Robert Irwin (and Meta) have a bigger problem than Pauline Hanson… Influencers are here to save them
With Robert Irwin's recent run-in with Pauline Hanson resulting in significant backlash, a wider issue has been brought to life - the 'enshittification' of digital platforms. Jordan Michaelides, managing director and co-founder of Neuralle, delves into what it is, and how brands can avoid it.
Robert Irwin uncovered the wrath of the ‘Streisand Effect’ last week, by drawing further attention to a satirical video of him in Pauline Hanson’s ‘Please Explain’ series. Irwin’s lawyer threatened a suit for defamation upon Hanson and Stepmates Studios after she released a satirical version of Irwin’s recent promotion with Queensland Tourism.
The result was significant backlash from the public and an increase in views for Hanson’s series across social platforms. It only added to the strong legal notions in a defamation case namely that; this content has a significant public interest, and showcases freedom of political communication and opinion.
I’m not sure who or what management team are advising Rob Irwin right now, but this is a big no-no in talent land. Never, draw attention to something on the internet that you hate – all you do is highlight the issue via the Streisand Effect (Dan Monheit from Hardhat can help you out here). Particularly one that has a very low probability of resulting in a positive outcome from a suit, in a legal landscape that is very onerous on the plaintiff.
So why’d he bother in the first place? Why give him such poor advice?
My take is that this is part of a larger whack-a-mole issue that is impacting Irwin’s name & likeness as we speak, and one that is impacting quite a few high-profile talent in Australia including Aaron Chen and David Koch.
That is the problem of ‘enshittification’ infecting digital platforms.
Enshittification is the idea that when a new digital platform (particularly social or commerce-based) like Facebook, Amazon or Instagram originates in the market, it offers significant value to the parties involved. Users get a free social product or marketplace, and advertisers get unique data and ways to target their ideal audience demographic. The platform aggregates margin as its fee as part of the process. But as time goes on, platforms must recoup that capital investment and the market demands a squeeze in profitability. The result is that organic reach starts to tank, businesses need to pay more to reach their audience via higher CPMs, and the platform’s profitability increases, therefore ‘enshitting’ the usability of the platform for users.
As a result, some users and brands decide to leave platforms for a new one, others decide not to join the platform altogether (Gen Z and Facebook). That’s why we see a new platform gain significant ground every 3-4 years in the land of social (see TikTok).
It also massively increases spam and garbage on the ‘old’ platform (in Facebook), and this is where we find the instigation of Rob’s issue.
Facebook today is rife with spammy, garbage ads that utilise the name and likeness of celebrities to scam the users on the platform, and I’m really not sure Meta has an answer to this problem.
I have personally seen and screenshotted 10 different celebrity identities used in the last 3 months. Kochie, Rob Irwin, Aaron Chen, Alan Kohler. They’ve all had their identity used as part of these scams.
These screenshots showcase why Rob Irwin and his team are playing whack-a-mole. They are dealing with a significant issue of scam artists using his name that show ads with him being arrested for ‘disclosing something so shocking about this ATO glitch’. They then link to scam sites like ttnn.top (masked with news.com.au in the ad copy) with a story by “Alan Kohler” about the ‘Bank of Australia suing Robert Irwin for what he said on live TV’.
This is why Rob Irwin sued Pauline. Not because they investigated what the video was about, but because they’re probably dealing with hundreds of these instances, and this one fell through the cracks.
This has significant implications for the parties involved and has bored out the form of media we call influencer marketing.
It doesn’t stop with Rob Irwin either, Aaron Chen’s image and likeness has also been used by the same type of scammer.
Creators to the rescue?
The issue of garbage, spam, and enshittification of a social platform is why more and more brand managers feel that their brand is unsafe on certain platforms altogether or certain mediums of the internet. YouTube went through this brand safety crisis which began in 2017 and progressed well into 2020, with a major upheaval for creator CPMs and the ad platform that existed on the platform.
This problem is part of two major themes driving the growth of influencers and influencer marketing (the other being the savings associated with creative production). It’s why Statista is aggregating and predicting influencer spend, as a portion of all media spend, above 2% from the next financial year.
Creators solve a key issue for brands. They provide trust that the product placement is honest and not disingenuous. They ensure the safety of their brand inside a digital ecosystem, targeting a very specific audience – the brand’s target demographic. They nullify the issue of having your branded ad placed next to a profile that’s clipping copyright material or scamming Aunty Trisha out of her retirement money.
Yes, I’m biased. But I’d wager influencer marketing is one of the few digital mediums that can provide outperformance for brand managers, while ensuring their brand is safe. The reality is, it’s outperforming traditional mediums like out-of-home, radio, and TV on a CPM and revenue basis.
The next five years are about scaling that spend into the medium, and I think this is just the beginning for the influencer marketing landscape.
Jordan Michaelides is the managing director and co-founder of Neuralle.
