Why Being Popular On Social Media Isn’t The Same As Being An ‘Influencer’?

Felipe Riaño Jaramillo, an expert in behavioral science, explains the difference.

Why Being Popular On Networks Isn't The Same As Being An 'Influencer'?

Without YouTube, Instagram or Facebook to some influencers, what would they have left? Nothing, and why? Because many of these influencers attract attention with little talent that sustains a poor content in order to make use of a few ‘likes’ and ‘follows’.

Although Facebook was the first social network to become massive worldwide, it can be said that Instagram and YouTube were its precursors: they became two of the great pillars of social networks and the digital world.

The growth of these platforms led to the emergence of a new profession for the international market and that of ‘influencers: a market that moves, a year, about 1,500 million dollars thanks to the 20 million people who work in this worldwide.

That’s how they are

Little by little this new figure begins to take more and more relevance in the market.

Brands see influencers’ social networks as a way to advertise their products and services in a more organic and cheap way than traditional channels.

Companies look for these content generators for large advertising campaigns and they become a model to follow for those who dream of following in their footsteps.

But what is currently happening in the international influencers market?

Becoming an aspiration issue, many people want to be influencers, but, unfortunately, many of them do not understand the great responsibility this entails.

An influencer is not measured by ‘likes’ or ‘followers’, but by the effect he has on his environment and the power to modify the behavior of those around him, without depending on any kind of platform.

The conclusion is that the desire to be ‘influencers‘ has confused ‘popularity‘ with ‘influence‘.

The differences

Confusing being ‘popular’ with ‘influencing’ gives rise to ‘pseudo-influencers’, who are dedicated to sharing what we call ‘McContent’.

In other words, content that is fast, easy to consume, ‘light’ and harmful to the health of both companies and audiences.

There are influencers who really do generate revenue from their profession and with the use of digital platforms, but the ‘pseudo-influencers’ have a lot of form, although zero background.

The latter tend to disguise their lack of talent and cultural and intellectual wealth, with quite attractive visual content and a ‘look and feel’ that makes them look desirable and close, managing to produce a high level of popularity.

Why Being Popular On Networks Isn't The Same As Being An 'Influencer'?

An influencer is not measured by ‘likes’ or ‘followers’, but by the effect he has on his environment and the power to modify the behavior of those around him.

Influencing goes beyond posting: the trend has led ‘pseudo-influencers’ to talk about certain topics that are far removed from their profession or experience.

There is concern that pseudo-influencers provide nutrition advice, but are not specialists in nutrition. Or they give ‘tips’ on psychological, emotional, spiritual, among other issues, just because it is trend, knowing that they are not experts.

And is that audiences, with their lack of critical thinking, follow their advice and distort the reality of virtuality.

People must understand that if they want to pursue this profession they have to be careful to fall into the ‘pseudo-influencers’, as they position themselves as the new chatterbox of the 21st century.

One thing must be understood

True influencers do not need to rely on digital platforms for their work and, more importantly, they continue to influence society in a responsible way, without harming the physical, emotional and/or spiritual health of others.

So if you want to become an influencer, ask yourself: if platforms ceased to exist, would you still be an influence?

Share: