“Lavender Haze” in the Airways

Introduction Taylor Swift has dominated global press in recent years through the success of her Eras Tour, her use of authenticity in branding (Khanal 234), and her choreographed engagement with fans (Bengtsson and Edlom 65). Swift has also faced criticism regarding carbon emissions, for her use of a private jet in service of her career (Olmstead 652; Hammons 154). Said criticism is often made through the lens of anti-fandom, detraction based on hate for or trivialisation of a celebrity or media property (Duffy et al. 8). While this arguably follows a long tradition of activists using the issue-attention cycle (Downs) to bring awareness to a cause, awareness alone as a tactic has been shown to be ineffective in sustaining social change, including with ecoactivism specifically (McDonald 54-55). Further, anti-fandom activism relies on outgroup hate, which has been shown to be less effective than the tactics of in-group love (Nettasinghe et al. 567) used by fan activists. While Swift’s carbon footprint is large (Haneman 210) and private jets are a broader systemic problem in the battle to reduce global carbon emissions (Olmstead 667), to critique Swift’s emissions as an individual also misses how she is functionally an enterprise (Zheng 1874) within an industry that has a broader impact on climate change (Hammons 174; Thomson et al. 13). Anti-fan criticism of Swift ignores her status as a brand, often generating media attention rather than holding Swift and other celebrities accountable or driving other direct action towards curtailing climate change. This article seeks to explore anti-fan action against Taylor Swift as a tactic of ecoactivism and ecopolitics, as well as arguing for a more nuanced approach which seeks to mobilise an already active pro-Swift fandom towards more sustainable, effective collective action. Contextualising Taylor Swift Critiques of Swift’s jet use have often compared her to the average individual, non-celebrity, emitter (Haneman 210) or lampooned said use as though she is simply running coffee errands (Hammons 154). Swift as a public figure, however, is more an enterprise than an individual. While the exact number of people employed by Swift is not publicly known, the singer/songwriter operates as the umbrella enterprise for multiple companies including 13 Management (her core management team) and Taylor Swift Tours (band, backup singers and dancers, drivers, and other crew). Swift additionally employs a marketing and public relations firm as well as regularly holding contracts for merchandising, music production, hair, makeup, and more. While Swift’s jet emissions in 2022 were estimated to have a social cost of over 400, 000 (Haneman 210), her Eras Tour the following two years was responsible for restoring some economic markets to pre-pandemic levels or higher (Hoff et al. ; Sidebottom 2), adding 4. 3 billion to the United States gross domestic product alone (Burman). The economic effect on cities that hosted the Eras Tour was so consistent and prolific that it garnered the name “Swiftonomics” (Khanal 234). Meanwhile, the tour itself became the highest grossing music tour of all time, netting 2, 077, 618, 725 in ticket sales and roughly 400 million in merchandise sales (Savage). For comparison, Swift’s ticket sales from 17 March 2023 to 8 December 2024 were roughly equivalent to Boeing’s record-setting 2021 fiscal e-commerce sales (Boeing). This is not to say that her earnings or economic contributions bar her from criticism, but rather that anti-fan eco-based criticisms draw on false equivalencies. If Swift is to be a target of ecoactivism, she should be targeted as a multinational enterprise and prioritised as a target based on her emissions in comparison to other industrial carbon emitters, with the same considerations given to social cost vs. social gain analyses. Touring, however, is not the only business Swift engages in. She of course writes, records, and sells music, but she also engages in the business of sustaining her fandom through the deliberate cultivation of a parasocial relationship with her fans. Swift accomplishes this through a very specific type of branding and marketing which relies on a narrative of authenticity (Khanal 234) and choreographed engagement with fans (Bengtsson and Edlom 65). Whether it is her expression of her values or the demeanor with which she carries herself during public controversies (Karulkar et al. 1), the fannish aura surrounding Swift is one of shared knowing. It is a parasocial relationship in which fans are meant to feel akin to friends of Swift and thus feel inclined to support Swift beyond her music. While a parasocial relationship is inherently lopsided (no one outside of Swift’s inner circle is really able to know her), Swift’s utilisation of her fans’ support is more