Agencies sell constant 'intimacy' through livestreams, fan calls, and curated relatability — then act shocked when a fraction of fans take it too far. Who actually bears responsibility here?
Join the debate to comment
Reading is free. Members pay to post — that's why it stays clean.
Add your commentI was a trainee for almost two years at a mid-size agency and I can tell you the marketing teams literally discuss 'closeness metrics' — how emotionally attached fans feel, how to push it higher each quarter. Nobody in those rooms is talking about where the ceiling should be. Nobody.
the saddest part of this whole conversation is that the idols themselves are also trapped in the system. they didn't design the fan call model. they didn't choose to have their 'waking up' moments monetized. they're performing intimacy because their contract requires it and their livelihood depends on it. everyone in this machine is being used by it to some degree.
I followed a group obsessively for three years — not in a stalker way, just in a 'this content was my entire personality' way — and looking back I genuinely could not have told you where my fandom ended and my sense of self began. The marketing is designed to make that blur happen. I got out when I started to feel panicked if I missed a livestream. Not everyone catches that signal in themselves.
The industry absolutely manufactures this. When you train fans to believe they have a 'special connection' through parasocial content engineered by a whole team of marketers, you don't get to wash your hands of it when someone shows up outside a dorm at 3am. That's not a coincidence. That's a pipeline.
The thing that gets me is the double language agencies use. One hand they're selling 'he only has eyes for you' fan call experiences. Other hand they release statements about 'protecting our artists from dangerous individuals.' Pick one. You cannot sell intimacy as a product and then act outraged when someone buys too much of it.
As someone who studied media psychology before falling into this fandom: the specific danger isn't parasocial attachment per se, it's the combination of parasocial attachment WITH parasocial reciprocity cues — content designed to make the fan feel the idol is responding *to them specifically*. That feedback loop is what distinguishes modern idol marketing from traditional celebrity culture and it has documented psychological effects.
Twenty years in this fandom across multiple groups. I've watched the content strategy evolve from 'here's a music video' to 'here's 6 hours of unedited footage of him doing laundry so you feel like his roommate.' I'm not nostalgic for the old days exactly but I do think we lost something when 'access' became the primary product.
The Elvis comparison is doing a lot of heavy lifting here. Those artists weren't running daily 'good morning I just woke up and thought of you' livestreams engineered by a content team. The SCALE and INTENTIONALITY of modern parasocial manufacturing is categorically different. Please.
Parasocial content isn't inherently predatory. Community, belonging, having something to be excited about — that's real and valuable. The issue is when agencies deliberately exploit attachment rather than simply enabling it. There's a difference between making content fans enjoy and engineering dependency. The industry has clearly crossed from one into the other.
Honestly the fan call model specifically is what I can't defend. You're literally paying for a stranger to give you individualized attention and act like you matter to them personally. The entire value proposition is manufactured emotional intimacy. How is that not setting up vulnerable people to spiral?
what always gets me is that agencies will threaten legal action against sasaengs but only AFTER something goes public and embarrassing. the proactive infrastructure — real security, real mental health resources for fans, real reporting channels — is basically nonexistent. reactive PR is not the same as genuine care
The real scandal nobody talks about is agencies using sasaeng information. There are documented cases — nothing I can prove personally but widely discussed in Korean fan communities — where agencies or staff have quietly used leaked location data that could only have come from illegal surveillance. If you benefit from it, you're part of the ecosystem.
That counterpoint above misses the point entirely. Nobody is saying the industry MAKES people stalk. The argument is about foreseeability and whether agencies take reasonable steps to prevent harm they can clearly anticipate. That's a legal and ethical standard that exists in other industries. Why not this one?
someone's gonna come in here and say 'just don't buy the fan calls then' like it's that simple and ignore that these products are specifically marketed toward teenagers with developing attachment systems. the age of the consumer matters for how we evaluate the ethics of the product.
That comment above is edging toward victim-blaming and I'd push back on it. An idol posting a vague location photo and a fan showing up at 4am after hacking a travel manifest are not morally equivalent situations and we should be really careful about drawing that line anywhere near each other.
'they're just trying to sell albums' is genuinely one of the most chilling defenses I've ever read on this forum. yes. that's the problem.
my friend got doxxed by a sasaeng network just for posting that she'd seen an idol at a specific café. these networks are sophisticated. they have encrypted chats, paid informants, people who work at hotels. calling it 'fans going too far' is so wildly reductive it makes me want to scream
What I want to know is why agencies don't invest proportionally in security infrastructure. Some of these companies have revenues in the hundreds of millions and their artists are being followed to hospitals. Where is the money going.
Nobody in this comment section is saying industries should go to jail instead of stalkers. Complicity doesn't mean sole responsibility. This is a both/and conversation not either/or.
To answer the genuine question above — yes, I do think structural change matters at the margins and the margins matter enormously when we're talking about people's physical safety. A 20% reduction in 'at risk' parasocial escalation is not 'just the margins.' That's real people not getting stalked.
okay but also fans need to police their own communities better. we see the warning signs in fandom spaces ALL the time — someone talking about an idol like they're in a real relationship, getting aggressive when other fans get mentioned — and we just... don't say anything because we don't want drama. that's on us too
I think the 'industry is complicit' framing, while emotionally satisfying, risks letting individual stalkers off the hook too easily. Someone who breaks into a dorm is a criminal. Full stop. The industry can be critically examined AND the individual can be held fully accountable. These aren't mutually exclusive.
counterpoint: millions of fans consume that same parasocial content and never stalk anyone. at what point do we hold individuals responsible for their own behavior instead of blaming a corporation for everything
genuine question for the room: do you think any amount of industry reform actually reduces sasaeng behavior, or is the obsessive stalker cohort going to exist regardless and we're arguing about the margins? asking seriously not rhetorically
parasocial relationships have existed since celebrity culture began. Frank Sinatra had screaming fans breaking into his house. Elvis had women camping outside Graceland. This isn't a K-pop invention, it's a fame invention.
ok but can we stop acting like sasaengs are just 'fans who went too far' — these are people with stalking disorders who would fixate on SOMEONE regardless. the industry is not creating mental illness from scratch
the idol themselves sometimes encourages it though?? like when they post their location or hint where they'll be?? I'm not blaming victims but the ecosystem is complicated in all directions
i don't think it's that deep honestly. some people are just unwell and that's sad but it's not like the agency sat down and said 'let's create stalkers.' they're trying to sell albums
Is it wrong to choose not to have children just because you don't want to?
110 comments
Would you still eat meat if you had to kill the animal yourself?
109 comments
Are dating apps genuinely harder for men or for women?
108 comments
Is judging someone by their height as shallow as judging by their weight?
108 comments