Influencers and social media metrics are ‘fashionable nonsense’
Just because influencers and social media metrics are fashionable, it does not stop them from being nonsense, argues Dave Trott.
In 1996, Alan Sokal published a paper in the scientific journal of Duke University. It was called Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity.
It began with: “Revisionist studies in the history and philosophy of science have cast doubt on its credibility, and feminist and poststructuralist critiques have demystified the substantive content of mainstream Western scientific practice.”
The paper continued: “In order to be revolutionary, feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or ‘natural facts’. Rather feminist theories should be natural tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific, concrete situations. The goal of feminist theory should be to develop strategic theories – not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories”.
TLDR: aging creative director reads an article he doesn’t fully understand, applies it to an area of the industry he doesn’t fully understand, looks a tit.
Couldn’t be arsed reading it yet had a fully informed opinion.
There’s the problem right there.
To the doubters go back and read the last three paragraphs.
A TLDR is a summary for the benefit of those who can’t be arsed to be read it, not because the poster didn’t read it themselves. The whole point is that the poster read it. Do you even internet?
And the last three paragraphs are absolutely void of any insight about anything whatsoever, other than that FB talks itself up… (I don’t think there’s a publisher on this planet that doesn’t). Media agencies don’t report to their clients on how many people watched a minute’s worth of any video on Facebook per day. That stat is a red herring that only someone who doesn’t understand basic reporting would think is relevant.
Eye roll sums it up pretty well IMO (that means in my opinion).
I’m not an ageing Creating Director but I agree, it’s all bullshit.
I don’t agree with the age-slur in the other comment.
I’m sure the author means well but this really is the most pedestrian of takes and anyone worth their salt has long progressed past the question of follower and influencer authenticity (plus whatever quarter-formed video view argument you rounded out the article with).
Everyone knows audiences can be bought by any schmuck. Good marketers avoid this trap by approaching networks of high quality content creators (not ‘influencers’) and getting them to endorse their product. This has worked especially well for brands like Dollar Shave Club.
It’s a shame that – rather than looking for positives in a changing media environment (global audiences, effective and fast word-of-mouth, creative opportunities that no longer have to fit into particular formats) – so many experienced creatives & marketers devote their time pushing the negatives.