Hacker News Reader

Comment by mcv | Hacker News Reader

I just realised that these 'influencers' sound a lot like professional beggars. They're successful at something, right? There's no need for them to beg like that, and they're presenting it as if they're doing you a favour while they do it.

View on HN

>They're successful at something, right? There's no need for them to beg like that, and they're presenting it as if they're doing you a favour while they do it.

Isn't that the very thing they're successful at? Getting deals and stuff for free in exchange of their pretty little faces promoting it to their fans.

Yes, and if they are good enough, they result in a net gain for the other party as well.

they are the instagram version of those backpackers with shitty cardboard signs begging for money so they can keep up their "spiritual journey across different cultures" or whatever nonsense they claim to pursue.

No they are not, 'backpackers' wants to go on a journey and will thank you for your money. They don't promises nor demand anything from you.

If they are successful, then their posts are worth more than $4 so they wouldn't be eager to trade one for an ice cream cone.

kind of like "come and play guitar at my bar without pay for the exposure"

Only in this case, it actually works, as there are firms (even international brands) paying influencers top dollars for mentioning their products.

So more like "come play at Max's Kansas City without pay for the exposure" -- tons of bands would have jumped at the chance.

It's just that not all influencers have equal reach (and not all businesses need the extra promotion. Nike can always sell more shoes, but an ice cream stand might have to push people away if they have too many customers, as there's so many a person can serve).

Actually it’s the other way around. “If you let me, I’ll play at your bar for free beer”. The influencers are selling advertisement for cheap. And it’s the same deal as with musicians, it’s a good deal which is mutually beneficiary if the talent is there, if not, we’ll then you laugh at the offer and try to publicly humiliate the person trying to establish a place for themselves. “Can you believe this guy wanted to play at my bar, AND expected free beer? What a joke”.

When you have a bunch every day, who can barely hold the guitar or sing a tune, posing like they are Led Zeppelin if they can just have a free beer... yeah I might snap too after a while.

Are the advertisements cheap though? Half of the influencers who have approached my businesses have obviously paid for most of their followers and their "advert" would be unlikely to result in any conversions.

That’s on the business to judge of course, as are all deals. Isn’t it on the business to model marketing effectiveness?

Most guitar players are shit. That doesn’t mean that concerts are a scam. As I wrote it depends on the talent. And advertisement through established influencers with a real following is cheaper than going through magazines was back in the day.

The difference is in who tries to initiate the transaction - the producer or the advertiser. In the case of the band in the bar it would be the band asking the bar to play for free (i.e. the producer going to the advertiser), but in the case of the "influencer" asking the ice-cream truck for free ice cream it is the other way around (i.e. advertiser going to the producer). Now if it were the other way around, i.e. the ice cream truck was to actively reach out to "influencers" and offer them free ice cream in return for the exposure, then that would be different, and I think many of us would agree less creepy.

I think of the bar case the other way around: the musicans are the producers (of music) and the bar is the advertiser (offering the exposure of allowing you to play in front of people)

Yes, by "band asking the bar to play for free (i.e. the producer going to the advertiser)" I mean the band are the producers of the product, and the band are initiating a transaction with the bar who are the advertiser for that product. The only time I'd expect the transaction to be initiated the other way around, i.e. the bar going to the band, would be when the power dynamic was inverted, e.g. it was a less well known bar asking a more famous band to play there to try to attract custom to the bar, but in that case I would expect the band to be asking for payment not offering to play for free, and in doing so they would effectively switch roles, i.e. the band would take on something of an advertiser's role and the bar becomes more like the product that is being advertised, in which case I think the original point about it normally being the producers of a product initiating transactions with the advertisers of the product rather than the other way around would remain.

Sadly in Los Angeles there are many bars that charge bands to play there. Because the are way too many wannabe musicians trying to get famous, the bar actually earns money from the band and gets free entertainment.

Also ensures the worst bands on average will be found there.

I don't think it's quite the same. The influencers are at least purporting to offer a trade value for value. Maybe they aren't actually offering value, maybe some of them are even knowingly not providing value, but that's fraud not begging. A beggar says give me something because I want it without even a pretense of offering anything in exchange.

There is a certain irony related to the "Support the Guardian" bit at the end of the article.

