The fact that the main influencers at the time were certain characters of the show business, critics of that sector, mass media, TV, etc., is a tip to reach a sector that has chosen them as icons for that reason: for being figures that are continuously exhibited in social networks and other media. Not for the quality of their content or their statements.
On the other hand there are the reviews on websites and blogs (paid obviously) that limit the objectivity of the judgment on a certain product.
Yesterday I happened to receive a request from a software house to review their Internet Security product. Obviously it must be a positive opinion. That's what they pay for. I am seriously thinking about accepting it or less. Maybe I will do it because the product is interesting. But tell the truth.
I mean, I don't see it wrong for certain figures to be influencers. What I see wrong is that their opinion is totally vitiated.
Greetings @tarazkp, nice topic to debate.
In 2019 (I think) Ronaldo made 3x as much (60 million) from Instagram, than from playing football. However, he wouldn't be able to do that unless he played football well first. It isn't always the case, but normally the real influencers are the ones who have years of work under their belt first.
At least you will get paid for the review - most of the social proofing is done for free through shares of products most sharers haven't used.
There have always been influencers in society - for better and worse. We all influence others through our actions too, for better and worse and often in unseen ways that we never intended. As the saying goes, no man is an island and that applies to all kinds of interactions.