How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More(bonappetit.com)
bonappetit.com
How the Food Industry Pays Influencers to Shill Blueberries, Butter, and More
https://www.bonappetit.com/story/food-industry-influencers
156 comments
How much did Big Blueberry pay you?
Wait, do you have big blueberries? Are they for sale?
Big blueberries tend to taste worse than regular ones. I think there's a standard amount of blueberry flavor per volume so smaller ones have a more concentrated/better flavor.
This is definitely a shill comment from Big Black Currant.
Big small blueberry
The Jumbo Shrimp Consortium would like to chat here.
King Crab has entered the chat
Really? I've found the big ones are often sweeter.
[deleted]
Don't do it: big blueberries are worse than little blueberries.
2/3 of my bushes died. One is still going strong. It takes time. They also need acidic soil.
> They also need acidic soil.
For a while, I was saving the leftover from my morning coffee pot for a friend of mine, who used it to acidify the soil around her blueberry bushes. I don't know if it worked or not.
For a while, I was saving the leftover from my morning coffee pot for a friend of mine, who used it to acidify the soil around her blueberry bushes. I don't know if it worked or not.
I did the same thing. It might have been too much and killed the plants at some point. That or the excess fertilizer lol.
I’m a decent gardener, but I’ve killed every blueberry bush I’ve planted. Given the rest of this thread, I assume it was some sort of plot by Big Blueberry to keep me hooked on their supply. Oh well.
I grew up in N. GA and we used to take out the slop (table scraps) to the woods to dump for the creatures of the woods to eat and I distinctly remember both melons and blueberries eventually growing there.
The bunnies are kahoots with them too! Eastern cottontails massacred my bushes.
Not even just big berry is shilling. Look at this guy shill his little bush
Every purchase you have ever made is likely influenced by marketing.
As you’re pointing out, it’s not always evil to be told about something you like.
As you’re pointing out, it’s not always evil to be told about something you like.
> As you’re pointing out, it’s not always evil to be told about something you like.
It's one thing to be "told about something you like" and another to be manipulated even if sometimes it ultimately leads to a good outcome. If I trick you into buying something you wouldn't have bought otherwise it doesn't really matter much if it turns out later that you actually like the thing you overpaid for, I'd still be a dick.
It's one thing to be "told about something you like" and another to be manipulated even if sometimes it ultimately leads to a good outcome. If I trick you into buying something you wouldn't have bought otherwise it doesn't really matter much if it turns out later that you actually like the thing you overpaid for, I'd still be a dick.
I don’t disagree with the sentiment, but it’s really hard to imagine a counter factual. There are probably 5 fruits just as tasty as blueberries that you would like, but haven’t been promoted to you. Are you defrauded because you ended up with blueberries?
> Every purchase you have ever made is likely influenced by marketing.
Which is why it's so important for it to be as transparent as possible.
Marketers can't brag about being able to brainwash people and then get mad when people take offence to it.
Which is why it's so important for it to be as transparent as possible.
Marketers can't brag about being able to brainwash people and then get mad when people take offence to it.
Which kind? I'd shill for these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilberry which are the local kind in scandinavia; solid blue inside.
You can get Bilberry spread and syrup at Ikea in the U.S.
It's very good. But it probably also has added sugar.
It's very good. But it probably also has added sugar.
Oh - that's the best jam for pancakes (the thin flat pancakes) or just using the fresh berries themselves instead of jam, with some maple syrup.
Bilberries are naturally pretty sweet, it's common to eat the raw (just like you would for strawberries).
How much do you need/typically eat to feel its effects?
I've never felt anything despite hoping for some benefits from them, I wonder if I'm not eating enough of it.
I've never felt anything despite hoping for some benefits from them, I wonder if I'm not eating enough of it.
Typically 2-3 handfuls (~5-8 berries per handful). A lot, actually. Sometimes I can't stop eating them when I get started, haha.
Maybe it's placebo, I don't know. But I had occasional stomach issues which seemed to have gone away once I started consuming berries.
Maybe it's placebo, I don't know. But I had occasional stomach issues which seemed to have gone away once I started consuming berries.
Consuming raw fruits and veggies do that to you for two simple reasons: fiber and improved gut micro biome.
Thanks, 2-3 * 5-8 berries isn't too high, I'll try having all my berries together the next time I do.
I live in Blueberry country, we not only shill them here, we chill them, too.
You sound like you work for Big Blueberry. Get out of here with your shilling.
I read "Trust me I'm lying" and it reaffirmed a lot of my theories about how modern marketing works. (This isn't a sly paid plug for the book. Trust me ;)
Now I assume everything is marketing by default. A couple that come to mind:
the ugly sonic design when the movie came out. You get a whole wave of promotion from the outrage, then another when the design is fixed.
An innocuous "my girlfriend's shirt matched her coffee mug" post but there are some brand name cookies in the edge of the frame.
If I worked in marketing, these are the sorts of things I'd be trying to come up with. It gets even more fun when you apply these concepts to political propaganda.
Now I assume everything is marketing by default. A couple that come to mind:
the ugly sonic design when the movie came out. You get a whole wave of promotion from the outrage, then another when the design is fixed.
An innocuous "my girlfriend's shirt matched her coffee mug" post but there are some brand name cookies in the edge of the frame.
If I worked in marketing, these are the sorts of things I'd be trying to come up with. It gets even more fun when you apply these concepts to political propaganda.
The thinking you’re speaking of, namely that marketers are the ones calling the shots and causing disaster in order to generate controversy and therefore attention, is indistinguishable from paranoid delusions and conspiracy thinking. It’s important to back up claims of conspiracy with hard evidence otherwise it’s just unnecessary slander. Everything could be a conspiracy, potentially.
I can’t think of any situation where a marketer would be given enough agency to manufacture disaster in order to sell something, except in politics. However, they certainly do have the ability to manipulate the media and narratives.
I seriously doubt the sonic thing was a conspiracy as they put a ton of effort into making sonic and animating it, which they would have avoided if they intended to withdraw it.
I can’t think of any situation where a marketer would be given enough agency to manufacture disaster in order to sell something, except in politics. However, they certainly do have the ability to manipulate the media and narratives.
I seriously doubt the sonic thing was a conspiracy as they put a ton of effort into making sonic and animating it, which they would have avoided if they intended to withdraw it.
Honestly, I have a similar theory about the Sonic design incident. I think there's characteristics to that incident (the timing, mainly) that make it at least seem suspicious.
My theory is not that it was marketing, but that the horrifying design was an order from above, and the trailer was a maneuver to create blowback against the design.
This is baseless, of course.
My theory is not that it was marketing, but that the horrifying design was an order from above, and the trailer was a maneuver to create blowback against the design.
This is baseless, of course.
you reminded me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_clown_sightings
then suddenly, what comes out the next year? A long awaited remake of It
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(2017_film)
well, that's awfully curious.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_clown_sightings
then suddenly, what comes out the next year? A long awaited remake of It
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_(2017_film)
well, that's awfully curious.
I... don't remember butter boards? I'm growing convinced that the worst thing with regards to how effectively targeted social media is, is in how it convinces journalists that they know what people are talking about and doing.
You don't remember the dumb social media trend that was popular for 2 weeks with .1% of the population a year ago?
Right, this is my point. I would wager a lot of things that are hitting a minority of people still manage to have good coverage on journalists as a demographic.
I don't know that this is happening, of course. Would love to have insight into it, but articles like this certainly strengthen my belief that it is happening.
I don't know that this is happening, of course. Would love to have insight into it, but articles like this certainly strengthen my belief that it is happening.
But how could you miss entire "dozens of social media videos" on this captivating topic?
Not just journalists, but the average person too. It's quite frustrating.
Even more insidious is the armies of salaried mechanical turks on 'grass root' social groups and forums pushing forward a company's whisper campaign without any form of disclosure. You'll notice the same messages surfacing in various online avenues of certain niches nearly at the same time. They make people believe they are on the inside lane of something new and count on them spreading the 'insight' organically amongst their other circles, but it's pure planned guerilla marketing. Most I've noticed this in nutrition, healthcare and financial products.
As a moderator of a major technical community on Reddit, I (and the other mods) probably spend more effort on squashing astroturfing campaigns than anything else related to moderation. Removing astroturf posts and banning associated accounts is a daily task. Some vendors are so aggressive about this that we've had to institute automod rules to nuke any post that includes certain brand or product names.
Thankfully most vendors or their marketing agency affiliates that engage in this sort of thing aren't particularly clever about it, so identification of puppet accounts to ban isn't too difficult.
Thankfully most vendors or their marketing agency affiliates that engage in this sort of thing aren't particularly clever about it, so identification of puppet accounts to ban isn't too difficult.
I'm convinced that this is why every recipe on Youtube now suddenly involves "delicious" Almond milk (which is not delicious and not milk).
If you are going to be shilling for the vegan processed food industry, at least use oat milk (which you can make at home) or soy milk (which is actually delicious - at least the processed versions I had in Japan).
If you are going to be shilling for the vegan processed food industry, at least use oat milk (which you can make at home) or soy milk (which is actually delicious - at least the processed versions I had in Japan).
Almond marketing is totally insane. I think it's because they feel they have to fight against all the people who point out how environmentally bad they are. It's hard to blame the people in CA who are upset when they're constantly asked to ration their personal water usage while the almond industry there takes more water than all the indoor water use of the entire state.
Yes, I have the exact same feeling. Literally extracting water from an area dealing with drought; it feels icky and not environmentally conscious at all.
