3 ms·

It’s complicated because to sell things, influencers create their own content. The videos and photos they post to show off the products they’re touting, are sti

It’s complicated because to sell things, influencers create their own content. The videos and photos they post to show off the products they’re touting, are still videos and photos. They still have to be high-quality and engaging pieces of content or folks will scroll past and not follow/subscribe/etc. And they can’t just post ads all the time or people won’t watch. Even the most commercially-oriented influencer is posting original content on a schedule to keep their audience engaged, whether or not they’re fulfilling a sponsorship deal at that moment. Consider that it’s a long-standing convention to call a company that makes traditional ads (print magazine, network TV, etc) a “creative agency.” “Creative” and “creator” are terms that have been associated with commercial influence for a long time, as the article notes.

II2II 5y ago
I agree that influencers are creators in the generic sense, and certainly don't mean to dismiss their creativity or skill. That being said, context is important. When creators are contrasted to influencers, the context implies that motivation is being considered.
noduerme 5y ago
If only 1% of someone's creative output is product placement, the other 99% is rubbish. They don't have creative freedom. Product placement is a sneaky form of advertising that degrades the creative value of whatever it's in, because unlike an ad next to an editorial, the advertiser in a placement explicitly alters and by definition limits and demands what the creative content can or cannot include. There's a word for rock stars who tout products - sellouts. Influencers are basically people whose idea of a great gig is to be popular enough to sell out. Put another way, creatives get paid for their own ideas, whether by selling work product directly or by ads placed which go with that work. And one way we judge the quality of any art or medium is the degree to which the creators are free from the influence of their advertisers. Influencers, on the other hand, merely mimic creativity as a means to shill for an advertiser. I'm an art director among other things, and I make ads for a living. In that industry, I'm a "creative"... as are designers I work with. But we're creating on behalf of a commercial enterprise, i.e. we don't have true creative freedom in that realm, or freedom of expression. And neither do influencers. In fact, they have even less than the marketing departments who sponsor them. So there's a difference, and 'influencer' is disparaging, and the social disdain is well-earned.

II2II 5y ago

I agree that influencers are creators in the generic sense, and certainly don't mean to dismiss their creativity or skill. That being said, context is important. When creators are contrasted to influencers, the context implies that motivation is being considered.

noduerme 5y ago

If only 1% of someone's creative output is product placement, the other 99% is rubbish. They don't have creative freedom. Product placement is a sneaky form of advertising that degrades the creative value of whatever it's in, because unlike an ad next to an editorial, the advertiser in a placement explicitly alters and by definition limits and demands what the creative content can or cannot include. There's a word for rock stars who tout products - sellouts. Influencers are basically people whose idea of a great gig is to be popular enough to sell out. Put another way, creatives get paid for their own ideas, whether by selling work product directly or by ads placed which go with that work. And one way we judge the quality of any art or medium is the degree to which the creators are free from the influence of their advertisers. Influencers, on the other hand, merely mimic creativity as a means to shill for an advertiser. I'm an art director among other things, and I make ads for a living. In that industry, I'm a "creative"... as are designers I work with. But we're creating on behalf of a commercial enterprise, i.e. we don't have true creative freedom in that realm, or freedom of expression. And neither do influencers. In fact, they have even less than the marketing departments who sponsor them. So there's a difference, and 'influencer' is disparaging, and the social disdain is well-earned.