Communities and Social Media

Selling community and togetherness: Authenticity, identity, and revenue in influencer-led culture

Abstract

This conference paper will be addressing the authenticity of online identities and communities that have been established through social media networks by influencers. I will be arguing that paid influencers and influencer culture challenge the authenticity of online communities, as social media platforms provide users with the opportunity to develop a sense of community, but the virtual community has been established to create customers and generate income for the influencer.  In support of this argument, I will be discussing traditional ideas of community, identity creation and performance on social media and virtual communities, influencer culture and an analysis of influencer Caroline Calloway, concluding with an analysis addressing the challenges users face when attempting to seek out authentic online communities.

Selling community and togetherness: Authenticity, identity, and revenue in influencer-led culture

A community, in its traditional, pre-virtual definition, loosely refers to the grouping of individuals with “some common interest and stronger communication flows within, than across its boundaries,” (Markus, 1987), noting that communities use this sense of, or experience of perceived common identity and, both formally and informally, group and communicate in support of the needs of their common identity and/or shared cause. Traditional community structures, operating through pre-internet technologies, were products of “being born into and dying within the same network of relations,”, which were limited to the distance’s individuals could communicate (Hampton & Wellman, 2018). A community was traditionally habited by individuals who shared many commonalities imposed by fundamental geographical and lifestyle similarities. Now, as connected technologies have become integrated into habited locations, “capability constraints imposed by physical characteristics of one’s environment are … relaxed,” (Schwanen & Kwan, 2008). Time and space restrictions to individual online activities are minimized, with Hampton (2015) arguing that people are “nearly free from the constraints of time, space and social bonds,” through new technologies, that enable “persistent contact and pervasive awareness,”. Connected technologies not only host platforms where users can interact with society and source information, they have also shaped the way we can communicate by expanding capabilities of information sharing allowing users to remain continually connected and informed within and beyond their communities. Individuals with connected technology are enabled to communicate with information and other users regardless of their location or ability to meet in a physical space. While the activities of individuals engaged in pre-virtual and virtual communities differ, Wetherall, Plakans and Wellman (1994) argue that “the essence of community is its social structure, not its spatial structure”, noting that connections in communication, rather than physicality, are what is required for a community to exist.

Virtual communities are spaces where individuals communicate online, either in a public or private forum, where the communication and interaction is “centered around a specific mutual interest, hobby, life event (or) occupation,” (Ridings, Gefen and Arinze, 2002). Dotson (2017), as cited in Hampton and Wellman (2018) argues that technology does not change community, noting that it is the “structure of the network” that is responsible for changes in community. Technology now affords individuals to join larger, wider networks, and join communities that have little to no pre-requisites for acceptance. Delanty (2018) argues that virtual communities “exist as communities based on shared identities and whose members rarely meet,” noting that virtual interaction removes any requirement or expectation of physical interaction between users, and that community occurs due to affiliations and felt connections between users online identities only.

An individual can both seek out a virtual community or be sought after by a virtual community based on their shared online attributes. Commonly, members of virtual communities would previously have been strangers prior to joining the virtual community with “trust (being) a key element in fostering the voluntary online cooperation between strangers seen in a virtual environment,” (Ridings, Gefen and Arinze, 2002). The perception of trust can be established online through users sharing with each other, commonly in the form of “authentic” identifying media. Notably platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok encourage the user to create and share their “digital identity” which Warburton and Hatzipanagos (2013) advise includes both the physical representation of the person such as their name, age and descriptive identifying information, and the individual’s “implicit representation of person,”, referring to an individual’s online reputation, also noting that these platforms “offer new contexts for presenting a self that is less than authentic,” (Lim, Nicholson, Yang & Kim, 2015). While the platforms enable users to convey authenticity through the sharing of personal information and media, noting that individuals have control over how much information they share (framing public perception of their identity), users can easily use online platforms to misrepresent or deceive others through performing false identities, for either online or offline gains. 

Users of the internet who accumulate large followings and form communities from their networks are commonly referred to as “influencers”. Online influencer identities range from average unknown internet users to popular and well-known identities and celebrities. Abidin & Cover (2020, as cited in Aggleton, Cover, Leahy and Rasmussen, 2020) advise that “subsequent to their emergence in the early-2000s, influencers have progressed from hobbyist home-based webcamming and desktop publishing to extremely lucrative full-time careers,”. Influencers commonly present alongside average social media users on social media platforms; their profiles are sometimes indistinguishable from other users. Abidin & Ots (2016, as cited in Edström, Kenyon & Svensson, 2016) describe influencers as “shapers of public opinion,” who persuade their audience through online and physical interactions “to sustain their accessibility, believability, emulate-ability, and intimacy,”. Unlike an individual who may attract or create a virtual community through their online presence organically for nothing but personal expression, validation and social credit, influencers seek to influence users through their performed authenticity, structured social media presence and publicized values and affiliations. The influencer develops a distinctive public image or “self-brand” for “commercial gain and/or cultural capital,” (Khamis, Ang and Welling, 2016). Unlike a traditional advertisers, an influencer will use their identity and lifestyle to gain followers, sometimes identified as fans or even friends, to create a virtual community, through which they can amass a following of “hundreds, or even millions, making their reach comparable to that of traditional media” (Abidin & Ots, 2016, as cited in Edström, Kenyon & Svensson, 2016). While it could be argued that brand endorsements that sit within influencer content are implied and sometimes relatively unconcealed (and within some jurisdictions are mandatory to be disclosed), “influencers often do not appropriately disclose the commercial nature of their posts,” (De Veirman, Hudders & Nelson, 2019). This can lead to the amassing of followers and/or communities, who are brought together by their affiliation for the influencer, who are somewhat unaware that, similar to a multi-level marketing approach, the influencer is looking to create a network to market to, and market from, based on lucrative advertising opportunities that exist for entities with large bases of followers.