interactive than many other parasocial relationships. Fans, for example, experience some sense of actually knowing Swift through the personal vulnerabilities she chooses to share in her song lyrics, and fans see said lyrics as authentic (Khanal 231). Likewise, Swift has been said to have cultivated a sense of “nostalgic girlhood” which evokes a sense of shared space, one which mimics slumber parties and shared bedrooms (Morris 90-91). Swift also sometimes interacts directly with fans on a more personal level, attending weddings, sending gifts, and covering tuition payments (Khanal 234). She even once invited fans to a dance party in her home wherein she served them homemade cookies (Khanal 234). Since her brand is based around authenticity, any meaningful public critique of Swift, ecoactivist or otherwise, would need to effectively attack her authenticity. This tactic was very nearly successful during a public feud with Kanye West and Kim Kardashian in 2016 which attempted to paint Swift as a liar and a snake over an edited conversation between the three about how Swift was portrayed in one of West’s songs. However, through fan engagement with transmedia campaigns, Swift was ultimately able to regain control of the public narrative about herself (Zafina and Sinha 12). She even used the imagery of the snake, and her jet, to satirise her critics (“Look What You Made Me Do”). This was before ecoactivist criticism, when the jet was being used by anti-fans as a symbol of Swift’s wealth (Lang), in an effort to delegitimise her authenticity and imply she was greedy and out of touch with her fan-base. Following the 2016 feud and eventual comeback, fans who remained loyal throughout, as well as those who eventually sided with Swift’s version of events, became protective of Swift’s reputation moving forward (Zafina and Sinha 12). This loyalty was then later extended to another public feud she had with Big Machine Records, specifically with investor and record executive Scooter Braun, over the sale of the master recordings of her first six studio albums. After attempting to purchase the masters herself, unsuccessfully, Swift chose to take a bold gamble by re-recording four of the six albums in an effort to regain the rights to her own, original work. Fans were so supportive of Swift’s rereleasing her own music, through streaming and album sales, that Swift changed the industry standard for musician ownership and reclamation of sold work, especially for young, women artists (Neal 84-85). To subvert brand loyalty, anti-fan ecoactivism targeting Swift would thus only be effective if it could rebrand Swift as betraying the public and her fans, and she never promised lower carbon emissions to either. Carbon Emissions Between January and August 2022, Swift’s private plane was at the top of the charts, so to speak, for its carbon footprint, totaling 170 flights and 8, 293 tons of emissions (Godlewski 3). However, Swift’s plane has not stayed in even the top 15 celebrity jets responsible for the most carbon emissions as of 2024 (Ring). This is not necessarily due to increased responsibility on Swift’s part, though it should be noted that, like other businesses, Swift’s public relations team has shared that she purchases carbon offsets as part of her air travel and purchases more than double what is recommended based on her mileage (O’Malley). Carbon offsets, or funding for projects which otherwise reduce emissions, are arguably themselves not a viable long-term tactic in addressing climate change, due to complexities and variabilities in how they are used and reported (de Mello 164-166), but this ultimately points to the fact that emissions by private jets are a broader systemic issue (Godlewski 1-2), and not a Swift-specific one. Even larger companies with reduced overall carbon emissions following public criticism, like Nike, are seeing increases in emissions due to private jet use (Davis), though the entertainment industry is responsible for some of the highest use of private planes (Hammons 174). The rise in private jet use and associated carbon emissions is also largely a problem of legislative failures to adequately tax and otherwise restrict their use (Godlewski 26). Additionally, use of private planes by the ultra-famous is somewhat necessitated by inadequate safety measures to protect against harassment by paparazzi and stalkers, without which private planes are the safest form of travel, and frequently the most efficient for high-profile individuals (Olmstead 663-665). This is not to say that individual safety trumps the public good of reduced carbon emission, but to say that Swift’s jet use is multifactorial and more complex than simply asking that she use the jet less. It is also worth noting that, while touring, recording, and promoting within the music industry currently relies heavily