This data is so neat and orderly that on its face, it screams out as credible. Here’s a chart published in the Influencer Marketing Hub’s 2021 Industry Benchmark Report, which is similar to other analyses that proliferated for years: Where does that idea come from? As best I can tell, it all comes back to data that shows that they have more engaged audiences. OK, so now that the tiers are as clear as mud, let’s move on to the case for the superiority of nanos and micros. So let’s start the math with a simple chart showing what at least few of us have put out there as truth: For better or worse, we’ve sort of aligned on names for the tiers. Nope again! The tiers have been created by influencer marketing platforms arbitrarily picking different cutoff points. Likewise, there’s so much talk about “nanos” “micros” and “macros” that one would assume that Google or maybe even the US Government’s Division of Weights and Measures had published some kind of standard guidelines. Now, if you’re like me and just reading that last sentence gave you pause (shouldn’t adding subscribers be evidence of growing influence?), well, this is the blog post for you! It’s so prevalent that you’d be forgiven if you thought there was some kind of law of physics that held that for every new subscriber gained, an influencer lost credibility and engagement. If you work in influencer marketing, you can’t miss all of the praise for micro and nano influencers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |