A Sense of Doubt blog post #3171 - Public Places Are Banning Influencers

A Sense of Doubt blog post #3171 - Public Places Are Banning Influencers

Things catch my eye, and then I decide to feature them on the blog.

I subscribe to a lot of newsletters -- too many to read on the regular -- and many of them have been recommended by Warren Ellis, who feels like a friend even though I do not really know him personally except for his work, his newsletter, and a couple of emails we exchanged about ambient music.

The FUTURE PARTY was his recommendation, a recent one. And I have been skimming it even when I do not have time for the other 20 (however many) that come in daily.

And so this item caught my eye.

I was waiting for more backlash against influencers.

This also reminds me of something I heard in the FLASH FORWARD podcast (I am not hunting down the episode).

This fantastic podcast has ended, and it's worth a listen through the many episodes.

The one I am thinking of is about how influencing could become name-drop-related. What if an app on your phone paid you every time you mentioned a product or service to another person? Furthermore, what if your phone tracked that person's response to the influence? Do they buy the product? Use the service? The technology definitely exists now for the first part, and our phones are listening all the time. The technology for the second part also exists but is a little bit more complex to use facial recognition, GPS tracking, or other methods to track what happens due to the influence.

SIDENOTE: Just shut up. Anyone with a phone that they have with them nearly all the time, turned on, and active needs to just shut the fuck up about devices like the Amazon Echo listening and maybe recording what is said in its presence. PLEASE. Help me Spock.

Thanks for tuning in.


From "The Future Party" October 23, 2023

Public places are banning influencers

The Future. Despite the creator economy thriving, more cafes, businesses, and even towns are deciding the influencer exposure isn’t worth the headache. That’s potentially bad news for micro-influencers who rely on a steady flow of content to stay in the conversation… but it could be uniquely beneficial for brands and businesses looking to create “offline” experiences that every influencer wishes they could document.

Anti-influencing Influencers may no longer be trending, according to Mashable.

Dae, a design shop and cafe in Brooklyn, instituted a no photos-and-videos policy (other than a quick snap) because influencers have “gotten a bit out of control for us.” Pomfret, a town in Vermont, closed access to tourists of its most-photographed public spaces because influencers had caused the area too much damage. Andorra, a micronation in Europe, is even instituting new laws to curb the migration of YouTubers. And in recent years, a hotel in Ireland and a cafe in Taiwan also put up that “No Influencers” sign.

Why would businesses and local governments be against the free publicity provided by influencers? There are several reasons.

They can’t handle the popularity — it draws too many people for businesses without enough resources or space. The wave of customers that influencers bring in (and just want to get a photo) can scare off long-term customers — a more sustainable business model. Influencers often want to exchange content for goods or services, which some businesses have found isn’t a fair trade most of the time.

None of this means influencing is going away… but the industry may be contracting as brands try to focus on allocating resources to influencers who can truly move the needle. Influencer marketing agency Linqia recently found brands are increasingly preferring to partner with “macro-influencers” if they want to make a splash on socials.

Like what you see? Subscribe Now or Partner With Us

Keep the editorial team going! Buy the team a coffee!

Today’s email was written by David Vendrell. Edited by Nick Comney. Copy edited by Kait Cunniff. Published by Darline Salazar.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

- Bloggery committed by chris tower - 2310.24 - 10:10

- Days ago = 3035 days ago

- New note - On 1807.06, I ceased daily transmission of my Hey Mom feature after three years of daily conversations. I plan to continue Hey Mom posts at least twice per week but will continue to post the days since ("Days Ago") count on my blog each day. The blog entry numbering in the title has changed to reflect total Sense of Doubt posts since I began the blog on 0705.04, which include Hey Mom posts, Daily Bowie posts, and Sense of Doubt posts. Hey Mom posts will still be numbered sequentially. New Hey Mom posts will use the same format as all the other Hey Mom posts; all other posts will feature this format seen here.