on ecologically inefficient private planes for top-billed artists like Swift, private jets are not responsible for the majority of carbon emissions associated with music production, celebrity, and fandom. Streaming is responsible for significantly more ecological impacts (Hammons 174), while the production of vinyl records (made of non-biodegradable plastic) also creates a large footprint (Thomson et al. 13). As an artist who frequently tops streaming charts and vinyl record sales, Swift, her enterprise, and her fandom do contribute to overall emissions here too. Again, however, the emissions problem is broader and more systemic (Hammons 180), necessitating activism that also addresses these broader, systemic issues. For example, one of the most effective ways to address eco-emissions due to streaming is through anticipation of and accounting for increased electricity needs (Hammons 178) versus public attention towards one celebrity’s behavior. Even if anti-fan activism related to Swift’s private plane use were to result in concrete, measurable actions, say by causing Swift and other celebrities to utilise more efficient means of travel, there would be the Jevons Paradox to contend with. According to the Jevons Paradox, focussing on resource efficiency actually has an opposite effect in that, as resources become more efficient, the use of said resources will inevitably increase (Hammons 175). In the long run, this results in more, not fewer carbon emissions. In other words, the more fuel-efficient the travel or the more electricity-efficient the streaming, the more demand will rise, thus cancelling out any gains caused by efficiency as the result of increased usage. The most effective way to circumvent the Jevons Paradox is to anticipate and legislate for increased usage as opposed to curtailing present usage (Hammons 154), with roadmaps already in existence for addressing specific types of carbon emissions. To this point, an effective activism would be one that which favours political and legislative change (Fisher and Nasrin) over changing the practices of one celebrity. Anti-Fandom vs. Fan Activism This begs the question, why do anti-fan ecoactivists continue to focus attention on Swift’s jet use if it is 1) not effective and 2) not the root cause of increases in emissions? The simple answer is that media attention, on its surface, seems to make sense, especially if done in concert with the issue-attention cycle (Downs; McDonald 54-55). By definition, however, the issue-attention cycle is unsustainable as problems which rise to a level of public concern will eventually fall out of favour and popularity again, with enough time. Effective activism takes a stepwise approach to mobilising collective action towards social change which starts with raising awareness to a cause but then sustains it using other tactics (Gulliver et al. 8). This is especially true of ecoactivism, for which awareness is not necessarily a predictor of further activism; pre-existing care for the environment and climate anxiety (Latkin et al. 5-6), including that following climate disaster events, is (Grechyna). Where awareness is more helpful in ecoactivism is in drawing attention to climate change itself (Grechyna), and even then, actually experiencing climate change and the transformation of social norms via political meetings are most associated with long-term reform. In other words, Swift’s present popularity, on the surface, seems like it could be used to draw awareness to ecopolitics, but anti-fan efforts to critique her jet use fail in the follow-through to sustainment because, unless Swift is shown to cause a climate disaster event, the public is unlikely to continue to care. Further, the opposite has been shown to be true of the relationship between Swift and media coverage of climate change, with non-ecoactivist news about Swift having been shown to eclipse coverage of important news surrounding climate change and biodiversity failures during the Eras Tours (Mammides and Campos-Arceiz 1-2). It is, of course, possible that broad public interest is not the goal, but perhaps the mobilisation of anti-fan communities towards ecoactivism is. Herein, however, lies another set of problems: 1) anti-fans are difficult to mobilise effectively towards progressive causes like ecoactivism and 2) mobilisation of anti-fans against Swift risks the counter-mobilisation of her dedicated fanbase that could divert attention away from even valid critiques, thus making a moot point of the whole ordeal. Anti-fans can, like any group, be mobilised around a cause. Importantly, however, anti-fans tend to mobilise in ways which reinforce regressive rather than progressive politics, thus reinforcing the status quo (de Souza-Leão, Ferreira, and Moura 7-8). One way anti-fans undermine progressive politics and reinforce