The notion of ‘influencers’ has been all the rage in Brussels recently. Understandably. In the real world, influencer marketing – the practice of teaming up with influential people to help promote an organisation or product – can be highly effective.
The principle of influencer marketing is not new. We’ve all sniggered at grainy ads from the 50s featuring doctors flogging cigarettes that do wonders for a niggly sore throat. And in public affairs, we’ve also been at it for years – think pharma and patient groups, or agrochemicals companies and farmers – but calling it stuff like key opinion leader mobilisation (or whatever).
But in the social media age, the concept of influencer marketing has moved on a notch:
- It is far easier to build a public platform, so there are simply more people who are influential (as well as plenty more who think they may be, but patently are not)
- Similarly, it is easier to get an influencer in front of those one is seeking to influence online than it is offline
- Higher levels of mistrust in entities like industry and media makes credibility harder to attain, and influencers can help
Cue: lots of people, including public affairs practitioners, with high hopes for online influencer marketing.
While not doubting the effectiveness of online influencer marketing when done well, I would urge caution to anyone expecting it to make a massive dent in Brussels. In the marketing world, influence comes from being able to help sell a product. In Brussels, the product for sale is policy impact, usually driven by: the provision of high quality technical information; proof of market power (i.e. the ability to generate jobs and growth); or proof of public support (at least amongst key constituencies). If online influencers can help deliver technical or market power information that supports one’s case but might otherwise not cut through the clutter, or whose reach can be taken as a sign of popular support – then great, they will likely deliver policy influence. But I doubt there are more than a handful of Brussels-based individuals who fit this bill. There may be plenty of people who are followed by the entire bubble and whose stuff gets shared because it is amusing, topical or controversial – but this does not equate to influence.
So should we discard influencer marketing entirely in Brussels? Not quite, but we may wish to alter the paradigm by which we approach it:
- Online influencers that can influence policy (experts, high-profile green bloggers etc.) do exist, but usually at member state level. So if a key target stems from a country in which an all-powerful online influencer may realistically support your cause, by all means, explore the option.
- Given how small the Brussels bubble is, the key triumvirate – entity seeking to influence / influential people / target audiences – have fewer degrees of separation between them than in the real world. And sometimes they are the same person. Spokespeople are sometimes cited as influencers, for instance. But are they not also targets? You might be seeking to influence, but are you not just one useful piece of online content away from actually being the influencer yourself?
In summary, for anyone seeking to use the online sphere as a means to influence in Brussels, I’d advise two things:
- Do not develop an ‘influencer’ list for Brussels, as there are not enough influencers, and there will be too much overlap between it and your target list. Simply create a target list that doubles up as an influencer list. It should include details on each individual’s online presence, especially a recommendation on how best to reach and leverage each e.g. target directly, target indirectly through paid, engage openly – or indeed, seek to leverage as an influencer.
- Try to become influential online yourself rather than seeking intermediaries to carry your message, through a really relevant and high-quality content strategy. Given the dearth of brilliant online content in Brussels – and the reluctance of many otherwise excellent public affairs practitioners to build their ‘personal brand’ online – there are rich pickings to be had.
4 thoughts on “The myth of influencer marketing in Brussels”
Couldn’t agree more. Influence is of course difficult to measure, by nature. Although I think most comms people in Brussels are not fooled by rankings, I wonder if they actually believe that twitter following equates to actual public affairs influence. I guess it does once in a while, and online outreach (to Brussels and EU capitals) can be a useful part of the PA mix.
Same can be said (and has been said) about lobbying: success is by nature hard or impossible to measure.
Thanks for your comment Luc. Apart from the obvious (policy outcomes) the components of lobbying are indeed difficult to measure. I’m a fan of a) regular polling on reputation; b) highly unscientific evaluation of one’s communications activities (lobbying and beyond) by talking to people and asking for their very candid assessment.
These are very good ideas and I agree with you on that one too. If implemented with sincerity… I saw a formal survey like that implemented at a big corporate but the survey was, for a good portion, bogus: biased because the client didn’t care about the quality of the survey. The only concern was to please headquarters overseas and the better the results looked, the happier the team in Brussels was. Truth was not a concern. Perception by HQ was paramount.