What’s on your mind?

[Scepticalscribe]

Influencer is just a new word for marketer/marketing. Companies don't want to have huge ad budgets anymore, and advertising is harder to place - streaming, ad blockers, lack of print media, etc. So they give free products to people already online with a following and then the influencer does all the work. It's not inherently an evil thing. It's just sales.

I do think that the bad rep for influencers stems from the para-social relationship some people build with content creators de facto treating them as something else than glorified PR mouthpieces.

But there is something to be said about the race to the bottom for "views" and "engagement" as the sole discriminating metric in big recommender systems, but don't get me started .

Two excellent, closely-argued and balanced posts with much food for thought.

That makes sense, and well said, both of you.

 

[mollyc]

I do think that the bad rep for influencers stems from the para-social relationship some people build with content creators de facto treating them as something else than glorified PR mouthpieces.

But there is something to be said about the race to the bottom for "views" and "engagement" as the sole discriminating metric in big recommender systems, but don't get me started .

Small creators seem to owe their existence (at least in the post 2016 YT world) to alternate revenue streams (patreon, etc...)

Yes, I removed myself from a situation where it was expected that I become a "content creator" rather than an actual creator. Reels and the like are not for me.

 

[Flowstates]

Having just watched a "MrBeast" video, treating it as a study in persuasive design, the interweaving of short-narratives within one bigger item is quite an interesting and well crafted paradigm.

That won't distract that most his videos seem to be based on what can be theorized as "Wealth Porn" in all it's vacuity (borrowed from french, being unfamiliar with an English equivalent).

 

[rm5]

I know that here in CH (having a system with a robust emphasis on apprenticeships and practical education) we have had degrees available in "mediamatics" - "creative direction" and the such for 10 years.

Honestly, I didn't know such a thing existed! Hmmm... I guess that's cool. I certainly wouldn't do it though.

I'd say that the wind will most likely blow in the direction of on demand generative ai and real time video generation. Influencers will seldom exist hopefully.

Well yeah, and that's something I didn't think about when writing my earlier post. Everything is going in the direction of AI (which, that's a completely different discussion...), but I absolutely agree with you.

Also, I looked up the definition of an "influencer" (which I just realized you discussed, @mollyc ), and out came this: "A person with the ability to influence potential buyers of a product or service by promoting or recommending the items on social media."

I'd argue that an "influencer" doesn't even have to market products though. Although a lot of the time, they do, but they don't necessarily have to.

So that then makes me a bit confused—what exactly is an "influencer"? I know the definition is literally right there, but I'd argue that an "influencer" is just someone who makes popular content.

EDIT: I'm sure that's a subjective position though.

 

[Flowstates]

Yes, I removed myself from a situation where it was expected that I become a "content creator" rather than an actual creator. Reels and the like are not for me.

In my severely gentrified world, I quietly revelling in the creation of physical spaces dedicated to creative professionals offering respite from the pipelines, a process of reverse "Dé-territiorialisation" if you like.

 

[mollyc]

I'd argue that an "influencer" doesn't even have to market products though. Although a lot of the time, they do, but they don't necessarily have to.

An influencer is always selling something. If not a product, then themselves.

 

[Flowstates]

So that then makes me a bit confused—what exactly is an "influencer"? I know the definition is literally right there, but I'd argue that an "influencer" is just someone who makes popular content.

EDIT: I'm sure that's a subjective position though.

I completely agree with you, and with many things it seems to be a continuum. We all seem to be "micro-influencers" in our own social networks, drawing a line seems arduous, but payement for service rendered could be it.

EDIT: thinking about it, our participation in social medium seem to be a condtion sui generis (is it used right ?) to being an influencer, therefore we all functionally are, whether we monetize those relations is something else.

There seems to be no space unaffected by capitalism

 

[rm5]

Yes, I removed myself from a situation where it was expected that I become a "content creator" rather than an actual creator. Reels and the like are not for me.

