
Are You Ready for the Nanoinfluencers? - NN88
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/11/business/media/nanoinfluencers-instagram-influencers.html
======
thisjustinm
First Thought: Noticed that the NYT is listed as a client on Obviously's site,
the main influencer marketing agency mentioned in the piece and can't help but
wonder if there is a behind the scenes PR play going on here. There's
certainly some journalist merit to the article but without any disclosure that
the paper and the company have / do work together it just doesn't feel 100%
above board to me.

Second thought: At the risk of falling down a slippery slope, what is the end
result of the advertisification of everything? If everyone with any sort of
social presence is now a billboard that's going to erode what little "trust"
there is in social networks even further. At some point this is going to take
down the "review economy" \- the Yelps, Foursquare, etc of the world because
you won't know who's leaving a review and who's a local nano-influencer
posting to get their monthly free meal.

Reminds me of the "ad buddies" from the Netflix show Maniac except instead of
seeking them out they seek you out.

~~~
keiferski
There is no firm difference between “advertising” and “the media” and there
never has been. Only varying levels of forthcomingness regarding intent.
Burger King is trying to sell you hamburgers - no confusion there. A
newspaper? Less clear of what they’re trying to sell you, but don’t doubt it
for a second - they’re selling you something.

The NY Times in particular has tried to portray themselves as independent and
unbiased, when they’ve been anything but for essentially their entire history.

~~~
CPLX
This is obviously and painfully false.

There is a fundamental difference between journalism and advertising.

When you see people advancing this point of view it's always worth pausing to
notice and reflect on who benefits from efforts to erode this distinction.

~~~
keiferski
You think media organizations aren’t trying to push a particular narrative?
They’ve been doing this since yellow journalism, Hearst and Pulitzer over a
hundred years ago. Every side of the political spectrum does this.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controver...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_controversies)

> When you see people advancing this point of view...

This is an ad hominem and not an argument.

~~~
CPLX
"Pushing a particular narrative" or generally having a point of view is not
the same thing as advertising.

It's undeniable that there are biases and preferences in journalism, and that
there's no such thing as a truly objective point of view. Journalism is made
by humans.

But that's a fundamentally different argument than equating advertising with
journalism. They aren't the same. Fact-checked reported journalism that
attempts to be objective is fundamentally a different thing.

And it's also a factual statement to say that there is an organized effort to
obscure this difference, and that this effort benefits specific groups.

------
voidhorse
It's crazy how advertising has evolved. First, advertisers were somewhat
honest about their products, generally relying on Smith's little theory that
buyers are rational and can thus be convinced by a strong argument about the
qualities of the product. Then at some point (w/ the dawn of Western snakeoil/
cure-alls?) advertisers figured out purchasers aren't so rational after all
and are better convinced by psychological manipulation--targeting their
weaknesses, showing them images that associate the product with happy
families, etc. Now advertisers go a level deeper. Instead of suggesting some
general association between happiness and their product, they can target you
at the personal level and have your friends and relations (often the closest
people to you psychologically speaking) serve as manipulation relays. No need
to figure out some general fear or desire in the populace that you can target
--just make it seem like the product is already embedded in the buyer's world.
Like his friends are the direct representatives of its efficacy and the
happiness it will bring.

It's wild.

~~~
leesec
From what I've heard the "some point" was primarily a result of one man Edward
Louis Bernays, who lead the charge towards these somewhat predatory practices,
effectively inventing modern public relations and advertising. There was a
really interesting ( and comical ) podcast about it from the folks at Stuff
You Should Know:

[https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/live-in-
chicago-...](https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/live-in-chicago-how-
public-relations-works.htm)

------
swanson
If anyone is looking for a "picoinfluencer" opportunity, my fantasy football
team is seeking a new sponsor. There are 9 other 24-32 year old tech workers
in the league and my team is currently 8-2.

~~~
atom-morgan
Is this a joke or have you actually had sponsors in the past?

~~~
swanson
It is a joke, but one that I take very seriously.
[https://i.imgur.com/wmjrQV8.png](https://i.imgur.com/wmjrQV8.png)

------
CryoLogic
It’s kinda perverted how dishonest the internet has become thanks to
advertising.

Children will go online looking for toy or game reviews not knowing even their
friends have sold them out for a couple bucks.

~~~
xiphias2
Actually this isn't something new. Smart children in their young age coupd
take advantage of others not being able to count.

Still, strength is probably more important as a child.

------
CPLX
One day this war is going to end.

There has to be a point of saturation where the culture as a whole turns back
to some version of authenticity. Clearly it's not going to be the millennials,
perhaps the next generation will figure it out.

~~~
fredley
I think in every generation there are those who turn their back on it all.
This has been going on since at least the 60's with the Hippie movement.
Counterculture has been a thing since (psychological[1]) advertising has been
a thing.

There will be no point at which society as a whole flips against it - the sad
truth is that advertising _works_ , really well, and most people happily sign
up to this lifestyle. The war for your headspace is a hell of a lot better
than the wars that came before it.

The 'woke' (or whatever term you'd prefer) generation is never coming - but
there will be people within every generation that turn their back on
advertising and the promises it makes.

1: As in advertising that targets our desire to be happy/powerful etc. rather
than merely describing the product. Watch _Century of the Self_ documentary
for more information on how this form of advertising came to be.

------
maxxxxx
Sometimes I feel like throwing up when I hear more stories about advertising,
advertising and more advertising. It's such a sad trend. Either people want to
make money advertising things directly or our best engineers work for
companies that provide advertising. There is so much potential lost with all
the effort going into advertising instead of producing products that make the
world better.

