Influencer marketing has become the miracle elixir every brand and marketer now swears by. Drop two creators in any media plan, and the metrics bloom. Make it the trending two, and the pitch is won. As if influencers next to anything guarantees a sale. Influencers now write, direct and star in their own scripts. But strip away the gloss, isn't it just celebrity endorsement repackaged? Today, influence is currency, and marketing's the gold rush.
The influencer economy is projected to reach USD 32.55 billion in 2025... no wonder it's a default career choice now
The influencer economy is projected to reach USD 32.55 billion in 2025. When that kind of money hums, everyone hears. Feeds swell. Reels ripple. And even the most heart-wrenching moments - reduced to shareable contents.
Being an influencer is now a default ambition of a generation bred on transitions, trending loops, monetised aesthetics and algorithmic applause. A career path. A business model. A dream of glitz and glam, dressed as entrepreneurship.
People trust people they know more than any commercial
Yet influence didn't begin with TikTok, Instagram, or the #FYP. Long before creator tiers and follower counts -- before content creation got democratised -- communities had messengers, and conscience bearers. Trusted intermediaries who shaped beliefs, guided actions, and spurred change.
Word‑of‑mouth.. is persuasion in its most human form. Neighbourly nudges, referrals, Tupperware parties, even network marketing, at their core, are rooted in relationships, because people have always trusted people they know more than any commercial. Nielsen's Global Trust in Advertising surveys consistently report earned media -- specifically, recommendations from friends and family -- as the most trusted advertising format.
Philosophers and playwrights have long warned of the duality of influence, as it trespasses upon another's will... while mirroring the soul that wields it
Perhaps the nature of influence has changed today. The word influence comes from the Latin influĕre -- combining in- (into) and fluĕre (to flow). It's a quiet current, slowly streaming in, like water poured into a vessel along its inner wall. It symbolises a force that seeps into minds, into morals, into movements... gently transforming from within. The Cambridge Dictionary still defines an influencer as "someone who affects or changes the way other people behave".
Under that light, Confucius was an influencer in the truest, most enduring sense. Ibn Sina and Socrates too. Enduring. Unbought. Unboxable.
But Oscar Wilde, mischief intact, mused in Dorian Gray that "all influence is immoral", not because it's inherently evil, but because it trespasses upon another's will. Shakespeare, too, scattered cautionary tales throughout his works. Brutus persuaded toward betrayal, and Lady Macbeth undone by suggestion, not steel, lessons in persuasion weaponised.
Seventeenth-century moralist Henry More described influencers -- though not with that term -- as moral stewards, those who should rightfully guide society with their authority and conscience. Even if his faith in monarchy may have been deluded, his grasp of the sway that leaders wield is not.
Philosophers and playwrights have long warned of the duality of influence - a mirror of the soul that wields it.
History is riddled with examples of influencers who didn't orchestrate for clicks... but captivated minds and hearts
Even Pope Francis, at the 2019 World Youth Day in Panama, called Mary the "Influencer of God" (https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2019-01/pope-francis-panama-wyd-vigil.html#:~:text=And%20he%20recalled%20that%20incarnation,who%20are%20weak%20and%20fragile); not as a soundbite, but in reverence. A reminder that influence once demanded virtue over virality.
Gandhi spoke of peaceful resistance without force, and an empire trembled. Mandela endured decades of imprisonment as a symbol of the struggle against Apartheid, emerging to unite a fractured nation. José Rizal's essays sparked a nationalist revolution. Raden Ajeng Kartini moved a feminist awakening in Indonesia, without a hashtag. At home, Tunku Abdul Rahman rallied a fledgling, culturally diverse nation to believe in itself, championing pride in our unique identity. Lim Lian Geok defended mother-tongue education, cultural preservation and civil rights. Karpal Singh fiercely fought for constitutional courage, in Parliament and the courts.
History is riddled with such examples, great and small. They didn't just spark moments, they spurred movements. They didn't orchestrate for clicks. They redirected societies. They weren't just grabbing attention... they captivated minds and hearts.
Virtuous or vile, these were not performers, but protagonists whose influence could liberate, or enslave
Yet, for every prophet, there's a chorus of pretenders. For every sage, a legion of charlatans. Influence after all is amoral... not inherently noble. It can liberate, or it can enslave.
From Idi Amin and Joseph Goebbels to Shoko Asahara -- ambition, delusion or depravity cloaked in ideology -- bent wills, broke spirits, and altered the course of history to serve their designs. They were influencers too!
Virtuous or vile, these were not performers, but protagonists of history's unfolding plot. They moved multitudes, not metrics, and shook nations with their presence. Their legacies not measured in views or reach, but impact and imprint. They shifted civilisation's arc; at the very least - nudged it.