I agree with you, don't get me wrong. I guess my only counter to this point is that "content" doesn't have to be what we all think of as "social media content"—it could be educational videos, documentaries, and whatnot.

I started using Instagram after being heavily convinced by some people my age, and I really hate it. I'll post one thing a month, if that. It's certainly not for me, either. Although people like it when I post stuff, so I remember to do it somewhat regularly (like I said, about once or twice a month).

 

[bousozoku]

Yes, but...

Making a living - trying to make a living - in such a manner, is - to my mind - so empty, so shallow, so vapid.

Considering such people are empty, shallow, and vapid, does it not make sense?

I'm sure if you visited Los Angeles you would see a shallower side of people that you wouldn't have expected. When Hollywood promoted clothes removers as actors and stopped telling stories, things became much more meaningless.

 

[Flowstates]

I guess my only counter to this point is that "content" doesn't have to be what we all think of as "social media content"—it could be educational videos, documentaries, and whatnot.

If I'm not mistaken, "content" is simply a piece of medium disseminated through mass media, no categorical analysis on it's content paradoxically.

 

[Flowstates]

I'm sure if you visited Los Angeles you would see a shallower side of people that you wouldn't have expected. When Hollywood promoted clothes removers as actors and stopped telling stories, things became much more meaningless.

I'd recommend, as I've already recommended somewhere else, the documentary "Generation Wealth". I can only be thankful that this is not my reality.

 

[bousozoku]

I still feel like absolute crap, and I'm sure going to that rehearsal (that, mind you, ran nearly an hour over) wasn't a good idea. At least I played one of my favorite pianos on campus, a Yamaha C2. Also, I just hate having to eat my meals up here in to-go boxes, it sucks.

When I was buying one of the original Yamaha Clavinova models for my apartment, I had a chance to play the store's Bösendorfer piano. That was a unique experience.

I hope you feel better soon.

 

[rm5]

I hope you feel better soon.

Thanks! Honestly, listening to the hardest-swinging trio of all time (the Oscar Peterson trio, that is), is certainly helping me!

When I was buying one of the original Yamaha Clavinova models for my apartment, I had a chance to play the store's Bösendorfer piano. That was a unique experience.

I've played a Bösendorfer once, in a Yamaha retail store in London (THE BEST MUSIC STORE I HAVE EVER BEEN TO, hands down!). I don't really remember it much since it was so long ago, but they're known for making the Imperial 290, with an extra octave and a half (I think???) of extra keys on the low end.

Honestly, the Yamaha C1 and C2 are the best Yamaha grands I've played. The C5 sounds too mellow. There's something I also don't really love about the C6 and C7, but I can't really tell what it is. Just something with the tone quality. The C1/C2, on the other hand, which are smaller pianos, are my favorite.

Also, no offense, but I don't like Clavinovas. Never played one that I truly like, besides maybe the CLP-6XX series. Even then, the only good sound was the CFX. The CLP-7XX series has terrible action, and idk about the CVP series, because I've never played those.

However, I love my Yamaha CP88 (which has the synthetic wooden keys and the NW-GH action, similar to the CLP-6XX series of Clavinovas). In other words, it's a Clavinova in a stage piano, sort of. It's got all the Clavinova sounds, plus like FAR better Rhodes and Wurlitzer patches, and a far better amp simulator.

In my mind, Clavinovas are for the "home classical pianist" - in their marketing videos, that's all they advertise for. And I agree. But I guess for some people, that's fine. All depends on what you're doing with the instrument.

EDIT: The CFX sound on these keyboards is amazing, too. So harmonically rich, and the dynamics are balanced. Although I think the Royal Grand 3D on Nords is equally good. Problem with Nords though is the action—which is the sole reason I went with a Yamaha. It's one of those things where I really wish I had a Nord, but I would've really hated playing it because of the plasticy, spongy, action.

 

[mollyc]

I agree with you, don't get me wrong. I guess my only counter to this point is that "content" doesn't have to be what we all think of as "social media content"—it could be educational videos, documentaries, and whatnot.

I started using Instagram after being heavily convinced by some people my age, and I really hate it. I'll post one thing a month, if that. It's certainly not for me, either. Although people like it when I post stuff, so I remember to do it somewhat regularly (like I said, about once or twice a month).

If I'm not mistaken, "content" is simply a piece of medium disseminated through mass media, no categorical analysis on it's content paradoxically.

I'm a photographer - I inherently make content which I share over the internet. I do not monetize this nor do I seek to influence. I just actually am a creator of content (you could just say creator).

To me a "content creator" is one who makes reels, videos, ads, posts, etc., with the intent to take those premade creations and spin them to selling something. I did once sell photography classes. I enjoyed the writing of the classes, interacting with students, taking the photos for the classes - I didn't even mind taking videos to show what I was doing. What I did mind was when I was expected to distill hours worth of content into 30 second snippets for algorithms. That to me is what a content creator does, and it's vastly different than creating real, meaningful work (even if it's only meaningful to the creator themselves).

 

[Flowstates]

To me a "content creator" is one who makes reels, videos, ads, posts, etc., with the intent to take those premade creations and spin them to selling something. I did once sell photography classes. I enjoyed the writing of the classes, interacting with students, taking the photos for the classes - I didn't even mind taking videos to show what I was doing. What I did mind was when I was expected to distill hours worth of content into 30 second snippets for algorithms. That to me is what a content creator does, and it's vastly different than creating real, meaningful work (even if it's only meaningful to the creator themselves).

Indeed, I was merely trying to provide with a most formal definition, whether one buckles to the algorithmic demands is indeed a matter, but I would argue it to be a matter of creative integrity.

On a lighter note, I've been having a blast trying out snippets of spatial video and replaying them on my Quest 3 (The Vision Pro eluding to us Europeans). I can see myself taking advantage of the format to try and capture meaningful moments, I'm quite happy to see it as a creative addition more than a replacement to my Analog photography.

 

[mollyc]

That said, my 18 year old daughter follows some "influencers." They seem wholesome enough, showing handbags/duffles, wallpaper, housewares, makeup, life on the beach. If these girls (because my daughter follows girls; my son follows car guys and skateboarders, and the theory translates) can make a living avoiding sitting at some horrible corporate desk cubicle....well then, I say more power to them. The corporate world will always be there, but not everyone is cut out for that life.

 

[Flowstates]

That said, my 18 year old daughter follows some "influencers." They seem wholesome enough, showing handbags/duffles, wallpaper, housewares, makeup, life on the beach. If these girls (because my daughter follows girls; my son follows car guys and skateboarders, and the theory translates) can make a living avoiding sitting at some horrible corporate desk cubicle....well then, I say more power to them. The corporate world will always be there, but not everyone is cut out for that life.

I wholeheartedly agree, the sheer scale of the available market for content (ugh) being that it seems wholly feasible to attain a middle class lifestyle nurturing a reasonable following. That being said, I'm note quite sure that all the "Marketing" work surrounding the initial creation would prove less alienating than 9 to 5 work, although one could alleviate the burden offloading the work, at the risk of falling prey to the aformentionned forces with a payroll involved.

 

[rm5]

I’m watching about the cringiest (and the worst) documentary I’ve EVER seen. IT IS PURE MISERY!!! it’s one of those awful dramatized documentaries with terrible actors. Worst part is the AWFUL fake British accents. Yes, you read that right. Fake British accents. Ugh!!!

Though yesterday, I watched the best documentary I’ve ever seen, 13th—see the movie thread.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Yes, I removed myself from a situation where it was expected that I become a "content creator" rather than an actual creator. Reels and the like are not for me.

