Who Does The Influencer Really Influence?

The price of influence (or more specifically to watch brand marketing departments), influencers is a constant topic of conversation and debate. Do clicks, swipes, likes and shares really translate to sales conversions?

I was recently forwarded a story about an Instagrammer who boasts over 2 million followers, who tried to launch a clothing brand, and unfortunately did not succeed.

You can find the story here -
Instagrammer with 2 million followers...

That's not such an unusual story, even before the time of COVID-19. It takes a bit of pluck to start your own company/business, and a lot of them don't make it. Remember 3thirty3 watch fans? But what is particularly intriguing in this particular situation is that with more than 2 million followers, she was unable to shift (if the article is correct) a total of 36 t-shirts...

Oh, which reminds me -

SUPPORT Tempus Fugit AND BUY A SHIRT!

https://www.customink.com/fundraising/help-support-tempus-fugit-on-our-tenth-anniversary

See what I did there ; )

Now on the one hand, you can say that this influencer is not as popular or "influential" as might be believed based on her number of followers. It is true that a lot of this could be down to what they referred to in The Wire as - "Juking the Stats". Essentially manipulating the numbers so they look better than they really are. In social media where success or failure is based on head counts, there are the real numbers, and the "not-so-real" numbers. Click farms still do exist, random people (by that I mean, your last name doesn't start with Kardashian) seldom magically acquire such a large number of followers without a wee bit of "magic pixie dust" being sprinkled out there. So it's safe to say that "real numbers" may not always match the reported or tracked number of followers.

And in a world where a brand can send a press release to an online watch magazine and receive back a rate sheet with prices based on what level of coverage and praise the watch brand is seeking, it is safe to say that everyone seems to be working on an angle. 

Because if you can't trust the press...
Well, to (loosely) quote Baltimore Sun City Editor Gus Haynes as portrayed by Clark Jackson in the seminal Baltimore based series, The Wire -

Courtesy of The Wire

"That's Some Shameful Shit".

Another inconvenient truth that this highlights, selling stuff - clothes, watches, or widgets is not as easy it might seem.

So this is the crux of the challenge in this rapidly evolving media world that we live in. Does influence truly equal sales? Big brands have SEVERAL people on their payrolls who operate their social media platforms. There is a very clear reason why you will frequently find the "Follow us on (insert your favorite social media platform here)". And clearly it is the brand's belief that while they can "maintain" a certain presence of followers themselves, the follower has to have already "found" the brand in the first place. The hope is that the influencer will then introduce them to millions of other people.

Okay, fair enough. But the reality becomes realer when the influencer is suddenly the brand/ company. And like any good pyramid scheme, you are now dependent upon OTHERS to promote and like, share and potentially press coins of silver into your palm.

Influence is great, but for would-be influencer cum entrepreneur? Sales are what makes Sammy Run.

Summer Repeat - The Social Contract of Social Media

This first ran about three years ago.  Since that time it has become crystal clear to me and others that there is less and less of such a thing as a free press when it comes to watches.  How do I know this?  In addition to this, and my day job as a social worker, I also represent a handful of brands in North America.  In this role I am often reaching out to my colleagues in the Fourth and Fifth Estate, and more often than not, it becomes readily evident that unless some sort of an "accommodation" can be reached, they are not going to cover it.  This is particularly striking when I consider the way that some of these folks used to bemoan the fact that they couldn't get any ad money.  Suddenly they are sending replies like - "oh, sorry, we won't be covering this one".  This is code for - "I know that this brand has no budget and you will not be sending me any cash, so I guess we'll see each other at BaselWorld".  One of the larger outlets ran a piece bemoaning the rise of the "influencer" and how unfair it was that the influencer (not the honest, fair-minded watch reporter writing about the unfairness of the influencer getting a piece of his pie) would insist on coin of the realm in exchange for coverage.  And curious to relate?  When I sent over a press release to this "honest broker" of horological news, their business manager sent me a rate sheet.  No other reply except, essentially, PAY ME BITCH!  And this was the type of money that isn't usually negotiated without the aid of a loaded pistol ; )

In fairness to the "fair haired" weasels out there, it takes two parties to make a corrupt system.  The blogger/writer/influencer that has their hand in the brands pockets, and the brand who willingly hands over the money, then cries "we're a small brand and don't have any advertising money" when approached for honest, above board advertising from people who are ready to cover them without a fee. So just how honest could the coverage really be that you are being hose-fed from the big outlets?


