Influencer: someone who affects or changes the way that other people behave.
A "deinfluencer" would be someone that does _not_ affect or changes the way other people behave (like me).
Which is clearly not what this article implies with the term. The people described in the article are also influencers. They just provide negative reviews instead of (paid) positive ones.
"De-influencing" is what the subculture calls itself. It's stated goal is to compensate for the influencing by influencing you in the opposite direction, by showing you the product without the glamor.
The creators are very aware that they're also influencers.
Yeah, this is just adding more fuel and kicking the advertising engine into a higher gear. The influencers and "deinfluencers" may pretend to be in opposition, but what they really do is drive more traffic to each other.
See also: influencer dramas, commentary channels. Lots of people get a lot of views (and ad exposure) for manufacturing and amplifying stupid, childish dramas. It's like a distributed, bottom-up reality show - lots of people write pieces of the script in a collaborative, best-effort basis, and advertisers just laugh at the money they make on viewers sold on "authenticity".
> What is deinfluencing? Deinfluencing is an emerging social media trend that discourages consumers from buying certain products that the deinfluencer has found to be indulgent, ineffective or not worth the money.
Here I was thinking nothing could be worse than influencer culture ...
What’s wrong? How is this worse than influencer culture? At its worst it’s as bad. But it actually can be better. There’s nothing wrong with everyone buying less crap they don’t need.
A "deinfluencer" would be someone that does _not_ affect or changes the way other people behave (like me).
Which is clearly not what this article implies with the term. The people described in the article are also influencers. They just provide negative reviews instead of (paid) positive ones.