the idea of what others identify you as vs who you claim you are vs what you may actually be I find an endless loop of enjoyment.  You can claim to not be a racist and others identify you as one and low and behold you may be one.  Same with a dozen other terms.  Today let's look at influencers.  It was relatively recently I first heard someone self address themselves as an influencer.  Won't be too long before we someone on House Hunters International say they are an influencer with a 1 billion dollar budget to buy a chateau in France.  Probably be a lot longer before we see someone self identify as an influencer on Prize is Right or Family Feud.

Part of this post is directly related to a podcast I listened to.  If you listened to it too you may be familiar with the thought process.  The glanced over it.  But I wanted to probe it a bit more at depth.

Is an influencer something you become because whether want to or not or something you self-identify as?

As in, if you have a huge social media presence and a lot of followers are you an influencer just because?  Or do you have to chose to want to become one?


Is it just someone who just has influence? Or someone who gets paid to influence that is an influencer?
Like, do you have to be willfully pro to be one?



Is there a difference between an influencer and an athlete used to sell Wheaties?
or how Michael Jordan sold Nikes, McDonalds
and other products?  
Some of his endorsements may have made sense due to his athletic prowess or style.  But after a while it was just because he was famous.

I don't think there's any difference between social media advertising and "traditional" ads - it's just moved screens now that no one watches live TV or reads newspapers or magazines.

Jan 31, 2019 22:21:02 GMT theend said:

the idea of what others identify you as vs who you claim you are vs what you may actually be I find an endless loop of enjoyment.  You can claim to not be a racist and others identify you as one and low and behold you may be one.  Same with a dozen other terms.  Today let's look at influencers.  It was relatively recently I first heard someone self address themselves as an influencer.  Won't be too long before we someone on House Hunters International say they are an influencer with a 1 billion dollar budget to buy a chateau in France.  Probably be a lot longer before we see someone self identify as an influencer on Prize is Right or Family Feud.

Part of this post is directly related to a podcast I listened to.  If you listened to it too you may be familiar with the thought process.  The glanced over it.  But I wanted to probe it a bit more at depth.

Is an influencer something you become because whether want to or not or something you self-identify as?

As in, if you have a huge social media presence and a lot of followers are you an influencer just because?  Or do you have to chose to want to become one?


Is it just someone who just has influence? Or someone who gets paid to influence that is an influencer?
Like, do you have to be willfully pro to be one?



Is there a difference between an influencer and an athlete used to sell Wheaties?
or how Michael Jordan sold Nikes, McDonalds
and other products?  
Some of his endorsements may have made sense due to his athletic prowess or style.  But after a while it was just because he was famous.

Great thread Mr @admin,

You raise a couple of points.
Firstly, I think that the first part of your post is interesting, about what we define ourselves as versus what we may really be.
This is a very touchy area thanks to gender identity, but the fact remains that lots of words have objective meanings.
I identify as Christian, lots of people do, but the word has a literal meaning of "a follower of Christ".
According to the bible that means you follow his teachings and try to put them into practice.
But it seems today people are outraged if you suggest that their conviction for drug dealing and spousal abuse makes them not a Christian... It's not about what you believe or state, it is about what you do.
Without wanting to cause a fight, this is what is making society so hard to navigate these days... Male or Female, what is consent, micro-aggression, gas-lighting, privilege... So many words where the definition is so fluid nobody can actually agree what they mean.

As for influencers, I honestly believe that this is a phase that will die in its current form.
People crave authenticity and when someone is being paid for their reviews and they are mixed through their legitimate social media posts I think it is a recipe for disaster.
So be a shill, but you should begin all posts with the notation Sponsored content.

Did I just get confused for theend? Gross.

