Insincere influencers: how to handle ghosts
Influencer marketing is on the rise, but if brands don’t bother to put their agreements in writing, they’re in serious risk of ghosting, explain the DVM Law team.
Brand engagement, usually through a collaboration between a brand and social influencer or socially active brand ambassador is now arguably a mainstream marketing channel.
Influencers working with a brand or agency might be paid per post with the terms of the collaboration set out in a formal agreement, however, often the engagement is informal and ‘earned’. This means the influencer receives a sample of the goods or services promoted as ‘value in kind’ or a ‘gift’ in return for the content produced, although in this earned arrangement the content created and the flavour of the post is usually the ‘sole’ discretion of the influencer.
Whilst influencer discretion often promotes authenticity, the more informal the relationship with the influencer, the greater the corresponding lack of control and commercial risk for brands and agencies. As we have now seen with increasing regularity, getting the value in kind upfront unfortunately increases the risk that an influencer fails to post and/or becomes non-responsive.
In past articles we have considered transparency and disclosure obligations, the fake follower phenomenon, ‘influencer hijacking’ by brands who repurpose a social influencer’s intellectual property and the legal and regulatory frameworks for compliance. Now we turn to a discussion on disingenuous influencers.
