I've been reading about the deinfluencer trend lately (no, not the movie that sounds horrible, but the trend that started on TikTok in which rather than influencing people to buy something, you de-influence them by giving an honest review or convincing them they don't need that new thing).
Although I am a champion shopper, 'tis true, I'm also all about things like Buy Nothing Day, recycling, upcycling, etc.
As I think about the role of influencers, and then the role of de-influencers, I can't help but wonder if they aren't essentially the same. Isn't de-influencing a person still a form of influence? Or am I overthinking this?
And why do I want some random stranger on the Internet telling me what to do, whether that is to buy something or buy nothing or anything else?
Whelp. I guess I'm not really the target audience for all of this. How about you?
I find some "influencers" helpful. Regarding shopping, I tend to search for information on the fly based on my needs and concerns and look for multiple posts/videos about the product for cross-checking, including the comment section. Then I would usually encounter conflicting viewpoints, and to buy or not to buy is my decision. Influencers definitely influence me whether it is about buying or not buying, but I think they help me with my decision-making.
ReplyDeleteI actually think de-influencing is still influencing, just as you wondered. Because of the feedback, comment, review, etc. those thoughts and ideas could influence someone to not use a product, buy a product, etc. Essentially the goal of not influencing is still influencing someone.
ReplyDeleteGreat point, Dr. Dennen! For me, influencing or de-influencing is pretty much the same thing. But. The word "de-influencing" intrigues me.
ReplyDeleteInfluencers make money by encouraging people to buy stuff from companies that pay those influencers to promote their products. Ok. I get that.
So, "de-influencers" would be people that discourage people to buy stuff. But for what purposes? I have a hard believing these people would engage in such actions without a personal (and thus financial) interest. Tell me I'm cynical, and you may be right, but I would rather say I'm realistic. The message from people fighting against pollution, drug use or malnutrition could be interpreted as a way to de-influence other people to protect human health and the environment. And we don't call them de-influencers. But they encourage people to use their car less, to avoid taking drugs or to have a healthy lifestyle. They don't have a political agenda or don't get rich thanks to their engagement. (it might be the oppposite).
Yes, I think influencers and de-influencers are the same people, and they might be dangerous to others. Which is why I'm happy my country has voted a law to define what is an influencer and that provides a legal framework to protect online users from cupid individuals that promote dangerous or unverified products sold by irresponsible companies. Here is a link to know more: https://www.euronews.com/next/2023/06/05/france-has-approved-a-law-that-targets-influencers-what-does-it-mean-for-social-media-star