Name of the Game: The distinction between ‘influencer’ and ‘creator’ • Hacker News Board

Re: Name of the Game: The distinction between ‘influencer’ and ‘creator’

#41

Post by jameshart » Fri, Jul 02, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

pram wrote: post #38

chongli wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publishers don't send a game key to a "let's play" channel ... have an influencer use their product. Is a let’s player a creator or an influencer? Yes, they are playing someone else’s game. Yet many people prefer to watch their favourite let’s player over playing the game themselves. This indicated to me that the let’s player is creating some value that the game alone did not have. It may be, for some people, that th…

Theres a more obvious word for them: entertainer. No need for a false dichotomy between 'creator' and 'influencer'

Or 'personality', or 'celebrity'.

People being famous-for-being-famous is hardly a new thing.

Re: Name of the Game: The distinction between ‘influencer’ and ‘creator’

#42

Post by misterchrister » Sat, Jul 03, 2021, 10:59 AM UTC

Wow, not a whole lot of appreciation within this thread of the fact that “influencer management” is an actual thing in the year 2021. Creation is an act generally based on personal decision or a passion to share work.

Influencers are managed just as smoothly as social media feeds now.

Re: Name of the Game: The distinction between ‘influencer’ and ‘creator’

#43

Post by II2II » Mon, Jul 05, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

slightwinder wrote: post #40

shkkmo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be conflating content and product and using "sell" in an overly broad sense. Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases.

We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself. At the core of this "profession" the content is the product and procuct is the content. There is no way to distinguish this. > Understanding the motivations behind media creation is critical for navigating biases. No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved…

> We talk about an industry were people receive money for just being themself.

Some people, perhaps. Others will mold their persona to suit the needs of the market. Others will wear an entirely different personality. Some are open about this, though they may choose to express it in other terms. Others are not open about this.

> No, it is for this completly irrelevant, because there is no straight path how influencer, creator and the whole industry evolved. People come with all kind of motivation and grow into all kind of paths and motiations.

I agree to a degree, but ultimately some motivations are more important when evaluating the relationship between the creator/influencer and the consumer. It is problematic when the creator/influencer is willfully deceptive. There are far more opportunities for the influencer to be deceptive.