A Bad Influence

Lazy product placement and platforms in crisis-control are (slowly) killing the influencer economy

The term ‘influencer’ is treated as both a pejorative and celebrated title (depending on who you ask). The stereotypical social media influencer evokes images of nomadic lifestyles, flawless photographs, and a frustrating surplus of self-fulfilment. And while some roll their eyes at influencers, their rise in commercial relevance in recent years is palpable.

A study from marketing transparency firm, Cheq, estimates that global influencer advertising will be an $8.5 billion USD market in 2019. While the general approach has been used for decades, influencer marketing has boomed alongside the rise of social media, shifting away from a focus solely on celebrity endorsement due to the democratising opportunity of platforms. Across Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook and a raft of smaller platforms, brands are tapping into the potential that both celebrity and non-celebrity followings present to their commercial interests.

But for an active industry (which now includes entire agencies dedicated to influencer engagement), the past year has highlighted the growing threat presented by savvy consumers and platforms keen to create more sustainable engagement.

Inauthenticity killed the Instagram star

When most people think of the influencer economy they’re usually picturing celebrity influencers (1M+ followers), such as Kylie Jenner, PewDiePie, Kayla Itsines and Jefree Star, or macro and middle-influencers (100K — 1M followers), such as Jay Caesar, Yummertime, Gloria Morales and Akin Akman. Names like these have huge clout in the marketing world, and can rake in anywhere from a few hundred to almost a million dollars from a single post. It’s a mixed bag, with some incredibly talented, commercially savvy and authentic influencers, and many who churn out content without much thought, creativity or substance. The cream of the crop often move on to launch their own product lines in a given market, no longer having to rely on just paid partnerships (which might be for the best).

No matter how visually aesthetic it is, the one-off Instagram post seems to experience more difficulty engaging with users in the over-saturated sponsored feeds of 2019. Most users aren’t put off by the paid-partnership element alone, but rather when this is paired with content that seems low-quality, over-manufactured and inconsistent with an influencer’s usual brand. This is reflected in the engagement rates with sponsored Instagram content, which dropped to 2.4% earlier this year.

It also seems that in what is widely considered a numbers game, the small fry is coming out on top. Despite ‘micro’ or ‘nano’ influencers having less followers than their peers, the authenticity of their content can attract higher engagement rates and a better ROI for partnered brands. But like the larger accounts before them, over time the authenticity of micro influencers is likely to diminish, forcing brands and marketing agencies to rethink how to capitalise on the (still significant) platforms opportunity.

Demetrication: influencers may not like this

For years it has been the standard that social platforms measure and display our engagement with user-generated content. The more likes, views, reacts and retweets a piece of sponsored content receives not only corresponds broadly to its noteworthiness for other users, but also acts as a networked endorsement for that product or service. Rightly or wrongly, metrics have been core to the growth and commercial success of platforms and influencers alike. This year has also seen momentum build in the demetrication movement — further threatening the bread-and-butter of influencers.

Earlier this year Instagram pulled the plug on like-counts being displayed publicly in some regions, YouTube started displaying abbreviated subscriber-counts and other platforms have conducted experimental trials to remove or obscure metrics on their platforms. The main impetus is to help combat the user perception that content is only valuable, and thus worth posting, if it rakes in more likes than the content of others. This quantitative measure appears in a multitude of ways on platforms and is instrumental in deciding how many users will engage. An anxiety is fostered that is not only plainly unhealthy for the mental wellbeing of users, but also against the interests of platforms who in many ways are a sum of the content of users. More hesitation, less content, less daily users and less opportunity for monetisation.

While we are years away from the demetrication dreamt of by Ben Grosser (one of the movement’s forefathers), many influencers and marketing agencies have been quick to criticise the move. Some fear that it will simply redirect perceptions of value to be based off equally banal metrics, such as follower-counts, and make the barrier to entry higher for emerging users. Others take what I see as a more pragmatic viewpoint on the change, noting the multiple ways that influencers and agencies can continue to capitalise on the platforms opportunity. In the long term, moving beyond vanity metrics should spur influencers to craft more original, authentic content, and convince brands to be more deliberate with their partnerships.

Despite 2019 being a year of change, influencers are unlikely to disappear completely anytime soon. There are ways for their business model to adjust and improve in response to movements such as demetrication, which will also help to safeguard them against what was an inevitable end to their sponsored heyday as the platforms mature.