Jan 31, 2019 23:02:02 GMT iNCY said:

Jan 31, 2019 22:21:02 GMT theend said:

the idea of what others identify you as vs who you claim you are vs what you may actually be I find an endless loop of enjoyment.  You can claim to not be a racist and others identify you as one and low and behold you may be one.  Same with a dozen other terms.  Today let's look at influencers.  It was relatively recently I first heard someone self address themselves as an influencer.  Won't be too long before we someone on House Hunters International say they are an influencer with a 1 billion dollar budget to buy a chateau in France.  Probably be a lot longer before we see someone self identify as an influencer on Prize is Right or Family Feud.

Part of this post is directly related to a podcast I listened to.  If you listened to it too you may be familiar with the thought process.  The glanced over it.  But I wanted to probe it a bit more at depth.

Is an influencer something you become because whether want to or not or something you self-identify as?

As in, if you have a huge social media presence and a lot of followers are you an influencer just because?  Or do you have to chose to want to become one?


Is it just someone who just has influence? Or someone who gets paid to influence that is an influencer?
Like, do you have to be willfully pro to be one?



Is there a difference between an influencer and an athlete used to sell Wheaties?
or how Michael Jordan sold Nikes, McDonalds
and other products?  
Some of his endorsements may have made sense due to his athletic prowess or style.  But after a while it was just because he was famous.

Great thread Mr @admin ,

You raise a couple of points.
Firstly, I think that the first part of your post is interesting, about what we define ourselves as versus what we may really be.
This is a very touchy area thanks to gender identity, but the fact remains that lots of words have objective meanings.
I identify as Christian, lots of people do, but the word has a literal meaning of "a follower of Christ".
According to the bible that means you follow his teachings and try to put them into practice.
But it seems today people are outraged if you suggest that their conviction for drug dealing and spousal abuse makes them not a Christian... It's not about what you believe or state, it is about what you do.
Without wanting to cause a fight, this is what is making society so hard to navigate these days... Male or Female, what is consent, micro-aggression, gas-lighting, privilege... So many words where the definition is so fluid nobody can actually agree what they mean.

As for influencers, I honestly believe that this is a phase that will die in its current form.
People crave authenticity and when someone is being paid for their reviews and they are mixed through their legitimate social media posts I think it is a recipe for disaster.
So be a shill, but you should begin all posts with the notation Sponsored content.

It's actually mandated by the FCC you note posts are paid for if you're an influencer.

You can't ' identify ' as an influencer. And if you do, you most likely have the word Instagram in front of it, and you're using the word in a self-serving sense or seeking instant gratification.

What is mistaken, confused or distorted today is this idea of an influencer. A big or critical thinker, a leader, teacher - someone adding great value, would not proclaim themselves as an influencer - but others would. If you are calling your self an influencer, you're mistaking the word for narcissist.

You can become influential by all means. That being, having a capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. Of course with that, is likely a sound body of work, integrity, credibility and whatever definition of leadership is relevant. To have a positive influence, you would also be genuine. A negative influence, being anything less than genuine, that's manipulation. The two may produce the same outcome, but in different ways.

I mean, that sounds good in theory, but “influencer” is a very real marketing term and profession that earns certain people hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They didn’t come up with the title; marketing agencies do.

I’ve hired dozens of influencers. They work.

Jan 31, 2019 23:18:25 GMT @admin said:

Did I just get confused for theend ? Gross.

@admin is an influencer confirmed.

This seems like a thread where we need to just sit back and listen to KJ

I was under the impression that influencer is just a blanket term for people that kill it on social media and turn it into a way to make money. It could be anyone from Kylie Jenner who already had a following and turned it into an empire, to someone like SSSniperwolf who pivoted from gaming streams to reaction videos and exploded on YouTube.

I just googled "influencers" and clicked on a Forbes article. I learned two things:

1) Forbes website is literal fucking cancer.
2) 39% of marketing firms reported they would be increasing their "influencer budget" in 2019.

Anyway...I wish I was an attractive person who got in on instagram when it first started. I could be a millionaire.

