that means nothing to me. sex in the city was probably just as big or bigger than Taylor swift in its time. it spawn multiple movies, quoted and talked about by millions of women. millions tried to emulate the life of those characters by actually moving to big cities, etc.. etc...
but ultimately, it was a hindrance to women in general. it was trash... just like the whole Taylor swift concept.
It is an apples and oranges comparison with a TV show and a pop artist. Loyalty to a TV show can be easily replicated with a TV show that is like the one that was replaced. You do not get emotional attachment to a TV show.
Pop artists might lose influence, but they will always have influence with their fans. They create an emotional connection with their fans that never really goes away. This is why Elvis still has fans.... 45 years after he died. Even though the Rolling Stones are WELL past their prime, they still fill arenas when they have a concert.
Emotional attachment should not be hard to understand... Trump is a great example of someone that has an emotional hold over his fans. The guy can do no wrong as far as his fans are concerned. Heck... he even convinced a couple of thousand to attack the Capitol building, that was some influencial sh1t.
Why do you think these people are paid to give endorsements? Why do you think companies are willing to pay Trump just to 'brand' their products with his name. Trump water, Trump steaks, Trump wine..... Trump doesn't make any of that... he just sells his name to the produces... and Trump's fans will buy it.... same way Swift fans buy whatever crap has her image on it.
Don't mistake the fact that men as well as women are susceptible to emotional manipulation. If we weren't you would see men buying new cars and trucks, filling sports stadiums, mega-churches, and getting into relationships with the wrong women.