Influencers

The Beatles were the influencers of their day fancythat, there is nothing new, except accessibility.

Goodness, no one has to engage with anything on SM if they don't want to. I follow a Canadian weight trainer who does a brilliant job of explaining how to perform lifts safely and correctly, it means I can make the most of my gym membership whilst keeping safe. I follow several people who specialise in recipes I like and I also follow some equestrians. I don't pay them anything but I find their posts interesting and informative. I also follow a couple of fashion sites. I'm 77 and very selective about what I look at!
My daughter travels all over the world and has an instagram account where she posts pictures, info and tips. She has several thousand followers, doesn't make any money out of it and didn't intend to but she's become part of a worldwide groups. She gets help and advice from others who have accounts and also travel widely. This idea that "influencers" are all making loads of money is ridiculous, most seem to be sharing their interests or building a physical or online business.

Casdon

The Beatles were the influencers of their day fancythat, there is nothing new, except accessibility.

No they were not. They did not spend ages trying to sell us products. They performed their music was terrific and they had millions of fans who bought souvenir and promotional items, but they did not try to sell us the barber who cut their hair, the tailor who made their suits ar their infallible cure for a hangover

They were no different to today's popstars in their marketing activities.

The term 'doesn't bother me and if people can make a career and income from it, why not? Every technological development produces new careers.

My main concern is about those that get the most media coverage, and they seem to be the ones that are of most concern where young people are concerned. Andrew Tate and his ilk are havng a serious and worrying influence over vulnerable boys and putting their female contemporaries at risk.

Their female euivalents of the great big lips and expressionless faces are, hopefully, not intentionally encouraging vulnerable women and girls to emulate them, and if what I have seen of the mysoginistic male sites, turning themselves into the grotesues of womenhood that these men find attractive.

If you want to make a living round photographing your pets, or the progress of your house project or vegetable plot that fine. You are unlikely to be doing any harm to vulnerable people, especially young people.

M0nica

Casdon

The Beatles were the influencers of their day fancythat, there is nothing new, except accessibility.

No they were not. They did not spend ages trying to sell us products. They performed their music was terrific and they had millions of fans who bought souvenir and promotional items, but they did not try to sell us the barber who cut their hair, the tailor who made their suits ar their infallible cure for a hangover

They were no different to today's popstars in their marketing activities.

Yes M0nica, they were. You don’t have to actively promote specific goods to be an influencer, although to a limited degree they did do that too. Think how they influenced hundreds of thousands of young people to go off and find themselves in India, to copy the clothes they wore, imitate their hairstyles, make music similar to theirs, to use their music on adverts to advertise things, etc. etc.

fancythat

Casdon

Sarnia

Chestnut

Casdon

Stanley Tucci has six million followers, he is a food critic and Italy lover - and an engaging personality. I don’t think a lot of of the most popular influencers are malign influences myself, and it is perfectly possible not to watch them if you don’t want to.

Stanley Tucci is also also a highly respected actor who has appeared in too many things to list here. Most recently Conclave and The Devil Wears Prada 2. They are on his Wiki page.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Tucci

perfectly possible not to watch them if you don't want to
That doesn't apply to the thousands who follow today's young influencers. They want to be just like them. They want that image, make-up, hair and clothes. Social media is well on the way to becoming an addiction. Ask any young girls what is the worst thing they could lose and the vast majority would say their phones. Their entire lives are in that device.

I think the majority of young people are just as capable of being discerning as the majority of older people. They aren’t sheep, any more than we are.

Dont think I agree with that.

The influencers have millions of followers.

Cant see that happening in the 60s for example.
Yes with music maybe.

Fancythat
You obviously missed all the young men having their hair cut like the Beatles and the suits they wore.
Then there was dusty who gave us the panda eyes.
Mary Quant didn’t just design clothes, her hair cut was copied by me and a lot of my friends.
What decade were you a teenager?

I used to look at teen magazines in the early 60's, they influenced my choice of clothes, hairstyle and make up etc. I paid for them out of my pocket money, now I get access to all sorts of interesting things and I don't have to dig into my pension.

I watch reels of "influencers" telling me about sewing skills, mosaics, stained glass and loads of other crafts. There is no hard sell, just information. You can sign up for some of the courses they run but they are rarely thrust down your throat. I have learned so much. I also occasionally watch make up ideas for the more mature lady and have found hints that really make me look better.

There's some excellent art tutorials. I paint with watercolours and I've learned a lot of new techniques from both fb and instagram reels.

Apologies if this link has already been posted but this is the problem with influencers:

Source: BBC share.google/Ub6CxEqxY96NUClZM

Annoying link, it's a story today about the world being stripped of Matcha, a Japanese tea which has been featured on TikTok and has now become a worldwide craze, producers are struggling, prices are soaring, there is a tourism boom.

It's part of the same sheep like behaviour that takes people up mountains in t-shirts and flip flops who then have to be rescued. I've lost count of the number of articles about mountain rescue teams struggling with a vast increase in call outs.

It really isn't the same as marketing, it's an invitation to blind idiocy and destruction of cultural artefacts and formerly peaceful sites in nature. Marketing has rules, influencers are careless and in it for the money but it's us who pay for the problematic outcomes.

