A new influence model
What a non-extractive approach to community and influence could look like
Ideas below: non-extractive community building is the next influencer model; relevance = clout over followers; subcultures and spaces of influence are thriving, they’re just not under brand surveillance
This week, I’ve been reading a lot of great takes over on Thought Enthusiast, with one take in particular standing out from Dayna Castillo. Dayna is the Founder of Silence, Brand!, a Substack that covers the intersection of brand, social media, and fandom. She also has an amazing website you should check out, if you, like me, appreciate weird and fun little pockets of the internet.
But to get to it, Dayna shared she’s working on a new influencer strategy for a client: “Instead of casting creators, we’re pulling from over 100 organic brand testimonials posted by regular people over the past two years. I can’t wait to connect with these non-influencers and invite them into a more intentional relationship with a brand they already love.”
This initially made me think back to Dove’s r/eal reviews campaign, where they centered the raw and unfiltered reviews of Redditors as a crowdsourced badge of brand recommendation.
The Dove campaign stops at sourcing reviews. Dayna’s approach sounds like a qualitative research approach to social listening, one that prioritizes learning from and centering the voices of those that matter most to a brand. There’s something in all of this on how to not be extractive of the communities brands are supposedly building for.
And smarter people than I are already making a version of that non-extractive influence model. Enter Figures, a “representation company for figures of alternative influence. We represent thinkers, curators, founders and cultural operators whose impact is measured in expertise, taste and trusted audiences rather than scale. The company develops talent-led IP, negotiates partnerships and advises brands, agencies and institutions on accessing this new influence ecosystem.”
I like Figures already because one of the founders is Sari Azout, who I’ve been following as she’s built Sublime (another very cool part of the internet.) But what’s interesting about Figures is it’s promise to provide marketers “access to niche and engaged audiences far from the blast of social media.”
Figures runs against the idea that influence marketing is all about reaching as many people as possible. Instead, Figures is helping these alt influencers that are experts or representatives in their respective subculture produce concepts like salons, workshops, books, reports, performances, zines and residencies for brands. WSJ’s writeup notes Figures’ strategy is “to emphasize what makes its people influential in the first place, pitching their creative endeavors over their personalities.”
All in all, these new leanings and feelings re: influence feel timely given recent Harris Poll findings that 79% of Gen Z TikTok users miss the platform’s early days, with 72% saying content now feels staged and performative, 60% saying they trust the platform less than before, 41% saying there’s too many ads and brands, 34% citing a loss of raw unfiltered content. Makes ya think about how quickly spaces meant for human expression, engagement, and enjoyment quickly lose their relevance when taken over by brands and retailers.
Considering these human spaces, I loved this article from Dazed MENA last month, “Subcultures aren’t dead, they’re just not where you’re looking.” It reminded me of this piece from Patrick Chow last November “Subculture Never Died; You Just Stopped Looking for It.” Both pieces explore the current existence of subcultures and the final takeaway is that subcultures and places of influence exist where brands can’t see them, in places that refuse to be commodified.
There’s an interesting tension happening, and I’m seeing a distinction between brands that want to extract cultural credibility and brands that want to resource something without redirecting it. Dayna's approach and Figures are both moving toward that second model by finding people already doing the thing and funding them to keep doing it, on their own terms, rather than casting them as performers of the brand's story.
The non-extractive model isn't about brands being nicer in how they approach subcultures , but really more about brands learning to fund things they can't control or claim credit for, and accepting that the best cultural work will always happen in rooms they're not running.
As a brand or creative strategist, instead of asking "how do we get in?" regarding the audiences and influencers within the subcultures and places we want to be, we should really start with "what does this scene actually need that we could provide without taking anything in return?"
As a model or practice, a non-extractive influence strategy would look like funding the boring stuff e.g. the venue rental, the printing costs for the zine, the equipment, the travel; everything that contributes to there being a space for people to be. It looks like giving decision control to the people within the subculture, the space, the scene you want to partner with. It looks like changing how we view KPIs in the engagement and influence space because as Figures is pointing out, influence can't be reduced to a follower count.
The scenes worth paying attention to are the ones you can’t get into. Not because they’re exclusive, but because the moment a brand is welcome, something essential leaves the room. The job isn’t to find your way in. It’s to make sure the room still exists.