Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, 2015. <https://yardi.people.si.umich.edu/pubs/Schoenebeck_ManagingChildrensIdentities15.pdf>.
Archer, Catherine. “How Influencer ‘Mumpreneur’ Bloggers and ‘Everyday’ Mums Frame Presenting Their Children Online.” Media International Australia 170.1 (2019): 47-56. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1329878X19828365>.
Arthur, Paul Longley. “Saving Lives: Digital Biography and Life Writing.” Save as… Digital Memories, eds. Joanne Garde-Hansen, Andrew Hoskins, and Anna Reading. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 44-59.
Baym, Nancy K. Personal Connections in the Digital Age. 2nd ed. Polity Press, 2015.
Blum-Ross, Alicia, and Sonia Livingstone. “Sharenting: Parent Blogging and the Boundaries of the Digital Self.” Popular Communication 15.2 (2017): 110-125. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15405702.2016.1223300>.
boyd, danah. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics.” A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. Zizi Papacharissi. Routledge, 2011. 39-58.
Burgess, Jean, and Joshua Green. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Polity, 2009.
Cardell, Kylie. Dear World: Contemporary Uses of the Diary. U of Wisconsin P, 2014.
Chalklen, Charlotte, and Heather Anderson. “Mothering on Facebook: Exploring the Privacy/Openness Paradox.” Social Media + Society 3.2 (2017). <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305117707187>.
Chen, Li, Yanjie Yan, and Andrew N. Smith. “What Drives Digital Engagement with Sponsored Videos? An Investigation of Video Influencers’ Authenticity Management Strategies.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 51 (2022): 198-221. <https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11747-022-00887-2>.
Eakin, Paul John. Living Autobiographically: How We Create Identity in Narrative. Cornell UP, 2008.
Garde-Hansen, Johanne, Andrew Hoskins, and Anna Reading. Save as… Digital Memories. Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.
Goffman, Erving. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday, 1959.
Hamilton, Caroline. “Symbolic Amateurs: On the Discourse of Amateurism in Contemporary Media Culture.” Cultural Studies Review 19 (2013): 177-192.
Hine, Christine. Virtual Ethnography. SAGE, 2000.
———. Ethnography for the Internet: Embedded, Embodied and Everyday. Bloomsbury, 2015.
Hiniker, Alexis, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, and Julie A. Kientz. “Not at the Dinner Table: Parents’ and Children’s Perspectives on Family Technology Rules.” Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 2016. 1376-1389.
Hou, Mingyi. “Social Media Celebrity and the Institutionalization of YouTube.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies 25.3 (2018): 534-553. <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1354856517750368>.
Huyssen, Andreas. Present Pasts: Urban Palimpsest and the Politics of Memory. Stanford UP, 2003.
Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York UP, 2003.
Kennedy, Ümit. “Exploring YouTube as a Transformative Tool in the ‘The Power of MAKEUP!’ Movement.” M/C Journal 19.4 (2016). <https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1127>.
———. Becoming on YouTube: Exploring the Automedial Identities and Narratives of Australian Mummy Vlogging. PhD thesis. Western Sydney University, 2019.
———. “Arriving on YouTube: Vlogs, Automedia and Autoethnography.” Life Writing 18.4 (2021): 563-578. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14484528.2021.1927485>.
———. “The Vulnerability of Contemporary Digital Autobiography.” a/b: Auto/Biography Studies 32.2 (2017): 409-411. <https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/doi/full/10.1080/08989575.2017.1289046>.
Kennedy, Ümit, and Emma Maguire. “The Texts and Subjects of Automediality.” M/C Journal 21.2 (2018). <https://journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1395>.
Leaver, Tama. “Born Digital? Presence, Privacy, and Intimate Surveillance.” Re-orientation: Translingual Transcultural Transmedia. Studies in Narrative, Language, Identity, and Knowledge, eds. John Hartley and Wanlin Qu. Fudan UP, 2015. 149-160.
Leaver, Tama, and Tim Highfield. “Visualising the Ends of Identity: Pre-Birth and Post-Death on Instagram.” Information, Communication and Society 21.1 (2016): 30-45. <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1259343>.
Lopez, Lori Kido. “The Radical Act of ‘Mommy Blogging’: Redefining Motherhood through the Blogosphere.” New Media & Society 11.5 (2009). <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1461444809105349>.
Marwick, Alice E. Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. Yale UP, 2013.
Merrin, William. Media Studies 2.0. Routledge, 2014.
Moravec, Michelle. Motherhood Online. Cambridge Scholars, 2011.
Morrison, Aimée. “‘Suffused by Feeling and Affect’: The Intimate Public of Personal Mommy Blogging.” Biography 34.1 (2010): 37-55. <https://www.jstor.org/stable/23541177>.
Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. “Virtually Me: A Toolbox about Online Self-Presentation.” Identity Technologies: Constructing the Self Online, eds. Anna Poletti and Julie Rak. U of Wisconsin P, 2013. 70-95.
Stoilova, Mariya, Sonia Livingstone, and Rishita Nandagiri. “Digital by Default: Children’s Capacity to Understand and Manage Online Data and Privacy.” Media and Communication 8.4 (2020): 197-207. <https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/3407>.
Strangelove, Michael. Watching YouTube: Extraordinary Videos by Ordinary People. U of Toronto P, 2010.
@StefMichalak. “More Keith?” Twitter, 5 Feb. 2017. <https://www.twitter.com/StefMichalak/status/828212127085293568>.
@StefMichalak. “If It Was 90% + pro Keith I Would Have Kept Him. I Feel He’s Too Divisive to Stick Around. Thanks for Letting Me Experiment Anyway.” Twitter, 5 Feb. 2017. <https://www.twitter.com/StefMichalak/status/828268752936529921>.
The Michalaks. “It’s Q&A Time | The Michalaks.” YouTube, 21 Feb. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgElYRPMwEA>.
———. “Fallen in Love | The Michalaks | AD.” YouTube, 14 Mar. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdO5lg1NED0>.
———. “These Vlogs Aren’t Real | The Michalaks | AD.” YouTube, 21 Aug. 2016. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p2y5rQt0Kk&t=602s>.
———. “Everything Changed | The Michalaks.” YouTube, 7 Feb. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vBvk4uvTDE&t=9s>.
———. “Camera Stolen? | The Michalaks.” YouTube, 12 Feb. 2017. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5s_VO-KavU>.
Tiidenberg, Katrin, and Nancy K. Baym. “Learn It, Buy It, Work It: Intensive Pregnancy on Instagram.” Social Media + Society 3.1 (2017). <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305116685108>.
Turner, Graeme. Ordinary People and the Media: The Demotic Turn. Sage, 2010.
Zimmerman, Eilene. “Getting YouTube Stars to Sell Your Product.” New York Times, 25 Feb. 2016. <https://ww.nytimes.com/2016/02/25/business/smallbusiness/getting-youtube-stars-to-sell-your-product.html>.