4 ms·

I somewhat disagree with his assessment of influencers. Can they be annoying? Yes. Are they providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes

I somewhat disagree with his assessment of influencers. Can they be annoying? Yes. Are they providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people? Yes. The influencer has single handedly upended the advertisement industry and taken money away from traditional media is a big way. I think it's given more jobs to people who don't work on Madison Avenue and maybe don't have technical skills, but can connect with a large audience of people.

hopfscotch 8y ago
> providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people Listen to yourself holy shit
- floren 8y ago
  I love engaging with brands!!
- askafriend 8y ago
  Is it not real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people that then may become the biggest proponents of your product? Take fashion, a very tribal concept where each subculture has their own take on it. If you're a fashion brand wouldn't you want to find a way to reach the subculture you're a part of? As much as you might want to deny it, marketing matters and more of it is coming online because more people are going online more often. It's just shifting to where the people are. It's easy to dismiss ideas or the way people express them. But if you're going to do it, contribute a complete thought that has value and moves the conversation forward instead of just dropping a "Listen to yourself holy shit". This isn't Reddit.
  - herbst 8y ago
    Been there, done that. However things changed, a lot. If you are not constantly posting (and pushing and click baiting) your posts won't be very visible anymore. The way to get in front of your audience on Facebook is money and that is rather expensive and due to amount of ads users have to experience these days only minimally effective. There are millions of websites, thousands at least specific to any niche, that are happy to take your ad money and provide you with highly effektiv and targetted traffic. This is not only cheaper and more effective but does help the actual Web by financing content providers.
    - askafriend 8y ago
      > The way to get in front of your audience on Facebook is money and that is rather expensive and due to amount of ads users have to experience these days only minimally effective. You're missing the fact that Facebook's Ad platform has made it possible for small businesses and niche products to afford effective advertising at scale. Previously that was a privilege available to only the wealthiest corporations that could afford to take out an ad in the newspaper or a slot on television both of which required a high minimum spend and had limited inventory. With targeted advertising at scale, small businesses with limited budgets can run ads that are shown to only the users they care about. It's more effective, for far less money than what was previously available. This also enables new challengers like Dollar Shave Club to compete effectively with giant established incumbents like Gilette. > There are millions of websites, thousands at least specific to any niche, that are happy to take your ad money and provide you with highly effektiv and targetted traffic. So now you're in the business of managing several different accounts with differing, often incompatible features, with wildly varying levels of efficiency and requirements. Not to mention your customer data is spread out across various silos and in various formats. Or, you can go to Facebook and reach a million people instantly across their properties through a single advertising interface. You get industry standard reporting and metrics along with the fact that you can target exactly who you want without wasting money. I simply don't think you're giving Facebook enough credit here. They have a phenomenal value proposition and you have to understand it in order to compete with it.
      - herbst 8y ago
        > Previously that was a privilege available to only the wealthiest corporations that could afford to take out an ad in the newspaper or a slot on television both of which required a high minimum spend and had limited inventory. > With targeted advertising at scale, small businesses with limited budgets can run ads that are shown to only the users they care about. It's more effective, for far less money than what was previously available. So more or less like Adsense? Or any other Web based ad company? I mean I totally get your point but scalable targetted ads is nether new nor exclusive to Facebook. The huge difference is Adsense for example limits the visible ads to less than is normal on Facebook. > So now you're in the business of managing several different accounts with differing, often incompatible features, with wildly varying levels of efficiency and requirements. Not to mention your customer data is spread out across various silos and in various formats. This is assuming there aren't dozens of platforms doing exactly that already. Adsense too gives you targeting but you help the content creators while doing so. Facebook is a interesting ad platform. However if you add that they are the only ones on that level that don't even pay their content creators it's simply to expensive. And as said before kinda unethical in my POV.
  - hopfscotch 8y ago
    I find marketing gross, regardless of whether it is necessary or not, and when people use language like that it makes me gag. People who speak that way are drones for a worthless, parasitic industry. That's my complete thought. Have a good one. Oh and it's funny you think this site is any different from any of the other cess pits out there.
    - askafriend 8y ago
      > Oh and it's funny you think this site is any different from any of the other cess pits out there. You're the one who's coming into this forum and contributing negativity. You're just taking a shit in public and doing it for all to see. Most people here at least take the care to articulate their thoughts even if they have strong (or sometimes even misguided) opinions or ideas. "Just listen to yourself holy shit" has never been a type of comment that's been welcome here, and you won't last long with that kind of attitude. Contribute substance, otherwise don't engage at all. No one needs to see your garbage, irrelevant thoughts if you're not even going to take the time to give your own thoughts the respect and articulation they deserve. Your comment is already dead, and that proves my point.
daveFNbuck 8y ago
I'm guessing most people who don't like influencers would rather have newspapers than provide more value to companies and create an industry for people whose main talent is popularity.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  And only the most popular stories are noticed. The backstories for many of these people aren't often told: https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom-left-me-in-financial-ruin/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom... I don't understand what value they really provide to the public. They almost exist to inspire envy.
longerthoughts 8y ago
I disagree but not downvoting because I think you raise a valid point and it's worth discussing. To me, the reason it's more than just "annoying" is that it encourages one-dimensional, superficial idols that will end up having an outsized impact on shaping a generation's values and notions of success. This is essentially an extension of celebrity worship, which existed long before Instagram. The difference is that Instagram is basically "democratizing" celebrity, lowering the barrier to entry and yielding an explosion of these types of icons, while simultaneously delivering them in a remarkably efficient manner that acts as a lever for reach and impact.

