I finally found enough brain-space to read this properly - lots of people were interested when I posted it in stories. So here are some thoughts. (And it’s out from @scribe_uk on 11 November so you can read it yourselves then)
There was lots in it that I didn’t know and am glad I have been educated in: the madness of TikTok hype houses, the economics of JunkLord YouTubers, the mechanics of Telegram Engagement Pods and the compromise required to be a Breadtube star who also makes money. I know right - they went ahead and invented a whole new language while I was still bitching about twitter!
The author works at a digital agency, but if you’re looking for a gossipy tell-all on influencers, it’s not that. And if you’re looking for political analysis, it’s much more focussed on influencers than the Cambridge Analytica end of things. It’s more interested in how we spend than how we vote.
The chapter on the author trying to be an influencer is quite dull, and I feel like I’d heard all that before. The Under The Influence podcast (which I found better on feminism/motherhood than this) tried a similar gimmick with the same lack of impact: it just seems contrived from someone already doing well in the media. The author did go to Oxford with Caroline Calloway though, and is quite fun about that.
The analysis I really enjoyed was about how we can’t hold back technology, and everything from printing presses to moving trains has freaked the hell out of people, but how fragile and open to misuse the whole follower count/influencer dynamic value is. She is also good on how permeable language is, and how quickly the line fades between what makes eg ‘a good YouTube video’ and what makes ‘a video that YouTube thinks is good’.
And there is an interesting section on the whole world of ‘snark’ or ‘tea’ sites. I had no idea there was such a universe of podcasts, sites etc, and the analysis of how many of them are doing the work of underfunded mainstream journalism is sharp. She also makes an interesting clarification between ‘classic trolls’ and the way that many of those snark threads prompt ‘nuanced discussions of the intersection between influencers & political polarisation, cultural appropriation, online activism and wokewashing.’ She seemed to think that midwife firebombed her career by slagging off her husband online though, rather than the racism situation, which seemed .. off.
The line that *really* stuck with me was about what Yallop calls “influencing’s central tension: it is a profit driven activity engaged in the continuous obfuscation of its own identity and intentions.” I wrote “THIS!!!” in the margin and put my phone down for a while.
Above all, I came away thinking most influencers either want to ‘graduate’ to something ‘better’ (a book deal, tv show, fashion line etc) or to deny that they are influencers at all. As with Ozark or Breaking Bad, I just ended up thinking ‘You are smart creative people! Just do the thing that makes you happy! Because this looks like no less work!!” Then again, I still did’t understand how to launder money after watching either of those shows, so what do I know.