I understand [*what* an influencer does](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9sx7j8/eli5_what_exactly_is_an_influencer_and_what_do/), and roughly what their role in early-21st-century Western society is, but have a _very_ hard time understanding how it functions as a viable marketing tactic. The whole endeavour appears rather paradoxical for me when I consider that it appears to be widely known that much of the content is either staged or outright fake, but is almost always presented with the impression of being genuine and spontaneous.
In short, what causes consumers to actually be affected by social-media influencers?
*NOTE*: I recognize that most of the answers to this question can just as easily be applied to celebrity culture and “conventional” advertising. Though I find these equally baffling, I’m especially curious about what differentiates influencer-based marketing from these older approaches.
In: Other
From a public relations perspective, influencers are seen as individuals with a high level of credibility among a certain audience. Influencers produce valuable content that audience members consume, like, and consume more of.
When an organization uses an influencer, the goal is to show the organization’s product/service used in an organic fashion by a credible individual. A good example is a cooking influencer posting a recipe that features a fish from a particular fish provider. Audience members see the influencer use the product/service well and think, “I can do that!” and then do.
This doesn’t always work.
When using influencers, it’s important to make sure the product they’ll be promoting matches the content they regularly create. If an influencer only creates content about video games, it doesn’t make sense for them to suddenly start talking about shaving products. It makes the marketing inorganic, awkward, and ultimately ineffective. Organizations that work with influencers that don’t reflect their brand are lazy and are only interested in shoving their product in your face.
It also may be ineffective if the influencer isn’t actually an influencer. This is basically all the really attractive people who post video of themselves but don’t actually contribute anything valuable. Yes, they are fun to look at, but no one is really listening to what they have to say. Anything they promote won’t really be taken seriously.
Finally, it also depends on the audience. Anyone can consume what an influencer creates, but not everyone gains the same amount from that content. If you don’t care about cosmetics, you don’t really care about what a beauty blogger has to say. However, if you care about traveling, you’ll be more likely to listen to an instagram influencer when she/he talks about that cool hotel in NYC that they stayed at last month.
I don’t see it as vastly different from conventional marketing, although the relationship between product and seller is far murkier. It operates on the same level- envy, illusion of success and lifestyle, connection with fame, etc. And is constructed similarly, in that the fake is presented as real like a burger commercial. Like advertising space, the reach of the seller can dictate the relationship and remuneration.
The sticky part, as mentioned before, is that relationship isn’t always clear. And these sellers attract a lot of people aspiring to sell, but their lack of market is often replaced with an inflated sense of importance and entitlement. This has turned plenty of people against the process, along with dishonest tactics. It’s essentially fake news used by people to hawk shit.
> it appears to be widely known that much of the content is either staged or outright fake, but is almost always presented with the impression of being genuine and spontaneous.
That’s a tactic that is as old as storytelling – that is, as old as humanity. For most of storytelling, the story is presented as true within some kind of framing device. The story of Dr. Frankenstein is framed as a letter sent by a ship’s captain who meets Frankenstein and gets his life story. The captain writes it out and sends it to someone. The captain says repeatedly, “No, really, this is *totally* a true story!”
It *should* be widely known that the vast majority of reality TV is, if not outright scripted, at least *heavily* edited to create a narrative that otherwise doesn’t exist. In Deadliest Catch, for example, a ship pulling up mostly decent pots consistently doesn’t make for exciting TV. So they cut in footage, often from years ago, showing empty pot after empty pot to build tension (what if they don’t meet quota!?) and then a nice big pot. So even reality TV is presented as *real* even though people *should* know that it isn’t.
So the fact that influencers are “fake” isn’t important. What is important is if they are entertaining and hold an audience. Audiences like authenticity, even if it’s fake, manufactured authenticity.
Latest Answers