hopfscotch 8y ago

> providing real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people Listen to yourself holy shit

floren 8y ago
I love engaging with brands!!
askafriend 8y ago
Is it not real value for companies to be able to connect with tribes of people that then may become the biggest proponents of your product? Take fashion, a very tribal concept where each subculture has their own take on it. If you're a fashion brand wouldn't you want to find a way to reach the subculture you're a part of? As much as you might want to deny it, marketing matters and more of it is coming online because more people are going online more often. It's just shifting to where the people are. It's easy to dismiss ideas or the way people express them. But if you're going to do it, contribute a complete thought that has value and moves the conversation forward instead of just dropping a "Listen to yourself holy shit". This isn't Reddit.
- herbst 8y ago
  Been there, done that. However things changed, a lot. If you are not constantly posting (and pushing and click baiting) your posts won't be very visible anymore. The way to get in front of your audience on Facebook is money and that is rather expensive and due to amount of ads users have to experience these days only minimally effective. There are millions of websites, thousands at least specific to any niche, that are happy to take your ad money and provide you with highly effektiv and targetted traffic. This is not only cheaper and more effective but does help the actual Web by financing content providers.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    > The way to get in front of your audience on Facebook is money and that is rather expensive and due to amount of ads users have to experience these days only minimally effective. You're missing the fact that Facebook's Ad platform has made it possible for small businesses and niche products to afford effective advertising at scale. Previously that was a privilege available to only the wealthiest corporations that could afford to take out an ad in the newspaper or a slot on television both of which required a high minimum spend and had limited inventory. With targeted advertising at scale, small businesses with limited budgets can run ads that are shown to only the users they care about. It's more effective, for far less money than what was previously available. This also enables new challengers like Dollar Shave Club to compete effectively with giant established incumbents like Gilette. > There are millions of websites, thousands at least specific to any niche, that are happy to take your ad money and provide you with highly effektiv and targetted traffic. So now you're in the business of managing several different accounts with differing, often incompatible features, with wildly varying levels of efficiency and requirements. Not to mention your customer data is spread out across various silos and in various formats. Or, you can go to Facebook and reach a million people instantly across their properties through a single advertising interface. You get industry standard reporting and metrics along with the fact that you can target exactly who you want without wasting money. I simply don't think you're giving Facebook enough credit here. They have a phenomenal value proposition and you have to understand it in order to compete with it.
    - herbst 8y ago
      > Previously that was a privilege available to only the wealthiest corporations that could afford to take out an ad in the newspaper or a slot on television both of which required a high minimum spend and had limited inventory. > With targeted advertising at scale, small businesses with limited budgets can run ads that are shown to only the users they care about. It's more effective, for far less money than what was previously available. So more or less like Adsense? Or any other Web based ad company? I mean I totally get your point but scalable targetted ads is nether new nor exclusive to Facebook. The huge difference is Adsense for example limits the visible ads to less than is normal on Facebook. > So now you're in the business of managing several different accounts with differing, often incompatible features, with wildly varying levels of efficiency and requirements. Not to mention your customer data is spread out across various silos and in various formats. This is assuming there aren't dozens of platforms doing exactly that already. Adsense too gives you targeting but you help the content creators while doing so. Facebook is a interesting ad platform. However if you add that they are the only ones on that level that don't even pay their content creators it's simply to expensive. And as said before kinda unethical in my POV.
- hopfscotch 8y ago
  I find marketing gross, regardless of whether it is necessary or not, and when people use language like that it makes me gag. People who speak that way are drones for a worthless, parasitic industry. That's my complete thought. Have a good one. Oh and it's funny you think this site is any different from any of the other cess pits out there.
  - askafriend 8y ago
    > Oh and it's funny you think this site is any different from any of the other cess pits out there. You're the one who's coming into this forum and contributing negativity. You're just taking a shit in public and doing it for all to see. Most people here at least take the care to articulate their thoughts even if they have strong (or sometimes even misguided) opinions or ideas. "Just listen to yourself holy shit" has never been a type of comment that's been welcome here, and you won't last long with that kind of attitude. Contribute substance, otherwise don't engage at all. No one needs to see your garbage, irrelevant thoughts if you're not even going to take the time to give your own thoughts the respect and articulation they deserve. Your comment is already dead, and that proves my point.

daveFNbuck 8y ago

I'm guessing most people who don't like influencers would rather have newspapers than provide more value to companies and create an industry for people whose main talent is popularity.

52-6F-62 8y ago
And only the most popular stories are noticed. The backstories for many of these people aren't often told: https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom-left-me-in-financial-ruin/ https://nypost.com/2018/03/03/my-quest-for-instagram-stardom... I don't understand what value they really provide to the public. They almost exist to inspire envy.

longerthoughts 8y ago

I disagree but not downvoting because I think you raise a valid point and it's worth discussing. To me, the reason it's more than just "annoying" is that it encourages one-dimensional, superficial idols that will end up having an outsized impact on shaping a generation's values and notions of success. This is essentially an extension of celebrity worship, which existed long before Instagram. The difference is that Instagram is basically "democratizing" celebrity, lowering the barrier to entry and yielding an explosion of these types of icons, while simultaneously delivering them in a remarkably efficient manner that acts as a lever for reach and impact.