It's just getting started. We're on the verge of seeing the first few billionaire influencers emerge. That will definitely turn heads and drive more money towards that direction. We're also seeing the rise of the children of tech money (I forgot the name to reference this group of people), but they're going to be heavy on influencer lifecycles too.
I disagree. Peak influencer moment was the billionaire status of folks like Kanye, Kardashians, Kylie Jenner, etc. If anything is to be seen from the past year, it's that they're just as vulnerable to the machinations of the mainstream as any one. Moreover, most of their wealth is pure paper - not even publicly traded. With a sure trimming of private valuations, they will definitely be hurt (although their lifestyle won't, but I doubt they are that stupid to showcase their lives during an actual recession year when it happens).
Tldr:- Influencers are correlated to the markets. Market valuations fall, Influencers get hurt.
I think their point is that influencers have always existed, it's the underlying model that has changed.
And I tend to agree. People bought into Logan Pauls scam because they trusted him, the same way that people will buy a product because they trust the spokesperson.
I'm a huge Kate Mulgrew fan even as I don't think Janeway was a great captain. I remember coming across "The Principle" on Amazon, seeing her on it, and purchasing it. I didn't get very far into it before I stopped it and went googling and it turns out she was tricked and didn't fully realize what she was narrating. I think she sued them, but I could be wrong.
You can argue that the scale is different, and you may be right, but I do think the other poster is correct that they've existed for a very long time and many people use them as a proxy for trust when making decisions.