Feb 1, 2019 3:07:44 GMT KJ said:

I mean, that sounds good in theory, but “influencer” is a very real marketing term and profession that earns certain people hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They didn’t come up with the title; marketing agencies do.

I’ve hired dozens of influencers. They work.

Prior to being influencers, what were they first? What made you hire them?

Feb 1, 2019 3:51:11 GMT NATH45 said:

Feb 1, 2019 3:07:44 GMT KJ said:

I mean, that sounds good in theory, but “influencer” is a very real marketing term and profession that earns certain people hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They didn’t come up with the title; marketing agencies do.

I’ve hired dozens of influencers. They work.

Prior to being influencers, what were they first? What made you hire them?

Hot chicks.

Feb 1, 2019 3:51:11 GMT NATH45 said:

Feb 1, 2019 3:07:44 GMT KJ said:

I mean, that sounds good in theory, but “influencer” is a very real marketing term and profession that earns certain people hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They didn’t come up with the title; marketing agencies do.

I’ve hired dozens of influencers. They work.

Prior to being influencers, what were they first? What made you hire them?

People who created unique content within a specific niche that gained a meaningful social following.

Companies pay them because their following aligns with the target demo of the brand. Sometimes they just send them free stuff to get their brand out there. Like I said before, they are legally required to disclose their jncocklement with brands.

You’re really overthinking the terminology. It’s normal English language: we’ve made a verb - influence - a noun - influencers.

I don’t get what’s so offensive or upsetting about the idea. Maybe they’ll fade out in a few years, but I doubt it. Endorsements have been a lynchpin of advertising for nearly a century.

Influencers won't go anywhere any time soon.

It's a genius way to advertise. A lot of people don't even realize they're watching an "influencer." They just think they're watching a vegan hiking blogger on instagram that they like. So what if they have 4 million followers? They're good at what they do! Oh, they want me to eat CLIF bars? Well why not? They're tasty and easy to pack in my backpack!

Jan 31, 2019 23:18:25 GMT @admin said:

Did I just get confused for theend ? Gross.

Sorry KING KID, my bad

Today I learned that the FCC has domain over social media. I really didn't think they did. My naivety thought that was the whole reason that robot Zuckerberg was trying to simulate live by drinking water.

Just had the conversation and all reviewers are influencers.  So I guess Ralph Nader was an influencer before it was cool.

I wish Paris Hilton got the recognition she deserves for pioneering this trend.

It’s pretty amazing that she turned a leaked sex tape into what she did. It makes me warm and fuzzy knowing society could look past that and make her even richer than she already was.

Was she the first sex tape person that it ended up being a positive? Or was that Kim Kardashian? I don’t know which came out first and can’t think of many other celebrities that had a sex tape come out and not have it ruin their career or at least force them into hiding for a little while.

Pam Anderson was already kind of irrelevant and she just stayed that way.

Feb 1, 2019 14:32:46 GMT System said:

I wish Paris Hilton got the recognition she deserves for pioneering this trend.

the american meme

www.netflix.com/title/81003741

To possibly high jack my own thread.  Recently a footballer's girlfriend was referred to as an Instagram model.  Going to her IG and it doesn't seem model focused.  She is a legit college athlete who only posts occasionally and there are weeks in between her posts.  Her posts look and appear social.  Her and her friends.  Not like some IG models who make a living off just pictures of their ass.  In this case, I feel like someone else identified her as an IG model because she is hot and on IG.  Not that she identifies as an IG model.  Purely incidental and probably a bit of naivety mixed with sexism.

But what makes an IG model?  I know KJ could say a marketing company gives those labels to models because they hire them.  Similar concept.  If you are aspiring to be an IG model but make no money or have to have a job are you not an IG model because you haven't turned pro?  Do you have to make money to be an IG model?   IG models in my opinion often are more obviously self-promoting their illusion of an awesome lifestyle than traditional models.   There definitely seems to be a line between calling someone a model and an IG model.  It is so often used as a descriptor that it has a life of its own.  There has to be someone out there who has been labeled an IG model that would argue they are just a model.  Like a SoundCloud rapper eclipsing the restraint of being on SoundCloud and just becoming a rapper.

Feb 1, 2019 15:01:26 GMT RT said:

It’s pretty amazing that she turned a leaked sex tape into what she did. It makes me warm and fuzzy knowing society could look past that and make her even richer than she already was.

Was she the first sex tape person that it ended up being a positive? Or was that Kim Kardashian? I don’t know which came out first and can’t think of many other celebrities that had a sex tape come out and not have it ruin their career or at least force them into hiding for a little while.

Pam Anderson was already kind of irrelevant and she just stayed that way.

Silly concept.  Can the success of Kylie Jenner years after her sister's sex tape still be greatly attributed to Kim's sex tape?  Or has the family legacy eclipsed the original catalyst?

I said nothing about models.

Just about every industry has influencers, and if you're on social media, chances are you follow some of them around habits you're interested in.

I'm big into the Keto diet. Tons of people are Keto influencers that have managed to monetize their lifestyle.

By the way - the really great influencers manage to enter traditional monetary paths beyond just paid social content, such as podcasts or membership platforms.

There's no hard-and-fast line on what they do to make money, however when they enter traditional media like podcasts where they do 30-second reads for commercials, they've really shifted from paid content to base advertising.

Feb 1, 2019 15:01:26 GMT RT said:

It’s pretty amazing that she turned a leaked sex tape into what she did. It makes me warm and fuzzy knowing society could look past that and make her even richer than she already was.

Was she the first sex tape person that it ended up being a positive? Or was that Kim Kardashian? I don’t know which came out first and can’t think of many other celebrities that had a sex tape come out and not have it ruin their career or at least force them into hiding for a little while.

Pam Anderson was already kind of irrelevant and she just stayed that way.

Paris was first.

" I know KJ could say a marketing company"


"I said nothing about models.
"

don't get so distressed.  no one put words in your mouth.  it's all good.

I'm not distressed. I made a clear delineation.

Feb 1, 2019 15:04:58 GMT theend said:

Feb 1, 2019 15:01:26 GMT RT said:

It’s pretty amazing that she turned a leaked sex tape into what she did. It makes me warm and fuzzy knowing society could look past that and make her even richer than she already was.

Was she the first sex tape person that it ended up being a positive? Or was that Kim Kardashian? I don’t know which came out first and can’t think of many other celebrities that had a sex tape come out and not have it ruin their career or at least force them into hiding for a little while.

Pam Anderson was already kind of irrelevant and she just stayed that way.

Silly concept.  Can the success of Kylie Jenner years after her sister's sex tape still be greatly attributed to Kim's sex tape?  Or has the family legacy eclipsed the original catalyst?

I wasn’t talking about Kylie. I was thinking about how Kim was in a sex tape with Ray Jay or whatever his name was then suddenly had a super successful reality show and married Kanye.

Feb 1, 2019 7:21:19 GMT iNCY said:

Jan 31, 2019 23:18:25 GMT @admin said:

Did I just get confused for theend ? Gross.

Sorry KING KID , my bad

Now you’re just flirting!

Sorry for the confusion, I never meant to insinuate you were referring to Kylie or that your statement was a silly notion. I was making the silly notion and asking the question.

Feb 1, 2019 4:27:10 GMT KJ said:

Feb 1, 2019 3:51:11 GMT NATH45 said:

Prior to being influencers, what were they first? What made you hire them?

People who created unique content within a specific niche that gained a meaningful social following.

Companies pay them because their following aligns with the target demo of the brand. Sometimes they just send them free stuff to get their brand out there. Like I said before, they are legally required to disclose their jncocklement with brands.

You’re really overthinking the terminology. It’s normal English language: we’ve made a verb - influence - a noun - influencers.

I don’t get what’s so offensive or upsetting about the idea. Maybe they’ll fade out in a few years, but I doubt it. Endorsements have been a lynchpin of advertising for nearly a century.

