Phạm TúFake likes have long been a major concern in the influencer marketing world. The issue gained even more traction when Unilever declared it would no longer work with influencers who purchase fake likes. In response, many platforms claim to offer solutions to eliminate this problem.
But let’s pause for a moment and consider: Are we overreacting and overcomplicating this issue? Neil Waller’s expert opinion, published in AdAge, offers a different perspective on fake likes:
*Unilever’s Chief Marketing and Communications Officer, Keith Weed, made headlines when he announced that Unilever would not partner with influencers who buy fake likes. As one of the world’s largest advertisers, Unilever’s statement carries significant weight. In light of this, I believe it’s time for a frank discussion about influencer authenticity.
There’s no denying that fake followers are a plague on influencer marketing. However, focusing solely on eliminating fake likes seems to address only the surface level, ignoring the core issue: the industry’s obsession with follower count and engagement metrics, an obsession that likely includes Unilever itself.
This overemphasis on vanity metrics fuels the problem, encouraging influencers to inflate their follower and engagement numbers. I’ve witnessed influencers lose opportunities to those with higher costs and less brand suitability, simply because they boast more impressive follower counts.
Of course, fake likes must be eradicated for various reasons. But another crucial factor is the influencer’s fit with the brand, based on their audience demographics and content quality.
If you view influencers as publishers, then magazine advertising metrics can be applied to them. For example, consider a brand wanting to reach a young, tech-savvy, urban audience. Which magazine would they choose:
A. A lifestyle magazine with a 500k circulation, but 20% remains undistributed in the printing factory.
B. A lifestyle magazine with a 300k circulation, distributed in both rural and urban areas.
C. A lifestyle magazine with a 50k circulation, fully distributed in urban areas.
Most advertisers using influencer marketing are choosing option A. However, the correct answer is a combination of solutions. This combination should align with the campaign’s overall goals while evaluating each solution independently, rather than solely relying on circulation numbers.
The consequences of over-focusing on numbers often lead to two familiar scenarios. First, brands completely entrust content creation to influencers, resulting in content that misrepresents the message and brand tone. Conversely, excessive brand control, treating influencers as paid content producers, leads to commercialized content lacking the influencer’s unique style. Neither scenario is truly effective because influencer marketing thrives on collaborative content creation. Relying solely on follower count and engagement without understanding KOL insights renders brands powerless in this collaboration. Numbers alone cannot indicate common ground between the brand and the KOL.
While advocating for transparency in influencer marketing, our actions are inadvertently encouraging fake likes. This is precisely what we’re doing.
Given Unilever’s market leadership, a more fitting statement from Keith Weed would have been: “Unilever will focus on building quality partnerships with the most suitable influencers, rather than fixating on numbers.” This aligns better with the reality of the influencer marketing landscape.*
