I just realised that these 'influencers' sound a lot like professional beggars. They're successful at something, right? There's no need for them to beg like that, and they're presenting it as if they're doing you a favour while they do it.
What's "actual work"? How is writing more "actual" than shooting videos and doing photo shoots (which can be lots of hard work out in the field every day)? Influencers have built an audience, and are paid for ads and promotional deals. This sounds like professional work to me, especially since some are making 6+ figures.
And of course they also need to pay for "food and rent".
If it was about "actual" work, then those journalists in need of "support" could go do a job that actually pays, in a non declining industry.
I like your question about actual work. I suppose anything that helps pay the bills should count. So I definitely agree that bring a social media influencer should count as real or actual work. It's just that there's a "bad taste" element to the profession, similar to how people may react to selling MLM beauty products or Herbalife. I suppose Herbalife should count as actual work too, at least to the people who get sucked into selling the products. But I also see why restaurants/hotels and food vendors might react negatively to influencers who try to get free service in exchange for exposure that may or may not exist.
I find this rather sad, as good journalism is vital for a healthy, free democracy. And yet we don't seem to have a good way to pay for it. In a capitalist system, entertainment is more profitable than news.
On the other hand journalism has also been a weapon for controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests, from the days of Hearst at least, to the WMD and all kinds of more subtle manipulation.
I'd rather have a vibrant scene like the blogging of yore, with good voices rising to the top (or not), than large press interests and gatekeepers.
Sure. But tv/press had an unfair advantage of being a gatekeeper, not offering a way for the public to respond (except for "letters to the editor" and such), having unique access to power figures, and so on.
If someone is telling the news service what to write, then you've got your business model right there: the person who decides what content to promote gets to pay for it.
I'm talking about real independent news. That is the kind of news that is absolutely vital for a democracy, and it's the one kind for which there is no easy business model. Ideally the readers would care about independent news, but it turns out a lot of people love getting lied to.
How do you know the bloggers aren't "controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests"; how do you know who funds them? There's no transparency at all.
I do miss the old blogosphere, but it could only exist as long as it had no influence. Once it became large enough to move politics, a takeover could not be prevented.
As the old question goes, who influences the influencers?
>How do you know the bloggers aren't "controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests"; how do you know who funds them?
I don't. But the beauty of it is that there are no gatekeepers there (online), and the cost of having one's voice heard are zero. And the public has the same power to call them for it (either in their own comments, or from similar outlets).
I don't care for propaganda being peddled to the public -- as long as it a voice among other voices.
I do care for private interests (e.g. like Heart or Murdoch or today's moguls) having the only means to publish theirs, and having a faux-prestige because of them being "official", "press", etc.
Compared to programmers, maybe. Still much better than most available middle class gigs, and the "sky is the limit" once they have connections to power and influence.
Not as much as you would think - I recall an ex Journalist who went into PR telling me that the deputy editor of the Scotsman was receiving income support (the benefit that toped up your income if you had a low family income)
Irony like the Alanis Morrisette song? (ie not ironic at all).
The Guardian are asking the readership to support the articles, you'll note they paid for their own icecream.'Influencers' are asking the subjects to fund the articles. One is advertising, one is journalism.
I'll backtrack slightly on that last sentence, advertising/sponsorship can work for certain things, in general though its a big conflict of interest.
No need to backtrack. If the person/company/brand you're writing about is also the one paying you to write about them, that is exactly advertising. It's not news.
I backtracked because of all the possible exceptions.
If a gaming magazine reviews a game they didn't pay for, or what about car reviewers buying cars they didn't pay for. These are generally referred to as journalism. Then there's sponsorship, what if 'green' company sponsors green content, or a vegan company sponsors an article about the bad things about industrial meat production. So I not sure its completely black and white.
Only in this case, it actually works, as there are firms (even international brands) paying influencers top dollars for mentioning their products.
