5 ms·

> Too many people are willing to shill for free, which hurts anyone trying to do it for money. But you're still a shill either way. Maybe I'm just old but whe

> Too many people are willing to shill for free, which hurts anyone trying to do it for money. But you're still a shill either way. Maybe I'm just old but when I was growing up being a sellout was a pejorative. Now it's considered a virtue. I frankly don't get it.

collyw 8y ago
Well said. There was something I inherently disliked about the whole influencer idea. By labeling it a sellout I see exactly what it was. (Sellout actually implies they had something cool to begin with like a band, unlike influencers).
ghaff 8y ago
If one substitutes "write about things that interest me" for "shill," I don't have any problem with it. But I read shill as if you give me stuff/pay me, I'll write nice things about them. Personally, I sometimes accept review copies of things/books/etc. But, if I don't like them, that's what I'll write.
- pas 8y ago
  Eventually the companies will ask those who reliably write positive things. And when you have nothing, but followers, and all you want is followers, you don't really want to say negative things anyway. So, it's a social game, of how to climb the ladder made of nothing, by latching on to those who are somehow higher up all the way up to the sky. This is the Kim Kardashian model.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    Fortunately, it's not how I make money and I don't really care if a company sends me stuff or pays my expenses to an event or not. And at least some companies, especially if they believe they have a genuinely good product, are willing to roll the dice with people who have a genuine following and are frequently critical but fair.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    Yes. But positive isn't necessarily credible. A positive review from the wrong source can be bad news from some brands / products. But again, this could be why some many brands pay so little most of the time. They're just tossing shit at the wall, but in this case kinda hoping not too much actually sticks.
    - pas 8y ago
      Exactly. Positive is at best publication bias, or self-censorship, or whatever you want to call it, but usually it's pretty simply just fake. People know it, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that people like those who live the high-life. Crystal clear ocean lapping the painfully white sand beach, the sky so blue, even its reflection seems to burn out as it shimmers on the endless cerulean horizon, all there for those who "have it". And the next post is a seemingly boring street, just shops, and our hero, somewhere in Europe, and maybe a messy hair day photo thrown in, our hero rests, somewhere in a 5 star hotel, a scantly clad young female caught an impromptu point in time, yet somehow critically perfectly advantageous for her, all of it - of course - done effortlessly. The next post is just a boring "shopping" pic again. Maybe a bag, a shoe, a dress from Prada, Gucci, Dior, but the 1000-3000 USD ones, of course. So little said, everything implied.
eloisant 8y ago
That's because nowadays we judge people by the size of their bank account. We equate people's value to economic value, somehow what you do hasn't any value if you can't create wealth from it. We even talk about the "net worth" of someone, like if their money what "what they're worth".
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Nowadays? It was always thus. To me, I am worth infinite money. But I accept that to others, I am hardly worth much of anything.
rconti 8y ago
Yeah, I'm honestly perplexed as to why anyone would follow any of these people. I'm on the various social platforms to varying extents. I use Facebook but primarily interact with friends an family. Ditto with Instagram, but I also follow some people I don't know; a few great photographers, seph lawless (photographs urban decay), the folks with the dog and cat they take camping, etc. No part of me is interested in following someone who is a celebrity for celebrity's sake, let alone a person who is ONLY a celebrity because they're attempting to monetize their following. I don't mean that would explicitly turn me off (although it probably would), I mean, I don't see the impetus to follow in the first place. What value or enjoyment would I get from content that is without value?
- pitaj 8y ago
  It's children. Fun rule: if you're ever wondering why something odd or stupid is popular, it's probably kids.
  - jakubp 8y ago
    Nope. Alcohol, drugs, watching sports, these things are really odd and really stupid in my view and yet it's not kids who drive the sales the most.
    - chiefalchemist 8y ago
      In the context of the article / thread, children is probably accurate.
      - jakubp 8y ago
        No, it's not. There are surely lots of "kids", which I'm guessing includes teenagers, but there's also a high percentage of people aged 20-40 or even more who follow those "influencers" much the same way. People don't really grow up from being naive, susceptible to social fashions, etc.
        8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 8y ago
>But you're still a shill either way Eh. Everyone has a job, and everyone has an opinion. The difference between an honest "influencer" and you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like is that the influencer is getting paid for their honest opinion while you're doing it for free. I don't see that as a bad thing personally. As for dishonest influencers who shill for products they don't like... well, probably half the people on this forum work for an advertising company. It's literally the same thing. Me telling my Instagram followers to buy a product isn't any different from Google showing you an AdWords ad for the same thing. Being a sellout is only a pejorative to hippies and artists. To anyone else, it's called having a job.
- jcahill 8y ago
  >The difference between an honest "influencer" and you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like is that the influencer is getting paid for their honest opinion while you're doing it for free. You're describing a reviewer, brainiac. >you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like The only difference between unsolicited, antisocially consumerist behavior and what you do is that you're pay to play. Sure, this is factual. >As for dishonest influencers who shill for products they don't like... well, probably half the people on this forum work for an advertising company. Imagine the frailty of a life propped up by shit like transparent tu quoques and $38 in revenue plus like sephora samples and mushroom brand watches with busted dials. Imagine the intense shame and suicidal ideation over the worthlessness of such a life >Me telling my Instagram followers to buy a product isn't any different from Google showing you an AdWords ad for the same thing. Google's game is to be large enough that this process can almost be tolerable, while remaining bureaucratically impersonal yet targeted to the ad recipient's consumer profile. It's also eminently avoidable. Your game is to get access to "exclusive social events" in Area City at the expense of anyone who might've followed you thinking you were an actual person, while failing to get compensated more meaningfully because you just ain't that pretty. >Being a sellout is only a pejorative to hippies and artists. To anyone else, it's called having a job. Sellouts are people without professional integrity. That's what the term means.
softwarefounder 8y ago
Agreed. I'd only promote something I truly liked or "believed" in, and even then it's risky - the establishment, recipe or product can change on a dime, and then you're image and promotion is still tied to it.

