Those so-called "influencers" aren't really about serving their audience -- they strike me as just a scammy way to travel "for free".
Also, those "reputable magazines" still sell ads to the companies they cover. There's zero difference here.
> Those so-called "influencers" aren't really about serving their audience
They're about serving their customers, ie, the brands. Some do a great job; others do not. And others, as discussed in the article, aren't even trying to provide marketing services and are just trying to scam a free hotel stay. Similarly, some ad networks aren't even trying to provide value to clients and are just trying to soak up advertising dollars, but that doesn't mean all advertising is a scam.
Thing is, it works.
For sure a lot of them are pretty low effort and just do it as a side job, but I don't think it's as simple as just being attractive and I don't think a lot of them are as entitled as they seem.
It's all cut from the same cloth but at the end of the day, advertising works.
We must move in separate travel worlds. Within bicycle touring, travelers with established blogs very often accept free stuff, because this hobby requires a great deal of gear (and gear replacement) that isn't cheap. But this usually doesn't affect their reputability in the eyes of the community, especially when they review some of this gear negatively and note how it broke on the road.
Tech publications receive free stuff all the time too.
And for people like Casey Neistat - people send stuff to him unsolicited.
If I can pattern myself 90% after someone that other people are imitating, those other people are virtually already 90% imitating me anyway, they just don't know it yet. If I can get them to remember my name, and a significant chunk to think that my 10% difference is in qualities where I'm superior to the person I'm imitating, I've at least carved out a niche, but I maybe on the road to completely replacing them.
Of course on a very small scale, this could just be amongst people at my workplace, or who go to my college.
Sure, for the writers in order to maintain an illusion of objectivity. But none of them have policies on the publication/company taking ad money in exchange for positive reviews.
> Those so-called "influencers" aren't really about serving their audience -- they strike me as just a scammy way to travel "for free".
Nobody "serves" the audience. You develop an audience so that the audience can serve you. Also, it isn't "scammy". It's business and it's been going on long before social media.
Do you think tv execs put Bud Light commercials during football games because they love horribly watered down beer? Do you think X athlete chooses Nike over Adidas or vice versa because one treats their chinese slave laborers better? Do you really think matthew mcconaughey thinks lincolns are the best cars? Do you think steven spielberg or other directors use product placement in their films because they believe in all those products? Do you think newspapers run rolex ads in their papers because they really believe it's worthless to spend money on rolex?
No. The answer is the all these influencers push products that pay them the most. You and I would do the same if we had a following.