They drew followers on trust, belief and reputation alone, even those who would never see, or experience them in person. They didn't interrupt, perform, or dance. Their influence echoed, transcending the limits of their voices. Their words carry conviction. And even in eternal silence, they reverberate louder still... beyond their circle of influence, and the confines of time.
And then came... the feeds.
Today, algorithms value performance and provocation... over purpose or substance. Engagement is mistaken for impact, and spectacle gains ascendancy. Authenticity is scripted. Vulnerability curated. Drama choreographed. Even philanthropy becomes a stage because apparently it's only charity if everyone knows. Flamboyance gets projected as success, while humblebragging masquerades as virtue. More often, it's all just a rented illusion - financed on overdrawn credit.
And we -- marketers, platforms, and audiences -- cheer them on, complicit in the charade till the headlines expose it. We just look past it to the next, still longing for the fantasy to be true. Perhaps deep down, we'd rather cling to the hope of being dazzled, than acknowledge the reality of being disillusioned.
Many influencers today don't even have their own opinions... they're just reachfluencers
The uncomfortable truth is that many parading under the mantle of 'influencer' are not really persuading with their actions -- many don't wield any real influence -- or even have their own opinions. They simply interrupt the moment with copied templates and performances. Harvest the attention of algorithms, then vanish with the scroll, rarely leaving a mark worth remembering. They just entertain in the moment.
They are not influencers... merely 'reachfluencers'.
If at all, many seem only capable of persuading a following of lookalikes, eager to mimic their career path, rather than persuade the decisions of willing disciples.
Reach is rented. Resonance is owned. Yet, visibility gets mistaken for influence. Noise mistaken for substance. But true influence isn't loud. It isn't scheduled. Sometimes... not even spoken. Influence just flows, unforced, often unnoticed. It cultivates belief, and nurtures trust. We've gone from prophets to performers. From teaching to theatrics. Influence has unravelled, spiralling from consecration... to circus.
But scale makes satire real.
What moves people isn't mystical, yet vanity metrics keep masquerading as proof
Bots. Ghost accounts. Fake followers. Even when the content is legitimate, the results may be questionable. Independent studies put global influencer-fraud-related losses at about 15%of the market value, and rising with each cycle.
Yet -- here's the clown car -- impact dwindles while vanity metrics climb. We get invoiced for influence, but still present impressions as resonance, parasocial proximity as loyalty. Call a spade... a spade.
There's nothing wrong with captive exposure, awareness does have its value. The risk is when you 'bet the house' on an inflated promise, instead of applying it as part of a greater strategy. What moves people isn't mystical. Connection remains the unquantifiable core of influence. The blinking dashboards of vanity metrics once glorified -- increasingly reveal themselves to be artefacts of algorithms optimised for platform interests -- not proof of persuasion... or impact. However, many still cling to them, claiming accolades in their name... even when reality's painting a different picture.
Influencer Marketing Effectiveness, Pan et al., (Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 2024) -- meta-analysis review of 250+ studies -- found that influencer effectiveness is highly conditional and rarely guarantees behavioural change. The Influencer Marketing Report 2025, (WeArisma), is blunt in urging ROI markers such as CPA and lifetime value. The truth is most campaigns succeed in exposure, not influence. Until universal adoption of deeper measures becomes the norm, vanity will keep masquerading as proof.
A collaboration between NIQ and WeArisma might indeed bring true performance metrics to creator marketing, or maybe it will just be a return to some familiar metrics of old. Or, hopefully it will finally spur a race for a universally adoptable hybrid model that blends causal testing and attribution, with AI scalability.
The question is not whether influencer marketing works, but whether it works as advertised
Decades of behavioural science warn us that without credible controls, claims are illusory. Engagement doesn't equal lift, even when it's not engineered. Charts aren't change. If claimed impact doesn't match the actual intent, then very simply, the initiatives have failed. Of course, submissions often reflect outcomes surpassing expectations, at times as baffling as the 'chicken and egg' conundrum, if purpose is questioned. But that's a whole other endless conversation - with fanfare.
Size dynamics too are nuanced; micro and nano creators often deliver higher engagement and cost-efficiency, while larger names can assist purchase intent where credibility is relevant, but are usually more effective at amplifying awareness than persuading decisions. The question is not whether influencer marketing works, but whether it works as advertised, and whether those who wear the mantle truly deserve it.
Which brings us to the uncomfortable part... the rules - and their effectiveness.
There's an impulse to 'do something'... more inspired than the intent to 'do the right thing'
In many markets, the local codes that govern content creation are self-regulatory and voluntary. When tied to licence conditions or membership, they have bite. But in today's reality the dynamics and reach of content, make holding only the media platforms accountable for content standards as short-sighted as putting a plaster on a fracture.
While these codes are regularly updated and made relevant to the technology and times, to ensure audiences are exposed to content that aligns with the laws and societal sensibilities of each respective country, in truth, most content creators don't even bother to check if they comply, because they don't have to!
