Digital Consumer
Digital
Marketing
October 31, 2024
Digital De-influencing
Followers are increasingly aware of influencers’ behavior, and this profoundly modifies the relationship between them
The marketing of influence has become one of the most used practices by businesses in recent times. The consolidation of social networks and the growth of the role of digital influencers as connectors between brands and the public have favored the strengthening of this strategy.
According to a study by Nielsen Media Research, Brazil had over 500,000 people working as digital influencers in 2022, each with at least 10,000 followers. An expanding market that shows the strength of one of the world’s oldest skills: influence.
In this context, facing an engaged audience, influencers have a social role and a responsibility for what they propagate and do. However, many influencers end up practicing “digital de-influencing”, a term that has recently started circulating and became better known during the pandemic, when influencers promoted parties amidst the spread of the coronavirus.
One of the best-known cases was that of an influencer who, at the beginning of the pandemic, organized a party at her home and ended up revolting a good part of her then 4 million followers at the time, being canceled and losing several contracts with brands. On that occasion, the influencer deleted the photos she had posted of the party and apologized to the public. There were other similar cases during the pandemic and, from then on, followers began to pay more attention to the behavior and speech of influencers, questioning what kind of influence was being exerted on social media. It was in this context that the term desinfluencer emerged.
Digital de-influencing happens precisely when an influencer neglects their social role and disrespects common values, not exercising coherence between discourse and practice, or trivializing relevant social issues. It’s as if they were providing a disservice through social media.
There are also the “disinfluencers” who preach a perfect and unreal lifestyle, which has also been considered disinfluence. This model, widely disseminated a few years ago, still exists, but has become increasingly dispensable in the opinion of the public, due to the lack of coherence with the reality of most people.
At the end of last year, a famous influencer was accused of lying about her participation in a race for which she was advertising beer. The influencer published three posts about the marathon, but was denounced by an Instagram profile specializing in de-influencing, alleging that the influencer’s registration number was not on the list of participants. This generated a series of questions about the veracity of the publications made by her.
The influencer responded to the accusation stating that she couldn’t finish the race due to a knee problem, but that the idea was to stimulate the practice of physical activity. Her Instagram profile had gained notoriety for questioning current aesthetic standards and fighting fatphobia. The audience identified with the content promoted by her also due to the fact that it addressed self-acceptance. However, the race episode caused discomfort on the network, which turned her into a case of digital de-influencing.
Genuinfluencers
On the other hand, still in the context of the pandemic, we saw the emergence of genuinfluencers, those influencers who offered genuine knowledge and insights, serving as a more truthful source of information and inspiration. This happened because, in the pandemic scenario, it no longer made sense to show what one had, but rather to share experiences. And this is what defines the genuinfluencer: the creation of content more focused on quality and based on experiences, which is considered much more authentic.
Followers are increasingly aware of the behavior of digital influencers, and this profoundly modifies the relationship between them. The public is learning to reject those profiles that do not engage with issues relevant to society, for example.
Currently, we have a more aware audience, more critical and more attentive to the content posted on social media. The audience perceives when there is a lack of authenticity, transparency, and coherence. People want genuine content that they can identify with. More engaged followers are more likely to promote cancellation (although this subject has many facets that will not be addressed in this text). Cancelled influencers tend to lose followers and even contracts with brands.
From the influencer’s side, there is also a greater recognition of the importance of their voice on the network, not only considering what they say, but mainly what they do. And there is also a greater desire to adjust their image with values considered socially responsible. On the side of brands, there should also be greater attention to these issues. Influencers who are not aligned with their values or who practice de-influencing may lose partnerships.
Thus, we can observe a evolution, albeit gradual, in the relationships between influencers, brands, and audience. This reflects a significant shift in social networks, an environment where a more ethical and responsible attitude is expected, both in the development and maintenance of digital influence.