> You'll notice the same messages surfacing in various online avenues of certain niches nearly at the same time
for example, right here on HN was a buncha posts about Moka pots. the coffee pot, that is.
also started popping on lemmy and reddit. then gone. haven't seen much discussion before, or since.
I own a couple of said pots and noticed the uptick since I'm a fan, but the suddenness of it was a surprise, and points to marketing efforts.
for example, right here on HN was a buncha posts about Moka pots. the coffee pot, that is.
also started popping on lemmy and reddit. then gone. haven't seen much discussion before, or since.
I own a couple of said pots and noticed the uptick since I'm a fan, but the suddenness of it was a surprise, and points to marketing efforts.
For a minute there I thought you described us (HN readership).
I mean, there is a lot of shillbot posting on the HN.
but also keep in mind it's a startup-focused new aggregator and is explicitly for pushing your new product, esp. the YC ones.
it's a concession you have to make to use the site regularly, and I can live with that.
but also keep in mind it's a startup-focused new aggregator and is explicitly for pushing your new product, esp. the YC ones.
it's a concession you have to make to use the site regularly, and I can live with that.
That said, blueberries and butter are great.
Remember: pretty much everything you see is in service of someone's business model.
Remember: pretty much everything you see is in service of someone's business model.
People always conceptualize business deals as win-lose: one side got the better of the other and someone was ripped off.
In reality, good business is all about win-win or win-win-win.
The blueberry producer won. The person who did the ad won. And the consumer won, because blueberries are healthier for you than like 90% of other food choices.
There's no practical difference between being 'manipulated' and showing you a reasonable argument for adopting a healthier diet.
In reality, good business is all about win-win or win-win-win.
The blueberry producer won. The person who did the ad won. And the consumer won, because blueberries are healthier for you than like 90% of other food choices.
There's no practical difference between being 'manipulated' and showing you a reasonable argument for adopting a healthier diet.
Store bought blueberries are garbage. Even the frozen “cultivated wild” (wtf is that) ones.
If it’s not bought from the side of the road in northern Ontario or Quebec (and probably some other places), you don’t know what you’re missing.
If it’s not bought from the side of the road in northern Ontario or Quebec (and probably some other places), you don’t know what you’re missing.
There are so many kinds of blueberries, and they all get sold without specifying what kind. There's also a matter of taste. I've had blueberries I like and blueberries I feel meh about from the store. I prefer less tart and some people prefer more tart.
Agree. Same is true for medicine. Store bought ones are garbage. I always buy from vendors selling at street corners.
They aren't remotely the same thing dude. Medicine is better when it gets made at a factory instead of in someone's back yard. Fruits and vegetables are better when they are made locally (which can be someone's back yard), rather than being shipped halfway across the country/world.
Store bought blueberries are fine. Frozen blueberries are fine. It's food, worry about things that matter.
I have a couple of strawberry pots by the window in my apartment. The flavor is way better than anything store bought. It's the same thing with picking and eating blueberries straight out of the bush, or from some roadside stall.
Something to do with the commercial varieties being selected for transport and size/color rather than flavor. Also I believe the commercial fruits are picked as soon as they seem ripe, while I can wait longer for them to get sweeter and I don't have to care about transportation spoiling the fruit.
Something to do with the commercial varieties being selected for transport and size/color rather than flavor. Also I believe the commercial fruits are picked as soon as they seem ripe, while I can wait longer for them to get sweeter and I don't have to care about transportation spoiling the fruit.
The transportation thing is what I've heard as well. Basically, the fruits are picked before they fully ripen so they don't get damaged in transport. For that reason you'll see chefs (e.g. J Kenji Lopez-Alt) recommend that you use canned tomatoes rather than fresh when you can. Tomatoes destined for canning are chosen for flavor and not beauty, and are picked when fully ripe. So you will generally get superior flavor from canned tomatoes.
Food is something that matters. It's one of life's great joys.
I have no idea why the hell people are being so hard on you. I haven't had good fresh blueberries, but it is well known that food tends to be better when you get it fresh from the place where it is grown. I can certainly vouch that tomatoes and strawberries that you get at the store are but a pale imitation of what you get if you can get them fresh.
Maybe blueberries are an exception to this trend, but I doubt it. I'm 100% willing to believe that they are way better if you grow them yourself or get them from some farmer who grew them himself.
Maybe blueberries are an exception to this trend, but I doubt it. I'm 100% willing to believe that they are way better if you grow them yourself or get them from some farmer who grew them himself.
The tomatoes I grow in my backyard are leagues better than any tomato sold in stores around here. It really does make a difference. No wonder a lot of people are so lukewarm on produce. The stuff people buy in the store is junk!
Oh yeah the difference in quality is incredible. I can't grow tomatoes to save my life, but I love to get them from my local farmers market in the summer. They have so much more flavor that it's hard to believe they come from the same species of plant.
Strawberries are the same thing, like I mentioned in my post. I encourage everyone to go pick strawberries at least once in their life. I like strawberries well enough normally. When you get them fully ripe, fresh from the plant, they are heavenly. It's something everyone should experience.
