It Comes With the Territory, Right?

“He’s not an arbiter, he’s a fan girl.”

Would you believe me if I told you I don’t like the spotlight? After a New York Times spread about my nuptials and two very front-facing career milestones, it would be easy to argue that I’m full of shit. But the truth is, I’ve always been more comfortable as the guy operating the spotlight, directing its beam toward that which I’ve felt is worth highlighting. It’s why I felt particularly heartened when Mike White deemed me a “hypeman,” a title I’ve carried with me as the most accurate answer to what it is I “do.”

Another “about me”: I don’t care much about what others think of me. I’ve tried with what I believe is great success to adopt RuPaul’s mantra of "If they ain't paying your bills, pay them bitches no mind.” I’ve always maintained that I have pretty thick skin. If you’re going to dish it, they say you have to be able to take it. And I can. Or so I like to believe I can. But for someone that purports to not really care what other people think of him, I sure do get derailed by the occasional hate tweet — an industry hazard, I suppose.

“Evan Ross Katz is really out here on Instagram like ‘I am creating a safe space for celebrities to hang out with me and one another, no handlers, no publicists — just me and photographers. Thank you Meta for believing in me when nobody else could.’” That’s a tweet from writer Sarah Hagi, who has penned pieces like “What Does Vladimir Putin Smell Like?” for the numerous websites she writes for. Her above tweet has 1.3K likes and 274K views, so it’s in that sweet spot between throw-away and viral. She followed it up by adding: “I have no beef with this guy btw, I just think celebs do not need a safe space right now.”

I could argue the illegitimacy of her claim — that I never used the word “safe space” nor purported to have created such an environment — or how using an Elon Musk-owned platform, of all places, to deride my work with Meta is a bit sanctimonious. My intention with the “no handlers, no publicists” policy at the Chaos Dinner, as explained in my essay about it, was to remove the sense that this was an industry event. The intention was, as stated, to create something more buttoned-down than a standard celebrity-filled gathering which often feels more obligatory than fun. Yes, it’s true, we hired a Getty photographer and posted a bunch of images from the event. But that’s the trade-off in getting funding for an event of this scale.

But let me be clear: It’s not the tweet that upset me. It frustrated me, sure, but again, comes with the territory. It’s the quote tweets that jumped at the opportunity to knock me down a peg.

“I have been looking forward to this,” read one.

“It’s finally time,” read a second.

Another: “Why is his IG like that…”

Another: “This guy sucks.”

Another: “I hate him because he says ‘lensed’ instead of photographed.”

Another: “He’s the worst, sorry.”

Another: “Never has a pick-me social climbed this desperately and capitalistically at once.”

Another: “It’s so cringe.” 

Another: “He should be publicly hanged.”

I’ll be honest, outside of the desire to have me killed, these didn’t bother me too much. But then I clicked to see who was “liking” some of these tweets and discovered they were people that I know. Writers who I’ve met, whose work I’ve read, and who I’ve had convivial relationships with online. They were offering a public co-signing of my public flogging. I wanted to message one of them and ask what gives, but it felt too steep a descent after already looking up my name and then searching for “likes” on quote tweets. It all felt a little “time to touch grass” to me. But it affected me nonetheless. I put it to bed as I prepared for my honeymoon, reminding myself, again, that this comes with the territory of being an increasingly public-facing person.

Days later, it happened again. 

I arrived in Playa del Carmen for my mini-moon with my husband with the intent to log-off entirely when a friend directed me toward a multi-story Instagram post from Maxwell Losgar’s Instagram. Losgar, according to his website, is Entertainment Director at Hearst where he oversees the editorial bookings for Cosmopolitan, House Beautiful and Women’s Health. He has me blocked, go figure, but my friend was “kind” enough to send it to me so I could see. Thanks? 

Slide 1:

Since Evan actually makes a living off social… how major would it be if magazines and studios and photographers started sending him cease and desists? Like… stop posting our work for profit. You aren’t a fan site. You’re “working.” And you do not own the rights to these images.

Slide 2:

For context: Accounts like Evan’s are directly responsible for the declining traffic in publishing, despite people like him regularly profiting from our work. He never links back to the source (I’m talking an ACTUAL link to the articles he rips from, not just a “lensed by” caption) and his viral posts wind up with more engagement than the media entities responsible for the actual bankrolling and creation of everything splashed across his profile. And his engagement unfortunately never leads to any measurable success for the media brands he’s stealing from because his followers have the attention span of goldfish and don’t seek out where it all originated from… they take it all for granted and move on. And on top of the blatant theft… there’s no actual POV. His quips are seldom clever. He’s either gaying out over pop divas or thirsting over hot men… There’s no clear sense of self. It’s very shallow because he’s not an arbiter, he’s a fan girl. And he’s hurting the industries he wouldn’t exist without.

This stopped me in my tracks. I’d never heard of Maxwell Losgar, so naturally I was a bit startled by how much he had to say about me. (I’ve since reached out to Losgar to facilitate a conversation. Losgar was, kindly, receptive — though was quick to note that we had met twice in the past, instances I clearly don’t remember.) At first I got defensive. The posts, after all, felt incredibly mean-spirited by intention — especially calling my hundreds of thousands of followers out for having the attention span of goldfish (something I’d refute). Shots fired aside, I think he made some points worth considering, untactfully as they may have been made.

