Facebook agency chief: Let’s stop using the term influencer for ‘Z-list celebrities’
Facebook Asia-Pacific’s head of agency has called for social media influencers to stop using the descriptor unless they can “prove” they have actually influenced something.
Neil Stewart argued that the term “influencer” was sometimes misleading when used for people on social media who just had “some friends and followers”. He suggested “Z-list celebrities” was often a more appropriate description.
Stewart: “I think we could almost sue them for using a false or misleading description”
Speaking during a session on influencers at the Mumbrella Asia’s Travel Marketing Summit in Singapore, the former chief executive officer of Maxus Asia-Pacific said: “Can I just ask that we don’t keep using the word ‘influencer’. Because there’s an assumption that they have influence.
Love this, well done Neil. Time to call bullshit.
Yup!
There was a report posted on LinkedIn by a influencer marketing agency that claimed influencers returned an ROI of $6.50 for every $1 spent. I googled the figures quoted to find the source report and the company behind it – an influencer marketing firm – had gone bust!
There’s so little substance in Influencer Marketing it would make for an entertaining Royal Commission.
Neil do you think when a mum teaches her kids how to kick a football she has influence.
Of course she does.
Everyone has influence over someone.
A chess master is influential to chess players.
The question becomes how do you cost effectively influence the influencers.
Ps calling someone a z list celebrity to their face is rude.
I thought it was only Dads who taught their kids how to kick a football?
YEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Influencers – use them as an insurance policy to say your marketing is ‘dynamic’ and ‘youth focused’ if you must, and just hope a switched on CMO doesn’t actually ask for proof they achieved anything for your brand.
Will be interesting to see where they land when they have to pay to promote every post as organic reach dies on FB owned platforms, or when more is demanded re analytics.
In the mean time get to the beach, put on something skimpy and get dem followers, clicks and dollas. #healthy #blessed #thankful
Neil is history:
Of course when a mum shows her son how to kick a football it influences or a chess master to a chess player. But both of these examples have a very definitive and established connection to their audience. An ‘influencer’ needs to be able to show they have this connection to the audience, a click or a read itself proves nothing , hence Neil’s request to show something more substantive.
My ‘favourite’ influencer campaign is the one currently run by Holden. It’s an extensive investment too. They’ve given Astra’s to instagrammers hoping to improve the word of mouth amongst a younger audience. One lucky recipient has posted a grand total of one instagram post featuring the car in the past 6 weeks.
Meanwhile, Holden is currently experiencing its worst sales slump in history. Perhaps they should bring back Greg Norman?
I disagree. Whilst the term is thrown around a fair bit, the ‘z-list’ celebrities can sometimes be the most relevant influencers for their audience. This is because they are real people rather than celebrities with unattainable standards of living.
I believe a group of micro influencers can be far more powerful than one ‘a-list’ celebrity with millions of followers.
I disagree. Whilst the term is thrown around a fair bit, the ‘z-list’ celebrities can sometimes be the most relevant influencers for their audience. This is because they are real people rather than celebrities with unattainable standards of living.
I believe a group of micro influencers can be far more powerful than one ‘a-list’ celebrity with millions of followers.
Minna
… and I believe that a single TV ad can be far more powerful than a gig of influencers.
We need more Neil Stewarts and Mark Ritsons in the marketing world and get rid of these ‘influencers’. When is the tide turning?
Nice to see evidence of a small pesky bee buzzing about in new media’s collective bonnet: The somewhat arbitrary monetisation that these influencers extract from the platforms, (whether it’s in the form of contra or cold hard dollars), and that publisher’s currently have little control over or access to. Platforms require content, influencers supply it for ‘free’, agencies and brands foot the bill.
In my capacity as a jealous curmudgeon, I look forward to improved machine learning resulting in the the z- listers lifeblood, organic-reach, drying up and they routinely have to pay to play. Perhaps then many of these eternally vacuous vacationers will go back to the eternal vacuousity of their lives and permanently vacate into the ether.
Completey agree with his sentiment, but its a pretty stupid stand point to take when both Facebook and Instagram allow for these so called influencers/z-list celebrities to purchase fake likes/followers and make themselves seem more influential
Take everything Tom Goodwin says with a grain of salt, but I always thought this piece he wrote for British GQ was on point and surmised my thinking more eloquently than I ever could:
http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/a.....-marketing
I wonder if Neil knows that he could make his point without being rude. [Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy].