Life&Style Writer Caitlin Gittins investigates the superficial nature of influencer marketing campaigns, commenting on experiments from YouTubers Natalia Taylor and WillNE
Three weeks ago, YouTuber Natalia Taylor conducted a social experiment wherein she faked going on a holiday to Bali by staging a photoshoot in IKEA. The purpose of her experiment was to bring attention to the ability to seamlessly pretend online, and put that theory to practice. In the thirteen-minute-long video posted on her channel, she demonstrated an easy manipulation of the photos taken within the store made to look like feasible places in Bali, which she then posted on her Instagram, and later expressed surprise at the easy acceptance of the pretence. She expressed in the video simultaneous shock and flattery at this easy acceptance, explaining that this was probably owing to the close relationship she maintains with her online following, but mentioned the guilt she felt deceiving them.
Natalie’s experiment into what people see and believe online, however, is certainly not the first of its kind, and raises broader questions about the ethics of the inauthenticity of Instagram, where pretend experiences are easily forged. Regulations, to some degree, are enforced in the UK; laws on advertising state that the person advertising must not, quote, ‘include false or deceptive messages,’ or ‘leave out important information.’ YouTube’s terms and conditions stipulate that YouTubers are obligated to acknowledge any paid product placements in their videos.
The ideal online lifestyles perpetuated by ‘influencers’ create the perfect window for brands to promote themselves
Despite this, the ideal online lifestyles perpetuated by ‘influencers’ create the perfect window for brands to promote themselves via their social media, taking advantage of their relevance and online following. This does not necessarily always lead to positive results, as last year Kim Kardashian was criticised for having accepted a brand deal from Flat Tummy Co. promoting an appetite suppressant to her Instagram followers, a move many felt was a promotion of an unhealthy lifestyle.
In response to this campaign, actress Jameela Jamil tweeted: ‘You terrible and toxic influence on young girls. I admire their mother’s branding capabilities, she is an exploitative but innovative genius, however this family makes me feel actual despair over what women are reduced to.’ Jameela’s tweet touches upon a tension wherein people with large online followings can be commended for their marketing abilities, but simultaneously criticised for exploiting their following in the first place.
No. Fuck off. No. You terrible and toxic influence on young girls. I admire their mother’s branding capabilities, she is an exploitative but innovative genius, however this family makes me feel actual despair over what women are reduced to. ☹️ pic.twitter.com/zDPN1T8sBM
— Jameela Jamil 🌈 (@jameelajamil) May 16, 2018
YouTuber WillNE in August of last year tested to what extent influencers – specifically, past contestants of Love Island – would go to for brand deals, which make up a large part of their income. In the video, he created a fake, online brand ‘Verifyfree,’ by making a website and official-looking signature that would sign off the emails he sent. He emailed a number of past competitors proposing a brand deal wherein they would promote his brand on Instagram in exchange for payment. He observed the great amount of interest his emails generated from competitors, highlighting the absence of questioning his fake brand got, and bringing into question the ethics of influencers accepting brand deals – even fake brands – for payment. This issue is felt by a number of YouTubers, especially by Tana Mongeau, who posted a video advertising Lounge Underwear which sponsored the video, and used the topic of sponsorship as a justification for accepting Lounge Underwear’s sponsorship but turning down a million-dollar brand deal as she felt it wasn’t authentic enough for her to accept and promote.
It becomes clear that the issue of inauthenticity online is very apparent and, to some extent, affects all of us. Although there are regulations in place to prevent the exploitation of online followers, perhaps they are not enough. Inauthentic brand deals continue to be sponsored by influencers with no personal interests nor consideration for the effects they may have on their following. Whatever the case may be, I argue that it is important we remain aware that social media is merely social media, and that we should stop believing everything we see online so readily.
Comments