Insights, commentary and news

As recently as 10 years ago, hiring a spokesperson to work on behalf of your brand was a relatively straightforward process. Step one, identify ideal candidate based on alignment with brand, campaign messaging and so on. Step two, negotiate terms of deal with said candidate (or in most cases, their rep). Step three, message training. Step four, execute agreed-upon appearances, media, etc. Step five, measure results. 

While that may be a bit oversimplified, things undoubtedly look a lot different in 2018. With the explosion of social media came what we now refer to as “influencers.” Brands are relying on these self-made social media stars to connect with audiences and support brand communication objectives with growing frequency. A more prominent place in the overall marketing mix means more spend, with Adweek estimating the industry will grow to $10 billion by 2020. 

But its rise in popularity has been complex and, at times, difficult for brands to navigate. How do you qualify influence? How should their costs compare to mass media? And a recent New York Times exposé has many in our industry either scrambling for answers or validating their approach to choosing these partners. 

As influencer marketing picked up steam, dozens of companies offering to automate influencer selection, curation and management did as well. Since artificial intelligence (AI) has yet to make its way to influencer marketing, you currently have two methods of approach at your disposal. A more automated, less hands-on approach to influencer marketing may make sense for things of mass scale, but with limited budgets, like a lower priority product launch from an established brand. But other efforts, like establishing influencer relationships and brand ambassador programs for a brand new to social and influencer marketing may require a highly selective approach more demanding of manpower. The latter is necessary, of course, because humans can do more than some algorithm or machine in the case of influencer identification and management. They are, after all, people – not some programmatic media buy. 

As we wait for technology to catch up with industry complexities, we continue with our time-honored approach, rooted deep in traditional public relations. Looking at engagement – not just the numbers, but fan interactions. Getting to know their passions, pain points, voice and style. It’s not cheap, and it’s certainly not easy; but it’s a human judgment that just can’t be replicated with technology yet.

Another key effort we take to protect our clients from influencer fraud comes with due diligence during the contracting phase. Having certain contractual stipulations in place that prohibit the use of emerging unethical vehicles that influencers have been known to use (e.g., pods) provides an added assurance that you’re getting what you pay for. 

Fortunately, it appears that the Times piece is driving Twitter to clean up some fake accounts. How far they plan to take those efforts is unknown (and let’s be honest, questionable for a channel that’s failing to show growth and sustained users at the rate of its peers). 

I think we can all agree that real, investigative journalism is more important than ever in today’s age. And like all things in our industry, the old “fast, cheap, good” adage rings true in influencer marketing too. As the demand for transparency grows in our field, we remain focused on driving less emphasis on vanity metrics and putting more weight on actual business results, regardless of the approach.