Abstract
Little is known about the characteristics and dynamics within SMI–audience interactions and relationships from the side of SMI. Using interview data from 19 (N = 19) SMI, this study aims (1) to increase the insights on the development (i.e. predictors and dimensions) and dynamics (i.e. outcomes and feedback loops) of SMI’s social capital and (2) use the social capital framework to develop a typology of different SMI–audience relationships. The resulting typology proposes four types of relationships. The first is the casual follower relationship, characterized by limited intimacy and low-effort contact. Second, the positive fan relationship involves typical fan behavior. These relationships are important for SMI because they offer psychological and commercial gains. Finally, the negative hater and the negative anti-fan relationship were distinguished. Whereas the first is a temporary superficial relationship, the latter has intimacy and reciprocity, which stimulates SMI’s investment. The theoretical and practical implications for SMI and marketing are discussed.
Introduction
The use of social media influencers (SMI) is increasingly trendy within marketing contexts. Given their great economic potential, scholars and organizations analyzed many aspects both on the side of the audience (e.g. similarity, likeability) and the side of SMI (e.g. gender, attractiveness, trust, authenticity) that explain SMI’s success. Studies comparing the effectiveness of SMI with traditional celebrities repeatedly concluded that SMI were more effective and that the underlying reason can be found on the social level (e.g. Schouten et al., 2020), which is how the concept of social capital became linked to SMI marketing (e.g. Cooley and Parks-Yancy, 2019). Combining the original definition of Bourdieu (1985) with additions of Coleman (1988) and Putnam (1993) and with the current online environment in which SMI operate, social capital refers to one’s online social network (Abbas and Mesch, 2018). Different components of SMI–audience interactions and relationships have been associated with SMI’s social capital, such as the intimacy with the audience, the reciprocity in their contact with the audience, trust, and so on (e.g. Ahn, 2012; Burke et al., 2011; Eyal et al., 2020; Hu et al., 2020). Most of these studies analyzed one of these elements and studied its impact on social capital in isolation. However, social capital is a complex concept that develops based on interactions between different elements at the same time (e.g. the level of intimacy is influenced by the level of reciprocity and the other way around). Moreover, social capital is dynamic, what happens on one level has implications on another level (e.g. when audience interactions decrease feelings of intimacy might decrease as well); systematically distinguishing the predictors and outcomes of social capital is thus necessary to fully understand its meaning and development (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001).
A large part of this social capital is under the control of SMI themselves and their decisions on whether to invest or not (Claridge, 2020). However, most of the research on SMI–audience interactions and how they lay the basis for SMI’s social capital is conducted from an outsider (e.g. content analyses, observations) (e.g. Berryman and Kavka, 2017; Eyal et al., 2020; Ferchaud et al., 2018; Mardon et al., 2023; Stever and Lawson, 2013) or audience perspective (e.g. surveys, interviews with followers) (e.g. Kolo and Haumer, 2018; Decorte & Ouvrein, in press; Taillon et al., 2020; Yuan and Lou, 2020). This study will therefore extend the existing literature by working from the perspective of the SMI.
More specifically, we aim to (1) develop a systematic framework on the predictors, dimensions, and outcomes of SMI’s social capital based on the social capital framework as proposed by Narayan and Cassidy (2001) and (2) use this framework to develop a typology of different types of relationships between SMI and the audience. This will be done based on an interview study among Flemish SMI, all active in the fashion niche. The implications of these insights are twofold. First, a structural overview of the characteristics of the development of social capital and the role of SMI–audience interactions in that can inform SMI and help them regulate their emotional labor. Second, gaining more knowledge on the different types of interactions and relationships SMI distinguish and in which they are motivated to invest can inform marketers and organizations on the selection of the (potentially) most valuable SMI.
The rise and definition of SMIs
Since the rise of social networking sites (SNS), users have been stimulated to create their own content. When some online users started to reach large audiences with their self-created content, the idea of SMI was introduced. An often-cited early definition of SMI is the one of Freberg and colleagues (2011: 90): “Social Media Influencers (SMI) represent a new type of independent third-party endorser who shapes audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media.” This definition accentuates the difference in the path to fame compared with traditional celebrities. Whereas the latter mostly develop fame through traditional media channels, which consequently makes them popular online, SMI’s fame starts on social media, but can then spread to other (traditional) media channels (“bottom-up process”; Lou and Yuan, 2019). Later definitions added more specific characteristics of SMI. The definition of Agostino et al. (2019), for instance, added the element of trust to the definition by stressing that these endorsers are seen as trusted sources by the audience. Other elements that were included stress out the relational aspect with the audience, by accentuating the role of, for instance, authenticity and intimacy with the audience (e.g. Djafarova and Rushworth, 2017). In their literature review study, Hudders et al. (2021) analyzed definitions of SMI used in studies published between 2011 and 2020 and concluded that there are two central characteristics to be considered when defining SMI: reach and impact. “Reach” is often expressed in terms of how many followers SMI have; whereas “impact” is often determined by their persuasive power, for instance, measured in marketing or commercial outcomes, such as how many people bought the advertised products (Digital Marketing Institute, 2019). Impact, however, can also refer to societal impact. SMI increasingly play active roles in social movements and societal challenges, for instance, in the context of #metoo or climate strikes (Alperstein and Alperstein, 2021). In line with the latter idea, SMI are also sometimes defined as opinion leaders, meaning that they can influence the attitudes and behaviors of others because of their superior status or strong expertise (Vrontis et al., 2021).