collyw 8y ago

Well said. There was something I inherently disliked about the whole influencer idea. By labeling it a sellout I see exactly what it was. (Sellout actually implies they had something cool to begin with like a band, unlike influencers).

ghaff 8y ago

If one substitutes "write about things that interest me" for "shill," I don't have any problem with it. But I read shill as if you give me stuff/pay me, I'll write nice things about them. Personally, I sometimes accept review copies of things/books/etc. But, if I don't like them, that's what I'll write.

pas 8y ago
Eventually the companies will ask those who reliably write positive things. And when you have nothing, but followers, and all you want is followers, you don't really want to say negative things anyway. So, it's a social game, of how to climb the ladder made of nothing, by latching on to those who are somehow higher up all the way up to the sky. This is the Kim Kardashian model.
- ghaff 8y ago
  Fortunately, it's not how I make money and I don't really care if a company sends me stuff or pays my expenses to an event or not. And at least some companies, especially if they believe they have a genuinely good product, are willing to roll the dice with people who have a genuine following and are frequently critical but fair.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Yes. But positive isn't necessarily credible. A positive review from the wrong source can be bad news from some brands / products. But again, this could be why some many brands pay so little most of the time. They're just tossing shit at the wall, but in this case kinda hoping not too much actually sticks.
  - pas 8y ago
    Exactly. Positive is at best publication bias, or self-censorship, or whatever you want to call it, but usually it's pretty simply just fake. People know it, but that doesn't matter, what matters is that people like those who live the high-life. Crystal clear ocean lapping the painfully white sand beach, the sky so blue, even its reflection seems to burn out as it shimmers on the endless cerulean horizon, all there for those who "have it". And the next post is a seemingly boring street, just shops, and our hero, somewhere in Europe, and maybe a messy hair day photo thrown in, our hero rests, somewhere in a 5 star hotel, a scantly clad young female caught an impromptu point in time, yet somehow critically perfectly advantageous for her, all of it - of course - done effortlessly. The next post is just a boring "shopping" pic again. Maybe a bag, a shoe, a dress from Prada, Gucci, Dior, but the 1000-3000 USD ones, of course. So little said, everything implied.

