The HBS hosts ask themselves why and how they are under the influence of influencers.
Although humans have been influencing other humans for as long as we’ve been around each other, the category of “influencer” is a relatively recent phenomenon, really only emerging in the last decade. In fact, the term “influencer” as we currently understand it—a thoroughly platformized figure who documents, optimizes, and monetizes their self as “brand”—wasn’t officially included in English dictionaries until 2019. Today, influencers are everywhere: primarily on social media platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok, but also in less glamorous professional and even academic fields, where they sometimes moonlight as trendsetters, thought-leaders, entrepreneurs, or just garden-variety “celebrities.”
Today, we’re going to chat not only about influencers—what they are, what they do, and to what ends—but also influence. What does it mean to influence or be influenced by someone? What difference does it make if an influencer is “authentic”? What dangers may underlie the monetization of influence or, in what may amount to the same thing, the political manipulation of influence? Are we all being subtly influenced to mimic influencers—not just in terms of what they eat or buy or how they work out or moisturize their skin, but their self-conscious practices of self-documenting and self-branding? And, finally, can influence really be “measured,” or are the follower counts that climb every time someone is influenced to smash that like and subscribe button just a whole lot of smoke and mirrors?
——————-
If you enjoy Hotel Bar Sessions podcast, please be sure to subscribe and submit a rating/review! Follow us on Twitter @hotelbarpodcast, on Facebook, and subscribe to our YouTube channel!
You can also help keep this podcast going by supporting us financially at patreon.com/hotelbarsessions.
[Cont’d] My third comment was in response to Leigh’s bringing up the common misperception of Derrida as a charlatan, which brought to mind a story I heard (I think) Michael Naas tell. So, turn to him for the correct version, but this is it to the best of my recollection: Derrida was on a panel at University of Texas Law School, discussing deconstruction and interpretation of law. One of the panelists near the end of the session went on a derisive tirade, asking D. if he were aware of the American film, The Wizard of Oz, you know the one where they arrive to meet the great and powerful Oz, and then the little dog, Toto, pulls back the curtain only to reveal the silly man behind all the controls who isn’t a wizard at all. “You’re just like that,” he spit out. Derrida paused and answered, “You are right. I am exactly like that little dog….” Okay, guys, great show. Great podcast. Thanks.
(This is Leigh): I’ve never heard that story of Derrida! That’s fantastic!
I still don’t think he’s a charlatan, though. Or a Toto, for that matter. 😉
I thought I’d be a bit less interested in this episode, but I found that not at all to be true. So interesting and stimulating! I’ve got three comments that I’ll break up into two posts. The first is just an ad I remember from 1984 with Heather Locklear, showing perhaps an earlier version of the ad business’s self-awareness (and self-reference) of influencers. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcskckuosxQ] Second, it brought to mind an experience I had with students in the classroom when they kept talking about an individual’s brand, and I asked them what does “brand” mean and what is its history. No exaggeration, it went on for about 20 minutes during which time they simply repeated variations of “personality” or “identity.” Not one student made reference to a commercial product as a brand nor a burned mark on an animal’s hide indicating ownership. I was as shocked to witness their unawareness of these connections as they were (I hope) with the discussion that followed after I brought this to the table. Such a great conversation and an “Ah ha!” from many involved, including me. More in a second comment.