Social capital
The key mechanism behind being a successful opinion leader is found in the concept of social capital. This concept was introduced in sociology by Bourdieu (1985), who defined it as people’s resources based on their involvement and participation in collective activities. Many other authors added and redefined elements of the concept from different perspectives (e.g. Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1993). In an online context, social capital refers to the recourses and connections one has through the Internet (Abbas and Mesch, 2018). The idea of social capital increasingly pops up in the context of SMI as they are known for their extended network of connections with followers on one hand and brands and societal organizations on the other hand, thus scoring high on social capital. This high social capital makes them effective in promoting brands, products, and lifestyles (Cooley and Parks-Yancy, 2019). Although Bourdieu (1985) did not originally link the concept to the economy in that way, Coleman (1988) described how economic productivity on the individual level is one of the important functions of social capital. Accordingly, recent studies within the context of SMI marketing confirmed this with evidence that a high social capital of SMI predicts brand loyalty and purchase intentions (Kim and Kim, 2020; Xu et al., 2022). Moreover, similar to ordinary people, social capital also has personal advantages for SMI (Coleman, 1988), as it has been related to lower chances for developing mental health issues and larger support in the case of mental health struggles (McPherson et al., 2014). Indeed, SMI with a large following reported that they sometimes do nothing when being confronted with online hate but wait for their followers to stand up for them and support them (Ouvrein et al., 2023). Some SMI even mention that the support they receive from their followers is comparable with the support from their direct offline social network (Abidin, 2015).
Whereas social capital is to a certain extent determined by one’s environment (meso/macrolevel), a big part of it is under the control of the individual (microlevel), meaning that an individual (in this case SMI) can strategically try to increase his or her social capital (Claridge, 2020). Given the personal and professional advantages they can get out of it (Coleman, 1988), SMI are highly motivated to increase their social capital. One of the mechanisms they use for that purpose is audience interactions and relationships. This is not surprising as interactions are the main driving forces behind social capital, as in essence social capital is all about relations (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001).
SMI–audience interactions
Due to digital developments, SMI–audience interactions can take the form of likes, shares, comments, or real-time interactions (Berryman and Kavka, 2018; Enke and Borchers, 2019). Research indicated that a simple like or comment from users can moderate the effects of SMI marketing (Enke and Borchers, 2019; Reinikainen et al., 2020). Whether and how SMI engage with the audience has even been considered a more important criterium for the effectiveness of SMI marketing than their number of followers (Ouvrein et al., 2021), as the number of followers can be false and does not say much about intimacy (Ruiz-Gomez, 2019). Having many interactions with different followers is a direct indication of a broad social network. Moreover, interactions facilitate trust and can in that way foster the development of social capital (Hu et al., 2017). Accordingly, research among ordinary social media users reported a positive association between the frequency of one’s online interactions and one’s social capital (e.g. Burke et al., 2011; Valenzuela et al., 2009). As a result, SMI regularly adopt strategies to accentuate their accessibility and motivate the audience to interact, for instance, by asking questions, proposing discussion topics, or directly addressing the audience via tags (Decorte and Ouvrein, in press; Enke and Borchers, 2019; Stever and Lawson, 2013).
However, the sole frequency of interactions does not reflect the diversity of online commenting behaviors and experiences. The study of Ahn (2012), therefore, proposed to also include the valence of one’s online experiences as a predictor of social capital. Valence describes the direction of a subjective affective response ranging between inherently positive (affirmative) to negative (aversive) (Konijn and Hoorn, 2005). The author reasoned that positive comments create a positive environment, which stimulates self-esteem and commitment, and thus more social capital (Ahn, 2012). Accordingly, results indicated that not the frequency but only the valence, and more specifically the positive online experiences, were related to increased social capital among ordinary social media users (Ahn, 2012). Splitting this up based on relationship strength, Rains and Brunner (2015) add that positive posts of others increase relationship intimacy and liking especially when the relationship is rather weak (Rains and Brunner, 2015). Research also increasingly looked into negative comments directed at SMI, indicating that negative and sometimes really harsh comments and cases of abuse are common in the context of SMI (e.g. Abidin, 2015; Duffy et al., 2022; Ouvrein et al., 2023). The prevalence of many negative and criticizing comments symbolizes a larger culture of anti-fandom in which communities develop intense feelings of dislike and hate toward the media figure or in this case the SMI (Click et al., 2013; Gray, 2005; Mardon et al., 2023). According to Gray (2005) the development of such anti-fandom communities is driven by the same mechanisms as fan communities, in the sense that followers unite and mobilize each other in shared feelings of hate. The netnographic study of Mardon et al. (2023) adds that SMI anti-fandom communities regularly consist of former fans who suddenly turn against the person because, for instance, exploitative commercial or reciprocal intimacies. In some cases, dynamics develop between positive and negative comments coming from, respectively, fans and anti-fans oftentimes resulting in heated debates, also known as fan wars (Recuero et al., 2012). Such wars become more intense both in prevalence and scope (e.g. hate blogs; Duffy et al., 2022) as fans and anti-fans can more easily find each other and mobilize each other due to the features of social media (Booth, 2010). By engaging and communicating as a group, the feelings of social bonding are further facilitated, and social capital can grow, and this for both fans and anti-fan groups (Duffy et al., 2022; Pyo, 2023; Recuero et al., 2012).
Applying this to an SMI–audience context, for whom it is known that they receive many positive and admiring comments (García-Rapp, 2017), as well as online hate comments (e.g. Abidin, 2015; Duffy et al., 2022; Ouvrein et al., 2023), it can be expected that audience engagement, both in frequency and valence, is an important determinant of social capital.
Intimacy
SMI–audience comments sometimes take personal forms, with followers sharing their problems and secrets (Mardon et al., 2023; Marôpo et al., 2020), which increases the feelings of intimacy with the SMI, an element that is also considered important for the development of social capital. The meaning of intimacy with media figures and celebrities has evolved a lot due to digital developments and can be best understood by discussing the literature on parasocial interactions (PSIs) and relationships. A PSI refers to an interaction that happens during media consumption, for instance, when someone is yelling at the screen. Many PSI can lay the basis for the development of parasocial relationship (PSR), meaning that the relationships extend even when there is no media consumption (Horton and Wohl, 1956; Lou and Kim, 2019). A PSR can then be defined as a celebrity–fan relationship in which the “ordinary” person knows much about the celebrity, whereas the celebrity knows little about that person (Horton and Wohl, 1956). PSR can evolve both in a positive as in a negative way. Whereas a positive PSR is characterized by strong feelings of empathy, a negative PSR generates feelings of antipathy and disgust, and wishes for bad outcomes to befall a disliked celebrity (Claessens and Van den Bulck, 2014; Gray, 2019; Horton and Wohl, 1956). Both types of PSRs are characterized by a strong need to follow news and updates on the celebrity, in the first case because of honest interest, and in the second case because one needs information that can be used to keep bashing the celebrity (Gray, 2003, 2005, 2019; Pyo, 2023). The meaning of intimacy within such PSR thus mostly referred to one-way feelings of social bonding which remained on the illusional level.
Currently, controversy exists on whether the nature of SMI–audience interactions and relationships can still be covered with the concept of “parasocial,” as there are opportunities and instances of real reciprocal contact (Mardon et al., 2023). Followers can, for instance, directly address SMI by tagging them in a comment or can send them private messages through their profile pages. Such actions increase the feelings of intimacy and bring the interactions with SMI to the “real” world. Moreover, such interactions contribute to the immediacy and feelings of proximity (Kavka, 2008), which encourages the development of affective relationships (Berryman and Kavka, 2017, 2018; Mardon et al., 2023). The new technologies can thus bring celebrities and other people you have never met, emotionally very close, across boundaries of time and location (Kavka, 2008). This has been linked to the concept of “digital intimacy,” which describes intimate exchanges between followers and SMI stimulated by feelings of familiarity, closeness, and emotional attachment (Abidin, 2018). As this definition makes clear: these feelings of intimacy can be experienced on the side of the followers as well as on the side of SMI. As such, several authors argue that digital intimate interactions should be seen as the next level PSR, characterized by real two-way conversations and chances for actual responses (Berryman and Kavka, 2018; Kassing and Sanderson, 2010; Marwick and boyd, 2011. Abidin (2013, 2015) introduced the concept of “perceived interconnectedness” as an alternative to describing SMI interactions that give such an impression of intimacy. These interactions allow bidirectional dialogue and can be seen as co-constructed between the audience and the producer, who uses specific techniques to increase these feelings (Abidin, 2015). Marwick (2015) talked in this context about “strategic intimacy.”
