Are we tired of being influenced?

Is it, in fact, about de-influencing these days? Discuss.

My own (very sporadically updated) Instagram grid.

There’s a new buzz word simmering away on platforms like Instagram and TikTok. No, it’s not another interiors trend with ‘core’ shoved on as a suffix (thankfully), it’s de-influencer. And it’s made me question whether we are tired of being influenced online. Are we?

Thinking back maybe seven or so years and the word influencer was not really in my regular vocab. Was it in yours? But now, it’s a term we are all familiar with as we’ve experienced a huge rise of savvy content creators using social media platforms to forge a career – many very successfully and admirably so. 

I come from a quote on quote traditional media background and have worked in publishing for a wee while. So I am the first to admit that I did the odd eye roll (ok, more than a few) when the word influencer began creeping up in creative meetings and marketing plans. Those nailing this new online content medium and creating campaigns to raise their profiles and that of the brands they work with were – at first – seen as a threat to (again quote on quote) the original media outlets. And it was true. There was a threat to how mainstream print media operated and I think it made those working as journalists a little nervous. Mostly because it was so new. Weren’t magazines and newspapers the original influencers anyway? What would happen to their might? Was the village big enough for both?

It turns out that the rise of influencers has changed how media operates. Of course it has, but not all for worse. Instagram is an excellent source of leads, amazing for decorating inspiration and good for finding people who know their niche. For an interiors journalist, it’s filled with beautiful homes with owners who are happy and willing to talk about them. You only need to open a magazine or newspaper, or read a listicle online, to see photos of fashion influencers showing how they wear a new trend or the recognisable house of someone who has built a name for themselves with their @. Heck, some of the top influencers are now on the tele or bagging huge book deals. It’s a circular thing with all brands involved gaining some benefit. 

But I do have a love/hate relationship with the socials. So when I heard this new term, de-influencer, my ears pricked. 

It turns out that de-influencing is about not buying and instead paying attention to overconsumption and overspending and thinking carefully before buying something you don’t really need. On TikTok, de-influencers are telling followers what not to buy, even if a product is hyped, because it’s not worth it. So far, it’s mainly beauty and lifestyle items but it could go further. 

I do admire the waste saving and sustainability sentiments. I did see one video where the de-influencer was telling followers they don’t need to decant already packaged foods into matching glass jars in order to get #lardergoals. Their reason: getting rid of original packing was wasteful, which I get. But I’ve seen many lovely larders in my time and if you’ve read my other newsletters, you know I love to organise. However, with some thought on this, I reckon I would have to agree. I’ll keep my jars for pastas and rices, but spices can stay in what they came in and these can go into a nice basket so they don’t rattle around the shelf – it’s a start. 

There could be a murkier side to de-influencing too. Is it just another form of influencing? It’s only truly de-influencing if another product or solution isn’t pushed. It has to be genuine without an agenda to sell an alternative or use it as a guise to gain lots of followers to eventually sell to. Authentically influencing an audience to waste less and spend wisely is a positive, I’d say. 

What I’ve long debated when seeing the content of some influencers is how accessible much of it is to (again: big air quotes) ‘normal folk’. You know, if you’re not Insta-famous. I’ve seen people #gifted with sofas worth thousands of pounds or a new kitchen in return for a post and stories. Is the resulting beautiful home truly within reach to like-minded followers if the rooms they’re seeing are created with #ad products and freebies? I’m still not sure. I do know that I’ve put things into magazine features that I’d never be able to afford so maybe that’s the same…? Or is there a more obvious differentiation because it’s a magazine and not my home? Discuss. 

I’ve often wondered, too, whether pushing stuff and new buys every other post is right. But then I also ask whether that’s what traditional media does anyway? It’s about striking the balance between editorial and #ad. That’s the bit that has to be right. Too much in the latter direction and the message gets lost. We do live in a consumer society after all. And I buy things I see in magazines and have definitely purchased via Insta shops and bought things for my home, wardrobe and make-up bag after seeing them shared on social media. 

While pondering this topic of influencing and de-influencing, Katherine Ormerod’s Substack, Every Shade Of Grey, popped into my inbox. She wrote eloquently about her years spent on Instagram and what I loved was her interpretation of the types of influencers we might come across. She wrote: 

‘I maintain, that like traditional media publications, social media platforms span the spectrum. If you buy a copy of the FT, you expect certain journalistic benchmarks. If instead, you go for a tabloid, you can presume a level of softness there. Exactly the same goes for new media. In the early days, it was harder to differentiate, because we simply didn’t have the lexicon. Today, we have more experience. If a social account is endlessly driving you to Shein (or the like), recommending weight loss pills, or cosmetic surgery purveyors they have not personally used, you are on a tabloid account. Conversely, if you find layered, quality content, whether that’s incredibly produced visuals or thought-provoking copy and ideas, you have hit Insta’s high end. Tarring all with the same brush is like suggesting Pulitzer Prize winning journos are related to phone tappers.’ – Katherine Ormerod’s Substack, Every Shade Of Grey

I don’t for one second think influencing will stop. Whether it’s via a magazine, Insta-famous fashionista or homeowner, or some other medium. I do think we’ve reached the point where ‘traditional’ media and this ‘new’ media are working together without so much of the ‘us and them’ feeling that was once apparent (I’ve been to events in the past where there was a definite split in the room, or even where the day was divided into one session for journalists and one for influencers). And us as readers or followers are more educated on what is happening in front of us on our screens. I hope we’ve reached the point where we are more aware of when we are being influenced and able to make informed decisions on if we really want to buy something or if we could do without despite whatever it is being the latest so-called must have. For me, it absolutely has to be authentic, otherwise it does become rather tiresome. 

---

P.S. I’d love it if you would be so kind as to subscribe to this newsletter. If you fancy doing so, click the button below. That way, you’ll receive every post I write directly to your inbox. And if you liked it, share it with someone who might too (pretty please!).