In continuing to preserve the sanctity of self-regulation, we are compromising the very purpose of such codes, even as the landscape continues on an ever-widening orbit... beyond their reach.
It is no longer a some negligible quirk - its becoming a structural flaw!
It's delusion of the real magnitude of the task, at best. More likely -- as with so many such critical, but challenging needs of our times -- there's an impulse to 'do something', that's more inspired than the intent to 'do the right thing'. And after the headline stealing soundbites, curated launch event and another box ticked, everyone moves on. Till the next incident exposes yet another kink. And we're back in the spin cycle.
While we rush to bolt the doors and windows, it's the walls that are dissolving!
Voluntary regulations are born from good intentions and sincere expectations. They are inspiration, on paper, but not particularly effective, as they continue to prove inadequate for the reality of today's temptation-rich digital ecosystem. So long as compliance continues to be limited to only those who subscribe to them -- because of corporate social responsibility, or license condition -- in a ecosystem where the largest volume of content is no longer produced by code subjects, then how can these codes and guidelines possibly be effective staying true to some outdated form? In reality, while we rush to bolt doors and windows ever tighter... it's the walls that are dissolving.
Instead, platforms are expected to moderate the estimated 6-7 million pieces of content uploaded daily between them. Not just for their own respective standards and guidelines, but to also adapt to each respective country's codes and thresholds, even when contradictory. That's like looking for varying types of needles, amidst several stacks of needles - never mind haystacks!
If the reason self-regulation was favoured over pre-vetting was because the volume and speed of content being produced by broadcasters and advertisers had become too much to cope with, then certainly today's volume on digital platforms is insurmountable by comparison.
While in the past it was the broadcasters and advertisers who created the majority of content, in the digital realm, the social media platforms are merely the vehicles and do not create the content themselves, and the users who are the real content creators are not required to comply - due to the voluntary nature of self-regulation.
The codes, while clear... become impotent!
Influencers operate on the fringe of the industry -- reaping the rewards -- yet they are not mandated to abide by these codes. So, the codes, while clear... become impotent!
It's no wonder attention-seeking stunts, scams and misleading narratives keep grabbing headlines. The pursuit of profit can be blind to ethics; sometimes, even criminal. While platforms are summoned for enabling it, the real perpetrators often remain untouchable. Each time an influencer acts unethically, we see policymakers and politicians mobilise their publicity teams; tussling for the headlines -- yet no one states the obvious -- that unless mandated, content creators and influencers will not prioritise compliance with any codes or guidelines... as long as they continue to reap the harvest.
Then the ruckus dies, with nothing really done to prevent the next incident. The pattern is global. Where compliance is voluntary, it will be optionally ignored. Influencer marketing needs mandatory baselines, while empowering universally applicable self-regulatory systems -- call it co-regulation -- if that soothes nerves.
The reality is such. Without consequence... conscience falters.
When the greatest volume of content is no longer produced by those bound to be code subjects, then the original intent of the code should outweigh the sanctity of an outdated definition. The bulk of social content used for commercial gain slips this voluntary crack. That is the gap that needs to be closed. Urgently!
It's time for those earning from content creation services to be held accountable too
It's been the Achilles' heel of self-regulation, but in the current landscape, it can no longer be ignored, and needs a sober grasp of the scale, and reality of the situation. It's time for those earning from content creation services to be licensed too; platforms shouldn't be the only ones bearing the burden, and professional creators and their agents should share the responsibility and be held accountable too.
It won't be popular... but this isn't a popularity contest!
Aren't these the real issues? If not, why the commotion each time something happens? We need conscience, and common sense, not just soundbites. Perhaps it's because sandiwara is easier to orchestrate than real change? Some still insist 'mandatory self-regulation' is an oxymoron that goes against the very definition of the concept, and should not be considered. But when it's the voluntary nature that increasingly reveals to be a glaring flaw, it's time for a redefinition. Or at the very least, a rethink of how to realign the intent of these codes with present-day realities.
Even concepts evolve. Why protect a self-defeating definition simply because of how it was seen in the 1900s, when the term was coined? Hasn't the world been redefined many times since? So why aren't the guardrails evolving to match it? When in doubt, revert to underlying intention, don't stay fixated on definitions that served a different time, context and media landscape. f not co-regulation, call it something else, just don't compromise the objective because of institutional inertia.
Make compliance mandatory... don't passing the buck
Make compliance mandatory for all commercial beneficiaries of content. Keep self-regulation with industry oversight as the standard. And require platforms to monitor, moderate, enforce and report. This is not bureaucracy; it is practicality, with purpose. More importantly, it would be a collaborative effort by all stakeholders, rather than some 'knee-jerk' reaction, finger-pointing or passing the buck.