So let's re-heat this one -

Shamelessly borrowed from the world-wide info web

The Social Contract of Social Media 
This post has been on the shelf for nearly a year, but it seems time to air it out.

For most of us who write about watches in the digital arena, we don't do it for money.  True enough, our blogs might have advertising - such as this one, but by and large that is where it begins and ends.

Blogs, and blogs that have evolved into online magazines started out life as an alternative to magazines that more often than not were constrained by the need to drive advertising revenue.  It opened up a whole new world where people would tune in with the hopes of getting some viewpoints and opinions that were not fueled and channeled directly through the marketing arm of Richemont, LVMH or the SWATCH Group.  And perhaps more importantly, it did not cost the reader anything.  It was free to read, and you didn't have to drive to a book store or news stand.

But then another interesting thing started to happen -
The number of people checking out these alternative watch sites began to far outstrip the number of magazine readers.  And suddenly real analytics were possible!  And even more suddenly what had been a vehicle to promote a decidedly niche product to a clearly more niche market became a mechanism to subvert the role of independent writer and pump favorable content directly in front of this now much larger audience via an electronic delivery system.  In other words, payola arrived in the watch world.

For those of you not familiar, here is a definition from our friends at Urban Dictionary -

payola

Bribery made to a dj in exchange for promotion of an album or single. Derived from the words 'pay' (give money to) and 'victrola' (a record player).You'd need to offer some serious payola to get your song played.

And that opened up a whole new paradigm.  Wonder how an online magazine or blog with multiple writers can afford to provide salaries and benefits for so many people, with no visible ads?  Ever wonder why a brand that has never seen the light of day on that blog suddenly makes multiple appearances?  

And then things took an even darker turn.  The way things are supposed to work for a brand is:

1.  You draft a press release regarding a new brand or product

2.  You spend time and/or money putting together a list of blogs, magazines, etc.

3.  You send it out and, for the most part, the blogs will run it.

Now a quick peek behind the curtain - 

The way that it should work is that the blogger will review what they receive, and if it interests them and they feel it will interest their readers, they will run it.  In some instances, if there are personal or professional differences/ conflicts, etc., with the brand,  then the blogger might not run the release.  In addition, if the blogger has managed to alienate the brand through their writing, then it is entirely possible that the brand's pr/marketing team will pull a Donald Trump and refuse to communicate with them or send them press updates.  This is to be expected and I would say, fair enough.

Now it seems that with the owners of several of the blogs, "horological interest" is measured in terms of payment.  And to be clear by payment I do not mean advertising agreements, a watch received in barter for advertising or marketing or even simple good will.   I mean just what I am saying - payment required and received in exchange for coverage.

So what has now become standard for some of these outlets is that a rate sheet is sent to the brand manager or pr representative, not unlike a take out food menu:  

• To do a review  of your watch will cost you X.
• To announce your new brand will cost you Y.
• To REALLY pump your watch or brand will cost you Z.

Simply put, a fair amount of what you read in some of the bigger blogs and online magazines has been bought and paid for.

Now again, in fairness, if a brand supports a blog or online magazine with advertising, it is not unreasonable to expect coverage - in fact I believe that there is an implied social contract between the blog and the brand that requires a certain amount of coverage. 

Moreover, many bloggers do contract work for brands.  But that is a very separate matter that precludes "air time" on their blog or online magazine beyond the normal coverage.

But, and it's a big but, when a blog or online magazine requires payment in exchange for any sort of coverage, well then it is no longer what can even remotely be thought of as fair and impartial.  

Because there is another contract that is more than merely implied.  It is the social contract with the writer and the reader.

Pre-Thanksgiving Leftovers

This piece first ran back in January.  I have had a bit of time to reflect on it, on the way the industry is moving and the continued pursuit of ideas that simply don't work.  I go on a few press junkets per year.  As I have a day job making the world safe for students to go to college, I am not on the "full-time circuit" that many of my more pampered colleagues travel.  I despise horse racing owing to the high number of horse casualties each year, so I am not weeping about not being on the Longines "go-to-guest-list".  I also work for a growing number of brands as a consultant and therefore appreciate time, effort and expense that a brand goes through to set such things up.  It is not a simple endeavor.  Long hours, too much hand-holding, little to no personal time, and you are always "on".

Press junkets can be fun, and by and large they give you a unique opportunity to bond with brand insiders and get a better understanding as to what makes them tick.  And when you are traveling together with other journalists, retailers and North American staff, you are somewhat trapped in a mobile "summer camp" of sorts.  And you get to see the good, the bad and the... well, not so attractive side of things.  But what continues to fascinate me is the obsessive need to follow shiny objects.  By that I mean the unfailingly understanding that if "influencer X" tells you that they are the "Dog's testicles", by golly you'll believe it!

While I am by no means a "lifer" in the watch game, I do feel that I can honestly say I have been to the city and I have seen the rodeo.  And there are a handful of people who are the real deal in terms of communication, knowledge, belief and appreciation.

Mike Pearson - Brand Evangelist Extraordinaire.  This guy could probably go to the Middle East and solve the crisis in an afternoon.  He is that friendly, that engaging, that engaged, and that passionate.  Any brand with any sense should be picking up the phone and trying to hire him.

Another Mike - Mike Margolis.  A man who proved that passion and commitment actually do count for something.

Manon Vauthier - A true loss to the watch world, she flew the flag for Eterna and Porsche Design, often single handed. The watch world's loss is the real world's gain.  Since leaving the world of horological communication she is doing amazing things by all accounts.

Xavier Markl - Someone who actually took the time to listen to everyone - from the small to the mighty.  GP would be a lot better off if he were still there, but sometimes companies have to learn the hard way.

Dan Lewis - Of all the people I have met in the industry, I have to say that Dan is someone I always look forward to seeing.  Honest, kind, patient, and someone I am truly proud to call my friend.

In many ways, these folks are the old guard.  Which seems weird because many of them came up at the same time as me.  Many have moved on to other things, a few are still there and in many ways demonstrating what can be right about the watch business.  

I guess I've gone on about the good, now let's re-heat the "not-so-good".

Happy Thanksgiving!

Influencer

This continues to be a hot topic, and it will continue to be so long as brand CEOs, managers and marketing folks keep dipping into the till to pay off popular boys and girls in the hopes of being relevant to the Millennial demographic. 

It has now seeped so far into the public awareness that various sources beyond the Urban Dictionary are defining it.

noun

1A person or thing that influences another.

‘he was a champion of the arts and a huge influencer of taste’

‘genetic factors are key influencers of your metabolic rate’

‘Frank's been a teacher and cultural influencer for years’

1.1Marketing A person with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the items on social media.

‘influencers can add serious credibility to your brand’

Ultimately, brands will push the envelope as far as they can until the FTC or the public at large gets tired of the never-ending game of Manchurian Candidate Kabuki theater that is the "influencer trade".  It is false, it is deceptive and it is manipulative.  And I would like to think that the powers that be could be a little less disingenuous (lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.).

But I'd like to propose that the guys and gals writing the checks at HQ consider a different way to go about this whole influencer thing.  Now back at the turn of the century, there were a few people out there who were influencers before such a thing existed.  And they did it in a way that was honest, forthright, and understandable.

While it is very true that Hublot became a sensation through the tireless work of Jean-Claude Biver, there was another guy who made Hublot and its story his passion, which then became his career.  While Mr. Biver can be thought of as the father of Hublot, in many ways Mr. Margolis is the American uncle.  This did not simply happen because Mr. Margolis demanded several thousand dollars to feature Hublot in his communication.  It happened because Mike was passionate about Hublot, and his passion was contagious.  And here is the key thing - YES - he became an employee of Hublot - but that did not make his passion any less real, or his communication any less honest.  In many ways it did just the opposite.  It was a way of saying - yes, I work for these folks but I'm also a fan.  And I am going to go to every event, pour coffee, shake hands and kiss babies to spread the word because I believe in it.  

It is safe to say that in many ways Mike was the prototypical brand evangelist for the watch industry.   And I think that is the way many watch buyers and fans would like to see things evolve.  

