UPON FURTHER REVIEW
‘Influencers’ used for positive image
Say goodbye to online reviews and hello to so-called “influencer” marketing.
The future of online reviewing, at least the shortterm future, is being dominated by a subset of social media users known as influencers. With large, engaged fan bases, influencers are thought to have significant sway over whatever niche or subject they focus on.
On the spectrum of reliability, influencers tend to live somewhere between online reviews and paid advertising. While the rules about disclosing paid gigs and freebies are not vague — you have to by law — they are hard to enforce.
Startups devoted to connecting influencers with brands have exploded in the last year. According to research firm CB Insights, investments in influencer startups peaked in 2016 with 57 deals valued at $139 million, and are on track to surpass that figure in 2017.
Boston-based influencer technology startup Mavrck launched via the startup incubator Techstars Boston in 2014. The company enables marketers to identify and reward influencers who post social media content about brands. So far, the company has reported a total of $8 million in funding.
The reality is that almost anyone can become an influencer as long as they’re armed with a few social media shortcuts, a photographer and short-term dedication. The trick is the old adage: Fake it till you make it.
It stands to reason that experts in a certain area would have more reliable reviews. The problem is that many influencers have chosen this path for one reason: to get free stuff.
For instance, a women’s clothing shop might pay a fashion influencer $100 to post pictures of herself on Instagram wearing their clothes. A restaurant might comp a food influencer’s meal.
Some influencers will disclose these deals. Others may refuse freebies altogether, and still some take the money and run.
Influencer marketing is a direct response to how unreliable traditional online reviews have become.
The seemingly benign concept of receiving the benefit of someone else’s experience was just too much for us to handle. Too many consumers wrote knee-jerk reviews out of anger. Then businesses started to see real harm from these reviews, and began doing things to game the system, like paying for product reviews and offering incentives for positive reviews.
And out of that rubble rose the phenomenon influencer marketing. For brands, it’s a win.
One recent report from Nielson Catalina Solutions, which was sponsored by influencer startup firm TapInfluence, maintains that influencer marketing delivers 11 times the return on investment compared to traditional forms of digital marketing.
But is this just the latest incarnation of the “fake news” phenomenon?
Facebook is moving to pre-emptively strike out sponsored posts that don’t comply with federal disclosure laws.
In addition to a new “branded content” policy, the social network launched a new digital tool that allows influencers to easily tag their client and show that the post is sponsored.
For consumers, influencer marketing is a mixed bag.
Even if all influencers disclosed their sponsorships, how does that really help the consumer? There’s no way to know how much the freebie factored into verdict.
Yet influencers may well be more reliable than traditional online reviews. A study published in the Journal of Consumer Research in September 2015 found an “illusion of validity” in online reviews and a “substantial disconnect” between user ratings and objective.
America couldn’t handle online reviews. Sites like Amazon and Yelp are rife with bipolar star ratings that often have little bearing on reality. The question is whether the world of influencers is any more reliable.