In practice, creators already obey mandatory rules and guidelines from platform -- largely because they carry hard penalties -- that force content creators to abide, or risk being hit where it matters. Evidence of this is in the enforcement reports and transparency dashboards, that tell the story of millions of videos, channels, and even livestreams removed or banned for policy breaches each quarter.
Interestingly, TikTok's Q1 2025 enforcement data also exposes a paradox at its heart. Of the 211 million videos removed (less than 1% of the videos uploaded), only 87% were flagged automatically, while 13% still relied on human moderators or user complaints to identify them. This is significantly down from 22.5% in Q1 2024, but also prove that automation isn't omniscient. Every one of these approximately 27 million removals were content that automation failed to detect, and would have remained online if not for human oversight.
To put it into perspective, that's enough content for 20+ years of continuous uninterrupted watching. And that's just based on TikTok's report of what they captured. What the platform saw fit to remove, but do not necessarily include those that breached national content guidelines, which would be more nuanced. This is not an issue exclusive to TikTok.
Isn't the common intention to make the space safe for users?
Similar questions arise for every platform, some even more critical. And as each continues to optimise for engagement, bile will increasingly be amplified, unless ethical standards become the norm. It critically highlights the role human oversight and the complaints mechanisms still play in filtering out inappropriate content. Yet sadly, some platforms are actively reducing human oversight.
Such reports raise some pertinent questions. Is the decline a result of better compliance, or is the result of a reduction in human-driven moderation? Worse, is it a sign of the increased normalisation of certain harmful content?
Prudence suggests we don't outsource conscience entirely to algorithms.
Rather than draw jurisdictional lines around responsibility or finger-pointing or performative actions, regulators and platforms should work together to craft enforceable, feasible arrangements that complement each other with a singular focus of protecting users. Isn't the common intention to make the space safe? A tandem strategy would need to balance what else the platforms can do, with what local regulators should do, and what content creators are made to do - taking into consideration the global scale of content today, and respecting the local nuances of each country. It would be the best way forward.
Enforcement only works when aligned with will. The real question is what do regulators and platforms truly want to achieve? A workable solution... or merely some tai chi for optics and leverage. Until actions match intent, proclamations remain performative - status quo will continue to reign.
If you dislike the circus, stop buying the tickets
As the audience we are not irreproachable. Our clicks have consequences. They influence the algorithms, that learn our appetites. If idiocy trends, it's because we rewarded it. Distasteful, unethical, or unlawful content thrives... only because we tolerate it. We double-tap the spectacle, then lament our feeds drowning in it.
Doomscrolling isn't passive either. It is consent, even if fleeting. What we reject matters as much as what we reward. That is where our principles shine brightest - how we can impact our own circle of influence.
There's nothing wrong with riding on reach, so long as it's valued accordingly. But if it's influence that's promised, choose clear voices over loud volumes. Make sure it comes with lift, credibly measured, not by cosplay metrics. If you dislike the circus, stop buying the tickets.
Creators should be held to standards that match the privileges of their position; 'influencer' is not a job title... it's a responsibility.
Platforms and regulators should move from aspirational guidance to enforceable baselines; self-regulation can be effective, but without enforceability it becomes theatre. Only then would brands be truly protected from reputational and legal messes. More importantly, it would be the responsible thing to do, to protect consumers.
Many of today's influencers are trapped on the hamster wheel of 'cloneism', and wonder why they get lost on the next cycle
Unfortunately, many of today's influencers are trapped on the hamster wheel of spotlight chasing; performance rewarded over substance, everything is inventory for sale. Authenticity furthest from mind. Even individuality sacrificed for 'cloneism'. When every post is a pitch, every story a sell, every reel a recommendation, audiences will stop listening. When the feed grows louder than the message, influence vanishes in the noise. And when they get lost on the next cycle... they wonder why.
How many have they swayed? How many only follow to copy? That subtle shift is quietly unravelling the promise of influencers.
Behavioural science has said it for decades; credibility, relevance, repeated honest signals -- not carnival tricks -- garner influence. Real influence is the ripples, not the loud splash. It doesn't shout. It whispers with weight. Not in views, but in the quiet shift of belief. Not in engagement, but in trust. It doesn't disrupt; it seeps in, reshaping hearts and habits from within.
Influence is cultivated, not contrived.
A pair of sandals outside a respected public figure's home. A health supplement on his table. Neither strategically placed, nor an intentional endorsement, barely noticeable. Yet it triggers a sellout, even a market shift. It's the value placed on his opinion. The power to persuade, without even trying. That's resonance.
Any clown can gather a crowd with a horn
How many of today's influencers would be remembered if their feeds ceased tomorrow? Would their message linger? Do any of their messages continue to echo -- beyond the feed -- or do they simply dissolve at the algorithm's blink?
Any clown can gather a crowd with a horn, but a leader can move them... with purpose.