BAD Influence

In the run up to last month's general election, as the Brexit fires of confusion continued to rage chaotically unabated, various news sources reported an uptick in suspicious online support for the recently appointed, perpetually embattled PM. Amid yet more claims of concerted Russian interference in Western politics through social media came reminders that not every facebook account is genuine, not every instagrammer a living, breathing selfie-ing person.
As ideologically polarised posts go viral with potentially dramatic effect on public opinion, the role of sinister agents, fake accounts and automated bots in skewering their support and subsequent impact should be of genuine concern to anyone chasing the ideals of democracy. Whilst impeachment proceedings across the pond ask: “Was a despicable, lying, philandering, opportunist, racist, unfit-for-office, crazy-haired narcissist aided in his election campaign by the Russians”, the question on many a chapped British lip is slightly less dramatic - it was after all only re-election.... the rest though is verbatim. 

With social media so interwoven into the fabric of society and any semblance of truth frequently jettisoned by our own leaders and their parties, it seems a pertinent time to question the validity of the influence public figures and organizations exert on us through the net. Since I've made it a rule not to wade too far into divisive waters, I'm going to avoid potshots at politicians (I'm sure any despicable, lying, philandering, opportunist, racist, unfit-for-office, crazy-haired narcissists not reading this will breathe a big dishonest, philandery, narcissistic sigh of relief) and approach the topic of “influencers” through the far more hard-hitting lens of people wot have fake tans and get their teeth whitened and their arses waxed and that. 

With social media rapidly ensnaring some three billion people (approx 40% of the global population) it has understandably cultivated powerhouse figures, be they journalists, industry experts, scientists or celebrities. For all of us scrabbling around wondering what to think, who to believe and of course what to purchase, these influencers provide a window onto the zeitgeist, an authority borne of empirical expertise, professional insight and lofty connections.... and yes, some of them just tell you the best place to get your arse waxed. 
In 2013, according to Oxford Dictionaries, “selfie” became the word of the year, society's focus turning inwards - an apparent celebration of self. Through genuine conceit, desperate deflection from skyrocketing anxiety or a simple curiosity about how long our arms were, selfies became an online currency. The poutiest, most nipped, tucked and plucked selfie stars became little more than walking, tweeting canvasses for consumerism. As the masses liked it up, so then did the brands, eagerly gifting their wares to commodified bods all too happy to sing their praises for mounting followers. We've always disproportionately cared about what make-up celebs wore, which purse they carried or restaurant they ate at, but before the arrival of the online vanity vid or pic and its accompanying hashtags, it had never been so easy for movers and shakers to kindly hook us up with their benevolent benefactors. In a matter of a few clicks and before she's really had time to weigh up the consequences, Jenny from Grimsby can spend £600 of her student loan on a clutch bag she's just seen Kim K flashing down Sunset Boulevard and when Jenny's clutching it with shivering hands cos they've cut her gas off, Kim K will be sunnily sporting something else she was given for nothing.
Such is the power of celebrity to attract others, like Primark moths to Prada lightbulbs. Not just consumers but wannabe stars, with vloggers and bloggers becoming blaggers as a means to sustain themselves and their online alter egos, the all smiling, perma-tanned, arse-waxed robots who still secretly cry in the shower and pick their noses watching Love Island, but just don't post about it. Marbella's teeming with pseudo-influencers, attempting to leverage exposure to their 10,000 strong fanbase for a free facial, massage or meal out. The real blag comes in the true nature of that fanbase. 

Like so many of us did at the dawn of Facebook, sending friend requests to anyone we'd ever shared a room's oxygen with, a lot of these “influencers” are obsessed with the numbers, rounding up followers for the attendant perception of popularity and cultural clout among sponsors. “Organic” follower farming typically involves following others in the hope they'll then follow you back... which they sometimes will.... before never, ever engaging with your account ever again (We've all got that drawer in the kitchen with all the 5p plastic bags shoved inside).
Whilst many businesses and wannabe influencers will spend their time doing this to little avail, our cutthroat culture of instant gratification offers other methods, such as “buying” online support through vendor sites, a practise officially prohibited by social media platforms intent on promoting genuine engagement. Nevertheless, businesses and public figures, including huge stars and athletes are known to have travelled these shadier paths, though usually from behind the expendable human shield of a publicist, PA or digital strategist. 

A recent investigation by the Institute of Contemporary Music Performance revealed that even superstar accounts such as Taylor Swift, Miley Cyrus and Neymar comprise nearly 50% fake followers. Though it's unlikely Taylor herself hit up one of the dodgy vending sites with her credit card out, many fake followers are bots and spammers attempting to drum up clicks for their own affiliated endeavours. It's smoke and mirrors. Mirrors made of bullshit and smoke made of more bullshit.
The revelation that a large percentage of followers exist somewhere on the spectrum between completely oblivious or unengaged, paid (poorly) to feign engagement from a “click farm” in a developing country and programmed to engage, by virtue of coding, is not particularly revelatory to most, and a key reason many industry professionals view the efficacy of social media marketing with cynicism. Businesses and individuals would be wise to stay above board and concentrate on real engagement and growth through quality content, lest they lose credibility and with it long term sustainability. As one of a small number of Marbella-based publications dependent on advertising, Society would never undermine our own reputation and the faith of our clientele and readers by paying for unearned likes.... saaaay 14,000 or so in a week. Essentially that would be taking the piss. Our magazine wouldn't do that. It's Essential we make that clear.... absolutely Essential.  

The metrics of influence have changed. Brands are not simply interested in who's got the most followers, but the “quality” of followers in a potential ambassador's pool – their relevance to the products or services and their ability to enhance or disseminate the messages through real life “brand communities”. Similarly, savvy consumers can spot the show-ponies and sellouts a mile off – we know we're “post-truth” and there's a game to be played. If our own elected leaders are willing to lie through their teeth and endorse things they don't truly believe in for personal gain, it's pretty likely some berk off TOWIE will too, just with slightly less dire consequences for humanity.

Ian Greenland