Hacker News Reader

Comment by ptah | Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com