I recently posted a meme I made of Law Roach being interviewed on Extra TV by Adam Glassman. As I often do, I selected a soundbite from the interview, screenshotted the accompanying visual, overlaid captions and shared it on my page.

I offered no point of view, as Losgar accused me of, and only wrote: “Law Roach on sourcing archival pieces from vintage clothing stores: ‘How we look at it is that we’re supporting small businesses. I think it’s unfair to borrow things from people who use those clothes as their livelihood.’” The post has amassed over 100K “likes,” over 5x the view count on the actual interview. And though I tagged both ExtraTV and Glassman, as Losgar also pointed out, I wound up with more engagement than the media entities responsible for the actual bankrolling and creation of this piece of content.

More on Losgar’s points: “How major would it be if magazines and studios and photographers started sending him cease and desists? Stop posting our work for profit. You aren’t a fan site… and you do not own the rights to these images.” He’s right. I do not own these images. And though I do not directly profit from disseminating them, it does lead to more engagement and discoverability which directly lead to paid opportunities for me on the platform. So again, he’s not wrong. Should the magazines, studios and photographers send me cease and desists? It’s something you’d have to ask them. I’ve had instances where magazines have reached out asking me to take something down because I beat them to the punch of sharing their own content. I always comply. I’ve been thanked on many an occasion by a studio or photographer for helping to distribute their work to an audience that perhaps would not have seen it had I not signal-boosted.

But I can reason with Losgar’s underlying point, which is that I am benefitting and ultimately profiting from work that is not my own, that I had no hand in creating and that often does not generate profit for those who made it to the degree they deserve. My intention is celebratory, but I can understand how it might not feel that way to those who do not reap the same privilege of having a large following. My argument would be that I always tag and credit. But the counter-argument would be that that doesn’t amount to a meaningful enough conversation to alter anyone’s bottom line other than my own. So what’s the solution? Do I stop posting magazine spreads? Perhaps. I seldom post covers or the same images from a magazine, often trying to choose images that were featured in-book but didn’t make it to the brand’s grid. But perhaps I ought to rethink my strategy. Perhaps more effort ought to go to me re-sharing images instead of distributing them on my own page. 

Are accounts like mine directly responsible for the declining traffic in publishing, as purported by Losgar? That’s a harder argument to prove with facts. But I understand where he’s coming from. With the PopCrave-ification of social media (of which I sit somewhere in that ecosystem), sources increasingly matter less. It’s content in favor of context. But I also don’t think it’s entirely fair to blame accounts like mine. The lead story on Cosmo’s website on May 28th dates back to May 23rd: “19 Best Memorial Day Clothing Sales to Shop This Year.” On that list: Amazon, Zappos, Walmart and Target. The lead story when I clicked on “Celebrity News” was a Sabrina Carpenter profile from two months ago. 

This to say it seems declining traffic stems from more than just my social media presence. There has to be some level of culpability from media organizations, and those who run them, around what I see as an overall decline in quality. (There are, of course, outside factors: the measly pay, the rise of the permalancer, the lack of editorial rigor once associated with the job, etc.) It also must be noted how folks like Hunter Harris, Amy Odell, Emily Sundberg and more have evaded traditional media gigs in favor of creating their own profitable entities.

Losgar then goes on to say that my engagement never leads to any measurable success for the media brands I’m “stealing” from because my followers have “the attention span of goldfish and don’t seek out where it all originated from… they take it all for granted and move on.” Besides the obvious tactlessness, this fails to recognize the ways in which my content can and does lead to engagement for the media brands. Ask Mike White or the creators of Jury Duty, for instance. Meme culture, as I argued in my Chaos Dinner speech, can lead to meaningful discovery and conversion. I hear this all the time.

Lastly, Losgar accuses me of having no actual POV and no clear sense of self. He calls my quips “seldom clever” and “very shallow.”

“He’s not an arbiter, he’s a fan girl.” That’s his opinion, obviously. But I own that last jab. I am a fan girl. And proud of it. And I do have a POV and a clear sense of self. It may not be evident in every caption, but there is effort and intent. And my career isn’t just Instagram. I host two podcasts. I have this here newsletter. I have a full-time job at Warner Records. I have a very exciting partnership launching later this year that was born out of my “fan girl” energy and converted into an actual job I was chosen for because of my POV and clear sense of self. I’ve written cover stories for New York Magazine, profiled James Marsden, Ali Wong, Katy Perry, Bowen Yang and more. The Hollywood Reporter recently called me a “go-to Hollywood influencer” and “social media star.” Sorry ‘bout it! 

I might not have a point of view that you like or respect, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have one. 

I think Losgar makes some important points, ones I’ll definitely consider as I strategize around future content, always working with the intent to celebrate and uplift others and their work. But the jabs at me and my followers’ intellect do little to bolster what is an otherwise compelling argument about who gets to profit from what content in 2024.

I look forward to sitting down with Losgar in the coming weeks, as it’s ultimately a priority of mine to build bridges and talk to as opposed to talk at those who disagree with me or my perspective. If I’m hurting this industry, as purported, I’d like to better understand what Losgar is doing to help this industry. Again, I don’t think he’s off-base entirely and I find his willingness to have a conversation genuinely admirable. I have a feeling this is more of a conversation starter than some kind of conclusion.

Until next time.

XOXO,

Fan Girl