An instafamous influencer is a gun for hire.  While they may appear in a brand's SIHH video with other instafamous influencers, they will then turn around and cash the check for yet another brand to feature them in their social media feeds.  So if you bought brand X based on the desire to be like them, you will then not be like them in next week's instagram feed ; )

Guy Kawasaki became Apple's evangelist.  And in his way he did as much (and in some cases more) than Steve Jobs in spreading the good word.

At a time where things are in flux, the industry does not need more bullshit.  It needs more transparency.  And it needs some sincere people who are truly passionate about what they are promoting, not merely bottom feeding for the next instafamous check.

Bring back the evangelists!

An Open Letter to PR Firms

Relationships and contact lists...

are not the same thing.

As I currently stand on both sides of the watch communication game, I am often surprised if not downright bewildered by the approaches some PR firms make.   It is safe to say that you will not know every journalist/blogger/influencer out there.  I live under absolutely no illusions that Tempus Fugit is on the tips of PR firms' tongues, particularly ones that typically specialize in 
fashion ; )

Having said that...

When you are "courting" your would-be clients, may I suggest that you do not claim to have thousands of contacts, that in fact, you don't.  May I further suggest that you do not buy and sell contact lists? Not only is it unethical, it's also a waste of both you and your client's time and money.  When you buy a list you have bought just that, a list.  People come and go out of the industry. Odd as it may seem, pr and communication are, in fact, people businesses.  Owing to that, there is that pesky need for a relationship at at least some basic level.  

It is very, very easy to understand the attraction for a brand to hire an agency.  And some are certainly very good.  BUT - when you (the agency) are charging $3,500 and up per client, you can afford to take the time to do your OWN homework, develop your own list, and try to do more than simply send emails to strangers.

Or, you can keep doing it the same way you always have.

Ethics and Social Media

So no long preamble.  Straight to the question:

Do you feel that it is ethical for one watch brand to identify another watch company's social media posts and comment on them with part of the message being a request for THE OTHER watch company's followers to come and visit their site?

I ask because this happened recently on Instagram, and Watch company X's response was something along the lines that they were true watch fans and felt that other watch fans would appreciate learning about their brand. 

Again, so that the idea here is clear and easy to understand:

1.  Watch company Y is mentioned favorably on Instagram.
2.  Watch company X "likes" the post and then posts a comment essentially encouraging anyone who will read the comments on the post about company Y to visit their site (company X).


Is this an ethical way to conduct social media?

On Brand Ambassadors

It seems a virtually inexhaustible topic.  Interesting to relate in the wake of Tudor's cash dump to Mr. Beckham and the All Blacks, Rolex used to take a different approach to this whole "Friend of the Brand" thing -

Shamelessly borrowed from the world-wide infoweb

But you don't live in the past ; )

A good friend forwarded me this -

Study shows non-celebrity influencers are 10 times more likely to drive in-store purchases

Now in fairness to the millennial employees currently holding the various watch marketing departments hostage, they got it half right.  They reached out to influencers - you know, people sort of like me, only popular ; )

But then, being millennials and being, well, not adept at thinking too deeply, they decided that if they paid ONE blogger to write about and promote their watch, then it would make PERFECT sense to forward that (paid) influencer's post, Instagram image, etc.  to OTHER bloggers!  I mean, yeah, we paid this guy for the content, and therefore you should go ahead and run it through your outlet as well!  I mean, c'mon, we're friends, right?  And that is where it became clear that maybe it was a bit too early to have the kids sitting at the grown-ups table.

And what it did was show that the kids running the marketing departments while half-right, had been half-wrong as well.  Because inevitably what spun out of this was the "influencer as celebrity".  So now, PR offices will send out press announcements like: 

Instagram sensation X featured our platinum doo-doo ball watch and they have over a Gajillion followers!  

Needless to say, more and more those press releases are going in the bin.

And it is a shame, because there are, in fact, some really AWESOME bloggers and influencers who have done some really amazing work, and who I would very likely make a purchase based on their feedback.

In watches, Robert-Jan Broer comes to mind with his Speedy Tuesday collaboration.  It is honest, sincere, and born of a real passion.  

And there are others out there who will do a review, offering honest feedback - WITHOUT being paid for it.   And this is the frustrating part for me, and for others out there - is it possible to make money at what we do without, essentially, selling out?  

