The Ideological Implications of Influencer #SponsoredPosts on Instagram:
Critical Theory and Social Media.
(May 2021)
As social media dominates the era as a supposedly necessary mode of communication for the 21st century, it quickly has also become a powerful tool that corporations have commodified for profit and power. Media, defined by Manning, is ‘almost exclusively centralised to where one entity (radio/television stations, newspapers companies) distribute messages to many people… indirectly and impersonally’ (Manning, 2014, p. 1158). Social media, on the other hand, comes from new technology or ‘Web 2.0’, with interactivity as the central factor. Manning further explains that ‘social media’ relies on participation and interaction (Manning, 2014, p. 1158) , as well as new technology, to differentiate itself from traditional media. Social media as a product has become so integral to our personal and business lives, it has become a new social norm.
Marx’s critical theory is a key concept to challenging to ideologies. Ideology is perceived as ‘eternal and unchangeable’ (Fuchs, 2016, p. 11) but through critique, ideology is made conscious, humanised (Marx, 1997, p. 214) and can be questioned and subjected to attack. Instagram as a platform has been commercialised heavily and the capitalistic ideology hasn’t gone unnoticed. Applying Marx’s critical thought to critique the soar of commercialism in Instagram’s use of sponsored posts by Influencers will allow for investigation of exploitation and inherent ideological indoctrination to the users of the platform.
As social media dominates, it thus is an ideology or performing for an ideology. Social medias are built on user-generated content; therefore, individualism is the initial ideological basis of social media. Understanding that social media is now a corporate commodity (Facebook owns Instagram, WhatsApp), social media performs under the capitalist (and individualist) ideology. Individual gain and commodification of the self is relied on for success under capitalist and meritocratic social systems. Platforms are reliant on self-serving individuals promoting businesses and engagement for them, Instagram’s use of promoted and sponsored posts being a key example of this.
Instagram’s ideological state favours those with the largest followings and exemplar standards of beauty/lifestyle/wealth. Instagram’s ideology therefore relies on an elitist structure, favouring those who can earn the platform the most financial profit or user engagement and data. ‘Influencers’ refer to the top-followed and most likely to receive sponsorships or asked to do promotions from companies, gaging from cosmetic to energy drinks to charities. Instagram as a Silicon Valley product is heavily Westernised and adheres to heteropatriarchal social standards of beauty and wealth. These standards are the common reasons users gain high levels of notoriety. By promoting these values, Instagram uses semiotic language to promote Western standards on a global platform, suggesting the ideology is less liberal and more neoliberal, with a focus on free market values and globalisation (Gamble, 2009, p. 3). The popular Influencers earn the highest incomes and therefore gain the most (symbolic) power within the app. Sponsored posts don’t just sell products, they sell aspiration. Instagram by using wealthy (in followers, finance or beauty) users sell the idea of success by way of discreet idealism of attaining these standards of beauty or work ethic, aids the influence of the followers, the indoctrinating of the meritocratic mindset for success.
Influencers by accepting sponsorships commodify themselves, they act as physical advertisements and associations with earning money and being used for profit.
Using Marxist critique of exploitation, the Influencers become the property being sold by Instagram. In turn, the Influencer exploits the follower by providing the means of property but symbolically acting as a gatekeeper for the product, exploiting the followers into purchasing with the promise of success likewise to the Influencer’s.
With Marxist critical thought in mind, it’s understood that Instagram Influencers are not in control of the ideological premise of the app, but they merely abide by it and attain it. The power structures are defined by the political economy of the platform, Facebook at the top supplies the means but the middlemen of Instagram and influential Instagram users control how the supplies are distributed and the regular users’ ‘control’ how resources are consumed. Influencers as the pseudo-slave owner by promoting goods to followers but can only hold power by promoting the values of Instagram’s ideology. Instagram (and Facebook) generate their profits by the amounts of user-data they can attain. Advertisements on Instagram from third-party sellers and sponsored posts by Influencers generate their profit from users clicking and sharing the advert links, similar to “clickbait” style revenue (Simon, 2021). “Clickbait” is a recognisable term for online articles or websites that generate profit via how many times their site has been accessed, Instagram is now a monetizable model due to its advert facilitation.
To refer back to the Influencer as the pseudo slave-owner, by promoting sponsorships and providing advertisement links, they rely on the follower to act as the ‘unpaid worker’, easily and thoughtlessly accessing links, providing the Influencer and Instagram with profitable data. The typical Instagram user provides a modern ‘surplus value’ for the platform, commodifying themselves (Fuchs, 2016, p. 11). Users as surplus are generating profit for it but also providing means of ideological sustain in accessing the in-app links, unconsciously advancing the platforms financial and social profitability.
To summarise, critiquing the ideology and political economy of social media allows users to free themselves from unconscious and unpaid digital labour, ‘emancipating’ ourselves from being slaves to online platforms. Marxist challenging of the dominative, neoliberal ideology of Instagram and its use of Influencer as advert allows us to challenge the buried political means of the platform and its encouragement of hegemonic free-market, meritocratic values. Critique of exploitation allows us to understand Influencer’s sponsored posting is the smokescreen for extreme digital labour profiting, that earns Instagram (and thusly Facebook’s) revenue. Whilst Influencers’ feel in control of their earning and in control of their followers, they merely rely on the opportunity appointed by individualistic and elitist ideological ideals encouraged by Instagram, as a commercial platform. Regardless, the typical user, or ‘follower’, merely acts as the lowest actor in the digital food chain, being exploited for their data and in return gaining aspirational merit from their favourite Influencers and favourite social media platforms.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
o Fuchs, C., 2016. Critical Theory. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy, p. 11.
o Gamble, A., 2009. The Western Ideology. Governent and Opposition, 44(1), p. 3.
o Manning, J., 2014. Social media, definition and classes of. In: K. Harvey, ed. Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, p. 1158.
o Marx, K., 1997. Writings of the young Marx on philosophy and society.. 1st Edition ed. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, INC.
o Simon, E., 2021. Investopedia. [Online] Available at: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/030915/how-instagram-makes-money.asp#:~:text=Facebook%20bought%20Instagram%20for%20about%20%241%20billion%20in%202012.&text=Like%20Facebook%2C%20Instagram%20makes%20its,young%20and%20global%20user%20b [Accessed 02 March 2021].
Comments