Yes M0nica, they were. You don’t have to actively promote specific goods to be an influencer, although to a limited degree they did do that too. Think how they influenced hundreds of thousands of young people to go off and find themselves in India, to copy the clothes they wore, imitate their hairstyles, make music similar to theirs, to use their music on adverts to advertise things, etc. etc.

But the Beatles did not set out sell a lifestyle to their fans. They were no different to popular singers, dancers, actors in the previous 100 years, people looked and copied, but central to their lives was their music. Central to an influencers life is influencing people and monetising their interactions with their fans. That is very different.

Nanna8 - anyone who is actually influenced by these numpties must be a moron.

Jockytaff

Nanna8 - anyone who is actually influenced by these numpties must be a moron.

Does your contribution to the thread include Jack Monroe who helped 10s of thousands of people in poverty to cook a decent meal on a very tight budget.

Tourists Ruin Historical Fountain in Italy as a Pre-Wedding Dare, and This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things share.google/WFOEPLk84T2awQoEW

And here's another one 'inspired' by social media, apparently the drive to climb ancient statues and grab the balls is a sought after wedding photo these days.

M0nica

^Yes M0nica, they were. You don’t have to actively promote specific goods to be an influencer, although to a limited degree they did do that too. Think how they influenced hundreds of thousands of young people to go off and find themselves in India, to copy the clothes they wore, imitate their hairstyles, make music similar to theirs, to use their music on adverts to advertise things, etc. etc.^

But the Beatles did not set out sell a lifestyle to their fans. They were no different to popular singers, dancers, actors in the previous 100 years, people looked and copied, but central to their lives was their music. Central to an influencers life is influencing people and monetising their interactions with their fans. That is very different.

I think you are defining an influencer far more tightly than the way in which the term is widely understood.
As an example, I asked AI if the Princess of Wales is an influencer. This is what it came up with:

Yes, the Princess of Wales is widely considered a major "influencer," with British Vogue naming her an "Eternal Influencer" in 2025. Her influence is largely based on the "Kate Effect," where clothing she wears sells out instantly, and her ability to impact the trajectory of brands.
People.com
+2

Key Aspects of Her Influence:
Fashion Icon: She is recognized for a style that blends modern elegance with traditional royal duty, earning a spot on British Vogue’s 2025 best-dressed list.

Brand Impact: Her quiet support can boost both high-street and designer brands, with her influence often compared to a "secret weapon" for the Royal Family's public image.

"Eternal Influencer": Experts have dubbed her an "Eternal Influencer" due to her sustained ability to connect with a global audience, mirroring the mystique of the late Queen Elizabeth II.

Purpose-Driven: Beyond fashion, she uses her platform to influence public perception of early childhood development, utilizing academic partnerships to support her charity work.
Woman & Home
+4

While she does not engage in commercial promotions, as noted by Hello Magazine, her ability to shape trends and public sentiment is immense.

foxie48

There's some excellent art tutorials. I paint with watercolours and I've learned a lot of new techniques from both fb and instagram reels.

I paint, never considered art influencers. Cooking as well.

NotSpaghetti

I suppose there have always been influencers - the royals and wealthy people then stars, models, the favoured girl or boy at school....

Now people are making a living out of it though.

They certainly are. By talking tripe through their derrieres to their brainwashed, idiot followers.

So that they will buy the latest junk

M0nica

Casdon

The Beatles were the influencers of their day fancythat, there is nothing new, except accessibility.

No they were not. They did not spend ages trying to sell us products. They performed their music was terrific and they had millions of fans who bought souvenir and promotional items, but they did not try to sell us the barber who cut their hair, the tailor who made their suits ar their infallible cure for a hangover

They were no different to today's popstars in their marketing activities.

The Beatles influenced loads of fans, me for one. Back in the 60's I had everything 'Beatles'. I wore Beatle tights, Dollyrocker dresses, as worn by their girlfriends, carried bags and wore t-shirts with their names and faces on, and my most prized possession, a midnight blue leather jacket with the trademark Beatle look of a round neck and no collar.
I was at a girls Grammar School at the time and I remember a teacher jokingly saying that the hardest part of her job was teaching us to spell beetle with 2 e's.
They most certainly were influencers of their time without the social media of today.

Casdon someone can be an influence with out beng an Influencer. An Influencer is someone who does it with malice aforethought and hopes to make money from it.

The Princess of Wales is an influence, The Duchess of Sussex would like to be an Influencer.

I agree with you Monica. The Beatles were an influence but not Influencers. They were talented musicians. To my mind, Influencers of today have no talent for anything other than making money for doing next to nothing.

We call them irritatents

I think we are all influenced by everything we see, hear and think about every day. Maybe the definition of an 'influencer 'is that they could use it as their job description.
I'm finding this thread enlightening as I don't recognise any of these nefarious themes, but I'm quite happy with remain under my rock

An influencer is an influencer, whether they make money from a career in influencing, or whether people copy what they do because they have been influenced by them. It’s a pointless argument, just use the dictionary definition.

I was pondering on the difference between an influencer and a role model. Are they the same or different things?

M0nica

Casdon someone can be an influence with out beng an Influencer. An Influencer is someone who does it with malice aforethought and hopes to make money from it.

The Princess of Wales is an influence, The Duchess of Sussex would like to be an Influencer.

Malice? That seems a tad harsh and sweeping. They are basically just advertising somebody's wares if they are trying to get people to buy them just like advertising agencies.