> People who can actually afford this will just go on holidays by themselves with no thoughts about the “influencers” whatsoever, also because by the time you can afford such lifestyles you widen up to the obvious commercial intents of these influencer “recommendations”, making their “review” purpose moot.

Isn't the idea to follow people who, for example, travel to cool places that you might not have considered?

Perhaps seeing one of those pictures pop up where influencer X spends a while in a Maldives resort might actually get you interested to go check it out yourself?

I would be interested in cool places where influencers don't go...

To my knowledge influencers rarely travel to "cool" places. They travel to family friendly, safe places. And safe in multiple meanings in both "people are safe here" and "this place is safe for me as influencer since noone will be offended".

My family used to travel a lot and we went to a lot of family-unsafe places at times (like in-the-wilderniss campsites in southern africa where you can't leave the RV because there is snakes and wild animals outside or climbing up several vulcanoes in iceland and I mean 'climb' not 'walk up a slope')

Those are actually cool places.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, because I too think the places you describe are often cool. However, they're also very much outside of the comfort zone of most people.

For example, on average I would assume most women prefer a romantic getaway to the Maldives over climbing a volcano in Iceland. And most people with kids likely won't be going on a month long roadtrip through Africa or South-America.

> For example, on average I would assume most women prefer a romantic getaway to the Maldives over climbing a volcano in Iceland. And most people with kids likely won't be going on a month long roadtrip through Africa or South-America.

Because a romantic getaway is far cheaper than Iceland or Africa. It's not because it's outside their comfort zone, it's because they can't afford it. The average woman (or man) can barely take enough vacation days, let alone pay for it.

Apparently the advertisers buying space in FT's "How to spend it" issues think at least someone cares.

While most readers of the FT wouldn't drop six figures on a watch, the people who would spend that are more likely to be FT readers than most, so it's the right place to reach them.

As for Instagram influencers: who are the people staying in these hotels? Sure, a lot of them are likely to be the sort who read the FT or the Economist, but a good chunk of them are going to be honeymooners, for example, who I'd imagine are exactly the sort who would look to Instagram for ideas. Likewise there are obviously people in their 20s who could afford to stay in these places, and not all of them spend their time on HN. I'd guess Instagram is as good a place as any to reach them.

I think of this publication as a guide to expensive presents for your wife or a girlfriend.

... by way of apology for working all the time and neglecting her... It’s a big circle.

These guys fill voids in google searches and may close a deal when people are looking for validation.

If you cannot make a decision between the Four Seasons and the Conrad or whatever, some random guys food porn or gush about the bellman may tip you.

Travel magazines have been doing this sort of thing for decades.

To be fair that is a good thing as a long term strategy. They may lack money now but in the future when they could afford it that could pay large premiums. It is why marketers were so focused on youth for marketing - they have less set tastes and more big ticket items in the future.

Most teenagers can't afford a sports car but if you win them over they could wind up buying one when they are older and able to afford it.

I have seen the reverse backfire with traditional news. They would take all sorts of bullshit youth blaming and stupid moral panics and then wonder why people under middle age don't consider them worth reading or watching for free, let alone paying for.