So more like "come play at Max's Kansas City without pay for the exposure" -- tons of bands would have jumped at the chance.
It's just that not all influencers have equal reach (and not all businesses need the extra promotion. Nike can always sell more shoes, but an ice cream stand might have to push people away if they have too many customers, as there's so many a person can serve).
Actually it’s the other way around. “If you let me, I’ll play at your bar for free beer”.
The influencers are selling advertisement for cheap.
And it’s the same deal as with musicians, it’s a good deal which is mutually beneficiary if the talent is there, if not, we’ll then you laugh at the offer and try to publicly humiliate the person trying to establish a place for themselves. “Can you believe this guy wanted to play at my bar, AND expected free beer? What a joke”.
When you have a bunch every day, who can barely hold the guitar or sing a tune, posing like they are Led Zeppelin if they can just have a free beer... yeah I might snap too after a while.
Are the advertisements cheap though? Half of the influencers who have approached my businesses have obviously paid for most of their followers and their "advert" would be unlikely to result in any conversions.
Most guitar players are shit. That doesn’t mean that concerts are a scam. As I wrote it depends on the talent. And advertisement through established influencers with a real following is cheaper than going through magazines was back in the day.
The difference is in who tries to initiate the transaction - the producer or the advertiser. In the case of the band in the bar it would be the band asking the bar to play for free (i.e. the producer going to the advertiser), but in the case of the "influencer" asking the ice-cream truck for free ice cream it is the other way around (i.e. advertiser going to the producer). Now if it were the other way around, i.e. the ice cream truck was to actively reach out to "influencers" and offer them free ice cream in return for the exposure, then that would be different, and I think many of us would agree less creepy.
I think of the bar case the other way around: the musicans are the producers (of music) and the bar is the advertiser (offering the exposure of allowing you to play in front of people)
Yes, by "band asking the bar to play for free (i.e. the producer going to the advertiser)" I mean the band are the producers of the product, and the band are initiating a transaction with the bar who are the advertiser for that product. The only time I'd expect the transaction to be initiated the other way around, i.e. the bar going to the band, would be when the power dynamic was inverted, e.g. it was a less well known bar asking a more famous band to play there to try to attract custom to the bar, but in that case I would expect the band to be asking for payment not offering to play for free, and in doing so they would effectively switch roles, i.e. the band would take on something of an advertiser's role and the bar becomes more like the product that is being advertised, in which case I think the original point about it normally being the producers of a product initiating transactions with the advertisers of the product rather than the other way around would remain.
Sadly in Los Angeles there are many bars that charge bands to play there. Because the are way too many wannabe musicians trying to get famous, the bar actually earns money from the band and gets free entertainment.
>They're successful at something, right? There's no need for them to beg like that, and they're presenting it as if they're doing you a favour while they do it.
Isn't that the very thing they're successful at? Getting deals and stuff for free in exchange of their pretty little faces promoting it to their fans.
they are the instagram version of those backpackers with shitty cardboard signs begging for money so they can keep up their "spiritual journey across different cultures" or whatever nonsense they claim to pursue.
I don't think it's quite the same. The influencers are at least purporting to offer a trade value for value. Maybe they aren't actually offering value, maybe some of them are even knowingly not providing value, but that's fraud not begging. A beggar says give me something because I want it without even a pretense of offering anything in exchange.
It is quite easy to bash the influencers. They are a popular target. There is another story in the news today about influencers wanting to get free wedding pictures.
I am waiting for a 'before they were famous' expose from someone who does make it to get the millions of subscribers. At that level of the game it works differently, everything comes for free and stuff has to be turned down. But these people were struggling once, they once had zero subscribers/followers and nothing they could say would be received well by anyone. They must have 'couldn't even get an ice cream' stories.
Fun that it is to deride the influencer, there are options for more constructive approaches.