regressive ones is by ignoring or underplaying the importance of the structural systemic causes of a problem in favour of individualising blame (Duffy et al. 8-10). In the case of Swift, the way she and her fandom are critiqued for their consumerism as “frivolous” and excessive (Hammons 154) also plays upon misogynist stereotypes about shrill women and flippant girls, at best creating divisions between feminism and ecopolitics and at worst pitting the causes against one another. By individualising criticism to a specific person or group, anti-fan activism also fails to address individual and collectivistic frameworks for activist success. At the level of the individual activist, sustained, successful activism relies on moral and identity development (Toubøl and Gundelach 25) as well as personal perceptions of success and failure (Rye 130). While one might find themselves in moral conflict with Swift’s values or actions, this implies a pre-existing identity in conflict with the singer/songwriter as opposed to identity formulation based around said conflict. It is also difficult to measure individual actions against a celebrity of Swift’s stature as the impact of individual actions would not be directly observable by an anti-fan. It is for this reason that anti-fans only seem to sustain focus when they create a broader sense of community through the reinforcement of in-group/out-group politics. Further out-group cohesion is a weak mobiliser, with in-group cohesion working far better towards motivating real, collective action (Nettasinghe et al. 567). On a broader movement-wide level, successful activism must multidimensionally engage the self, supporters, bystanders, third parties, and opponents without counter-mobilising a movement’s core opposition (Gulliver et al. 10-11). Since it is difficult to sustain individual and collective action around criticism of a specific person or brand, especially one with whom activists have no direct or even parasocial relationship, anti-fan activism must rely on turning individual dislike and distrust into a broader, more collective experience for activists to rally around. An example of transforming individual experiences of disfavour or hatred into collective action is that of the Incel community online and its gradual seeping into the broader sociopolitical sphere (Meier and Sharp). This has been accomplished by playing upon individual experiences of loneliness, shaped through emphasis on longstanding misogynist social structures, which are easily activated due to their pre-existing prominence and reinforcement in society at large (Meier and Sharp). It is perhaps also for this reason that anti-fan criticism of Swift’s impact on the environment relies so heavily on belittling her as a woman and her mostly woman fanbase. Where it is ineffective to mobilise anti-fan activists around a sustained hatred of one famous woman, it is much easier to play into a socially ingrained hatred of women in general as a means of furthering a cause that can be blamed on said women, even if that blame is baseless or grossly exaggerated. Anti-fandom also typically fails as a movement because it continues to empower targets with money and attention. This is because anti-fandom refers to groups who actively consume a celebrity or media product in order to critique it or act against it (Duffy et al. 8). Take for example anti-fan efforts to police the US National Football League’s (NFL) coverage of Swift at Kansas City Chiefs games throughout 2024. While there was a coordinated outcry from anti-fans who saw the NFL’s focus on Swift as ruining the sport, even booing Swift live, on-air, all their outcry served to do was draw more attention to her. Swift didn’t stop going to games and the NFL didn’t stop featuring her. Why, you might ask? Because coverage of Swift drew in her fanbase, one which can also pack stadiums, and increased NFL viewership (Bass 57). Again, the attention was there but not focussed on meaningful change. Activating Swifties As previously mentioned, attacking Swift in the media has a tendency to activate her fandom, known as “Swifties”. Once activated it is most likely that Swifties will attempt to counter or override criticisms of Swift as opposed to upholding them and urging her to stop ecologically harmful behaviors. This is not to say that no Swifties are ecoactivists or that no Swifties think outside the collectivist sphere of their fandom. Rather, it is to emphasise that defence/support of Swift as a person is an important part of collective fan identity and thus is likely to drive how Swifties engage against anti-fans in the ecopolitical debate. However, Swifties themselves can also be mobilised in the service of ecopolitics/ecoactivism. When surveyed directly, for example, researchers found that even without attempted mobilisation, roughly a