Influencers commonly present a curated existence online through crafted imagery, video and other media usually displayed through social networking profiles. Followers may choose to follow an influencer based on shared values, vulnerability, perceived authenticity, or connection. A differentiation for an influencer and regular user content on social media may be represented through the level of planning and strategy that is invested into what the user or influencer shares; this is sometimes however, hard to distinguish. Caroline Calloway, an Instagram user who spent many “years building a (virtual) community of almost one million people,” (McNeal, 2019), was widely known on the platform due to her descriptive and poetic depictions of her desirable and privileged existence. Natalie Beach, a former friend and content ghostwriter for Calloway noted in a 2019 article, that Calloway admitted that her online persona had been constructed to eventually market and sell a memoir, which she had been told by a publisher was dependent on her building a large community of followers. Despite having helped write content for Calloway’s social media, Beach was unaware that Calloway’s persona was a constructed one, and had believed Calloway’s presence was authentic (Beach, 2019). In response to the large community of followers she had amassed, Calloway hosted a series of unsuccessful “creativity” workshops, that were aimed at capitalizing on her curated values she conveyed to her followers through her posts, such as “heartbreak, creativity and art,” (Jeffery, 2019). Following criticism of these workshops, which were deemed unsatisfactory and fraudulent by her fans and not aligning to the identity they thought they knew, her fans and critics began to investigate who the person was behind the profile, and eventually her Instagram and life was revealed to be a constructed identity, and coverage heavily criticized her as a fraud. One follower noted that she “believed Calloway was authentic”, however she “misled thousands of (her) fans,” (Scott, as cited in Tait, 2019). Many of her followers were left devastated by these revelations, expressing that authenticity and trust was what they had sought in Calloway; they didn’t want fiction, they joined her community because they related to her identity and felt affiliated with her story and values. In addressing her motivations, Calloway (as cited in Tait, 2019) advised that she simply wanted to create spaces where her virtual community could share vulnerable stories, and she continues to excuse her actions that may have been cited as deceptive and hurtful to her original community, and more recently, continues to attract new followers directly related to the controversy that followed the negative exposure. Alongside amassing a large following of users organically, Calloway admitted to purchasing followers, which in turn generated large volumes of purchased attention or “likes” on her photographs and stories, increasing her social capital and attracting new and genuinely interested followers. Calloway intentionally advertised her social media profile, boosted her image “likes” with purchased attention, and marketed to potential followers through targeted advertising. These actions generated a community of followers who had not joined organically; they had been amassed deliberately to create potential revenue for Calloway.

While it can be argued that many followers are not aware of, or not concerned by, the authenticity of an influencers content, given that following profiles does not indicate an allegiance, friendship, or personal relationship with the influencer. The communities that are fostered around influencers are established through conflicting objectives. Khamis, Ang and Welling (2016) argue that “social media is “driven by a specific kind of identity construction,”, and this process is undertaken by all users who use these platforms, drafting and framing depictions and imagery that they see as best performing their “self”. While it can be theorized that influencers are also doing this, and within this construction of identity lies an authentic depiction of self that attracts community, identity creation directly for profit and virtual community generation for revenue can be deceptive, and this conflict of value and intention challenges the authenticity of communities online. Abidin (2021) argues that “the intimacies negotiated (between an influencer and their virtual community) are impressions that are felt by followers, as opposed to whether or not these intimacies are actually “authentic” or “genuine”, noting that the connection between a user, the influencer and the virtual community is relative to the user alone, and that the connection itself is the only attribute of importance.  Marche (2012) argues that social media has revealed that “a connection is not the same thing as a bond,” and this is evident through the relationships formed by and through influencers and their virtual community. Despite a connection being established, either as a “friend” or “follower”, neither action necessarily indicates true connection or kin, noting that true community through online platforms is difficult to establish, and while it may satisfy momentary urges for connection and community, authenticity continues to be challenging to distinguish through social media platforms. While it may be possible to argue that communities generated for leader profit exist in non-digital spaces, and aligning member values are not a prerequisite for a community to exist or operate, social networking platforms and emerging technologies continue to afford opportunities for attention-driven revenue generation for influencers, while challenging ideals of how community, identity and authenticity are performed online.