Several studies focused on these concrete techniques SMI use to boost such feelings of intimacy (e.g. Berryman and Kavka, 2017; Eyal et al., 2020; Labrecque, 2014; Raun, 2018). Some of the typical strategies include directly speaking into the camera, directly addressing the audience, developing interactions with other celebrities, using affiliative language, and so on (Labrecque, 2014). Some studies focused on specific linguistic elements, such as the study of Fägersten (2017), who reported that swearing in the gaming context can be strategically used by SMI to reduce the social distance toward the viewers and create the impression of intimacy. Moreover, also the type of content can boost intimacy. Self-disclosing content, such as offering behind-the-scenes perspectives gives the audience the feeling of being there together with the SMI (Eyal et al., 2020; Labrecque, 2014). Moreover, bringing stories in which SMI stress out the “normal” environment they live in and the everyday struggles that everyone experiences increase identification and feelings of intimacy (Sandel and Wang, 2022). Content analyses of SMI posts confirmed their intentional use of these techniques (e.g. Eyal et al., 2020; Fägersten, 2017; Ferchaud et al., 2018; Raun, 2018; Stever and Lawson, 2013) and this across different types of SMI. Research indicated that although the exact forms of self-disclosure differ between types of SMI (e.g. gaming SMI show behind-the-scenes e-sports events, whereas fashion SMI talk more about well-being), the amount of intimacy in their content is comparable (Kolo and Haumer, 2018). As a result, audience members strongly sympathize with SMI, and especially adolescents see SMI as friends. Female fans in the study of Ando (2016), for example, reflected on the relationship with vloggers as an idealized relationship between sisters. Also, in the study of Taillon et al. (2020), followers made references to SMI as being their best friends. SMI representing minority groups oftentimes become very special friends who help followers with their identity construction and bring them in contact with a community (Bond, 2021; Decorte and Ouvrein, in press; Raun, 2018). Being in the friend zone has been associated with advantages for SMI endorsements, such as strong loyalty (Hu et al., 2020), high feelings of overall trust (Marôpo et al., 2020), increased credibility (Reinikainen et al., 2020), and a rise in purchase intentions (Hwang and Zhang, 2018). This might also have implications on the personal level, in the sense that these online friendships can (partially) fulfill SMI’s social needs (Bond, 2021).
Not all followers, however, reach these levels of friendships with SMI. Similar to PSR with mainstream celebrities, several levels of SMI–follower relationships can be distinguished (Enke and Borchers, 2019; Reinikainen et al., 2020). On the other side of the sympathizers (also called fans) are the critics or haters (Abidin, 2015). Comparable with what has been described as negative PSR these people “disavow [individual] influencers and have been known to denigrate their craft” (Abidin, 2015: para. 14). Apart from the fans and the haters, there are the neutrals who do not actively develop emotional commitment with SMI but just come across their posts and show low-effort involvement (Enke and Borchers, 2019). Even within the category of fans and critics nuances can be found in the length and strength of the association. Concerning the length, SMI and companies distinguish between short-term (unfollow after a short period of time) and long-term followers or fans (McNair, 2021). Concerning the strength, some authors suggested stepping away from the separation between parasocial or interpersonal, to a conceptualization of PSR as a continuum (parasocial/interpersonal) of media–figures–audience interactions (Giles, 2018). Both longer and stronger associations have been associated with more trust in the SMI (McNair, 2021) and increased attempts to get in contact (Marôpo et al., 2020).
Reciprocity
Receiving many comments, questions, and personal stories, SMI have a choice to react or not and thus create reciprocity or not. Reciprocity thus captures the presence of a response of a media figure on the behavioral engagement of followers. Reciprocity contributes to the feelings of intimacy, as it gives followers the feeling of being seen and acknowledged by the media figure (Berryman and Kavka, 2018; Mardon et al., 2023). With regard to the reciprocity within SMI–audience interactions, mixed findings have been reported. Interviewed SMI in the study of Abidin (2015) indicated putting high effort into keeping audience interactions alive. Similarly, the ethnographic study of Garcia-Rapp (2017) reported on positive two-way SMI–follower interactions. In contrast, however, are the recent findings of Giles (2024) and Decorte and Ouvrein (in press), who analyzed reciprocity in SMI posts and comments on, respectively, depression and veganism, but found very limited reciprocity. Likes were exceptional and questions remained largely unanswered (Decorte and Ouvrein, in press; Giles, 2024). Especially when the SMI grow bigger, the reciprocity seems to decrease (Mardon et al., 2023). In that way, SMI–follower interactions do not seem fundamentally different from interactions with traditional celebrities. Nevertheless, all studies agree on the fact that if there is reciprocity it mostly takes the form of low-effort ways of showing appreciation, in the form of likes or retweets (Abidin, 2015) or collective answers (Lou, 2022).
This study
SMI perspective
Existing research offers interesting first insights into the types of interactions that evolve between SMI and their audience and the important role of intimacy and reciprocity in these. However, there are two limitations, which lay the basis for the aims of this study.
First, most existing research is conducted from an outsider (e.g. content analyses of conversations) or audience perspective (e.g. survey and interview studies among followers). Such approaches are ideal for outlining the quantitative characteristics of the SMI–audience interactions. Several scholars, for instance, describe whether the interactions and relationships between SMI and the audience have switched from parasocial to social based on audience comments (e.g. Yuan and Lou, 2020). Research on the perspective of SMI on this is limited and characterized by controversy (Ferchaud et al., 2018). It is known that SMI receive personal gains out of their follower interactions (e.g. emotional support) that resembles the support they receive from friends (Abidin, 2015). However, other studies pointed to how SMI perceive their audience just as a fan base (Marwick and boyd, 2011), whereas still others indicated that they prefer to see them as followers instead of fans because they want to create a sense of equality or peer-to-peer experience (e.g. García-Rapp, 2017).