The ice cream truck could offer just the one ice cream to an influencer a week, with an online application form and many other administrative hoops and hurdles. Then the free ice cream could go to whomever has the most followers. Then, when awkwardly asked at the van, he could just politely show them the form. If they win the competition (of who has the most followers) and can come back a week later then sure they can have their free ice cream. That is fair enough, surely?
> I am waiting for a 'before they were famous' expose from someone who does make it to get the millions of subscribers.
Before they were famous? Broke college students probably or something like that. Frankly a more respectable career than begging and peddling shit on social networks.
> Fun that it is to deride the influencer, there are options for more constructive approaches.
But why should the food truck operator care? He didn’t ask for anything and still gets solicited by these beggars (they call it a “business” but I’d argue if your business can’t buy you a $4 ice cream then something is horribly wrong). It can also be offensive, just like when artists are asked to perform for “exposure”.
If hollywood accepts it and starts including it in popular shows/movies the respectibility level will raise.
You see local news personalities/sports stars all in tv/print ads. They are trading on the respectability of their primary career you would think they suffer from a drop respectability but it increases.
> At that level of the game it works differently, everything comes for free and stuff has to be turned down.
Basically the same as saying “they have a conflict of interest and nothing they say can be trusted”. Why should I trust an influencer’s opinion about any product?
Though this is true, I think there's also a lack of perception on the influencers part on the current definition of "influencer".
It's a term loosely used by people with a large following, and right there the definition crumbles - what's a large following?
I think we can agree that it depends - to some niches 200.000 followers it's not that big of a deal, while on others 50.000 followers could be a rare sight.
Then it comes the "value" of that following - the potential reach might be terrible in terms of value: they might have the wrong motivation, might be bloated with bots, or simply may not see the influencers as a value adding individual but as a good distraction while browsing the feed.
Finally the scarcity of recommendations - what used to be a monthly product placement/mention/promo, or weekly, or daily, with the current state of social media (with stories) it's almost like a big reality show, with real time shit happening all the time, and they pump so much stuff that the value as diluted - that ice cream truck was a small stop in their day of pumping content: they had breakfast somewhere, lunch, brunch, and will have dinner and party in some place.
Imo influencers from a lot of niches will increasingly become less valuable, to the point where they might have to make the decision of dropping it, after a slow vanishing due to the lack of constant content production, then it will correct itself.
> The ice cream truck could offer just the one ice cream to an influencer a week
If no one came from that influencer, it would be a wasted ice cream, plus he had no control on the content (could be damaging), plus it's a ice cream truck - doubt he has time to be fiddling with that. If one location isn't cutting it, he just moves.
If any influencer succeeds long term it will be to the extent they serve as a curator of things, services, etc. for people that are otherwise too busy. They can provide value to people on those platforms only to the extent that they provide them with useful information, and if they are whoring themselves out without any standard then people will not be influenced by them.
Point being, curators that are good invest a lot of time (and money) into the domain they are curating. People that love ice cream can tell you a lot about how and why different companies ice creams are different from one another.
>It's a term loosely used by people with a large following, and right there the definition crumbles - what's a large following?
30,000 followers, according to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority.[0] People who have more than that will be classed as "celebrities" and fall under a tighter set of regulations.[1]
Another solution I've read in another related post was to just make them a counter-offer - they'll get the cost of the ice cream back if their "influencing" sells him ten more ice creams.
Social media and 'influencers' are not going away. Instead of being critical and dismissive I would rather try and accept this fundamental change in human interaction. It is another step from collectivism where everyone is paying for their own icecream to the next level of individualism.
Humanity will have a lot more 'influencers' or 'stars' who stand out and have incredible influence. This can be entertainers who have a billion followers, or software developers who make a living as speakers and 'evangelists', but can also mean political influence: The last elections in Germany were massively impacted by a polarizing video from a blue haired Youtuber - why shouldn't that guy run for office himself next time? There are still many institutions and gatekeepers due for disruption.
This is economically fueled by advertising. Firstly, using influencers to present a product is fundamentally stronger than classic advertising. Secondly, it's cheaper for the advertiser, while the influencer just needs a few thousands/month to quit their job.