eloisant 8y ago

That's because nowadays we judge people by the size of their bank account. We equate people's value to economic value, somehow what you do hasn't any value if you can't create wealth from it. We even talk about the "net worth" of someone, like if their money what "what they're worth".

skookumchuck 8y ago
Nowadays? It was always thus. To me, I am worth infinite money. But I accept that to others, I am hardly worth much of anything.

rconti 8y ago

Yeah, I'm honestly perplexed as to why anyone would follow any of these people. I'm on the various social platforms to varying extents. I use Facebook but primarily interact with friends an family. Ditto with Instagram, but I also follow some people I don't know; a few great photographers, seph lawless (photographs urban decay), the folks with the dog and cat they take camping, etc. No part of me is interested in following someone who is a celebrity for celebrity's sake, let alone a person who is ONLY a celebrity because they're attempting to monetize their following. I don't mean that would explicitly turn me off (although it probably would), I mean, I don't see the impetus to follow in the first place. What value or enjoyment would I get from content that is without value?

pitaj 8y ago
It's children. Fun rule: if you're ever wondering why something odd or stupid is popular, it's probably kids.
- jakubp 8y ago
  Nope. Alcohol, drugs, watching sports, these things are really odd and really stupid in my view and yet it's not kids who drive the sales the most.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    In the context of the article / thread, children is probably accurate.
    - jakubp 8y ago
      No, it's not. There are surely lots of "kids", which I'm guessing includes teenagers, but there's also a high percentage of people aged 20-40 or even more who follow those "influencers" much the same way. People don't really grow up from being naive, susceptible to social fashions, etc.
      - 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

freehunter 8y ago

>But you're still a shill either way Eh. Everyone has a job, and everyone has an opinion. The difference between an honest "influencer" and you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like is that the influencer is getting paid for their honest opinion while you're doing it for free. I don't see that as a bad thing personally. As for dishonest influencers who shill for products they don't like... well, probably half the people on this forum work for an advertising company. It's literally the same thing. Me telling my Instagram followers to buy a product isn't any different from Google showing you an AdWords ad for the same thing. Being a sellout is only a pejorative to hippies and artists. To anyone else, it's called having a job.

jcahill 8y ago
>The difference between an honest "influencer" and you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like is that the influencer is getting paid for their honest opinion while you're doing it for free. You're describing a reviewer, brainiac. >you posting a comment here talking about a product/service you like The only difference between unsolicited, antisocially consumerist behavior and what you do is that you're pay to play. Sure, this is factual. >As for dishonest influencers who shill for products they don't like... well, probably half the people on this forum work for an advertising company. Imagine the frailty of a life propped up by shit like transparent tu quoques and $38 in revenue plus like sephora samples and mushroom brand watches with busted dials. Imagine the intense shame and suicidal ideation over the worthlessness of such a life >Me telling my Instagram followers to buy a product isn't any different from Google showing you an AdWords ad for the same thing. Google's game is to be large enough that this process can almost be tolerable, while remaining bureaucratically impersonal yet targeted to the ad recipient's consumer profile. It's also eminently avoidable. Your game is to get access to "exclusive social events" in Area City at the expense of anyone who might've followed you thinking you were an actual person, while failing to get compensated more meaningfully because you just ain't that pretty. >Being a sellout is only a pejorative to hippies and artists. To anyone else, it's called having a job. Sellouts are people without professional integrity. That's what the term means.

softwarefounder 8y ago

Agreed. I'd only promote something I truly liked or "believed" in, and even then it's risky - the establishment, recipe or product can change on a dime, and then you're image and promotion is still tied to it.