Focusing on SMI’s perspective will not only be helpful to clarify the conflicting findings in existing research but also offer in-depth insights into the underlying motivations and considerations on whether and how to interact with the audience. SMI’s decisions on self-disclosure and reciprocity are the result of complex negotiations between their marketing obligations, societal considerations, and personal feelings and benefits (Kalvi and Knuutinen, 2021; Mäkinen, 2021; Ouvrein et al., 2023), a dynamic that remains largely unknown when ignoring SMI’s perspective. The first aim of this study is to increase the insights into SMI’s experiences and considerations when it comes to interactions and relationships with the audience based on in-depth interviews. Gaining more knowledge on which SMI–audience relationships have a peer-to-peer character can inform marketers on which endorsements will achieve maximum levels of familiarity. Moreover, SMI themselves can benefit from these insights to help them guide their inner conflicts between personal and brand considerations (cf. Emotional labor). This will further contribute to the increasing attention to SMI’s mental well-being.
Social capital framework
Second, although some studies have linked the idea of social capital with SMI, especially in strategic communication fields, insights into the exact role of social capital can be further extended. Moreover, and this is a general trend in research on social capital, many scholars approach the concept in a unidimensional way (e.g. only looking at reciprocity, or only looking at intimacy) and isolate it from other processes that predict or result from social capital, making it difficult to fully represent the complexity behind this concept (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001). Like interpersonal relationships, SMI–audience relationships are diverse and dynamic, they will evolve based on combinations of different characteristics at the same time (Gurrieri et al., 2023; Jeong et al., 2021; Narayan and Cassidy, 2001), and they are shaped and reshaped each time new interactions take place (Claridge, 2020; Gurrieri et al., 2023). One illustration of this can be found in how interactions are closely related to intimacy. Case-study research indicated that more interactions increase the feelings of intimacy and that reaching high levels of intimacy again stimulates followers to more intimate forms of contact and questions (Marôpo et al., 2020). In other words, the cause (predictor) of the social capital (frequency of interactions) influences one specific mechanism of social capital (feelings of intimacy), which again influences the predictor (frequency of interactions). To the best of our knowledge, previous research has not linked the levels of intimacy with the frequency of positive versus negative comments and has thus been unable to understand the dynamics behind SMI’s social capital. Most studies only included comments or levels of intimacy but did not combine them. Similarly, the experience and response on the side of the SMI might further determine the maintenance and level of intimacy of the interaction and relationship. By blocking these people, SMI end the relationship, whereas starting a friendly conversation can switch the direction from negative to positive. Recent findings also indicated how fan groups can turn into powerful anti-fandom communities because they are disappointed or frustrated about SMI’s (lack of) reactions (Gray, 2019; Gurrieri et al., 2023; Mardon et al., 2023). Such responses of SMI have not always been taken into account in previous categorizations of SMI interactions and relationships.
Narayan and Cassidy (2001) recognized the need to include interactions between different elements of social capital to understand the true value of a network and proposed a multidimensional approach to social capital, which will also form the basis for our study. According to this social capital framework, which combines the insights from Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988), and Putnam (1993), social capital cannot be understood with a single construct, but needs a framework capturing (1) the predictors of social capital, (2) the different dimensions of it, and (3) the outcomes of it (see Figure 1). These three levels are necessary to understand the dynamics behind social capital, as the outcomes will again influence the predictors and so on (Narayan and Cassidy, 2001). The predictors refer to factors that contribute to the development of social capital. Narayan and Cassidy (2001) originally distinguished predictors such as empowerment and communication. In the context of social media, user engagement has been considered an important predictor of social capital (Yuan and Lee, 2022). The frequency of use of platforms such as Facebook and MySpace has been associated with higher social capital both online and offline (e.g. Ahn, 2012; Burke et al., 2011; Valenzuela et al., 2009). Yuan and Lee (2022) went one step further than the frequency of use and distinguished between cognitive (i.e. paying attention to the topic), affective (i.e. developing social identification), and behavioral (i.e. participation and actions) user engagement, but only found a significant association with social capital for the affective and behavioral component (Johnston, 2018; Yuan and Lee, 2022). Dimensions of social capital refer to the different forms it can take. Narayan and Cassidy (2001) distinguished a long list with dimensions split between relational (e.g. norms, trust, volunteerism, togetherness) and cognitive dimensions (e.g. collective efficacy), but argued that which dimensions play a role depends on the specific context. Other dimensions that have been included in later studies are, for instance, reciprocity and emotional involvement (Yuan et al., 2018). These dimensions contribute to the outcomes of social capital, which is an idea that was added by Coleman (1988), who discussed social capital from a functionalist approach. Although social capital can result in a range of different outcomes (Coleman, 1988), commitment is one of the most prominent ones (Jeong et al., 2021). Narayan and Cassidy (2001) originally conceptualized this outcome as the amount of attachment and investment to the community. In contrast to the dimensions, the outcomes are tangible elements, which can be observed by others (Putnam, 1995), such as actions that are undertaken. In contrast to Bourdieu (1985) and Coleman (1988), Putnam was the first who specified how to measure social capital in the form of outcomes (Yang et al., 2011). Putnam (1995) saw these actions on a very large scale but within different contexts. In the context of social movements, outcomes of social capital are, for instance, users’ emotional connection to the group and the extent to which their participation in the group fulfills their needs (Parzefall and Kuppelwieser, 2012; Yuan and Lee, 2022). Another group of scholars, for instance, in immigrant and corporate communication studies, focused on the economic outcomes of social capital. Having a higher social capital has been associated with a higher likelihood of being employed, higher income, and higher commitment to the organization (e.g. Jeong et al., 2021; Lancee, 2010; Parzefall and Kuppelwieser, 2012). In the case of SMI, commitment can refer to their commitment to their fans, as well as the organizations and brands they work for. Such commitment would result from the feeling that they should do something back in return for the advantages of social capital (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Social capital can then be seen as a facilitating factor that increases the commitment to a community or brand (Steinfield et al., 2008).