> The last elections in Germany were massively impacted by a polarizing video from a blue haired Youtuber - why shouldn't that guy run for office himself next time?
This happened in Brazil. Kim Kataguiri[1] gained visibilty as a YouTuber and is now a congressman.
Not every "influencer" is the same. Some have actual skills and adequate reach to justify advertising via them (I believe this is what you labeled "influencer" in your comment) while others are just trying to get freebies without contributing any value back to the client.
Additionally, regarding politics: While I do believe that empowering people who are actually concerned with the well-being of their community is important and an area in which our political systems could improve, I also think that "disrupting" politics by giving power to influencers would ultimately lead to more bad than good (in the form of indoctrination, corruption and populism).
Influencers trying to get freebies and Youtubers disrupting the political landscape may just be the growing pains during a massive overhaul of society. It's no longer about "empowering" a grassroots initiative with a website, it's changing how humans interact on a fundamental level. Expect lots of indoctrination populism from mega-influencers during their 24/7 livestreams, but maybe less corruption too....
It’s just more complicated than YouTube and free distribution.
The way in which people use free distribution provided the internet has changed, and will change a lot.
The problem with your ideas is that they are just concepts extrapolated from very current trends. You should get a wider scope, and make fewer lazy predictions.
> The last elections in Germany were massively impacted by a polarizing video from a blue haired Youtuber
I'm gonna have to say [citation needed].
It is true that the video went viral and was very controversial, but the only effect was that the green party gained about 5% in the 18-29 age group, according to polling statistics. All other age groups were unaffected [1].
Also note that this election was for the parliament of the European Union.
> It is another step from collectivism where everyone is paying for their own icecream to the next level of individualism.
Eh, do you have that backwards? Wouldn't we classify "everyone paying their own" as individualistic?
On a side note, we've always had "influencers." They were the celebrities that appeared on ads. This is just the internet-enabled, more granular manifestation of that phenomenon.
> Firstly, using influencers to present a product is fundamentally stronger than classic advertising. Secondly, it's cheaper for the advertiser, while the influencer just needs a few thousands/month to quit their job.
Assuming you're right, I would argue that the kind of "influencer" who sets their price point to advertise your ice cream truck at "one free ice cream" is unlikely to provide enough value to offset the opportunity cost of actually selling an ice cream to a paying customer, moreso if we take into account dishonest freeloaders.
There is no value in providing products for free to self-proclaimed advertisers who just arbitrarily show up at your business.
No influencer worth their salt will beg for an ice cream cone. The big accounts have managers and make deals etc well in advance. These guys are beggars who have just found their new tool for attempting to get stuff for free.
Or be critical and dismissive since as don't need to accept this nonsense. Some changes are in the wrong direction with influencers being in that direction.
The article makes it quite clear that the seller chose the direct approach rather than wasting his time negotiating with someone, who did not have any leverage or provide any added value for his business. There is a variation of a proverb that was used as a sign and was ubiquitous in bars, pubs, tradesmen, shops et al., which stated: 'Don't ask for credit, as a smack in the mouth often hurts[offends]'. This worked like a charm to ward off any would-be chancers and freeloaders; the ice cream man's version is more modern and less vague.
It also comes across, that he rather enjoyed his meta role of becoming an 'anti-influencer' and then using that influence to get the traditional media involved, thus influencing the silent majority to get behind his message, with bonus points for boosting his business without compromising on his ideals.
A couple weeks ago I stood in line right behind a group of “influencers” trying to get their meal for free at a new restaurant. They succeeded after a 20 minute delay for the entire line (that went out the door) while the manager was fetched and tried to decide what to do. It was quite rude of the influencers but I wondered that the business would make the whole line wait for the sake of these people of questionable value. Btw this was a new location of a very popular chain; they weren’t struggling for promotion.