Strawberries are the same thing, like I mentioned in my post. I encourage everyone to go pick strawberries at least once in their life. I like strawberries well enough normally. When you get them fully ripe, fresh from the plant, they are heavenly. It's something everyone should experience.
> I have no idea why the hell people are being so hard on you.
I think it's this and the gatekeeping in general.
> Store bought blueberries are garbage.
They're obviously not garbage and some people don't have access to fresh Blueberries.
I think it's this and the gatekeeping in general.
> Store bought blueberries are garbage.
They're obviously not garbage and some people don't have access to fresh Blueberries.
I can't really fault OP for that. I would absolutely say that store bought tomatoes are garbage, even though I buy and eat them. The quality is so much better with fresh tomatoes that I think it's fair to say that the store bought ones are garbage. I understood OP as meaning the same thing with respect to blueberries.
Tomatoes are an example of something that's not great especially out of season at the supermarket. I do support my local farmstand during the summer but for some fruits and vegetables there's less of a difference than with others. Honestly a lot of the time when I buy local low bush blueberries in Maine, they're frozen
I'm not saying they taste good. I just have a different definition of garbage then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Honestly, fresh, frozen, store bought, and and all blueberries. They all taste like crunchy water to me.
We had a blueberry farm less than 5 miles from our house. My family just raves about how good the fresh blueberries are.
Crunchy water. They all taste like crunchy water. I wonder what's wrong with my taste capacity that there is an absolute absence of detection of blueberry.
We had a blueberry farm less than 5 miles from our house. My family just raves about how good the fresh blueberries are.
Crunchy water. They all taste like crunchy water. I wonder what's wrong with my taste capacity that there is an absolute absence of detection of blueberry.
I don’t think it’s the freshness factor, but rather the difference between wild/bush picked and cultivated.
On the grocery-destined side, there’s probably an aspect of strain selection and farming practices that focuses on bulk without regard to flavour+texture.
On the grocery-destined side, there’s probably an aspect of strain selection and farming practices that focuses on bulk without regard to flavour+texture.
I really cannot figure out the Bon Appetit site anymore. I subscribe to the magazine, and when I log in it says I'm a current subscriber, but I'm not allowed to read the online articles.
Do you just need a separate subscription for the online stuff?
I tried a subscription to the digital version but still couldn’t figure out the login system to read the recipes and articles. It looked like the login was on another site and the cookies didn’t work properly across them.
In a subscriber, and the link they send me to confirm the login just 404s now.
Throwing my hat into the noise…
Just try things people. Blueberries are awesome. I know a lot of yall sit at a desk and work on a computer. I personally find blueberries to be an amazing snack and fuel for that kind of work.
Driscoll Berries - thumbs down
Twin Rivers - thumbs up
Farmers market - thumbs up
Just try things people. Blueberries are awesome. I know a lot of yall sit at a desk and work on a computer. I personally find blueberries to be an amazing snack and fuel for that kind of work.
Driscoll Berries - thumbs down
Twin Rivers - thumbs up
Farmers market - thumbs up
I just don't get the appeal of blueberries. I have tried them several times and find them both lacking in flavor and mealy in texture. I don't think I've only tried bad ones-- when I do buy them they're from the same grocery stores that are stocked with fruit I do like!
I wholeheartedly agree with this. They're not bad at all. And I do enjoy them. But they really are both 'lacking in flavour' and 'mealy texture', as you say.
Who paid you to say this???
classic shill behavior by appealing to your target audience!
what if I want a different berry?! No answer to that I assume /s
what if I want a different berry?! No answer to that I assume /s
Who the hell needs to pay anyone to shill butter? Butter is widely known to be absolutely delicious, to the point that people go out of their way to tell us to eat less butter for the sake of our health. I can't think of anything which needs promotion less than butter does.
> Who the hell needs to pay anyone to shill butter?
Any company that makes butter as good as the below [1], and has an idea that some people haven’t heard of it.
It’s silly expensive. It’s so great.
https://www.lewisroadcreamery.com/collections/grass-fed-butt...
Any company that makes butter as good as the below [1], and has an idea that some people haven’t heard of it.
It’s silly expensive. It’s so great.
https://www.lewisroadcreamery.com/collections/grass-fed-butt...
I'll have to see if I can find it at a store. I'm always down to improve my butter experience. I will say that I was very let down by Kerrygold. It's noticeably better if you are having just plain buttered toast, but otherwise I can't taste any difference between it and the normal butter one sees at the store.
Found that to be the case with any butter really, when you cook with it or do anything that dilutes it, the flavor beyond "lipids" ends up lost quickly amongst the other flavors. We buy cheaper butter for stuff like frying eggs or to add to recipes that call for it and buy a smaller amount of really good stuff to put on (cooked) bread/steak/potatoes or other times where the flavor difference feels noticeable (also usually do unsalted for the normal, and salted for the high-grade). Note I said cheaper not cheap, I'd say like wine you shouldn't cook with butter you'd refuse on its own.
It's true of a lot of things that, if you taste them in isolation, there's a noticeable difference. But if you're using them as just a supporting element or mixed in with a lot of other flavors, they may not be worth 2x the price.
Lewis Road have some truly great products - the salted butter is obviously different due to the visible salt crystals.
How much did they pay you for this comment?
On a broader note, with a HUGE explosion in choice especially amongst fresh fruits and vegetables which are now perpetually available "in-season" it feels like someone is ALWAYS advocating for one thing over another. I couldn't eat all the fruit my grocery store sells even if I ate one of each and three servings a day. There is so much variety... no wonder someone is "shilling" constantly, the choices are astounding.
It's surprising that's constitutional. I'd expect "Right to Farm" laws in some states to prohibit such union dues.
It’s a tax. Which is why there’s such government oversight of spending unlike a union.
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotio...
https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/research-promotio...
Then again the food industry is pretty powerful. Remember when they legally forced Oprah to publicly apologize or saying that it could be dangerous to eat raw hamburger?
No, I don’t remember that.
Perhaps you’re referring to this case [1], which Oprah won?
[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-lib...
Perhaps you’re referring to this case [1], which Oprah won?
[1] https://www.britannica.com/story/a-brief-history-of-food-lib...
Slow down: are you seriously trivializing the fact that the food industry was able to very expensively sue someone over criticizing their product ... when she turned out to be correct ... just because she eventually won?
I mean anyone with money and time to burn can sue people. This isn't unique to the food industry, this is just SLAPP which is a much more general problem.
So while you're right it sucks and it's bad that they can do this, it's not specifically a "big hamburger" problem.
So while you're right it sucks and it's bad that they can do this, it's not specifically a "big hamburger" problem.
If "no big deal, it happens all time" is your answer, then you can just say "yes, I am trivializing it" -- that's what the term means.
Wow, you're exhausting.
Honestly? Better than shilling your highly processed industrialized food.
Yep, on the spectrum of shilling for nukes, cigarettes, sugar and blueberries, blueberry shills are relative saints.
As long as they don't shill bananas mixed with blueberries. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/FO/D3FO0...
Apparently the polyphenol oxidase in bananas doesn't play well with other nutrients.
Apparently the polyphenol oxidase in bananas doesn't play well with other nutrients.
That study does not match your tone, it implies that eating them together makes them very slightly less good and healthy across just one particular nutrient than they otherwise would have been separately, not that putting them together makes two healthy things combine into one unhealthy thing.
That said, I'm a fan of processing as little as possible, and I imagine a fruit salad of those two things would still suffer from this effect just as the smoothie, but surely not to the same magnitude, there's just bound to be less total mixing.
The bigger hedge is just to have a varied diet.
All in all though it seems an oddly medium-low importance thing to bring up in context?
That said, I'm a fan of processing as little as possible, and I imagine a fruit salad of those two things would still suffer from this effect just as the smoothie, but surely not to the same magnitude, there's just bound to be less total mixing.
The bigger hedge is just to have a varied diet.
All in all though it seems an oddly medium-low importance thing to bring up in context?
An 84% drop in specific nutrient uptake seems non-trivial, and the proposed method of action seems simple (enzymes catalyze).
If you care about it, it's worth mentioning.
Especially since the proposed fix is simple: eat high PPO foods (which themselves may be beneficial) at different times than foods heavy in nutrients they impact.
If you care about it, it's worth mentioning.
Especially since the proposed fix is simple: eat high PPO foods (which themselves may be beneficial) at different times than foods heavy in nutrients they impact.
The general term for this is "antinutrient", and their effect in real-world situations is rarely large enough to be worth the trouble of thinking about.
Several knowledgeable vegans I know believe that they have real problems with oxalates in particular. This is particularly credible among people who drink a lot of spinach based smoothies, as I once did.
That's still very anecdotal.
Your comment follows two contradictory claims, one that anti nutrients are generally too trivial to worry about, and another that there is at least one that is. No RCT evidence is included for either. Doesn't that make both claims equally questionable?
Personally my long term dietary choices have been guided by N=1 experiments on myself, a.k.a. anecdotes, that have proven to be life saving for me. Anecdotes from others are useful for suggesting such experiments on myself, in the same way that epidemiological studies are useful for suggesting RCTs.
Personally my long term dietary choices have been guided by N=1 experiments on myself, a.k.a. anecdotes, that have proven to be life saving for me. Anecdotes from others are useful for suggesting such experiments on myself, in the same way that epidemiological studies are useful for suggesting RCTs.
Except that it'll inflate the price of the healthy foods in order to make up the costs of all the advertising they do on social media. Too many people struggle accessing and affording healthy foods as it is.
Well people do prefer highly processed things. Consider how much loved is highly process data. There is whole (IT) industry about it.
When is it "shilling" vs making me aware of something I may actually be interested in?
(I didn't even read the article)
(I didn't even read the article)
When the promoter gets paid by the industry that makes the product without disclosing it.
I have nothing against paid promotion whether for butter, blueberries or cigarettes, but it should be made clear who is promoting it.
I have nothing against paid promotion whether for butter, blueberries or cigarettes, but it should be made clear who is promoting it.
I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.
Reminds me of a Maria Bamford line, which is also used in this relevant piece https://www.vulture.com/2015/06/the-rise-of-consumer-comedy....
"…I do worship celebrities, because they’re very powerful, their moods create weather. I was feeling bad about it, and then I was like, “Well of course, I’m just a tiny, frightened animal. I’m gonna look towards the most powerful and fertile-appearing of our species for information on how to survive. I need to find out what that Jennifer Aniston is doing. She’s a strong, sexy monkey. She’s going to tell us where all the bananas are located.”
"…I do worship celebrities, because they’re very powerful, their moods create weather. I was feeling bad about it, and then I was like, “Well of course, I’m just a tiny, frightened animal. I’m gonna look towards the most powerful and fertile-appearing of our species for information on how to survive. I need to find out what that Jennifer Aniston is doing. She’s a strong, sexy monkey. She’s going to tell us where all the bananas are located.”
It's a three step process:
1. Convince people they're part of your group, make them feel special for being part of that group, and make yourself their identity.
2. Don't straight-up recommend the product. Say things similar to "This is great for people like us!" Insinuate that people truly in the group would want this product (and therefore, wanting this product makes you part of the group).
3. Profit.
Identity / group appeals are more powerful than individual ones. Unless you're Michael Jordan.
1. Convince people they're part of your group, make them feel special for being part of that group, and make yourself their identity.
2. Don't straight-up recommend the product. Say things similar to "This is great for people like us!" Insinuate that people truly in the group would want this product (and therefore, wanting this product makes you part of the group).
3. Profit.
Identity / group appeals are more powerful than individual ones. Unless you're Michael Jordan.
That is basically the Edward Bernays method of selling. Create a need. Have someone else espouse the need for that thing. Magically your company has exactly what people think they need because of step two.
He did this with smoking for women.
- Company A wants to sell more cigarettes.
- Company A approaches marketing firm B to sell things.
- Marketing firm B hires marketing firm C and D talk about how cool it is to smoke for women. Show women smoking in cool ways. Show doctors are cool with it. Show how empowered you are. Very base emotional in-group ideas and feeling good about yourself (not necessarily good for you). Do this until a particular point in time when people seem to be buzzing about it and meme's fly. Social media has made this way easier and faster to do.
- Marketing firm B now starts putting brand A in adverts also espousing how they can help you with what firms C and D did.
- Profit for company A.
It is a shockingly effective way to manipulate people without them even seeing it. As it uses our cognitive biases to manipulate us. You think you can ignore but you will have a tough time of it. Even if someone shows you how it is working it can be tough to get out of it. As you had 3 other people tell you it is ok and several trusted 'news like' sources say it is ok. It is also used in political orgs to good effect too. This method is everywhere.
He did this with smoking for women.
- Company A wants to sell more cigarettes.
- Company A approaches marketing firm B to sell things.
- Marketing firm B hires marketing firm C and D talk about how cool it is to smoke for women. Show women smoking in cool ways. Show doctors are cool with it. Show how empowered you are. Very base emotional in-group ideas and feeling good about yourself (not necessarily good for you). Do this until a particular point in time when people seem to be buzzing about it and meme's fly. Social media has made this way easier and faster to do.
- Marketing firm B now starts putting brand A in adverts also espousing how they can help you with what firms C and D did.
- Profit for company A.
It is a shockingly effective way to manipulate people without them even seeing it. As it uses our cognitive biases to manipulate us. You think you can ignore but you will have a tough time of it. Even if someone shows you how it is working it can be tough to get out of it. As you had 3 other people tell you it is ok and several trusted 'news like' sources say it is ok. It is also used in political orgs to good effect too. This method is everywhere.
That's an amazing business plan. Usually step 2 is just a question mark.
It's pretty insidious. People form parasocial relationships with these social media personas. When they recommend blueberries, or a brand of lip gloss, or invasive surgery, it's like a recommendation from a friend.
I doubt it's a new phenomenon -- presumably in the past people bought sneakers because some celebrity wore them or recommended them. But it's probably more ubiquitous? And I think it's easier to fool yourself you have a relationship or kinship with a Instagram microcelebrity than with Micheal Jordan.
I doubt it's a new phenomenon -- presumably in the past people bought sneakers because some celebrity wore them or recommended them. But it's probably more ubiquitous? And I think it's easier to fool yourself you have a relationship or kinship with a Instagram microcelebrity than with Micheal Jordan.
> And I think it's easier to fool yourself you have a relationship or kinship with a Instagram microcelebrity than with Micheal Jordan.
That, and it's probably easier to be fooled into thinking some Instagram microcelebrity is expressing a true independent opinion rather than making a paid endorsement.
I think a similar thing happened to blogs. I recall reading years ago about a "mattress blog" that presented itself as some enthusiast sharing his knowledge, but it was 100% pay-for-play promotion. I'm not super active on social media, but I'm assuming something similar is going on there with influencers.
An additional insidious dynamic is how advertising camouflages itself in whatever medium is the popular way for people to share honest opinions with strangers, then infects it so totally that you can't really trust it anymore. It's really undermined one of the positive selling points of the web.
That, and it's probably easier to be fooled into thinking some Instagram microcelebrity is expressing a true independent opinion rather than making a paid endorsement.
I think a similar thing happened to blogs. I recall reading years ago about a "mattress blog" that presented itself as some enthusiast sharing his knowledge, but it was 100% pay-for-play promotion. I'm not super active on social media, but I'm assuming something similar is going on there with influencers.
An additional insidious dynamic is how advertising camouflages itself in whatever medium is the popular way for people to share honest opinions with strangers, then infects it so totally that you can't really trust it anymore. It's really undermined one of the positive selling points of the web.
I have trouble marshaling any outrage in this particular instance but anyone with a base level of intelligence knew that "Got Milk?" was a paid for advertising campaign while you may not know if some blog or Tik-Tok is the legit opinion of an enthusiast or is pay for play.
At this point we have decades of dealing with this. Shouldn't the default assumption be that someone promoting a product online is being paid to do it, until they somehow demonstrate that they are not?
I prefer to just maintain a healthy skepticism. After all, even if I'm getting an honest opinion, it doesn't mean my needs and preferences are the same as the reviewer's.
I think I choose who I am influenced by, but I am definitely influenced. Whether it's the cooking channels I follow on YouTube or the things I see others owning in Instagram posts, it seeps in.
> I doubt it's a new phenomenon -- presumably in the past people bought sneakers because some celebrity wore them or recommended them.
Ancient Romans bought specific brands because gladiators advertised it, and their most parasocially attached fans bought their bottled sweat as perfume.
So it's been around for as about as long as true commercial enterprises in the "modern" sense have been around.
> But it's probably more ubiquitous?
I think it's far more obvious today, because it's so hyper focused and fractured and short lived today that these phenomena are no longer society wide, decade long "fashion trends". In the era of mass media, everyone got influenced by the same handful of celebrities and wasn't really aware of what was happening since everyone did it roughly at the same time, now you have thousands of bubbles forming around thousands of micro-celebrities, and everyone thinks what people in the other bubbles are doing is weird.
Ancient Romans bought specific brands because gladiators advertised it, and their most parasocially attached fans bought their bottled sweat as perfume.
So it's been around for as about as long as true commercial enterprises in the "modern" sense have been around.
> But it's probably more ubiquitous?
I think it's far more obvious today, because it's so hyper focused and fractured and short lived today that these phenomena are no longer society wide, decade long "fashion trends". In the era of mass media, everyone got influenced by the same handful of celebrities and wasn't really aware of what was happening since everyone did it roughly at the same time, now you have thousands of bubbles forming around thousands of micro-celebrities, and everyone thinks what people in the other bubbles are doing is weird.
There is this raft of people out their completely divorced from any kind of level headed discussion, who live in a world entirely composed of mega-corps and influencers trying to sell them stuff. A steadfast diet of tik-tok materialism channels and whatever garbage streaming TV series.
It's often cool to say that you're an independent thinker. Or to imagine that's true. But in almost every respect, the vast majority of people want to be sheep who fit into some herd or another.
Even those that very much don't want to be "sheep" are stuck with the same cognitive biases and vulnerabilities we all share. We're all easily manipulated and advertisers have spent hundreds of years and insane amounts of money on research designed to help them exploit that fact. Nobody is immune from the influence of advertising, especially not the people foolish enough to believe that they are.
this is nothing new. Companies have being paying models to go to bars and tourist site and use their products.
Pharmaceutical companies have paid doctors (in hotels, spas and what not) to prescribe their pipeline medications to patients. Then US government passed a law to make it illegal for pharmas to do that. It just spawned some 'medical education' company that is hired by the big pharams to do it on their behave.
Consumer capitalism is kinda like democracy. The consumer/voter need to be well informed/educated, and information needs to be 100% transparent.
Pharmaceutical companies have paid doctors (in hotels, spas and what not) to prescribe their pipeline medications to patients. Then US government passed a law to make it illegal for pharmas to do that. It just spawned some 'medical education' company that is hired by the big pharams to do it on their behave.
