Agenda

• Moderator:
  Liu, Yu-Jun, Executive Secretary (Institute of Watch Internet Network)
• Panelists:
  – Hung, Shao-Hua, Director of Business Development (Sunbathe Creative Co. Ltd.)
  – Chang, Yu-Chang, General Manager (Era Ogilvy Public Relations)
  – Kuo, Chun-Lin, Assistant Professor (Graduate Institute of Financial & Economic Law, Southern Taiwan University of Science & Technology)

15:45-16:00  Q&A

Meeting Minutes

The discussion began by defining internet influencers. Taking YouTuber as an example, Ms. Hung stated that a youtuber with over a thousand followers and a high level of follower engagement could be considered an influencer in the industry, whether they are referred to as Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs) or Key Opinion Consumers (KOCs).  The Internet influencers might not necessarily have a large number of followers or high visibility, but they possess significant influence in sales capabilities within certain niches.

Mr. Chang from major public relation consulting firm suggested that, those whose content generates mass discussions and becomes a topic of conversation within online communities can be considered quasi-influencers. He cited the recent “rice controversy” incident as an example, explaining that even though the individuals involved were not well-known public figures, the level of discussion generated by the incident rivaled the impact brought about by established influencers.

From an academic perspective, Professor Kuo proposed evaluating the degree of influence based on rankings, click-through rates, and number of followers. He acknowledged the absence of a standardized definition at present, however there may be no need to define an internet influencer until when a law to be established. Kuo further shared his viewpoint from the perspective of internet users, stating that anyone who has an impact on internet users could be considered an influencer. For instance, if followers actually purchase products based on the influencer’s suggestion.

The Moderator pointed out that the influence of well-known mega-influencers might not necessarily be greater than that of smaller influencers. She further stated that, mega-influencers may have high viewership, but their actual business impact (such as sales conversion ability) or ability to drive actions may not necessarily be proportional. On the other hand, smaller influencers (like group buy hosts) can achieve significant economic gains through actions such as group buying and live streaming. What are the reasons behind the difference in actual influence between these two groups?

Ms. Hung responded by explaining that each influencer has a unique niche or positioning (such as technology or food). Influencers with a clear and distinct niche can generate substantial influence and a sense of identification within their specific audience. For instance, a food-focused influencer engaging in group buys for food products or kitchen tools can be more persuasive due to their image as a food enthusiast, leading to increased consumer purchases. She also added that mega-influencers possess a massive following because they know how to diversify their positioning and create entertainment content that appeals to a wide audience, attracting viewers from diverse backgrounds.

Mr. Chang pointed out that the audience of mega-influencers is no longer limited to dedicated followers but are those drawn by their high visibility. These viewers may not necessarily have a strong bond with the mega-influencer. If the content produced by a mega-influencer is not well-received by the general audience or causes significant social discussions, it can lead to a public relations crisis for the mega-influencer. He introduced the concept of the “Average Beauty” theory, where relatively smaller influencers are akin to friendly neighbors, and their endorsement of specific products can result in remarkable sales. This category of influencers faces lower risks and is less prone to attacks, as their influence remains within their niche community and has limited impact on the general public. Even if they make mistakes in their communication, they are more likely to be forgiven.

Mr. Chang also cautioned mega-influencers to pay more attention to public relations risk management, advising them to be mindful of their statements and behavior. He emphasized that online opinions can swiftly inflict severe damage on their reputation and influence.

In the question “how influencers expand their reach to different audiences?” Ms. Hung suggests that influencers should concentrate on their area of expertise while also observing current market trends to experiment with different themes, aiming for content diversification. Zhang Yu-chang, on the other hand, believes that many influencers are initially unclear about their true purpose as influencers. This often leads them to adopt polarized content strategies, resulting in a plethora of incidents where influencers stumble. He suggests that, apart from focusing on their expertise, influencers can benefit from the assistance of a professional team, implement effective public relations safeguards, and formulate persuasive transformation strategies. These measures can help ensure the longevity of an influencer’s career.

The impact of internet influencers doesn’t necessarily always lead to negative outcomes. However, there have been instances where negative effects have been observed. Chang mentioned that negative influence from influencers often arises alongside attention-seeking polarized behaviors. He highlighted recent controversies involving influencers as reminders that influencers should carefully consider whether they can withstand the risks associated with their negative behavior.

Hung pointed out that many influencers fail to realize their own influence and only focus on the benefits or advantages of fame, which contributes to the proliferation of extreme content.

Prof. Kuo discussed real-life examples from the perspective of how influencer recommendations can affect citizens’ daily lives. He mentioned that when certain attractions or restaurants are featured by influencers, an influx of people can negatively impact local communities.

Ms. Liu shared her work experience at the iWIN, where she noted that in Taiwan, extreme content often revolves around sexual innuendos and provocative themes, which differ significantly from dangerous challenges like the “Tide Pod Challenge” seen abroad.

The issue of extreme behaviors or content by influencers clearly has certain negative societal impacts. Liu posed the question of whether the problem could be resolved through self-regulation by influencers. Kuo mentioned that Taiwan’s Fair Trade Act Article 21 imposes administrative penalties for false advertising content, which applies to influencer endorsements and advertising practices, offering a degree of constraint. He also emphasized that the opinions of both businesses and consumers can influence influencers, but ultimately, the law serves as a bottom line.

Ms. Hung suggested that self-discipline depends on the choices of influencers themselves and cannot be completely regulated. She believed that influencers and audiences should work together to reduce negative content. In addition to influencer self-regulation, addressing the issue might involve audiences resisting negative content. Mr. Chang expressed a pessimistic view, noting that while he doesn’t advocate for imposing regulations on influencers through laws or rules, there should at least be a requirement to avoid illegal or anti-social behavior. He also reminded audiences not to add to the chaos by inciting unwarranted reactions, promoting rational discussions instead. He believed that such behavior could exacerbate the polarization present.

Ms Liu however maintained an optimistic view, suggesting that if the standard for influencer self-regulation is aligned with establishing values that the general public can accept, there might be a chance for successful promotion. Hung also hoped that influencers would at least adhere to basic bottom lines such as avoiding illegal and harmful content. She believed that audiences should possess the necessary qualities to reject extreme content in order to bring about effective improvement. Kuo emphasized that it’s crucial to cultivate basic citizen qualities as a foundation, enabling creators and audiences to identify risky content.

Chang highlighted that the internet industry’s development has been relatively brief, lacking a universal consensus on self-regulation standards. Due to intense competition, it’s not feasible to quickly address negative developments through mandatory regulations. He expressed hope that the internet industry could follow the trajectory of traditional media, gradually coalescing around self-regulation norms as the industry matures, leading to a stable and healthy industry ecosystem.

Regarding the feasibility of improving the impact of extreme content by influencers from the platform and advertiser sides, all the panelists share similar perspectives that, platforms primarily are profit-oriented and they utilize algorithms to promote preferred content, including extreme ones, to increase user engagement and prolonged usage. While intervening with advertisers may be a more viable approach, as brands are especially concerned about their commercial image and meticulously assess influencers and spokespersons, it’s still a limited solution. Most advertisers are unlikely to collaborate with extreme influencers, minimizing their direct influence.

Ms. Liu concluded that the ultimate goal of platforms, advertisers, and influencers is profitability, albeit through different means. Perhaps a solution lies in fostering changes in public media consumption habits, cultivating media literacy among citizens, and promoting sustainable and steady profit models. This could involve influencers selling co-branded products or diversifying revenue streams, rather than solely pursuing popularity and high traffic for short-term gains. This multi-faceted approach may be a direction worth exploring.