Like in any nuanced field, there are good and bad apples. At the end of the day, attention is valuable, and Instagram influencers are driving attention like crazy.

Does it work? I don't have any hard science to back it up, but I've worked with many brands who see a ridiculous return on it (despite paying between $50-$2000 per post). It doesn't work for every brand though.

I'm a dev, I work in the industry (I run a startup in this space, check profile if interested), and I consider myself minimalist and not materialistic. Yet when it came time to purchase my first watch, I went with a nice, minimalist looking brand I'd seen advertised on IG constantly. Same with when I needed to buy a new set of t-shirts.

We constantly ask for recommendations on HN and accept them without verifying who the poster is or if they have ulterior motives. I've bought _so_ many books off of HN suggestions because I give the average poster a respectable amount of trust. It works the same in IG influencer marketing - those who follow a particular influencer grant the influencer a modicum of trust and are willing to trust their recommendations more than a banner, billboard, or magazine ad.

MVMT? I am bombarded with ads for this brand.

An "Engagement Strategist dedicated to helping brands grow, evolve & engage" is upset other people are doing her job differently (cheaper?) and wrote a post on medium.

Which is ironic, because I've "met" (aka. had to work with) too many clueless, even useless marketers. And I can definitely understand why a company would pay an influencer instead. Much more direct, and easier to gauge the effectiveness of spend.

I think influencers are a thing. What the threshold is, I don't know.

But maybe it's one of those things that work when it's unstated. Soon as you declare yourself an influencer, then unless you have bona fides, you cease to be an effective influencer.

Influencers in tech: Woz, Jobs, MarkZ, Musk, Ng.

Influencers in other areas: LeBron, Kardashians, Obamas, Sanders, Trump, Brady, Kanye, Jenner.

Most/all of those are influencers not because they seek to do that explicitly, but because it's a byproduct of other achievements.

When it's your main thing, then you're not so much an influencer but a promoter.

I think the author is using the word influencer to specifically refer to instagram influencers aka fashion/muscle/whatever models. theres a reason comedians dont hock products over instagram, but kim khardasian and co do. in other words, influencers' fame was gained through static imagery over the internet. You're referring to actual influencers. So in the end you both agree.

Fair point. I think what those people can do is "bring awareness" to a brand, etc.. but not make people buy it because of them. If they like it, they'll buy it because of the value the product offers rather than because instagrammer X had it --thought it may be the case in some areas.

In other words their value may be in "surfacing" something. Akin to ranking something higher on SERPs.

"There is (always has been) an alternative — It’s called “Genuine Thought Leadership”... The concept of “thought leadership” is completely different than “influencing” anything or anyone. In fact, I would argue it’s the exact opposite. Because while influencers are about follower numbers, thought leaders are about expertise and knowledge." -top highlight

Personally I'm fascinated by all these good looking people I see on Instagram who make a lot of money doing little more than taking a picture with some gummy vitamins or drinking a cup of tea. Or being paid by a tourism agency to take all expense paid trips around the world.

Not afraid to admit I'm jealous.

good article on thoughtleaders from last year https://newrepublic.com/article/143004/rise-thought-leader-h...