I walk by the CVT ice cream truck in the article about once a week. Maybe my same influencers tried him as well. I hope so.
A little ironic that they use the end of this article to plug an author who is supposedly an expert on influencers and claims, "no real influencer would ask for a four-dollar ice cream."
73 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 159 ms ] threadAnd of course they also need to pay for "food and rent".
If it was about "actual" work, then those journalists in need of "support" could go do a job that actually pays, in a non declining industry.
I'd rather have a vibrant scene like the blogging of yore, with good voices rising to the top (or not), than large press interests and gatekeepers.
Blogs did away with most of that.
I'm talking about real independent news. That is the kind of news that is absolutely vital for a democracy, and it's the one kind for which there is no easy business model. Ideally the readers would care about independent news, but it turns out a lot of people love getting lied to.
I do miss the old blogosphere, but it could only exist as long as it had no influence. Once it became large enough to move politics, a takeover could not be prevented.
As the old question goes, who influences the influencers?
I don't. But the beauty of it is that there are no gatekeepers there (online), and the cost of having one's voice heard are zero. And the public has the same power to call them for it (either in their own comments, or from similar outlets).
I don't care for propaganda being peddled to the public -- as long as it a voice among other voices.
I do care for private interests (e.g. like Heart or Murdoch or today's moguls) having the only means to publish theirs, and having a faux-prestige because of them being "official", "press", etc.
The Guardian are asking the readership to support the articles, you'll note they paid for their own icecream.'Influencers' are asking the subjects to fund the articles. One is advertising, one is journalism.
I'll backtrack slightly on that last sentence, advertising/sponsorship can work for certain things, in general though its a big conflict of interest.
So more like "come play at Max's Kansas City without pay for the exposure" -- tons of bands would have jumped at the chance.
It's just that not all influencers have equal reach (and not all businesses need the extra promotion. Nike can always sell more shoes, but an ice cream stand might have to push people away if they have too many customers, as there's so many a person can serve).
Isn't that the very thing they're successful at? Getting deals and stuff for free in exchange of their pretty little faces promoting it to their fans.
I am waiting for a 'before they were famous' expose from someone who does make it to get the millions of subscribers. At that level of the game it works differently, everything comes for free and stuff has to be turned down. But these people were struggling once, they once had zero subscribers/followers and nothing they could say would be received well by anyone. They must have 'couldn't even get an ice cream' stories.
Fun that it is to deride the influencer, there are options for more constructive approaches.
The ice cream truck could offer just the one ice cream to an influencer a week, with an online application form and many other administrative hoops and hurdles. Then the free ice cream could go to whomever has the most followers. Then, when awkwardly asked at the van, he could just politely show them the form. If they win the competition (of who has the most followers) and can come back a week later then sure they can have their free ice cream. That is fair enough, surely?
Before they were famous? Broke college students probably or something like that. Frankly a more respectable career than begging and peddling shit on social networks.
> Fun that it is to deride the influencer, there are options for more constructive approaches.
But why should the food truck operator care? He didn’t ask for anything and still gets solicited by these beggars (they call it a “business” but I’d argue if your business can’t buy you a $4 ice cream then something is horribly wrong). It can also be offensive, just like when artists are asked to perform for “exposure”.
If hollywood accepts it and starts including it in popular shows/movies the respectibility level will raise.
You see local news personalities/sports stars all in tv/print ads. They are trading on the respectability of their primary career you would think they suffer from a drop respectability but it increases.
Basically the same as saying “they have a conflict of interest and nothing they say can be trusted”. Why should I trust an influencer’s opinion about any product?
Though this is true, I think there's also a lack of perception on the influencers part on the current definition of "influencer".
It's a term loosely used by people with a large following, and right there the definition crumbles - what's a large following?
I think we can agree that it depends - to some niches 200.000 followers it's not that big of a deal, while on others 50.000 followers could be a rare sight.