Multidimensional social capital framework of Narayan and Cassidy (2001).
This study aims to see which predictors, dimensions, and outcomes of social capital SMI distinguish in the interactions and relationships they have with their audience. Due to the dynamic nature of the model, it should be recognized that different predictors can result in different scores on the dimensions and different outcomes. Following this reasoning, we will use the social capital framework to develop a typology of different types of relationships between SMI and their audience.
Methodology
Participants
Data were collected with in-depth interviews with SMI, who were recruited using a combination of convenience and snowball sampling. First, SMI were approached based on rankings of the most influential SMI in Belgium (Influo, 2019). Second, interviewed SMI were asked whether they knew other SMI who might be willing to participate. Before participants were invited, we checked whether they met with our definition of SMI, based on the two central characteristics that were distinguished in the review of SMI definitions of Hudders et al. (2021): impact and reach. Impact is only possible when there are enough commercial opportunities (Ouvrein et al., 2021), so we asked participants whether they do commercial activities. Second, we looked at the number of followers, which is considered the best representation of reach (Hudders et al., 2021; Ruiz-Gomez, 2019). We used 10K as a cut-off value, which is oftentimes used as a marker for the category of micro-influencers or higher (Ismail, 2018). We iteratively recruited and interviewed until conceptual saturation was reached concerning types of interactions and relationships, meaning that additional interviews did not yield additional relevant types. A total of 19 (N = 19) SMI participated in the study (see Table 1 for an overview of their characteristics). Data saturation was monitored during the interview phase by regularly reviewing the raw transcripts. The two last interviews could not offer new insights or types of interactions, which made the interviewers conclude that the saturation level was reached. All participants had the Flemish nationality and were white. Most of the participants were female (n = 14; 74%) and aged between 20 and 30 years old. In that way, the sample seems to represent the characteristics of the worldwide population of SMI (84% female and 85% of them between 18 and 34 years old) (Geyser, 2022). All SMI were active on several social media platforms, with Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok being the most often mentioned, and had one or several commercial collaborations. For approximately half of the participants being SMI was their full-time job. As a result of the snowball sampling, all SMI were active in the fashion industry, whether or not combined with other niches. This is not a surprise as fashion and beauty is the largest niche for influencer marketing (Influencer Marketing Hub, 2023). From the limited studies that focused on audience experiences toward fashion influencers, it is known that fashion influencers can be very influential opinion leaders. They are seen as fashionable friends or assistants, someone they see as their ideal self (Chetioui et al., 2020). Furthermore, it was found that fashion influencers are quite active with their audience (Casaló et al., 2018), but there is no evidence for differences in follower interactions and relationships, nor for the amount of intimacy in comparison with other types of SMI (Kolo and Haumer, 2018; Rutter et al., 2021). The study of Rutter et al. (2021) compared network engagement for different types of SMI and stated that the match between the promoted products and the SMI niche was key in explaining differences between engagement on different profiles and not the different SMI types themselves.
Overview of the characteristics of the sample.
Note: Number of followers at the moment the interview took place; Platforms: IG = Instagram, Pin = Pinterest; TT = TikTok; BL = blog, YT = YouTube; X = Twitter.
