Marketers today seem obsessed with “social influencers”. This relatively new phenomenon is pulling focus (both financial and strategic) at what appears to be an alarming rate. Conversations abound as to who the hottest, newest influencer is and how much it will cost to get them to plug your brand. Even the fashion show front row is being overrun by these latest marketing darlings, and they are sitting alongside members of the media and the popular culture whose true influence runs longer than just the number of people who follow their tweets.
The hype of “influence” has pervaded even the trade press from both an editorial and advertorial perspective. The latest New York Fashion Week special edition of WWD included a well camouflaged ad that followed the “behind-the-scenes” adventure of one top blogger, which was nothing more than a justification of the blogging industry wrapped within a sales pitch for the Samsung GS8.
The conversations around the amount of influence that these “influencers” truly hold are becoming more prevalent. A recent article published in the Robin Report by Dana Wood, notes that the question of review legitimacy of the macro-influencers has created a new demand for micro-influencers. Glossier founder and CEO Emily Weiss defines micro-influencers as individuals with as few as 500 social media followers while others would define micro-influencers at a higher range of 10,000 to 100,000 followers. The Robin Report article goes on to even debunk the myth that bigger is better as data shows that micro-influencers get a higher percentage of likes to their posts, indicating that while their reach may be smaller, their connection is greater.
But consumers aren’t stupid. Whether micro or macro, influencers are increasingly viewed with distrust as consumers know that most of their opinions are being paid for. The micro-influencers may be flying a little more under the radar screen (and I will admit that there are probably a greater proportion of unpaid ambassadors amongst the micro universe), but as regulations continue to evolve, the consumer will be more able to identify a paid shill when one appears.
So, what is a marketer to do? Simple. Refocus on making your consumer your brand ambassador by giving them a product and experience that they want to share in an authentic manner.
Consider the following stats that have been pulled from a variety of sources around the web:
88% of consumers trust user reviews as much as personal recommendations
72% of consumers act only after reading a positive user review
Over half of young people aged 18 to 34 say they trust online user reviews more than the opinions of friends and family
Ratings on reliability, expertise, and professionalism remain the most important drivers
On the other hand:
Reviews from “experts” and celebrity endorsements are less trusted than online user reviews
The mistake being made today is that brands are trying to borrow credibility from the wrong source. Instead of giving the consumer something to tout, brands are creating ambassadors who cannot provide an honest, educated opinion. Instead of creating meaningful and differentiating consumer experiences, brands are creating non-linear experiences for people who “seem” to have a broad reach. Instead of focusing on authenticity, brands are making connections with temporal pillars whose influence is as quick to disappear as it was to be established in the first place.
The solution is to engage your consumer and let their influence lead the way.