So what?

Although there are different ways in becoming a "celebrity" does it really matter if in the end you all achieve this so called high status? Yes and no. I believe that if you become a celebrity through either ascribed, achieved or attributed forms everyone still ends up being adored by fans and talked about constantly in the media. Some people who have reached "celebrity" status have done so by working hard and trying to make a name for themselves without having to become a reality star or capitalize on a situation that puts you in a bad light to further their careers. I believe, ascribed and attributed are the lower statuses than achieved because they rely on becoming a celebrity by what they may have been born into such as Paris Hilton or Kat who just happened to have more children than the normal average family. Achieved celebrity status may be the most honorable way in gaining this status because you don't necessarily rely on things other than your talent. On the other hand achieve status can be bad because looks can come into play for relying of something that was giving to you with no help and can help further your career because of superficial things. While ascribed and attributed may be more clever and smarter than achieved status celebrities, because they were smart to utilize their situations to gain celebrity status without trying harder than signing a contract to be on TV.  So in the end although people may believe that some celebrities deserve their status more than others (including me), there are pros and cons to all 3 forms and no matter how they started a celebrity is just someone who is constantly discussed in the media and has adoring fans.