Procedure and analysis
Before the start of the interviews, the interviewer explained the goal of the study, the participant’s rights, the procedure to anonymize the results, and the fact that the interview was audio recorded. SMI who agreed to participate signed the informed consent before the start of the interview. Participants were asked to talk about their audience and the importance of it, how they feel about their audience, and how they interact with them (see interview guide Online Appendix A). It was stressed that we were looking for information on daily interactions and experiences, so not linked to particular events or contexts. Any reference to themselves, other SMI, or brands that would make it possible to identify referents were anonymized during the transcription phase. The audio recordings were deleted immediately after transcription. The interviews had a semi-structured nature. This strategy allowed us to ask more in-depth questions and explore other fields of interest. Each interview lasted around 45 minutes and was recorded with an audiotape. The interviews were transcribed adverbatim. Afterward, two interviewers coded the interviews. To develop the social capital framework and the typology of SMI–audience relationships, this study adopted an extended coding approach referred to as the multi-grounded theory (MGT) (Goldkuhl and Cronholm, 2010). The MGT combines inductive and deductive coding. More specifically, this approach allows us to combine existing insights from previous categorizations with new insights. In that way, the typology can be developed complementary to the findings from the studies on bystanders’ and audience perspectives. The argumentation, framework, and different steps of this approach are discussed in detail in Online Appendix B and Table 2.
Overview of the codes in the first stage.
Results and discussion
A celebrity cannot exist without his or her audience. The same holds true for SMI. As became clear across the interviews, the audience is very important for SMI. SMI know the audience determines their success and lays the basis for their social capital. In the first part of this “Results and discussion” section, we discuss the meaning of each of the elements of the social capital framework in more detail (see also Figure 2(a)). In the second part, we explain how these elements result in different paths which lay the basis for a typology of SMI–audience relationships.
(a) Social capital framework applied to SMI–audience interactions and relationships. (b) Different types of SMI–audience interactions based on the different paths of the social capital framework.
Social capital framework
Predictors of social capital: online interactions
Concerning the predictors of social capital, it appeared that, as expected based on the literature (e.g. Ahn, 2012; Burke et al., 2011; Gurrieri et al., 2023; Pyo, 2023; Valenzuela et al., 2009), audience engagement played an important role. As the citation below makes clear, SMI know the audience engagement is the reason they can enjoy many benefits associated with social capital, such as free products and interesting collaborations: Interacting with these followers is very important. First of all, because I appreciate that they follow me and like my photos (. . .), but also because of the opportunities I receive as a result of it. (Respondent 2, male)
Audience engagement was mostly discussed in the form of behavioral engagement, and more specifically liking and commenting interactions between SMI and the audience (see citation talking about “interacting”). SMI distinguish between active engagement, which describes followers with whom they have regular and meaningful interactions, versus passive engagement, which describes one-time interactions or meaningless comments, such as tags. Cognitive and affective engagement is difficult for SMI to capture as these types of user engagement do not leave observable traces to the SMI.
Interestingly, the frequency of the audience interactions was not the only determinant according to our participants; at least as important for them is the valence or tone of the interactions. Having many neutral or meaningless interactions is less supportive of SMI’s personal development and less attractive for marketeers, or in terms of social capital: the contribution of these types of interactions is limited. It can thus be argued that the frequency of commenting and valence of comments can function as the main predictors of SMI’s social capital according to SMI themselves: Then they say “Oh that is very good advice,” about food or fashion or whatever. It is nice that they can use the information, but it is nothing more than that. (Respondent 11, female)
Dimensions of social capital: intimacy and reciprocity
Looking at the important characteristics of the SMI–audience interactions as discussed by our participants, intimacy and reciprocity are mentioned most often. According to the framework of Narayan and Cassidy (2001), these can be considered the dimensions of social capital. According to our participants, the intimacy within the interactions and relationships can be seen on a continuum, with casual intimacy on one side and parasocial intimacy on the other side. Whereas in the case of casual intimacy, SMI do not feel any attachment to the follower, the PSR side represents interactions in which more intimate and personal information is shared as if these people were their real friends. Although there is some real bidirectional contact now and then and SMI indicate to recognize followers’ profile names, for instance, they still feel the parasocial nature of the relationship. SMI have the feeling that the fan knows the SMI better than the other way around; the relationship is thus not social: I know my very active followers, but on the other hand, I don’t really know them. I know their names and I see whether they react or not and whether they come back and some of them send me messages and I answer them, but it is not that I know these people personally. (Respondent 8, male) It is difficult to find a balance between being friendly and being open, but not having an extended conversation with everyone. They oftentimes think that they know you very well, because you give these people the feeling that you show an honest part of yourself. This seems to stimulate people to share their deepest and personal stories with you. (Respondent 7, female)
As the latter citation makes clear, SMI express high control over the construction of intimacy with the audience and quotes like these suggest that they do this from a strategic perspective. By stating that “you give these people the feeling that you show an honest part of yourself,” this SMI even insinuates that what you share might be different from reality or might at least be a well-thought constructed version of this reality.
