Now that some time has passed, we can analyse what happened and the actual consequences it has had. An analysis by Kolsquare<\/a> of the trends over 50 days for some of the profiles that were at the centre of the conversation reveals a rather less clear-cut picture. The losses were mainly concentrated over a period of around ten days in August and then levelled off for almost all the profiles analysed.<\/p>\n Fabiana Sevillano<\/a>, one of the creators who most appeared associated with this conversation, lost followers from the peak that reached around the time of La Velada, but by the beginning of September was still at a level of 3.98% higher than on 15 July. RoRo<\/a> has indeed reported a considerable loss, although part of this is due to the correction of the enormous growth which had experienced coinciding with La Velada <\/a> and Carliyo the Nervio<\/a> is another of the figures who following the controversy which arose in the summer, has continued to lose viewers.<\/p>\n However, the decline, at least understood as a mass exodus of followers, never materialised, although that does not mean that nothing has happened.<\/p>\n Some creators jumped straight into the conversation. Fabiana Sevillano argued that a \u2018shaming campaign\u2019 would be unlikely to put an end to influencers because the controversy itself generates attention and engagement.<\/em> Others asked people not to generalise, spoke of a loss of connection with the audience, or even emphasised the difference between being an influencer and being a content creator.<\/p>\n Most chose to stay on the sidelines, and we have also observed how some of the profiles that seemed to feel called out began to make certain adjustments to their content or to address issues relating to authenticity and their relationship with their audience.<\/p>\n It is difficult to know whether these changes are a direct response to the controversy or whether they will endure over time. But the fact that the quantitative consequences of the conversation have been limited does not mean it was irrelevant, because perhaps we were looking at the wrong data.<\/p>\n Influencers aren\u2019t going away. More than half of Spanish internet users follow influencers, YouTubers or streamers, and brands continue to rely on them as part of their communication strategies. What does seem to be changing, however, is the relationship we have with influence.<\/p>\n According to the latest edition of Navegantes en la Red, published by AIMC<\/a>, 56.4% of the internet users in Spain surveyed still follow influencers, YouTubers or streamers. Among those who do so, 69.8% consider that there is use or abuse of advertising in disguise; 61.9% believe that the majority of their posts and comments are advertising in nature ; and 45.7% state that this undermines their credibility. Mistrust, therefore, has not arisen this summer.<\/p>\n In 2023, the so-called \u2018 lashgate<\/em><\/a> involving Mikayla Nogueira<\/a> turned a collaboration with L’Or\u00e9al sparked a huge debate about credibility after some of her audience suspected she had used false eyelashes to exaggerate the effect of a mascara.<\/p>\n Around those very same dates the phenomenon of deinfluencing was also gaining ground<\/em><\/a>, creators doing apparently the opposite of that for which influencer marketing had been created, that is to say which products that went viral were not worth the trouble of buying.<\/p>\n Afterwards came phenomena such as the underconsumption core<\/em><\/a>, the \u201cuse what you already have\u201d and other trends that questioned the need to constantly acquire the next viral product.<\/p>\n These are different phenomena, but they all point to something similar: the audience has gradually learnt the rules of influencer marketing and has become much more critical of the content it consumes.<\/p>\n There is another transformation less related to advertising and more to the very evolution of the creators.<\/p>\n A good proportion of the big influencers today started by showcasing a lifestyle that was quite relatable to their followers. They showed the clothes that they bought, how they applied their make-up, what they did during the day or where they went went on holidays. They were people who appeared to be normal and who replied to comments and shared a good part of their privacy, and that closeness was one of the greatest assets on which the foundation upon which the phenomenon was built.<\/p>\n Some of these accounts are now fully-fledged businesses, with millions of followers, professional teams, advertising deals, paid trips, invitations to events and incomes that are a world away from those of a large proportion of their audience.<\/p>\n Success shouldn\u2019t be a problem, but inconsistent communication certainly is. When a creator\u2019s circumstances change, the way they engage with their community must also evolve. Maintaining the same narrative of normality when the distance between you and your followers has increased considerably can end up causing resentment.<\/p>\n Some of the controversies in Spain this summer stem precisely from that perception of a disconnect. Rather than trying to decide who was right in each case, it is more interesting to ask why comments that might have gone unnoticed a few years ago now provoke such strong reactions. Because a community may still be there, yet the relationship it has with those on the other side of the screen may have changed.<\/p>\n Whilst we were discussing the alleged fall,<\/a> something apparently contradictory happened at that moment: major sports organisations were backing them to reach new audiences.<\/p>\n La Vuelta a Espa\u00f1a<\/a> welcomed the content creator Erola Jons<\/a>, which has millions of followers on social media, with the aim of bringing the competition to a younger audience.<\/p>\n The strategy made sense, if you want to reach an audience that does not usually follow cycling, to engage someone who already has their attention may prove much more effective than waiting for that audience to reach through the traditional channels.