~~~
Cthulhu_
> There is so much potential lost with all the effort going into advertising
> instead of producing products that make the world better.

Devil's advocate / on the other hand: there's so much potential lost with all
the effort going into producing products that make the world better, but which
fall flat due to a lack of or poor advertising.

~~~
epicide
They fall flat because they aren't keeping up with poorly made products that
have all their budgets put into advertising.

We can keep flipping this as long as we want. At the end of the day, it sucks
that companies get a bigger (short-term) reward by dumping more into
advertising and marketing than into the product itself.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
While advocating the use of Open Source software at a fairly large corporation
I used to work at, a common refrain was "You get what you paid for" I
eventually started replying to that with "So we get marketing, and lunches
with sales teams?" It actually worked a bit.

------
gaius
You see this alot on FB, “tag 10 friends in this ad to enter a draw” kind of
thing. It is one of the reasons that social media is poisonous to genuine
human relationships.

~~~
XorNot
I have this vague suspicion that social media will die out with our generation
because of this.

It came along when we were all high school/college or so, and this big
platform to refind old contacts was a surprising new experience.

Then all of collectively went into the workforce and suddenly had public
images to manage and so the whole thing very quickly became yet another
advertising channel via tragedy of the commons.

~~~
epicide
You are way more optimistic than I am.

Reconnecting with old acquaintances is just one (outdated, as you mention) use
case of social media. They have become much more subversive (and profitable)
as media/advertising engines.

They'll survive as long as companies are willing to put money into advertising
and enough people are influenced by (not even "suckered by") the ads. So
basically forever.

------
jobigoud
So nanoinfluencers are people with small following on social media that are
given free products in return of advertisement.

Reminds me a type of sponsorship in sports and hobbies. The brands or shops
select some individuals and give them access to their collection at
advantageous price (say -30% of retail price, but not free), in exchange of
simply wearing or using the stuff. Similar idea of "influencers" as
advertisement platforms.

Next step: startup providing an API for influencers as a service.

~~~
michaelbuckbee
These exist already at all levels from big -> small influencers.

The much maligned "Klout" was an early form of this but cratered for dumb
reasons.

------
Rjevski
I’m really concerned that I never heard of those brands before. Besides the
obvious annoyance caused by these ads, is there any guarantee those no-name
products (as far as I’m aware none of them are a household brand at least not
in the UK) are safe?

I can see shady fly-by-night operations using these “influencers” to shill
their dangerous & non-compliant shit and possibly get people hurt. Sure, they
can also be buying conventional ads but (I hope) most people are wise enough
not to fall for them or at least carry out due diligence where as it being
posted by a “friend” (I’d say anyone that sells out their followers isn’t
really a friend) inherently gives it legitimacy.

We’ve already got this situation with multi-level marketing schemes using
social media to shill their garbage (most is crap, and some is outright
dangerous with multiple reports of nasty side-effects) and con new victims,
I’d rather not see this expand even more.

~~~
tomgp
Clinique is not a no name product by any stretch of the imagination. They've
been going since the sixties and their products are available on pretty much
any UK high-street. I guess you're not the target market for mid-high end skin
care products?

~~~
Rjevski
> I guess you're not the target market for mid-high end skin care products?

Agreed, but the rest of my point still stands. I feel there’s a lot of
potential for abuse here.

------
temp-dude-87844
This is not that different from the people who are told to post on Insta and
FB after they've received a service: styling at a hair salon, nails, makeup;
it's not even that far from posting on their own accord after they've been to
a restaurant or concert.

The meaningful difference is in the former case, the revealed preferences are
swayed by the exchange of money and may not authentically reflect the person's
true opinion, whereas in the latter case the revealed preferences are swayed
solely by social convention (and may not authentically reflect the person's
true opinion).

------
QuantumGood
Humans are strongly wired to evaluate differences between humans, and
advertisers are skilled at creating the signals that humans use to evaluate.

But they don't have to work too hard. "Influencers" can be created virtually
out of thin air. Simply say "this is an influencer", and in the absence of
contrary signals many people will treat them as such.

(We've all heard of a NOT famous person hiring friends to pretend to be
paparazzi when they go out somewhere, fooling people who see them, being
introduced to someone "famous" that we've never heard of, etc., etc.)

------
pmcpinto
Probably nowadays Instagram is the medium that shows more "ads", considering
the number of users that publish "promoted" content. It reminds me those
fashion magazines that show like 130 pages of ads in 150 pages.

It's kinda sad to see people promoting stuff in exchange for some free
samples, just so they can call themselves "influencers". I'm wondering if
people are not getting tired of all of this fakeness.

------
scrutinizer21
This group at Princeton conducted a study into whether influencers disclose
their relationships with advertisers to users. Turns out the vast majority do
not. Interesting read.

[https://medium.com/acm-cscw/was-this-an-ad-an-
investigation-...](https://medium.com/acm-cscw/was-this-an-ad-an-
investigation-of-paid-social-media-endorsements-3ab12231d3d8)

------
Mc_Big_G
Cool, maybe this will kill Instagram.

------
Paul-ish
I wonder if having sponsors also lends legitimacy to these influencers. Before
they were just someone with some followers, but now they have corporate
recognition.

------
egypturnash
People are blocking more and more ads, so ad money is looking for new avenues.
I really can’t decide if this is better or worse.

