Interesting! Speaking in my capacity as someone who has worked with and represented influencers for nearly a decade, I unfortunately quite often find that traditional media (in relation to what you describe as "Shared Visibility Practices") tend to overestimate their own significance when it comes to impact and relevance.
They’re stuck in an old-fashioned, traditional mindset where everyone watches TV, listens to the radio, or reads the newspaper, even though, especially among young people, media habits are far more complex than that. I wonder if this might create a false sense of security in working with someone who appears to be "everywhere," when in fact, "everywhere" isn’t really the case. What does the research say about this?
I have three types of insights into this in my research interview data, as well as some literature. Theme 1) Appearing regularly on TV enables one to raise IM fees in many cases as many of the marketing decision makers are in their fifties and seem to appreciate TV visibility. Also; TV productions provide creators with important industry contacts. Theme 2) Much like you say, some influencers do decline TV proposals as waste of their time when their monetisation is based on other merits such as substantial YouTube income. 3) Theme three: TV decision makers do to some extent believe that influencers/creators having accumulated their audiences on social media, are proven to be interesting people and therefore worth putting on air, in hopes of attracting their social audiences to VOD on demand series. This seems to be the reasoning with many paywalled podcast apps too, why else would they recruit so many influencers to host podcasts. But this is still work in progress, I hope to finish the article manuscript so as to get these findings for peer review with no undue delay. Really appreciate your question, also ideally there would be hard data to be created but that's a topic for another empirical research.
Theme 1 is so underrated! I often sit with decision-makers who choose influencers for campaigns based on their own media habits and personal preferences. It's rarely the best option for the campaign's performance, but I guess there's something deeply human about turning to what feels familiar.
Interesting! Speaking in my capacity as someone who has worked with and represented influencers for nearly a decade, I unfortunately quite often find that traditional media (in relation to what you describe as "Shared Visibility Practices") tend to overestimate their own significance when it comes to impact and relevance.
They’re stuck in an old-fashioned, traditional mindset where everyone watches TV, listens to the radio, or reads the newspaper, even though, especially among young people, media habits are far more complex than that. I wonder if this might create a false sense of security in working with someone who appears to be "everywhere," when in fact, "everywhere" isn’t really the case. What does the research say about this?
Keep up the great and important work!
I have three types of insights into this in my research interview data, as well as some literature. Theme 1) Appearing regularly on TV enables one to raise IM fees in many cases as many of the marketing decision makers are in their fifties and seem to appreciate TV visibility. Also; TV productions provide creators with important industry contacts. Theme 2) Much like you say, some influencers do decline TV proposals as waste of their time when their monetisation is based on other merits such as substantial YouTube income. 3) Theme three: TV decision makers do to some extent believe that influencers/creators having accumulated their audiences on social media, are proven to be interesting people and therefore worth putting on air, in hopes of attracting their social audiences to VOD on demand series. This seems to be the reasoning with many paywalled podcast apps too, why else would they recruit so many influencers to host podcasts. But this is still work in progress, I hope to finish the article manuscript so as to get these findings for peer review with no undue delay. Really appreciate your question, also ideally there would be hard data to be created but that's a topic for another empirical research.
Theme 1 is so underrated! I often sit with decision-makers who choose influencers for campaigns based on their own media habits and personal preferences. It's rarely the best option for the campaign's performance, but I guess there's something deeply human about turning to what feels familiar.