I think that there is.  And it is not about brand ambassadorship.

So we are going to try something a wee-bit different moving forward.

Announcement to follow- 
stay tuned.
 

Influencers, Click Farms and Millennialitis

Now maybe about five years ago (sounds like a nice round number so I'm going with it), I was invited to participate in a group of what was then referred to as "watch experts".  The concept was (on the surface) pretty straight forward - a major watch magazine / publishing company wanted to band together a group of bloggers from different countries and share press opportunities with them, with the bloggers then benefiting from potential shared advertising revenues.  And in fairness, it seemed like a pretty good deal.  How this finally worked out I am not sure because I opted to remain a solo artist.  But that was perhaps one of the first moments that maybe digital was being taken seriously in the watch world.

Now about this same time, the idea of the "influencer" began to bleed into the watch industry. 

Ethics

I guess this is a bit of an open appeal to the watch brands out there to NOT continue to do business with the online magazines, blogs, and "influencers" that require financial reimbursement for coverage.  One of these outlets has at least indicated that a certain news piece or review was "sponsored" but think about that for a minute - a brand is PAYING money to have their watch reviewed by someone who refuses to do the review UNLESS THEY KNOW THEY WILL GET PAID BEFORE THEY EVEN WRITE IT?!?  How in God's name is that even remotely going to be an honest review?  And does this mean that although a brand might have news, if the services weren't paid for, it won't be covered?  It's an interesting question - 

"If a brand has a new release but they didn't pay blogger/instagrammer/influencer X, did it really happen?"

Little inside tip for you folks running the brands and making PR/Marketing decisions, most of us who cover you know which blogs, "instagrammers", online magazines, "influencers", etc. CHARGE fees to cover you.  In fact, we even know the amounts because they have been so "professional" as to create pricing sheets.  And most of us find it funny that you continue to not only fund these knuckle-heads, but to listen to you crow about this purchased coverage as if you'd just won some sort of award of excellence.  

In fairness, for better or worse, the watch business is a business.  I got involved out of irrational, uncontrollable, often unrequited love.  And to this day that is what keeps my going.  NOT the all-expense-paid trip to the Hamptons, NOT to learn to surf in Hawaii, NOT to stick it to some young entrepreneur trying to launch his/her watch by charging him/her thousands of dollars that he/she can't easily part with in exchange for just a mention on my blog. 

It is NOT supposed to be this way.  It is deceptive, and it is dishonest.  And you have the power to stop it.

So watch brands both big and small, I've been told that perhaps I have an irrational desire to see things a certain way.  To want people to at least attempt to operate in an honest, and straightforward manner.  And in complete truth - had I been the first puppy at the feeding dish getting fat while the runts died from malnutrition, I might live in that same ethical place that the people you bankroll do, swanning about to your events, demanding payment for "service", playing the game.  But if I'm honest, I think that deep down you are all better than this.  And your brands are better than this.  So may I suggest that just as we say when you visit a national park in the US that you "Please don't feed the bears".  And we change it to:

"Please don't feed the Hipsters"

As I said in a previous post - paying for advertising, the occasional press junket, and goodwill swag? Fair enough.  Brokering coverage in an online magazine, blog, etc.?  That is not real coverage. And like any abusive relationship, the longer you keep giving in to the bully, the longer they will be able to manipulate and bully you.

I would like to leave you with a quote from one of my favorite all-time movies - Millers Crossing.  In this scene, Johnny Casper is complaining about paying to "fix" a boxing match, and having his fixed fight become a losing proposition because another person will "sell" the information to another group regarding the fixed outcome of the fight.  I use this example because I personally feel that it is endemic to the watch business.  And frankly, it shouldn't be.

"It's gettin' so a businessman can't expect no return from a fixed fight. Now if you can't trust a fix, what can you trust? For a good return you gotta go bettin' on chance, and then you're back with anarchy. Right back inna jungle. On account of the breakdown of ethics. That's why ethics is important. It's the grease makes us get along, what separates us from the animals, beasts a burden, beasts a prey. Ethics. Whereas (insert person you paid for coverage) is a horse of a different color ethics- wise. As in, he ain't got any." 

Valentine's Contest

From Frederique Constant -