This conference paper has addressed the authenticity of online communities that are established virtually by online influencers. While community has been mobilized virtually through social media platforms and the internet, providing users with an opportunity to join virtual communities that align to their values and ideals, influencers, who may be indistinguishable from other users, use social media platforms to curate identities alongside personal profiles that attract followers and create communities for their individual gain and not for direct benefit of their community, misleading users and challenging the authenticity of virtual communities.

Source List

Abidin, C. (2021). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://adanewmedia.org/2015/11/issue8-abidin/

Aggleton, P., Cover, R., Leahy, D., Marshall, D., & Rasmussen, M. (2020). Youth, Sexuality and Sexual Citizenship (1st ed., pp. 217-231). Sydney: Routledge.

Beach, N. (2019). The Story of Caroline Calloway & Her Ghostwriter Natalie. Retrieved 3 April 2021, from https://www.thecut.com/2019/09/the-story-of-caroline-calloway-and-her-ghostwriter-natalie.html

Delanty, G. (2018). Community (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

De Veirman, M., Hudders, L., & Nelson, M. (2019). What Is Influencer Marketing and How Does It Target Children? A Review and Direction for Future Research. Frontiers In Psychology10. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02685

Edström, M., Kenyon, A., & Svensson, E. (2016). Blurring the lines: Market-Driven and Democracy-Driven Freedom of Expression (pp. 153-161). Nordicom.

Hampton, K. (2015). Persistent and Pervasive Community. American Behavioral Scientist60(1), 101-124. doi: 10.1177/0002764215601714

Hampton, K., & Wellman, B. (2018). Lost and Saved . . . Again: The Moral Panic about the Loss of Community Takes Hold of Social Media. Contemporary Sociology: A Journal Of Reviews47(6), 643-651. doi: 10.1177/0094306118805415

Jeffery, Y. (2019). Who is Instagram influencer Caroline Calloway and why is the world paying so much attention to her?. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-0  9-26/caroline-calloway-instagram-influencer-why-we-cant-look-away/11524156

 Khamis, S., Ang, L., & Welling, R. (2016). Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of Social Media Influencers. Celebrity Studies8(2), 191-208. doi: 10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292

Marche, S. (2012). Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

Markus, M. (1987). Toward a “Critical Mass” Theory of Interactive Media. Communication Research14(5), 491-511. doi: 10.1177/009365087014005003

McNeal, S. (2019). Caroline Calloway Reveals Thoughts On Influencers, Women, Instagram, And The Cut Story. Retrieved 1 April 2021, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/caroline-calloway-interview-natalie-beach-instagram

Lim, J., Nicholson, J., Yang, S., & Kim, H. (2015). Online authenticity, popularity, and the “Real Me” in a microblogging environment. Computers In Human Behavior52, 132-143. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.037

Ridings, C., Gefen, D., & Arinze, B. (2002). Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities. The Journal Of Strategic Information Systems11(3-4), 271-295. doi: 10.1016/s0963-8687(02)00021-5

Schwanen, T., & Kwan, M. (2008). The Internet, mobile phone and space-time constraints. Geoforum39(3), 1362-1377. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.11.005

Warburton, S., & Hatzipanagos, S. (2013). Digital identity and social media. Hershey, Pa.: Information Science Reference.

Wetherell, C., Plakans, A., & Wellman, B. (1994). Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe. Journal Of Interdisciplinary History24(4), 639. doi: 10.2307/205629

26 thoughts on “Selling community and togetherness: Authenticity, identity, and revenue in influencer-led culture

  1. Hey Tim,

    This was a very well written and structured paper which I really enjoyed reading! I like how you first discuss traditional ideas of community and then compare this to how influencers create communities for their own profit, and explore the levels of authenticity behind this.

    My question is do you personally follow any influencers and do you believe that the content they are creating is authentic, and allows you to feel as part of a community as such?

    Well done!

    1. Hi Chloe,

      Thank you kindly for reading my paper – and thanks for the interesting question.

      Like many of the people who attended this online conference, I watch alot of online content, much of which is produced by influencers.

      I like their content. I love the pro-sumer aspect of online content (and in many cases prefer it to mainstream media). Many of the most popular influencers are making money from their content, and to be honest, it’s a good thing. There is time and effort that goes into creating their content, they are providing their audience members with a product, and for many, spent many years operating purely out of passion without any compensation or reward.

      This is what I see as authentic, and I’m happy to belong to these communities who support these voices for interests we share.

      The issue that my paper has raised is that of influencers who create content purely for revenue, performing a façade of authenticity for their followers, and forging a connection with their audience that has been cast purely for their gain. This is misleading, and as noted with my case study, is a type of “make or break” for their fanbase.