Then it comes the "value" of that following - the potential reach might be terrible in terms of value: they might have the wrong motivation, might be bloated with bots, or simply may not see the influencers as a value adding individual but as a good distraction while browsing the feed.
Finally the scarcity of recommendations - what used to be a monthly product placement/mention/promo, or weekly, or daily, with the current state of social media (with stories) it's almost like a big reality show, with real time shit happening all the time, and they pump so much stuff that the value as diluted - that ice cream truck was a small stop in their day of pumping content: they had breakfast somewhere, lunch, brunch, and will have dinner and party in some place.
Imo influencers from a lot of niches will increasingly become less valuable, to the point where they might have to make the decision of dropping it, after a slow vanishing due to the lack of constant content production, then it will correct itself.
> The ice cream truck could offer just the one ice cream to an influencer a week
If no one came from that influencer, it would be a wasted ice cream, plus he had no control on the content (could be damaging), plus it's a ice cream truck - doubt he has time to be fiddling with that. If one location isn't cutting it, he just moves.
Point being, curators that are good invest a lot of time (and money) into the domain they are curating. People that love ice cream can tell you a lot about how and why different companies ice creams are different from one another.
30,000 followers, according to the UK's Advertising Standards Authority.[0] People who have more than that will be classed as "celebrities" and fall under a tighter set of regulations.[1]
[0] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/30000-followers-...
[1] The ASA is an industry self-regulatory body, rather than a government-run regulator, so they can't make anything illegal per se.
Humanity will have a lot more 'influencers' or 'stars' who stand out and have incredible influence. This can be entertainers who have a billion followers, or software developers who make a living as speakers and 'evangelists', but can also mean political influence: The last elections in Germany were massively impacted by a polarizing video from a blue haired Youtuber - why shouldn't that guy run for office himself next time? There are still many institutions and gatekeepers due for disruption.
This is economically fueled by advertising. Firstly, using influencers to present a product is fundamentally stronger than classic advertising. Secondly, it's cheaper for the advertiser, while the influencer just needs a few thousands/month to quit their job.
This happened in Brazil. Kim Kataguiri[1] gained visibilty as a YouTuber and is now a congressman.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Kataguiri
Additionally, regarding politics: While I do believe that empowering people who are actually concerned with the well-being of their community is important and an area in which our political systems could improve, I also think that "disrupting" politics by giving power to influencers would ultimately lead to more bad than good (in the form of indoctrination, corruption and populism).
It’s just more complicated than YouTube and free distribution.
The way in which people use free distribution provided the internet has changed, and will change a lot.
The problem with your ideas is that they are just concepts extrapolated from very current trends. You should get a wider scope, and make fewer lazy predictions.
I'm gonna have to say [citation needed].
It is true that the video went viral and was very controversial, but the only effect was that the green party gained about 5% in the 18-29 age group, according to polling statistics. All other age groups were unaffected [1].
Also note that this election was for the parliament of the European Union.
[1] https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/rezo-effekt-hat-e... (German)
Are there legit ones? Yes. But there are far more fake ones that game the system.
That's why there's a "backlash".
Eh, do you have that backwards? Wouldn't we classify "everyone paying their own" as individualistic?
On a side note, we've always had "influencers." They were the celebrities that appeared on ads. This is just the internet-enabled, more granular manifestation of that phenomenon.
Assuming you're right, I would argue that the kind of "influencer" who sets their price point to advertise your ice cream truck at "one free ice cream" is unlikely to provide enough value to offset the opportunity cost of actually selling an ice cream to a paying customer, moreso if we take into account dishonest freeloaders.
There is no value in providing products for free to self-proclaimed advertisers who just arbitrarily show up at your business.
It also comes across, that he rather enjoyed his meta role of becoming an 'anti-influencer' and then using that influence to get the traditional media involved, thus influencing the silent majority to get behind his message, with bonus points for boosting his business without compromising on his ideals.
I walk by the CVT ice cream truck in the article about once a week. Maybe my same influencers tried him as well. I hope so.