They are peculiar as they are owned by a trust, not a corporation so not profit driven

Are the journalists working there "profit driven"? Do they work for a salary, often lucrative, or do they write for free?

And do they put in actual work and need to pay for food and rent?

What's "actual work"? How is writing more "actual" than shooting videos and doing photo shoots (which can be lots of hard work out in the field every day)? Influencers have built an audience, and are paid for ads and promotional deals. This sounds like professional work to me, especially since some are making 6+ figures.

And of course they also need to pay for "food and rent".

If it was about "actual" work, then those journalists in need of "support" could go do a job that actually pays, in a non declining industry.

I like your question about actual work. I suppose anything that helps pay the bills should count. So I definitely agree that bring a social media influencer should count as real or actual work. It's just that there's a "bad taste" element to the profession, similar to how people may react to selling MLM beauty products or Herbalife. I suppose Herbalife should count as actual work too, at least to the people who get sucked into selling the products. But I also see why restaurants/hotels and food vendors might react negatively to influencers who try to get free service in exchange for exposure that may or may not exist.

I find this rather sad, as good journalism is vital for a healthy, free democracy. And yet we don't seem to have a good way to pay for it. In a capitalist system, entertainment is more profitable than news.

On the other hand journalism has also been a weapon for controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests, from the days of Hearst at least, to the WMD and all kinds of more subtle manipulation.

I'd rather have a vibrant scene like the blogging of yore, with good voices rising to the top (or not), than large press interests and gatekeepers.

But blogs and entertainment can also be used as propaganda?

Sure. But tv/press had an unfair advantage of being a gatekeeper, not offering a way for the public to respond (except for "letters to the editor" and such), having unique access to power figures, and so on.

Blogs did away with most of that.

If someone is telling the news service what to write, then you've got your business model right there: the person who decides what content to promote gets to pay for it.

I'm talking about real independent news. That is the kind of news that is absolutely vital for a democracy, and it's the one kind for which there is no easy business model. Ideally the readers would care about independent news, but it turns out a lot of people love getting lied to.

How do you know the bloggers aren't "controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests"; how do you know who funds them? There's no transparency at all.

I do miss the old blogosphere, but it could only exist as long as it had no influence. Once it became large enough to move politics, a takeover could not be prevented.

As the old question goes, who influences the influencers?

>How do you know the bloggers aren't "controlling mass opinion, propaganda, and promoting particular interests"; how do you know who funds them?

I don't. But the beauty of it is that there are no gatekeepers there (online), and the cost of having one's voice heard are zero. And the public has the same power to call them for it (either in their own comments, or from similar outlets).

I don't care for propaganda being peddled to the public -- as long as it a voice among other voices.

I do care for private interests (e.g. like Heart or Murdoch or today's moguls) having the only means to publish theirs, and having a faux-prestige because of them being "official", "press", etc.

You're conflating profit motive and working for money.

A profit motive is exactly what makes people work for money.

They're related, but not exactly the same. Individuals or organisations may charge fees for services with or without the expectation of profit.

Most Journalists salaries are a pittance.

Compared to programmers, maybe. Still much better than most available middle class gigs, and the "sky is the limit" once they have connections to power and influence.

Not as much as you would think - I recall an ex Journalist who went into PR telling me that the deputy editor of the Scotsman was receiving income support (the benefit that toped up your income if you had a low family income)

The Guardian Might Not be but GMG is and the new editor is trying improved the Guardians Finances so it breaks even.

Irony like the Alanis Morrisette song? (ie not ironic at all).

The Guardian are asking the readership to support the articles, you'll note they paid for their own icecream.'Influencers' are asking the subjects to fund the articles. One is advertising, one is journalism.

I'll backtrack slightly on that last sentence, advertising/sponsorship can work for certain things, in general though its a big conflict of interest.

No need to backtrack. If the person/company/brand you're writing about is also the one paying you to write about them, that is exactly advertising. It's not news.

I backtracked because of all the possible exceptions. If a gaming magazine reviews a game they didn't pay for, or what about car reviewers buying cars they didn't pay for. These are generally referred to as journalism. Then there's sponsorship, what if 'green' company sponsors green content, or a vegan company sponsors an article about the bad things about industrial meat production. So I not sure its completely black and white.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com