      I remain genuinely interested in Calloway – but interested for different reasons – these reasons are probably shared by her still remaining 700k fanbase. I am fascinated by her online presence from sociological position – what happens when the internet exposes you as a fraud. I love watching their movements following their “outing” – so technically I am still a consumer of their content – but it becomes more of a voyeuristic, exploitative type of following, and in Calloway’s case, she seems to be continuing to profit from her presence, but has shifted her marketing to focus on her infamy (which I respect, because this is very authentic).

      Similar influencers have stepped back and advised that they never intended their online world to be considered truth, blurring art, performance and the use of avatars into their excuse. Some use mental health issues, addictions etc to explain away the deception. At its core, deception remains the enemy of truth and truth and authenticity are the benchmarks we use to understand eachother.

      Online influencers are not bad – and they are vital for diversification of marketing opportunities for organisations. But when we address why people join communities and their purpose they fill, it would be assumed that aligning objectives are a core foundation for the health of a community – and capitilising on misleading followers does not build a healthy community.

      Having said all this, influencers bring joy to many online. Influencer led communities can house, forge and establish real relationships among users. I think we just need to enter these communities with an open mind and be attuned to deceptive conduct.

      Thank you

      Tim

  2. Hi Tim,

    I thought this was really great. Caroline Calloway is such a great example to use as a case study, both in the strength of the community she had and the depth of the role she was playing.

    I think another pertinent example is someone like Rachel Hollis, who had centered so much of her content around being ‘relatable’ and then posted a video on TikTok calling her housekeeper ‘the woman who cleans my toilets’ (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/style/rachel-hollis-tiktok-video.html). There was a really great article I read about how her community reacted, withdrawing from her events and unfollowing her. I think it’s interesting to consider what kind of long-term impacts a drop in perceived authenticity has. Even now Caroline Calloway still has nearly 700k followers – and while many of them may not believe her to be an authentic personality, by engaging and interacting with her content, they’re still supporting her in sponsorship dollars.

    I thought this line was really striking: “Abidin (2021) argues that “the intimacies negotiated (between an influencer and their virtual community) are impressions that are felt by followers, as opposed to whether or not these intimacies are actually “authentic” or “genuine”, noting that the connection between a user, the influencer and the virtual community is relative to the user alone, and that the connection itself is the only attribute of importance”.

    To me that speaks to a multi-way relationship – the way the follower feels, and the feelings that they experience that make them continue to follow and engage with an influencer is the most important part of this relationship.

    I think this also helps to explain anti-fan communities. Spaces like GOMI, Guru Gossip, Tattler and Blogsnark, which are communities centered on discussing their dislike or annoyance at particular influencers. In these spaces, the discussion and often camaraderie the users experience would indicate a semblance of a community, revolving around the influencer, but not coming from a place of connection or authenticity, but distrust. In fact, much of the discussion in these places focusses on deconstructing these performances of authenticity (McRae, 2017).

    I thought this was a really interesting paper – it gave me lots to think about the influencers I follow and the “relationships” I have with them. Thanks for sharing!

    McRae, Sarah. (2017). “Get Off My Internets”: How Anti-Fans Deconstruct Lifestyle Bloggers’ Authenticity Work. Persona Studies. 3. 13. 10.21153/ps2017vol3no1art640.

    1. Hi Maddison,
      Thank you kindly for reading and considering my work.

      Ugh, Hollis. Yes, what an excellent example and a great article – thank you for sharing. I liked this quote “Ms. Hollis, who declined to comment for this article, issued an apology, blaming her “team” for her slowness in addressing the matter. She followed up, more contritely: “I know I have disappointed so many people, myself included, and I take full accountability.” (Hollis, and cited in Rosman, 2021). Like Calloway, when it is unearthed that an influencer has multiple users on her account posting and generating content, it immediately, at least for me, and in the case of Calloway’s and Hollis’s followers, outlines serious issues for credibility and authenticity. And not only was Hollis not taking accountability for her actions, which speaks to her character, motivations and privilege, she was also attempting to blur lines and misrepresent herself and “brand”, alluding to the idea that she is not wholly responsible for her content. Fans feel betrayed, because they have been loyal by way of committing their attention to the influencer, they have also allowed the influencer to influence their life – they have allowed their life and world to be influenced by a fraud. If you are seen to follow someone and they are exposed as a fraud, you are left feeling used and played for a fool.

      What is worse about influencer betrayals is that many of their fans have spent real money investing in that person. It’s never just about the product the influencer is selling – you are investing in them, in their community, investing in their confidence to keep what they have established and you have joined together.

      Thank you also for highlighting that Abidan citation – it’s an interesting point calling attention to the contempt an influencer might have for their community. The connection between the user and influencer may feel personal to the user – it may feel special – following might symbolise friendship, support, attention, even care – but the influencer forges this relationship primarily not for connection, but for personal gain.

