It is slightly less obnoxious than just calling it "first class" vs. "commoners" instagram, but still pretty obnoxious nonetheless.
That statement is ridiculous to me - actually more ridiculous than I find the whole "influencer" culture in the first place.
"Influencer" absolutely is a real thing. The reason brands are willing to pay many thousands of dollars to get something as simple as a tweet, story or post about a product is quite simply because it works. On the other side, Snapchat lost $1.3 billion in valuation when Kylie Jenner tweeted "sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me... ugh this is so sad." Seems like "influencer" very accurately describes the role.
Baloney. How many teenagers could make literally millions of dollars in centuries past based primarily on their relatability (in addition to their video game or makeup application skills). Modern social networks and YouTube have opened up an entirely new way not to just have influence, but to monetize, productize and quantify it.
I get it, you probably think it's all dumb and pointless, but to say it's "nothing new" is like saying the internet is nothing new because people have been sending messages back and forth for centuries.
Sure there are new avenues to create and connect with people to gain that recognition, along with increased opportunity from a bigger population and lower costs, but how fame works and the monetization of that fame is a very old concept. There's nothing new there.
Study the principals, not the buzzwords. You can find all this in a 50 year old marketing book.
"Connectors are the people in a community who know large numbers of people and who are in the habit of making introductions. A connector is essentially the social equivalent of a computer network hub. They usually know people across an array of social, cultural, professional, and economic circles, and make a habit of introducing people who work or live in different circles."
I think today's "influencers" are similar but perhaps more shallow versions of Gladwell's "Connectors".
I know if _I_ ask a question social media, I'll mostly get an answer if any of my friends know the answer. But when - for example - jwz asks "Dear Lazyweb", he'll get the guy who wrote the linux kernel subsystem or who runs the datacenter he's having problems with explain what's going wrong (often after having fixed it).
The concept of some people being well connected enough to reach and influence a valuable number of important-in-some-context people is 100% "real". (Whether an attractive blonde showing off a specific brand of sunglasses or luggage in Instagram qualifies is questionable, part of me wants to say "Nope!", but I don't make my living trying to convince people to buy my brand of sunglasses or luggage, so what do I know?)
If you are unable to see the value in influencers (from a business perspective) it would simply suggest you are part of a segment that aren't engaged by them. If so don't let that fool you into underestimating the effect these people are having. Their audiences are highly engaged and are the same people who don't watch any TV and have adblock installed.
It's an ugly trend taking over everything. Stratify all humans, treat the elites differently. Forget about net neutrality, we can do this within websites, within APIs, and so now we do.
I tend to follow niche manufacturers (of guitars or other handmade instruments) directly because I am interested in their 'behind the scenes' photographic essays. No need for me to see them draped over someone who has no idea about the product but will happily drape them over themselves at some ubiquitous beach sunset shot.
I don't think it is a 'class' thing as much as it is a 'positioning' thing.
From HN's FAQ:
> Another kind of job ad is reserved for YC-funded startups. These appear on the front page, but are not stories: they have no vote arrows, points, or comments.
(I don't _like_ it, but it's kinda part of choosing to use someone else's free service and the community it builds. They get to choose the rules, including who gets to monetise that community and how...)
Anybody can download an app and do celebrity (read "taxi driver") stuff, and cash in on the gig-economy celebrity market...
I wonder how long until we see a court case claiming "influencers"should be given employee benefits by Facebook???
If that's not a good example of different classes rubbing up against eachother and getting angry about it then nothing else on the planet is, either.
You know that coach used to be better than first class is now, right? This idea that the back of the plane is bad and horrible suffering is a new invention, a new construct of the airlines that everyone just bought into all at once.
Traditional ads are marked as ads and given generally separate spaces. This generation is all about “normal” people trying to organically influence people to buy some company’s cheaply made shit. It’s a real thing and it’s working.
'Influencer' is new-speak trying to hide their shadiness.
It depends on where you set your bar. For some individuals (probably the bulk of Fyre Fest attendees) this is going to require explicit text.
Depends what they are shilling and whether the creators of the show would actually endorse those products themselves genuinely.
Like, I personally wouldn't have an issue endorsing something that I use myself, but I would absolutely be a sell-out if I did it just for the money. I'm not a salesman.