Consumer capitalism is kinda like democracy. The consumer/voter need to be well informed/educated, and information needs to be 100% transparent.
s/need/ought/g
If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.
>> I'm amazed that people still depend on "influencers" to make decisions. After all we've seen over the last 10 years of sponsored posts, and "influencers" people still blindly follow their lead.
> If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.
That seems like a false equivalence. I think the question is about what kind of influence, not "influence, y/n?" Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas?
My understanding is "thought leaders" are at worst self-promoters and at best are just people with ideas they believe in. "[Social media] influencers" on the other hand, are typically paid shills.
> If you think you aren't influenced by "thought leaders" and similar, you are mistaken.
That seems like a false equivalence. I think the question is about what kind of influence, not "influence, y/n?" Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas?
My understanding is "thought leaders" are at worst self-promoters and at best are just people with ideas they believe in. "[Social media] influencers" on the other hand, are typically paid shills.
> Is it typical for "thought leaders" to be paid to dishonestly push certain ideas?
Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise?
Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise?
> Null hypothesis would imply we should treat them no different than other influencers. Unless you've evidence otherwise?
So what exactly is your definition of a "thought leader?" How do you treat them "no different than other influencers" without closing yourself off to current ideas?
IMHO, social media "influencers" should be totally ignored, but the people active in public life should be engaged with, if skeptically.
So what exactly is your definition of a "thought leader?" How do you treat them "no different than other influencers" without closing yourself off to current ideas?
IMHO, social media "influencers" should be totally ignored, but the people active in public life should be engaged with, if skeptically.
I guess, the broad definition is just someone who's good at selling their thoughts to other people. Maybe it's because they have a popular podcast, or maybe they were a former head of state.
There's no general reason I should inherently trust these people aren't being biased by third parties.
There's no general reason I should inherently trust these people aren't being biased by third parties.
In my career, it's a term I would never apply to myself and I roll my eyes a bit if someone else used it to describe me. In general, I'd say it's "supposed" to mean someone who is smart about understanding and anticipating current and future trends. But I find it a bit cringey in general.
Why should we "engage" with people who are "active in public life"? What does this mean?
There's a slope between:
"X paid me to promote Y"
"My employer, X, doesn't mind if I write about Y on company time"
"Our socioeconomic system X happens to mean I have way more free time and energy to promote on of its bases, Y, than other people do"
but is it a qualitative slope or just quantitative?
"X paid me to promote Y"
"My employer, X, doesn't mind if I write about Y on company time"
"Our socioeconomic system X happens to mean I have way more free time and energy to promote on of its bases, Y, than other people do"
but is it a qualitative slope or just quantitative?
Qualitative pretty much.
I've never been willing to say/write something I believed to be manifestly untrue just because an employer wanted me too. But I've certainly avoided certain topics that I might have been willing to address more candidly under different circumstances.
I've never been willing to say/write something I believed to be manifestly untrue just because an employer wanted me too. But I've certainly avoided certain topics that I might have been willing to address more candidly under different circumstances.
some influencers are blind sell outs like you say, but there are those that sell out within their values. relying on 'influencers' is just relying on pre-internet role models to save brain power
Discovery of products has often been outsourced to influencers, think DJs influencing music or fashion icons with style trends.
[not related to this thread]
hi! I'm working on a project that I'd love to get your perspective on based on a comment you made on a different thread that is too old to reply to.
If you're open to connecting, shoot me a message at [email protected]!
hi! I'm working on a project that I'd love to get your perspective on based on a comment you made on a different thread that is too old to reply to.
If you're open to connecting, shoot me a message at [email protected]!
Modern ads. you dont decide if you get influenced
Last 110 years really.
There's no good reason to downvote this. It's a great point that many of us wonder about. Only reason to downvote this is if you yourself are an influencer or are conscious of being influenced and are taking offense, but downvoting is an inappropriate response to either case.
Why even shill blueberries? Who doesn’t like them?
Foodie magazine jelly of competition much?
this is an absolutely outrageously stupid title. The entire world is a massive processed food advertising and marketing engine. We are pumping processed garbage hyper palatable foods full of sugar and wheat and bad oils and then advertising them to children with lovable cartoon characters. And that's just barely scraping the surface.
The idea that some evil influencer sect are inappropriately schilling blueberries is one of the most perverse counter tactics I can possibly imagine by said industry.
The idea that some evil influencer sect are inappropriately schilling blueberries is one of the most perverse counter tactics I can possibly imagine by said industry.
Certainly an emblematic first world problem. No actual problems left in your world? Make one!
Maintenance needs to become sexy (again?). Assuming you don't have near-infinite money, the misery averted by maintaining your car well is greater than the joy obtained by buying a new one, because you can really do both at the same time by spending only ~25% more and end up with 2 cars instead.
Yup! Clown world!
Likewise with coconut water, a habit I developed in Thailand.
If they're shilled, so be it. It works for me, and if it works for others, that's good, right?