      I’m not out to demonise influencers because, as I will reiterate, people are not stupid, people are not fools, most people know what they are getting into when they follow a public figure, and like all celebrities, they exist for the public’s entertainment. But the infiltration into social media (rather than an official fanpage or website), the fact you are engaging with a personal profile rather than an obvious endorsement opportunity blurs the lines – and I think it continues to challenge our understanding of authenticity and connection in the online world.

      Thank you again
      Tim

      Sources:

      Abidin, C. (2021). Communicative intimacies: Influencers and Perceived Interconnectedness. Retrieved 2 April 2021, from https://adanewmedia.org/2015/11/issue8-abidin/

      Rosman, K. (2021). Girl, Wash Your Timeline. Nytimes.com. Retrieved 14 May 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/29/style/rachel-hollis-tiktok-video.html.

  3. Hi Tim,
    I still can’t believe that one can make a living as an influencer on social media. I can understand celebrity endorsement but these are ordinary, people, well they are usually beautiful so not that ordinary, but not celebrities. What also surprises me is how betrayed some people can feel when influencers like your example of Caroline Calloway are revealed to not be everything they betray. As you point out in your paper, we all put our best foot forward when online and all carefully construct how we present ourselves with what information we reveal, using filters on our images, presenting the good times but maybe not the bad or mundane. I’m also surprised how betrayed a person can be with this type of thin community connection. An interesting read. Thank you.
    Please feel free to read my paper on the music fandom community:
    https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/26/the-rise-to-fame-the-power-of-music-fandom-communities-using-social-network-sites-to-promote-musicians/

    1. Hi Carolyn

      Yes I agree – its interesting that you perceive Calloway’s community as thin. It is, and I see your point. But if we break that down, are all online connections forged between fans and influencers thin, mundane and non existent? Or could this be a metaphorical example of online connections as a whole. We look at online communities as a translated, restructured digital version of pre-digital communities. But the main criticism seems to be that it feels “less real”, “less authentic” etc. And if we look at how attached people grow to a digitally mastered personality, an influencer profile etc, it adds leverage to the theories about online communities being less real.

      As you note, its hard to believe influencers make money through online influencing – but its a huge industry. Its fascinating if we step back and say “how is this happening”, but its due to the technology that provides us with the instant gratification – we only surround ourselves by artefacts that we can relate to and that share our values. The influencer rises to become the figurehead for their communities – and in an almost cult-like manner, is able to manipulate and control their communities – and their communities respond because they want to be seen as loyal, they want to be seen as a true follower, an active member of the community, they want to feel close. Maybe it is this type of commitment that bridges gaps in online communities – maybe we need to perform fandom harder to make the fandom real (as you discuss in your paper).

      Thank you for reading my paper (and I enjoyed reading yours very much)
      Tim

      1. Tim,
        You raise many good points. I’m torn with my decision regarding online connections as a whole being considered thin. I can only speak from personal experience and I’m not one for online connections. I only need a small community of friends and family and do prefer in person connection to online. I don’t engage much online but to those I do, it’s to those people I know in person and have a thick connection with, this connection is then extended online. I’ve never understood how one can have hundreds or thousands of friends online or the influencer phenomenon. I don’t follow influencers. It’s almost an alien concept to me. So I guess my question, and it’s rhetorical, is not how this is happening but why this is happening? Aside from distance which I can understand, why do people have this need for online connections? Is the instant gratification that good? Why is the in-person community not enough anymore? Next, I’ll be doing the ‘in my day speech’.
        Great discussing this topic with you.

        1. This is an interesting thread of discussion the two of you are having. In my opinion, people follower influencers because it offers an ideal to strive for with a hope that they can be like these influencers by following their lives and replicating aspects of it in their own, whether it be using make-up tips or skin routines of models that one wishes to resemble or following fitness videos of influencer athletes one wants to have the same physique as. The issue is we can not know for sure that these tips and tricks are reflective of what these influencers do consistently in real life and often hides other factors. However, as consumers, we would rather hope and struggle trying to become someone else, than to accept ourselves for who we are.

          Although there are other instances where influencers are simply documenting their lives in an effort to help someone else find their voice, especially in cases of marginalised groups wanting to find a presence n social media that is reflective of their identity, so they don’t feel so alone. A great example is in Connor Davidson’s paper regarding trans presence on social media platforms like Tik Tok helping other trans people feel accepted and a sense of belonging in the world. https://networkconference.netstudies.org/2021/2021/04/26/how-aj-clementine-is-making-that-light-bulb-moment-for-transgender-youth-a-whole-lot-easier/

          It’s interesting, Tim, how you mentioned that “The influencer rises to become the figurehead for their communities – and in an almost cult-like manner, is able to manipulate and control their communities”, as you also made a point in your paper that the connection between influencer and follower is dependant on the follower and their engagement in posts. Your fore-mentioned quote highlights how influencers seem to be the power in this dynamic relationship by being idolised and earning profit. Yet, as you pointed out, it is the consumers that hold all the power and have the ability to determine the outcome of real people’s careers. Do you think cancel culture restores balance to the power dynamic and trust exploited by influencers that are inauthentic for self-profit?

