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.
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.
I was working with a guy who came from let say “disruptive car company”. He really laid out and explained that almost all “news” you see in the NYT, WaPo, etc about big companies was designed to first and foremost effect a stock price. When you see “charismatic company leader does X” it was a directed move to effect some stock. That at his company he was in the marketing, PR, and finance co-op that did exactly this.
Laid out just how much everything is manipulated. So yes, I believe that if you are reading an NYT about this and the target happens to be advertisers on NYT, that’s not an accident, nor is it speaking highly of NYT’s journalism standards.
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.
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:
> targeting their weaknesses, showing them images that associate the product with happy families, etc.
This part is explored really well in The Century of Self documentary. It describes how Madison Avenue used new psychology concepts and Baby Boomer individualism to invent modern advertising.
It's moved onto dopamine triggers of course, but even simple website "stickiness" I think may be an example of the kind of embedding you mention. Engage long enough and when the brain says "I engage with this site" it becomes self-fulfilling and engagement has no set end point.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I think online advertising is mostly a hoax, with very few exceptions. I usually dismiss anything that remotely resembles an ad and just shut it off, even if it was really interesting. So I tend to think that the companies that pay for ads online are the ones paying for the cost of browsing the Internet for free, so I hate ads a bit less after that :)
Yeah, but I guess it could be worse... they could be working on "civilian control systems" in the "defense" industry. Now they just spy, FUD, astroturf, and Psyop for brands and corporations. Govts and lobbyists can hire them!
It's probably best not to discuss crypto-coinage in this context.
Counterpoint: How much innovation has been incentivized due to so many internet services being free while being subsidized by ads.
It's definitely a nuisance, and left unchecked can become a Black Mirror or Maniac-esque nightmare. But in it's current format it still feels like a worthwhile exchange.
I know a lot of people working to make the world better, that have had to move onto other things because they lack an understanding of advertising. In fact most people I meet who strongly desire to serve others almost completely misunderstand how advertising works. Working to make the world better shouldn't be mutually exclusive to understanding advertising, but often seems to be.
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.
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.
I have never, ever seen anything like that on Facebook, at least not in years, though I know it exists. But I use
tools to curate my feed pretty aggressively.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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.)
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.
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.
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.
[+] [-] thisjustinm|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] gfs78|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SlowRobotAhead|7 years ago|reply
Laid out just how much everything is manipulated. So yes, I believe that if you are reading an NYT about this and the target happens to be advertisers on NYT, that’s not an accident, nor is it speaking highly of NYT’s journalism standards.
[+] [-] voidhorse|7 years ago|reply
It's wild.
[+] [-] leesec|7 years ago|reply
https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/live-in-chicago-...
[+] [-] malvosenior|7 years ago|reply
This part is explored really well in The Century of Self documentary. It describes how Madison Avenue used new psychology concepts and Baby Boomer individualism to invent modern advertising.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self
[+] [-] QuantumGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swanson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atom-morgan|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CryoLogic|7 years ago|reply
Children will go online looking for toy or game reviews not knowing even their friends have sold them out for a couple bucks.
[+] [-] xiphias2|7 years ago|reply
Still, strength is probably more important as a child.
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] CPLX|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] maxxxxx|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] kakaorka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GLjEI4YbnGD27LB|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kurthr|7 years ago|reply
It's probably best not to discuss crypto-coinage in this context.
[+] [-] sh33mp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deanCommie|7 years ago|reply
It's definitely a nuisance, and left unchecked can become a Black Mirror or Maniac-esque nightmare. But in it's current format it still feels like a worthwhile exchange.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gaius|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] XorNot|7 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kakaorka|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jobigoud|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
The much maligned "Klout" was an early form of this but cratered for dumb reasons.
[+] [-] QuantumGood|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rjevski|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] temp-dude-87844|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
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|7 years ago|reply
https://medium.com/acm-cscw/was-this-an-ad-an-investigation-...
[+] [-] Mc_Big_G|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Paul-ish|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] egypturnash|7 years ago|reply