quarter of fans who own vinyl copies of Taylor Swift's albums would consider buying digital copies in the future, in the service of plastic waste reduction (Thomson et al. 2). Mobilising Swifties would likely prove more effective at reducing overall carbon emissions than critiquing Swift’s private jet use. Importantly, Swift’s positionality within the broader political sphere is complex. Swift was once seen as apolitical and was “appropriated” by White supremacists in the West until taking firmer public stances on political parties and issues in more recent years (Huang et al. 1426). On ecopolitics, however, she has remained relatively silent. That said, even without Swift’s direct engagement, mobilising Swifties toward conservation could still be accomplished, as has occurred within other fandoms; for example, fans affecting changes to the production practices of Harry Potter chocolate frogs (Bird and Maher 23). Rather, through the process of capitalising on shared identities and values, ecoactivists could work together with Swifties towards ecopolitical goals, if fandom-informed strategies were utilised to move these potential partners through the multidimensional layers of successful and sustainable activism previously described. Fan activism’s greatest strength in sustainability is that it relies on an amalgamation of collective identity, collective action, and collective effervescence or a shared sense of belonging or fun (Cook and Joseph 69). In other words, where anti-fan activism may be unsustainable long term due to the inefficacy of relying on sustained negative emotions to drive action, more traditional fandom may be more sustainable by relying instead on a sense of shared joy, belonging, and positive emotions (Cook and Joseph 69). Conclusion While criticism of Swift may not be the most effective ecoactivist tactic, it is beyond doubt that sustained criticism of her carbon emissions has drawn attention to climate change activism more broadly. The foundation of this very article is the recognition of said critiques as a viral product of popular culture. We do not argue that Swift should be immune from criticism or accountability, but that the false equivalencies, misogynistic tendencies, and anti-fan engagement of ecoactivist and ecopolitical tactics are simply not as prone to long-term success as would be engaging Swifties directly. If anything, reliance on these may have the effect of opposite action, either by mobilising Swifties against anti-fans or by reinforcing regressive politics by engaging anti-fans in misogynist rhetoric which could further harm other causes, such as gender liberation. This is important as progressive liberation politics are inherently intertwined, meaning that to undermine one is to undermine them all. We implore future activists, politicians, and scholars alike to “make the friendship bracelets, take the moment and taste it” (Swift, “You’re on Your Own Kid”) when engaging Swift and her fandom in ecopolitics and ecoactivism, meaning that we implore an approach which considers how shared meaning-making of traditional fandom can better support the advancement of these causes over reductive and negative narratives. References Amira, Karyn, Jennifer Cole Wright, and Daniela Goya-Tocchetto. "In-Group Love versus Out-Group Hate: Which Is More Important to Partisans and When? " Political Behavior 43. 2 (2021): 473-494. . Bass, Amy. "Talking Football with the American Left: Taylor's Version. " Journal of Sport History 52. 1 (2025): 55-61. Bengtsson, Ryan L. , and J. Edlom. "Commodifying Participation through Choreographed Engagement: The Taylor Swift Case. " Arts and the Market 13. 2 (2023): 65-79. . Bird, Jackson, and Thomas V. Maher. "Turning Fans into Heroes: How the Harry Potter Alliance Uses the Power of Story to Facilitate Fan Activism and Bloc Recruitment. " Social Movements and Media. Emerald, 2017. 23-54. Boeing. “Boeing Reaches Record 2 Billion in E-Commerce Sales. ” 2022. 12 July 2025. Burman, Theo. “Taylor Swift Eras Tour: Map Shows Which Countries Got Biggest Economic Boost. ” Newsweek. 12 June 2025. Davis, Rob, et al. “After Nike Leaders Promised Climate Action, Their Corporate Jets Kept Flying – and Polluting. ” Propublica. 30 July 2025. De Mello, Fabiana Peixoto. "Voluntary Carbon Offset Programs in Aviation: A Systematic Literature Review. " Transport Policy 147 (2024): 158-168. . De Souza-Leão, André Luiz Maranhão, Bruno Rafael Torres Ferreira, and Bruno Melo Moura. "Living a Fascist Life? Purging the “Abnormal” through Anti-Fan Behavior. " Revista de Administração de Empresas 63. 3 (2023): e2022-0108. . Downs, A. "Up and Down with Ecology: The 'Issue-Attention Cycle'. ” Agenda Setting. Routledge, 2016. 27-33. Duffy, Brooke Erin, Kate M. Miltner, and Amanda Wahlstedt. "Policing 'Fake' Femininity: Authenticity, Accountability, and Influencer Antifandom. " New Media & Society 24. 