<\/p>\n The problem arose during the event, as some of her interactions with cyclists drew criticism, leading La Vuelta to amend the protocol. From that point onwards, any interaction between the organiser and riders or teams had to be authorised in advance.<\/p>\n Beyond acknowledging the creator\u2019s achievements, this case raises an important question for those of us who work in communications: is having access to an audience enough to make you the right fit for any context? The answer is no.<\/p>\n Selecting a creator solely on the basis of their ability to reach a particular audience can be just as inadequate as choosing a media outlet solely on the basis of its readership. The audience and reach are important, but so too are tone, credibility, affinity, the ability to adapt to different conventions, and the specific role we want them to play. And, of course, the briefing matters.<\/p>\n Shortly afterwards, the debate reached the US Open<\/a>. This year, the tournament accredited around a hundred influencers and content creators \u2013 roughly double the number from the previous edition \u2013 also with the aim of bringing tennis to new audiences.<\/p>\n During the competition, there were disruptions caused by people creating content in the stands and hospitality areas, including moving around during service, making noise, taking photographs or using lights to film. Some players, including Naomi Osaka, Coco Gauff and Jessica Pegula<\/a>, eventually spoke out on the matter.<\/p>\n It is worth pointing out that some of the incidents that went viral did not involve creators officially accredited by the US Open, and it is precisely for this reason that the case raises a broader issue. The problem is not deciding whether or not influencers should be present at a tennis tournament, but rather understanding what happens when we introduce the dynamics of the attention economy into spaces that operate according to completely different rules.<\/p>\n The creator is seeking attention, the tennis player needs to concentrate, the event wants to broaden its reach, the spectator has paid to enjoy the match, and the brand wants to secure content. All these interests can coexist, but someone has to work out how.<\/p>\n Coco Gauff was highlighting precisely a responsibility that we sometimes overlook: if a brand invites creators to an event of this kind, it should also explain to them the rules and etiquette of the venue they are entering.<\/p>\n The debate has also turned the spotlight on Wimbledon, which, unlike the US Open, does not have a specific accreditation category for influencers and maintains particularly strict rules on the use of equipment that could interfere with matches.<\/p>\n Two ways of tackling the same challenge: reaching new audiences without losing what makes up the experience and identity of an event.<\/p>\n After everything that has happened this summer, perhaps the question is not whether influencers are on the decline. The reality is that audiences are still there, brands continue to invest, major events want to incorporate them into their strategies, and every day new creators emerge who are capable of building communities around practically any topic. What does seem to be falling by the wayside, however, is the idea that audience, visibility, influence and trust are practically one and the same.<\/p>\n For years we have used metrics that are relatively easy to measure in order to make decisions that are much more complex: followers, views, reach, engagement<\/em>.<\/p>\n One creator may have millions of followers yet little influence, whilst another may have a small community but exert enormous influence over it. Someone may generate millions of views yet be completely unsuitable to represent a particular brand. And a creator who performs perfectly well on their own channels may need training to thrive in a different context.<\/p>\n Because influence and visibility have never been the same thing, even though they have often been confused. And to this we must add another variable that is even more difficult to measure: trust.<\/p>\n The problem is not that a creator monetises their content; it is only natural that they should do so. The conflict arises when the accumulation of sponsorships, a lack of connection with what they are promoting, or a constant stream of new \u2018must-have\u2019 products ends up eroding the credibility on which their influence was built.<\/p>\n And a bad choice does not affect only the creator, it can also harm the brand that has selected it. For that reason, protecting that credibility should be a concern for creator, but also the brand, the agency and any organisation which decides to use its ability to exert influence.<\/p>\n After weeks of talk of a supposed decline, most major influencers have retained virtually all of their audience, and brand investment continues to grow. But something has indeed changed: the audience is becoming increasingly aware of how this industry works, recognises its commercial codes, and seems more willing to question those they follow.<\/p>\n At the same time, the sector itself has been forced to, even though it has only been for a few weeks, to talk about authenticity, responsibility, publicity, disconnection and trust.<\/p>\n Perhaps we are simply entering a more mature stage of influencer marketing. One in which attracting attention remains important, but is no longer enough, and in which a creator\u2019s real advantage lies not in how many people they manage to get to watch them, but in how many continue to trust them when they have something to say.<\/p>\nWe still follow the influencers, but we trust them less<\/h2>\n
When a \u2018normal\u2019 person stops being one<\/h2>\n
Influencers are moving away from social media<\/h2>\n
The problem of measuring influence using metrics relating to audience<\/h2>\n
Article written byMarta Rodr\u00edguez Ruiz,<\/b><\/a> Marketing and Communications Director<\/b><\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/agenciacomma.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/Quote-EN-Marta-Rodriguez-Ruiz-1450x357-1.png\")
<\/p>\n