          1. Agreed, and thank you for your observation Eva.
            Cancel culture is in a way, a realigning of those power struggles that exist between consumers and influencers. When exercised in its most noble way, the cancelling of an individual due to exposure of their behaviour, which contradicts their performed online identity (which is responsible for their notoriety), is a perfect example of how, despite being the victims in influencer scams, the people will always have the power. Its an interesting response to influencer-led deception, and when executed appropriately and with cause, is an excellent consumer driven response to being deceived.

            As time goes on, I think society are becoming more aware of misrepresenting their self online, and the daily “cancellations” of public figures due to negative exposure that contradicts their performed digital self should remain as a warning for all influencers, highlighting that accountability will be expected for all actions and they can be career destroying if influencing is your chosen career.

            Thanks Eva
            I hope you enjoyed the conference – I particularly enjoyed your paper and learned a bit from your response to my comment.

            Tim

        2. Hi Carolyn

          Thank you again for your insightful observations on my argument!
          To sum it up, your use of the argument “in my day” to reflect upon non-digital communities and relationships is so relevant (and one I share as a senior-ish millennial) – because that is what we are using now as a benchmark for what is considered “real” and/or authentic.

          In person relationships – connections – communities etc did feel more authentic, but I think we feel this way, partly because technology was primitive and we could not use it to communicate in the way we use it today. I think the effort exerted to communicate in pre-digital times made the experience of community and connection feel more real – there was a commitment that you needed to accept to participate – you gave up your precious time to communicate – now you can participate in community while also undertaking many other activities. You are able to wear many hats at the same time. This multi-tasking and ease of transaction removes a human element that we once experienced with every transaction – and I think this ease to complete what once was challenging creates this nostalgic love for simpler times.

          While this is not a good or a bad thing in our connected age, it is important that we have this benchmark to remind ourselves how we got to where we are today – and so future generations are able to contextualise previous societies and the way communities previously occurred to better understand their own.

          Thank you for the great discussion Carolyn, and I hope you enjoyed the conference as much as I did.
          Tim

  4. Hi Tim!

    We have really similar themes, but you bring to light something specific that I hadn’t really thought of before: curated identities.

    While it is true that social media enables evolution of identities and new kinds of identity formation through virtual communities, ‘influencers’ or companies could curate specific identities and communities for personal benefit as well.

    In my opinion, these curated identities are just a case of creatives or companies catering to their audiences’ interests. Very few of these cases are outright manipulation through fake identities. But you do highlight a tricky situation where it is unclear what is authentic and what isn’t when it comes to virtual communities.

    How do you think we can filter and decide the authenticity or virtual communities and/or influencer identity? Would love to know your thoughts.

    1. Hi Anurag
      Thank you for reading my paper, yes I agree, we have very similar themes – and thank you for your considered question.
      Authenticity is itself, a very personal attribute, and in some ways quite complicated. When researching authenticity, the consensus I have found is that being authentic is to be “true to oneself” (Fillitz & Saris, 2013) – meaning that at its core, authenticity is about the individual, not others. To understand authenticity, we usually attempt to break it down by how we understand authenticity from our own personal experience. Authenticity is perceived. So when we apply this to others, we are rating authenticity against our own performance of personality that we see as most authentic. Which is why this question is somewhat tricky to answer – but very interesting.
      So when we are online, operating on social media, existing in virtual communities, we rate authenticity based on our own understanding of what is believable, achievable, real and plausible – all of which is different to each individual. I might tell a story on social media that some perceive to be false and inauthentic because they have not had or known anyone to have that experience, yet those who know me, or those who have lived the same experience might immediately believe my story and deem me to be authentic, boosting my social capital online and influencer status.
      I think the only way we can differentiate between social media identities and communities constructed to sell and those that are authentic and organic is by following our own intuitive markers that tell us something or someone might be inauthentic. Unfortunately – it’s very individual, and some people may not be as aware as others. And in the case of my case study Calloway, was intentional.

      Thank you again for reading my paper and the great question. I hope my answer clarified.

      Thanks,
      Tim

      Fillitz, T., & Saris, A. (2013). Debating Authenticity : Concepts of Modernity in Anthropological Perspective (1st ed.). Berghahn Books.

  5. Hi Tim,
    This was a very thought-provoking paper and I thoroughly enjoyed reading this. I agree that paid influencers and influencer culture have challenged the authenticity of online communities as social media platforms provide users with the opportunity to develop a sense of community. I’ve come across a lot of influencers who have promoted and advertised products online via Instagram and this makes me question their authenticity as you’ve mentioned. While reading your paper, I thought of the time where I purchased the ‘blessed protein powder’. I was convinced this was a good brand because Zac Prener, a fitness influencer constantly promoted the product and I was sold. However, after having tried it, it was horrible and this quickly made me question the authenticity of these influencers as it seems to me that they’re promoting products for monetary purposes and not because they believe in the product.
    This has become a big concern in the online community and has made people skeptical of trusting these influencers.

