South Korean here. Shinhan Life ran a TV commercial of Rozy. It's not BS.
Rather, people are becoming more and more annoyed by the repeating news articles trying to hype this thing. Also, young people around me gives absolute-zero-f** about this thing.
I should put it this way: boomers don't realize that influencer marketing is the most boomer thing to do these days.
That's the boomer perspective that I wanted to point out. Where's the internet in this flow? Where's the community? Where's google? I know the above statement is simplified, but what matter is the linking logic, which can be radically different b/w generations.
One thing boomers don't recognize is that, unlike the celebrities from the last generation, influencers are contributors, not rulers or leaders. They make practical contributions to their communities, and, in return, they earn trust, which then can be utilized for monetization. It's not like someone great bam comes in and become a star (which is the exact strategy of this artificial influencer. So boomer, eh?)
Also it's worth noting that the internet community is that it offers more information and raw data than the sum of influencers can ever offer. Follow the recommendation of an influencer? Pf, it's just mere a drop in the vast ocean. A proper digital-literate - and MZs are the first digital native generation - will search other sources, cross check the information, and, naturally, expand it even further. As more effort goes in to these steps, the significance of influencers drops rapidly.
So, I want to say that the influencer marketing can't be a key strategy these days. Rather, it's just an element in the usual advertisement campaign. The most critical part is the community engagement.
TV commercial does not make it not BS. There are lots of things in Korea that are utter BS but get a lot of attention, and people are generally fearful of missing out.
I am saying creators are probably not lying when they project $800k yearly revenue. Yes, you can earn $800k in South Korea entirely by fads, but that was not the question.
I know what you're saying, I'm not sure what being Korean has to do with that. And no, no one said you could not earn money in Korea through fads. What does that have to do with what I wrote?
I'm saying they are most definitely capable of lying, especially in cases where lying grants you a huge boost to future results.
Are you replying to the right comment here?
I backed up why I disagree that a single spark determines whether it's not BS. I assumed, being in Korea for so long, it'd be a given first thing to bring up when someone asks if hype is actually genuine. So I brought it up. Every fad with even the slightest traction will be overvalued more in Korea, and it will also fall out of favour much faster too. The cycle is very much filled with BS that hasn't started to stink yet.
You should see the investment funded startup scene in Korea. It's very close to throwing anything at the wall and waiting for the one that sticks. Which is a shame given how technologically empowered Koreans are.
I'm still unsure why it made anyone upset. But then again, this is the internet.
p.s: Post is rate limited now, so there was a delay in this reply.
"If you were South Korean" is exactly saying "You are not South Korean", which sanxiyn rightly took offense to.
As a native English speaker from the colonies, I have zero idea whether "If you were" in this usage is the subjunctive, or if it is a conditional clause, or something else. Maybe I need to take an ESOL course to learn English grammar.
I can see why they'd get upset if I was assuming they're not Korean. But that's not what I said or meant.
It would be considered directly saying that if I were to say "You can't be Korean because ____" or "You would be Korean if you ______".
I think you might be thinking of a similar construct which doesn't imply it's false: "If you're Korean, you realise ...". The "you" here is non-specific, and the phrase doesn't say you're Korean or not Korean. The present tense and lack of speculative "would" are what make the difference.
"If you were at the beach, you would have seen the shark." is saying you were not at the beach, and implying you didn't see the shark.
"If you were tall, you would have been able to see it" is saying you are not tall, and implying you couldn't see it.
The "if", "were", and "would" make the phrase a hypothetical counterfactual, imagining that the statement is true and supplying a consequence, and this means that the statement is actually false (i.e. you were not at the beach). This meaning holds when speaking about a specific "you", like the person you're replying to. I'm sure there's a name for this grammatical construct, but I don't know it.
The sentence may be incorrect, in which case the person you're speaking to could correct it with "I was at the beach, but I didn't see it", "I saw it by climbing on a rock", or "WTF I am Korean". It's possible the speaker may suspect their sentence is incorrect and be using it to ask a question indirectly, inviting correction.
A more general meaning is possible when you're not talking about a specific person, but using the conditional to imagine a group of people or something, e.g. "If you were employed, you could afford it, and if you were on a benefit you could afford it, so most people can afford it." I think this usage is uncommon though, as there are much clearer ways to phrase that sort of thing. It's definitely not the usage you wrote.
Source: Native English speaker, but not trained grammarian. Also wrote way too much because it's late at night and I can't be succinct.
It's completely normal to qualify one's perspective, and often beneficial. in fact for people to know whether your comment is an opinion, or based on some actual experience, knowledge, skill, etc, it adds value to the discussion.
In the context of South Korean culture, it's absolutely useful to know the commenter is South Korean.
If we're talking about tea, crumpets, or the rain, I might point out that I'm British.
It's not saying you don't know. It's saying that, this should be part of your knowledge based on you being British.
I don't see how that's offensive.
"If you were British..." and "If you are British..." have very different subtext.
That specific form of the sentence has negative connotations and might be considered divisive in (British) English.
It's essentially a challenge to my honesty, and had you said "if you are" rather than "if you were" it'd be a more amiable challenge, implying I should respond with proof that I know where York is, and not suggest I'm being dishonest.
As I said, it's divisive, but to some may be considered offensive too.
Just one word makes all of the difference.
If you want to suggest I would know where York is by virtue of being British, you might say;
"You will know where York is, because you're British" or "You must know where York is, you're British".
The statement is at most doubting whether you are British, but not dismissing or claiming the opposite.
>but to some may be considered offensive too.
It's offensive that someone might claim to be from somewhere and not understand a very common piece of knowledge from that place. Or at least I might want to claim it to be.