Baloney. How many teenagers could make literally millions of dollars in centuries past based primarily on their relatability (in addition to their video game or makeup application skills). Modern social networks and YouTube have opened up an entirely new way not to just have influence, but to monetize, productize and quantify it.
I get it, you probably think it's all dumb and pointless, but to say it's "nothing new" is like saying the internet is nothing new because people have been sending messages back and forth for centuries.
Sure there are new avenues to create and connect with people to gain that recognition, along with increased opportunity from a bigger population and lower costs, but how fame works and the monetization of that fame is a very old concept. There's nothing new there.
Study the principals, not the buzzwords. You can find all this in a 50 year old marketing book.
That statement is ridiculous to me - actually more ridiculous than I find the whole "influencer" culture in the first place.
"Influencer" absolutely is a real thing. The reason brands are willing to pay many thousands of dollars to get something as simple as a tweet, story or post about a product is quite simply because it works. On the other side, Snapchat lost $1.3 billion in valuation when Kylie Jenner tweeted "sooo does anyone else not open Snapchat anymore? Or is it just me... ugh this is so sad." Seems like "influencer" very accurately describes the role.