    1. Hi Saranya

      Thank you kindly for reading and considering my paper.
      It’s true. We get to know influencers online, and because they exist and operate in the same social networking sites where we perform our identity as authentically as we can, we seem to expect the same from influencing figureheads, and when they promote a product that they endorse it speaks to our values and perceived connection to their story that we have. We purchase the product, and it doesn’t meet our expectations. Like my case study Calloway, her fans bought into her story, and felt deeply betrayed when her perceived authenticity was exposed to be based around her personal revenue generating endeavors, rather than her love and commitment to her community that she had spent years building.

      I don’t think people are stupid though – I think we are becoming far more savvy when it comes to spotting paid advertisements online, and I think it will become harder for influencers to capitalise on community in the future.

      Thank you,
      Tim

  6. Hi Tim,

    This was a really interesting paper. I looked up Caroline Colloway’s account and found her content really intriguing – like reading a romance or young adult novel. Certainly seems like she loves a good story!

    Your argument also made me refelct on 2 things
    1 I rememeber learning about marketing strategies pre-social media (and before directly marketing to children and some of those practices were outlawed). Marketers would have access to to kids in scholls and they would be allowed to give free products (toys or what not) to kids that were popular and had influence over other children. Even before MySpace and Facebook marketers knew the power and value of individuals who just have that certain something that attracts other people.

    2 While it’s so much easier to portray an inauthentic version of ourselves online, I think people are also much less gullible now and when it’s revealed that an influencer isn’t exactly who they say they are I think people love the scandal but aren’t really that surprised – and I think it comes back to the “bond” that you suggest isn’t truly present in a lot online relationships – we might follow and be invested in the story, much like we are with our favourite TV show. But people have been “conning” other people for centuries. Pretending they’re something they’re not etc. Identity is always a performance but SNS’s, especially one as heavily image focused as Instagram, have given us an incredible stage to perform on!

    Kymberly 🙂

    1. Hi Kymberly, thank you so much for reading my paper.

      Your first reflection is very interesting. I guess prior to SNS, celebrity culture was confined to mainstream media. Influencers were celebrities or brand figureheads, such as toys for children. Marketing agencies continued to come up with creative ways to market. Its interesting – deliberate product placement has become less popular nowadays. Its almost like you need a product included in an authentic story to sell to a community.

      I agree with your second point. We have become better at perceiving authenticity online – but I think that has alot to do with how much time we all spend online. You’re so right, the concepts I mention are nothing new – they are just now more prevalent and being expressed in newer and more dynamic ways through connected technologies.

      Thanks again for your comment, and btw I loved your paper!
      Tim

  7. Hi Tim
    Thank you for your paper, and I agree with Deepti, very thought-provoking.
    I agree that the influencer culture can operate through online communities. Covid has brought new challenges to being a social media influencer. Influencers can drive the market for holiday ideas, clothing ideas, and much more; however, we saw how this had changed during lockdown. They were re-sharing their posts that did not get any attention as they are used to, So influencers need to find more attention elsewhere and engage in an audience. Technology affordances throughout the platforms are increasing with more power to gain attraction and, let’s face it, acquire data and analyse citizen’s likes and what they are commenting on. Do you think this has changed the culture of an influencer, and do you think that they will be more used to target attraction and break into lots of online communities (by not being their true identities) to create discussions and to drive citizens into following other communities so they can influence their audience that way? It’s just a thought and this paper, and combined with what I was writing about with politicians gaining attention through social media and online communities that influencers and businesses will follow suit,

    1. Hi Nakia

      Thank you for reading, I appreciate your observations and your question. Based on my research, I see this trend increasing – influencers creating and targeting communities to generate networks to market to – its not going away, and is becoming a major economy in itself.
      Its fascinating thinking about the nature of doctored online discussions that have the power to create communities. For example. A fitness influencer infiltrates a forum designed for bodybuilding. Shows pictures of their workouts. Seemingly just as an average user. People follow them on their socials. They form a community. They then start advertising about a certain protein shake they use for example. They have established a community of people who are either like minded or enamoured by the influencer – and then, in line with the influencers values which they share, subscribe to products that the influencer claims to benefit from (inline with the community values) – the influencer directly profits from their ability to create and maintain community.

      1. Hi Tim
        This is a great example of an influencer. I am a power lifter, and I can relate to this. My gym is based on a community but more as a team. They have never sold any products until recently. They are now selling fitness equipment and food supplies. However, there has been a sudden drop in numbers.
        Do you think that people are now more aware of this type of marketing and now put off? I know I feel like I am just being sold to rather than going because I love hanging out with likeminded people. Their community is changing, and I am not sure if this approach is best suited for them. Would you also agree If you follow a influencer and then buy their products, and it doesn’t compare with what they are advertising , how does this become a problem for a influencer if they are also connected to other communities. Is the culture of citizens changing and the level of trust is now a concern?