Mrs AFB was briefly doing content for a craft company. But the expectation from that said company was unrealistic. They wanted video, photos and designs within days of sending out kit. All for a non paid role. Although I encouraged her (after all I was the photographer and videographer!), because I wanted her to have an outlet, I was glad when she gave it up. It was just too much.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I’m watching about the cringiest (and the worst) documentary I’ve EVER seen. IT IS PURE MISERY!!! it’s one of those awful dramatized documentaries with terrible actors. Worst part is the AWFUL fake British accents. Yes, you read that right. Fake British accents. Ugh!!!

Though yesterday, I watched the best documentary I’ve ever seen, 13th—see the movie thread.

don’t get me started on fake British accents in US programs. None of us sound like that! When did you last see a British person sound like someone from Liverpool, Manchester or Somerset in a US program? They basically have two British accents on TV. Surrey and Scotland!

 

[DaveFromCampbelltown]

don’t get me started on fake British accents in US programs. None of us sound like that! When did you last see a British person sound like someone from Liverpool, Manchester or Somerset in a US program? They basically have two British accents on TV. Surrey and Scotland!

Australian actors like Guy Pearce and Hugh Jackman who went to NIDA ( the Australian National Institute of Dramatic Arts) had a brilliant voice coach who taught them how to speak 'murrican without sounding like a ****. Sadly this did not apply to British actors, many of whom rely on on a caricature of an American accent.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

I’m watching about the cringiest (and the worst) documentary I’ve EVER seen. IT IS PURE MISERY!!! it’s one of those awful dramatized documentaries with terrible actors. Worst part is the AWFUL fake British accents. Yes, you read that right. Fake British accents. Ugh!!!

Though yesterday, I watched the best documentary I’ve ever seen, 13th—see the movie thread.

Would you care to share the name (title) of this documentary so that I can give it a (very) wide berth?

 

[Scepticalscribe]

don’t get me started on fake British accents in US programs. None of us sound like that! When did you last see a British person sound like someone from Liverpool, Manchester or Somerset in a US program? They basically have two British accents on TV. Surrey and Scotland!

Completely agreed.

Utterly cringeworthy.

Many Americans fail to realise that both geography and social class play an enormous role in how accents are perceived, and how they sound in the UK. Within that, there are a wide variety of "British" accents.

That is not to say that people cannot change their accent, or choose to change their accent - they can and they do - but social class and region play an outsize role in accents in the UK, which a great many American actors fail to recognise.

 

[rm5]

Would you care to share the name (title) of this documentary so that I can give it a wide berth?

Here ya go!

Now granted, there are some actors with real British accents, but the fake ones are really obvious.

The acting in general is so horrid. It’s really sad that such an interesting topic like the periodic table is utterly destroyed with such a film.

EDIT: I didn't see your other post until just now, @Scepticalscribe , so of course what I am deeming a "fake" accent could be very real. I'm not from the UK, and thus, I don't think I'm fully qualified to make that judgement. That's just how it sounds to me. Regardless, it's just a cringy movie—that's all there is to it.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Here ya go!

Now granted, there are some actors with real British accents, but the fake ones are really obvious.

The acting in general is so horrid. It’s really sad that such an interesting topic like the periodic table is utterly destroyed with such a film.

Thank you.

The other thing - quite apart from atrocious (British) accents - is that I am extraordinarily intolerant of historical nonsense.

Now, I have no quarrel with historical fiction - the clue lies in the name - but as someone who loves history, (and also as someone who used to teach and research and write about history - who is, or was, a professional historian - before the temptations of attempting to analyse or understand the present lured me away from the study of the past), I intensely dislike nonsense masquerading as historical fact.

History doesn't deal in "fake facts"; in the study of history, something either happened, or it didn't.

We usually know the what, the who, the when, and the where. And we can have (what are sometimes exceedingly arcane) debates over the "why" and the "how". And we can also dispute whether they - these facts - matter, or, are of importance. However, the facts themselves are rarely in dispute.

Nevertheless, bad history offends me at a very fundamental level.