On the topic of influencers...

I just read a piece on influencers, written by a marketer. The author is someone we've collaborated with, and I'm not here to 'put him on blast' as my American Mrs. might phrase it, but this caught my eye:?

"Why is influencer marketing so important right now? Simply put, there’s no better way out there to connect with your customers in an authentic and credible way."

There is little debate that influencers are a powerful marketing force, and the correct pairing of brand and influencer can certainly reap huge rewards.

But are influencer posts really any more authentic and/or credible than a traditionally-produced advert??

The average consumer/social media user is arguably hyperaware these days as to how sponsored posts end up in their feed. We know, as we scroll, that the product we're being told is wonderful was given to the influencer for free, likely along with a script which dictated their 'authentic' response and, of course, a fee for posting about it. Does this mean we're being given any more truthful appraisal of the product than if we'd watched a traditional 30-second advert? Bearing in mind the restrictions around what can be claimed in a TV or online advert, it's an interesting point for debate.

Again, there is no doubt that we all have people we follow online simply because we like them. But we don't really know them, we just know the version of themselves that they present online. From a passive point of view, scrolling our feeds to pass the time, assessing their credibility is fairly low on our priority list. But when we're being hawked a product by the same person, I'd argue that most of us have a level of natural cynicism toward whichever claims are being made. We understand that, for example, if the fee for the sponsored post was below the influencer's rate, they'd be telling us much the same about a competing product. Again, comparing this to being exposed to a traditional TV advert, I'd argue that we're still more conditioned to believe the claims made in the TV ad.

Why do I say this?

In my opinion, this comes down to brand power. Even the most popular influencer is susceptible to the rapid erosion of their standing - say, for example, that some objectionable old tweets suddenly resurface. Despite the occasional co-ordinated online push to ‘cancel’ a brand which has been deemed to do or say something offensive, the truth is that such efforts rarely make a dent in the sales of the targeted product. This is the difference between a brand for a product or a person. An influencer might post about a product or service once or for a few weeks. By its nature, their support is transitory. To keep relevant, they need to create new partnerships, find new angles. Basically, the highest bidder wins. It's not really about the product - their ultimate aim is to build their own personal brand, over that of their sponsors’.

Traditional brand advertising might explore a new angle on its creative each year, present the same claims in a shiny new format, but the underlying message (for a good brand, at least!) remains consistent - we’ve been told for decades that Ronseal “does what it says on the tin” and that we “should have gone to Specsavers.” We buy into these ideas because the scale, reach and longevity of the brands' advertising campaigns instil confidence, even if we’ve never personally used the products.

Call me old fashioned, but I’d argue that simply put, there’s no better way out there to connect with your customers in an authentic and credible way than a well-executed mass media campaign.