4 ms·

> When inluencing, the product is access to their follower and the customer is advertisers. > When creating, the product is the content and the customers ate t

> When inluencing, the product is access to their follower and the customer is advertisers. > When creating, the product is the content and the customers ate the consumers of that content. With social media-influencer, the content they normally create is their live and personality (or the illusion they build of them), and this is also the product they sell and use to gain reputation. Sponsorings and placements are side-products they might sell, not their main-content. They can be more profitable then other sources of income, but they are not the only income people can have. Though, which ways they can utilize for income depends on the platform they use. Ontop, there are also influencers who do not advertize any product at all. People who do thinks just for the socializing, or the attention, or for some other reason. > These two activities are pretty easily distinguishable and just because people do both doesn't make the activities less distinct. The problem is not the activity, but the classification of the person. > they help understand the motivations Motivation is irrelevant. Motivation does not even work at all in either classification.

shkkmo 5y ago
You seem to be conflating content and product and using "sell" in an overly broad sense. Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases.
- slightwinder 5y ago
  We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself. At the core of this "profession" the content is the product and procuct is the content. There is no way to distinguish this. > Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases. No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved. People come with all kind of motivation and grow into all kind of paths and motiations. There is no "single truth" here, but a dozen different that just happen to lead all to the same result.
  - II2II 5y ago
    > We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself. Some people, perhaps. Others will mold their persona to suit the needs of the market. Others will wear an entirely different personality. Some are open about this, though they may choose to express it in other terms. Others are not open about this. > No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved. People come with all kind of motivation and grow into all kind of paths and motiations. I agree to a degree, but ultimately some motivations are more important when evaluating the relationship between the creator/influencer and the consumer. It is problematic when the creator/influencer is willfully deceptive. There are far more opportunities for the influencer to be deceptive.

shkkmo 5y ago

You seem to be conflating content and product and using "sell" in an overly broad sense. Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases.

slightwinder 5y ago
We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself. At the core of this "profession" the content is the product and procuct is the content. There is no way to distinguish this. > Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases. No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved. People come with all kind of motivation and grow into all kind of paths and motiations. There is no "single truth" here, but a dozen different that just happen to lead all to the same result.
- II2II 5y ago
  > We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself. Some people, perhaps. Others will mold their persona to suit the needs of the market. Others will wear an entirely different personality. Some are open about this, though they may choose to express it in other terms. Others are not open about this. > No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved. People come with all kind of motivation and grow into all kind of paths and motiations. I agree to a degree, but ultimately some motivations are more important when evaluating the relationship between the creator/influencer and the consumer. It is problematic when the creator/influencer is willfully deceptive. There are far more opportunities for the influencer to be deceptive.