        1. Hi Nakia

          I’m sorry that has happened to your gym. It does taint that community vibe when commerce suddenly is introduced. Was the drop in numbers following the introduction of products for sale or prior?

          I think (in response to your questions), given the transient nature of online relationships, trust is important, it must be maintained, and can easily be broken. So an influencer promoting a product that doesn’t work, or that they don’t use, or that they don’t understand, shows contempt and disrespect for their fanbase. Given how fleeting influencer fandom can be, their platform can be lowered or removed as quickly as they were elevated.

          Given that influencer fandom exists in a space where you will probably never meet, all online interactions and actions count – their audience mostly, will not accept being made a fool of, and will unfollow as quickly as they followed.

          Thank you for your question ~!
          Tim

          1. It’s such a shame when this happens, and the loss of trust and loyalty is then questioned.
            I personally do not buy things online unless I have been recommended from a person who has proper information and knows it. I would never buy from a influencer personally, I guess I have become far too aware of things.
            Thanks for the discussion Tim and Good luck for the rest of the semester.

            Nakia

  8. Hi Deepti,
    Thank you for reading my paper, and thank you for your question.

    True community, in my own words, is hard to define, but I’d say it refers (most prominently) to physical grouping and trust ,and has four loose qualities.
    – Spatial proximity (ie. Physical closeness)
    – Shared objectives or goals
    – Beneficial for safety, security and/or mental well being
    – Trust between members

    Non-digital communities are (were) relatively elitist, meaning they will tend to isolate or remove members who aren’t committed and ongoing commitment to the community establishes or reinforces trust. Spacial proximity and that shared living experience is unique to the community members, and non-digital communities were generally something you were born into or found to survive.
    A “true” community would also assume interpersonal relationships between members.

    It is important to note that, online, all these activities can virtually occur. But they are less important to virtual communities – acts are more symbolic and momentary. And while a virtual community might be all that some individuals know when they consider community, thus be a “true community” in perception, the transient nature of virtual communities, the immediacy and unbalanced motivations (as discussed in my paper) display that while some may see it as a community, others may not see it as that at all. Using the word “friend” on Facebook does not always denote friendship, a heart emoji does not always denote love – they are mostly symbolic, and similarly a virtual community is real to those who believe it is real, and can function to relieve feelings of loneliness and the need to commune, but the imbalance between members and lack of physicality struggle to resolve the emptiness and insecurity that true community once filled.

    Please let me know if you have further questions.
    Thanks,
    Tim

    1. Hi Deepti,
      Thank you for reading my paper, and thank you for your question.

      True community, in my own words, is hard to define, but I’d say it refers (most prominently) to physical grouping and trust ,and has four loose qualities.
      – Spatial proximity (ie. Physical closeness)
      – Shared objectives or goals
      – Beneficial for safety, security and/or mental well being
      – Trust between members

      Non-digital communities are (were) relatively elitist, meaning they will tend to isolate or remove members who aren’t committed and ongoing commitment to the community establishes or reinforces trust. Spacial proximity and that shared living experience is unique to the community members, and non-digital communities were generally something you were born into or found to survive.
      A “true” community would also assume interpersonal relationships between members.

      It is important to note that, online, all these activities can virtually occur. But they are less important to virtual communities – acts are more symbolic and momentary. And while a virtual community might be all that some individuals know when they consider community, thus be a “true community” in perception, the transient nature of virtual communities, the immediacy and unbalanced motivations (as discussed in my paper) display that while some may see it as a community, others may not see it as that at all. Using the word “friend” on Facebook does not always denote friendship, a heart emoji does not always denote love – they are mostly symbolic, and similarly a virtual community is real to those who believe it is real, and can function to relieve feelings of loneliness and the need to commune, but the imbalance between members and lack of physicality struggle to resolve the emptiness and insecurity that true community once filled.

      Please let me know if you have further questions.
      Thanks,
      Tim

      1. Hi Tim,
        No further questions but I must say I agree that “friends” do not always indicate friendship on Facebook and emojis are certainly mostly symbolic. I think it’s safe to say that the display of a community membership online (as indicated by one’s Friends list and interactions via emojis) does more than relieve loneliness. It also allows individuals to perform a self that is ostensibly connected (and I’m sure this does wonders for some egos) if not actually so in real life.
        Great points!
        Deepti

  9. Hi Tim,
    This is a thought-provoking paper and a good example in Calloway. I was particularly intrigued by your comment that “true community through online platforms is difficult to establish” and that such connections may be but “momentary”. I wondered, given the extensive research into various definitions of community you’ve cited here, whether you had your own definition of a “true community”? Does that statement mean such a community can only exist in offline spaces?
    Deepti

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *