Social Influencers

A barometer of how fcuked the world is, that these people exist, and there's an actual term for them.

It is the natural progression of web 2.0 with 4G internet speeds.

Before faster internet access and cumbersome load times for video content, you had blogs and some niche blogs were (and remain) capable of generating serious money from adverts and sponsors.

Now those same niches are expanding into video content/youtube/pod casts in line with 4G access.
In essence, they provide value to people and there's an income derived from it.

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

A barometer of how fcuked the world is, that these people exist, and there's an actual term for them.

Why though? At the end of the day they're just freelancing PR spokespeople or marketing workers. Your influencer who posts photos of stuff and extols their virtues on Snapchat or Instagram is no different to the person who actually runs the company's own profile and posts directly to it, it's just that they're doing it on a freelance basis and aren't formally attached to a company the way a traditional marketing or PR worker would be.

To put this another way, it's kinda like the difference between someone who works directly for a politician, let's say Leo, with the job of appearing as his spokesperson and talking up his policies in public, and someone who doesn't work for any particular politician specifically but makes themselves available to talk about them for a fee on a case by case basis.

I don't get all the negativity about it. Many jobs and roles which would once have been done by full time employees have shifted to freelance style work in the era of zero hours and "the gig economy" - this is just that same concept applied to marketing. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that myself.

Do you find it annoying when a well known personality endorses a product in a more formal setting? For instance, when Brian O'Driscoll appeared in those ads for a travel agent, or when various sportspeople endorse products such as lucozade as being helpful and relevant to their field? Personally I don't see how the influencing thing is any different.

No. Never have and never will.

There’s one around where I am. She’s driving around in a lovely new Mercedes. There’s money to be made in any old sh*te and she’s making it so fair f*cks to her.

All I'm going to say is Dan TDM and Stompy. Chances are that if you have kids your are plagued by at least one of them. What is an attraction of watching a guy with bad teeth or blue hair playing Minecraft is beyond me.

No I do not follow these fûcktards. No stupid god damn “celebrity” no matter how big or small will influence anything in my life.

Anyone who follows them or even worse wants to be like them because of their “influence” needs to be drop kicked.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why though? At the end of the day they're just freelancing PR spokespeople or marketing workers. Your influencer who posts photos of stuff and extols their virtues on Snapchat or Instagram is no different to the person who actually runs the company's own profile and posts directly to it, it's just that they're doing it on a freelance basis and aren't formally attached to a company the way a traditional marketing or PR worker would be.

Go watch one of the Fyre Festival documentaries.

They're like the new religion: find ignorant lazy vulnerable ****wits and get them to blindly follow you because only THEY will make you happy.

To put this another way, it's kinda like the difference between someone who works directly for a politician, let's say Leo, with the job of appearing as his spokesperson and talking up his policies in public, and someone who doesn't work for any particular politician specifically but makes themselves available to talk about them for a fee on a case by case basis.

I don't get all the negativity about it. Many jobs and roles which would once have been done by full time employees have shifted to freelance style work in the era of zero hours and "the gig economy" - this is just that same concept applied to marketing. I don't see anything inherently wrong with that myself.

Do you find it annoying when a well known personality endorses a product in a more formal setting? For instance, when Brian O'Driscoll appeared in those ads for a travel agent, or when various sportspeople endorse products such as lucozade as being helpful and relevant to their field? Personally I don't see how the influencing thing is any different.

Except these people are accountable.

And if you go to a certain travel agent JUST because Brian O'Driscoll does, you're an idiot.

I'd argue that people who follow this self-important morons are sheep, but sheep do atually serve a purpose.

Social Influencer - Horrible phrase

There's been an issue of tax payment in the past as there has been with the #ad usage.
There's clever ways around the #ad though, keep an eye on sports stars using instagram and managing to get logos into the shot e.g. steering wheel, car badge seen on keys.

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus was a social influencer, and a pretty darn good one at that.

2000 years later and he has a billion people on their knees everyday.

In fairness, that wasn't Jesus - that was his various "followers" piggy-backing on his reputation!

Like many here I've no interested in these narcissistic people.

However. I did come across this while having breakfast (warning video auto starts with music so turn down volume if in work!)

https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p070bkx0/how-to-become-a-successful-digital-influencer

In Spain, fashion and beauty brings approximately €30bn per year to the economy.

This video shows how the Autonomous University of Madrid is working to create the next generation of virtual and visual influencers.

It's made stalking young attractive women easier than ever.