7 (2022): 1657-76. Fisher, Dana R. , and Sohana Nasrin. "Climate Activism and Its Effects. " Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 12. 1 (2021). . Godlewski, Gabriella. "Private Jet Use by Celebrities Causes Climate Crisis to Soar to New Heights. " Joule: Duquesne Energy and Environmental Law Journal 11 (2023): 5. . Grechyna, Daryna. "Raising Awareness of Climate Change: Nature, Activists, Politicians? " Ecological Economics 227 (2025). . Gulliver, Robyn, et al. The Psychology of Effective Activism. Cambridge UP, 2021. Hammons, Thomas C. "Sounds Good: How the Inflation Reduction Act and New EPA Regulations Mitigate the Music Streaming Industry's Carbon Footprint. " North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 26 (2024): 153. Haneman, Victoria J. "Taxing Dirty Luxuries. " Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 56 (2024): 197. Hoff, Samantha P. , Iris Gersh, and Godwin-Charles Ogbeide. "The Effect of Taylor Swift’s 'The Eras Tour' on the Hospitality Industry. " ICHRIE Research Reports 10. 1 (2025): 2. . Huang, Qian, Simone Driessen, and Daniel Trottier. "When Pop and Politics Collide: A Transcultural Perspective on Contested Practices in Pop Idol Fandoms in China and the West. " International Journal of Communication 17 (2023): 1425-44. Khanal, Krishna. "Taylor Swift's Branding Strategy: The Economics of Authenticity. " Compelling Storytelling Narratives for Sustainable Branding. IGI Global, 2024. 230-243. . Kishor Karulkar, Y. , A. Prabhu, and H. Desai. "In the Realm of Worship: The World at Taylor Swift’s Altar. " The CASE Journal (2025). . Lang, Cady. “Every Reference You Might Have Missed in Taylor Swift’s Music Video for ‘Look What You Made Me Do’. ” Time. 30 July 2025. Latkin, Carl, et al. "What Predicts Climate Change Activism? An Examination of How Depressive Symptoms, Climate Change Distress, and Social Norms Are Associated with Climate Change Activism. " The Journal of Climate Change and Health 8 (2022): 100146. . Mammides, Christos, and Ahimsa Campos-Arceiz. "Media Coverage of Biodiversity Falls Short Compared to Climate Change and Popular Culture. " npj Biodiversity 4. 1 (2025): 11. . McDonald, Susan. "Changing Climate, Changing Minds: Applying the Literature on Media Effects, Public Opinion, and the Issue-Attention Cycle to Increase Public Understanding of Climate Change. " International Journal of Sustainability Communication 4 (2009): 45-63. Meier, Matthew R. , and Kenneth G. Sharp. “Death to Chad and Stacy: Incels and Anti-Fandom as Group Identity. ” International Journal of Cultural Studies 27. 3 (2024). . Morris, Amelia. "Drew a Map on Your Bedroom Ceiling: Fandoms, Nostalgic Girlhood and Digital Bedroom Cultures in the Swiftie-Sphere. " Celebrity Studies 16. 1 (2025): 77-95. . Neal, Jocelyn R. “That’s Why You Have to Listen to the Re-Records: Copyright, Messaging, and Fan Engagement in Taylor Swift’s Re-Recording Project. ” Taylor Swift: The Star, the Songs, the Fans. Eds. Christa Anne Bentley, Kate Galloway, and Paula Clare Harper. Routledge, 2025. 82-94. Nettasinghe, Buddhika, et al. "In-Group Love, Out-Group Hate: A Framework to Measure Affective Polarization via Contentious Online Discussions. " Proceedings of the ACM on Web Conference 2025. 2025. . Olmstead, Savannah C. "Plane-Arazzi: Balancing Remedies for Celebrities Tracked by ADS-B with the Threat of Censorship. " Washington University Law Review 102 (2024): 651. O’Malley, Isabella. “Why Taylor Swift’s Globe-Trotting in Private Jets Is Getting Scrutinized. ” AP News. 30 July 20250. Ring, Ellie. “From Drake to Kylie Jenner: Here’s Who Racked Up the Biggest Private Jet Emissions in 2024. ” The Tab, 4 Dec. 2024. 12 June 2025. Rye, Danny. "Activists and Activism Success: Towards a Grounded Conceptualisation. " Interest Groups & Advocacy 13. 2 (2024): 123-145. . Savage, Mark. “End of an Era as 'Proud' Taylor Swift Finishes Tour. ” BBC, 8 Dec. 2024. 12 June 2025. Sidebottom, Corinne. "The Impact of Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour on County Retail Sales. " 2024. Swift, Taylor. “Look What You Made Me Do. ” YouTube, 27 Aug. 2017. . ———. "You're On Your Own, Kid. " Midnights. Republic Records, 2022. Toubøl, Jonas, and Peter Gundelach. "Values, Activism and Changing Attitudes: Individual-Level Moral Development in Social Movement Contexts. " The Power of Morality in Movements (2023): 95. . Thomson, Keira, Matt Brennan, and Mark Wong. "Taylor and Turntables: A Survey of Vinyl Record Consumption, Listening Habits, and Environmental Sustainability Attitudes of Taylor Swift Audiences. " 2025. Zheng, Yanxin. "Influence of Digital Era on the Music Industry from the Consumer Behavior Perspective. " 7th International Conference on Social Sciences and Economic Development (ICSSED 2022). Atlantis Press, 2022.