Hard to say -- I've seen a bit of pushback over the past year or two, there was that 'influencer' who cold-emailed a hotel basically asking for a free stay and I remember reading of a one-person makeup company who asked an influencer to review her product, but didn't realize how much you have to pay to play and the influencer basically trashed her product for not handing over tens of thousands of dollars in secret.

I'm hardly a bellweather of public thought but I think it is starting to come out just how much of it is standard marketing.

Feb 1, 2019 19:59:25 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Feb 1, 2019 4:27:10 GMT KJ said:

People who created unique content within a specific niche that gained a meaningful social following.

Companies pay them because their following aligns with the target demo of the brand. Sometimes they just send them free stuff to get their brand out there. Like I said before, they are legally required to disclose their jncocklement with brands.

You’re really overthinking the terminology. It’s normal English language: we’ve made a verb - influence - a noun - influencers.

I don’t get what’s so offensive or upsetting about the idea. Maybe they’ll fade out in a few years, but I doubt it. Endorsements have been a lynchpin of advertising for nearly a century.

Hard to say -- I've seen a bit of pushback over the past year or two, there was that 'influencer' who cold-emailed a hotel basically asking for a free stay and I remember reading of a one-person makeup company who asked an influencer to review her product, but didn't realize how much you have to pay to play and the influencer basically trashed her product for not handing over tens of thousands of dollars in secret.

I'm hardly a bellweather of public thought but I think it is starting to come out just how much of it is standard marketing.

Maybe it's just my familiarity with this subject given its my profession, but to me, all marketing is standard marketing. It's just channel/nuances: "Traditional," "Digital," "Social," "Influencer" ...

It's all meant to drive consumers down the marketing funnel (it's called a funnel because the total number of people reduces at every level you go down, creating a visual or data funnel ... I don't think there's any product that doesn't follow that trend in history).

There are multiple articulations of the marketing funnel, but the one I use is:

• Aware: People know your product exists
• Compare: People compare your product to their existing set of products within the category
  
• TRIAL: People actually consume your product
• Care: People develop an affinity for your product (loyalty)
• Share: People become advocates for your product

Feb 1, 2019 19:59:25 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Feb 1, 2019 4:27:10 GMT KJ said:

People who created unique content within a specific niche that gained a meaningful social following.

Companies pay them because their following aligns with the target demo of the brand. Sometimes they just send them free stuff to get their brand out there. Like I said before, they are legally required to disclose their jncocklement with brands.

You’re really overthinking the terminology. It’s normal English language: we’ve made a verb - influence - a noun - influencers.

I don’t get what’s so offensive or upsetting about the idea. Maybe they’ll fade out in a few years, but I doubt it. Endorsements have been a lynchpin of advertising for nearly a century.

Hard to say -- I've seen a bit of pushback over the past year or two, there was that 'influencer' who cold-emailed a hotel basically asking for a free stay and I remember reading of a one-person makeup company who asked an influencer to review her product, but didn't realize how much you have to pay to play and the influencer basically trashed her product for not handing over tens of thousands of dollars in secret.

I'm hardly a bellweather of public thought but I think it is starting to come out just how much of it is standard marketing.

The hotel girl story was classic.

Feb 2, 2019 2:14:22 GMT System said:

Feb 1, 2019 19:59:25 GMT Michinokudriver said:

Hard to say -- I've seen a bit of pushback over the past year or two, there was that 'influencer' who cold-emailed a hotel basically asking for a free stay and I remember reading of a one-person makeup company who asked an influencer to review her product, but didn't realize how much you have to pay to play and the influencer basically trashed her product for not handing over tens of thousands of dollars in secret.

I'm hardly a bellweather of public thought but I think it is starting to come out just how much of it is standard marketing.

The hotel girl story was classic.

That is shocking.. 
That a girl who has a following based on Squats in leggings has such an average ass in the first place.