Moreover, a clear paradox could be distinguished on this level as well. Although the audience forms the basis for SMI’s success, some of the SMI in our study expressed concerns about the increased intimacy, and rather try to keep followers at a distance and this for two reasons. First, although they recognize that disclosure is part of the job and a crucial ingredient for successful relationships with their followers, some SMI sometimes felt like their followers were crossing private lines. In such cases, they decided not to respond anymore: Sometimes I receive reactions such as “It’s been a long time since you posted something about your friend, is there a problem?,” and then I think “Please don’t interfere in my life like this . . .” I know they have good intentions, but it feels really weird that people come so close. (Respondent 1, male) Everyone knows that I have a boyfriend, but sometimes there are super embarrassing comments about him. I delete these out of respect for him. (Respondent 19, female)
A second motive for keeping them at a distance is because SMI want to keep their followers satisfied with the relationship. SMI recognized that they cannot answer all comments and questions and this can make followers sad or could be a reason to unfollow. By not letting these relationships become very close, SMI want to avoid that followers develop unrealistic expectations. Here again, it is clear that these followers are not friends to the SMI, as a commercial relationship is enough. In that way, our study supports the idea that the concept of PSR received a new meaning in the context of SMI-follower interactions (Kassing and Sanderson, 2010). However, SMI and fans experience intimacy in their relationships differently. Whereas for fans SMI are seen as friends (Ando, 2016; Taillon et al., 2020), SMI do not see them this way. SMI experience some responsibilities toward them, but these are mostly guided by the commercial relationship. Linking this to the literature on social capital, it can be stated that SMI see these interactions as important for their social capital which will further be positive for their economic capital, but not for their own social needs: I don’t want to have a too personal connection with them, because then they will have higher expectations and then you can lose them because you cannot meet these expectations anymore, and they think you are arrogant because you stop answering their messages, but it is actually just because you don’t have enough time. (Respondent 8, male) I try to answer as many as them as possible, purely for the algorithm, it is just part of the job. (Respondent 9, male)
Intimacy on a parasocial level can only develop when there are many and active interactions between SMI and the follower. Limited interactions will never lead to strong parasocial feelings. So, when SMI stop or limit the interactions, the interactions will not reach deeper levels anymore.
Closely related to intimacy is reciprocity, which can be seen as the second dimension of SMI’s social capital. Reciprocity refers here to the interaction level; it is the extent to which SMI invest back in the interaction. SMI distinguish different forms of reciprocity. Low-effort reciprocity develops for instance by liking followers’ comments or shortly thanking them. High-effort reciprocity refers to following the user back, looking at their profiles, asking how they are, or spontaneously commenting on their posts. Sometimes they also show reciprocity effort on the group level, by for instance organizing a give-away, which is a concrete action to give followers something back. SMI noticed that giving them something back sometimes makes them follow for a longer period, which is thus interesting for their social capital: The feelings of reciprocity with the followers are important. So now and then I try to give them something back, so that I don’t lose them, for instance with a give-away. (Respondent 2, male)
Outcomes of social capital: commitment
Finally, the outcomes of social capital refer to one’s commitment toward the organization or brand, or in this case toward the follower. In contrast with reciprocity, which is seen on the interaction level, this outcome should be seen on the relationship level. Outcomes can be situated on the commercial, social, or community level or the intersections between them (Raun, 2018). SMI distinguished between relationships for which they show temporary (sometimes quite intensive) commitment and long-lasting ones. Temporary commitment results from limited, mostly passive engagement from the follower. As the follower is not putting a lot of effort into it, SMI feel like they should also not do that. This aligns nicely with the idea that commitment is an outcome of social capital as it is all about “feeling obliged” to give something back (Adler and Kwon, 2002). Having many meaningful interactions with the follower, however, stimulates dimensions of intimacy and reciprocity, which increases the chances that SMI will also show more and longer commitment toward them.
Based on the different combinations and elements within the social capital framework we distinguished four different types of SMI–audience relationships, which will be discussed below (see Figure 2(b)).
Typology of relationships
The positive fan relationship
The first type of relationship we distinguished by following the different steps of the framework is the positive fan interaction. The acts of these followers as described by SMI are comparable with the sympathizer in the study of Enke and Borchers (2019). As the name of the categorization suggests, are there regular interactions between the SMI and the follower and the tone of them is clearly positive. The content of the comments gives indications of active use of the information shared by the SMI. This is reflected in the many questions SMI receive about where they bought certain items or pictures from audience members who copied their style. Some SMI noticed that within this relationship their roles go further than just being a fashion inspiration. Some SMI added some psychological element to it and referred to audience interactions in which they function as exemplary figures “who can offer the audience another way to do things” or “to better enjoy their life.” These interactions give the impression of typical fan behavior and the fact that these fans see them as their friends. In some cases, the psychological role of the SMI goes even further, for instance, when followers share personal struggles and stories. In such cases, SMI oftentimes feel very involved with the person and the situation and try to help: I sometimes have followers who address me in a private message with a problem and then I always react to it. And I try to give them courage and say that everything will be ok, and I give them advice on what they can do to get their lives back on track. I have that now and then with people and I really want to have these conversations with them. (Respondent 1, male)
SMI also consider the positive fan relationships supportive of themselves and their development. These are the types of relationships that give them self-esteem and contribute to their (online) self-image and development. These relationships might even motivate them to open up about difficult topics and help them grow on a personal level. In that way, SMI definitely experience some intimacy within these relationships: It really motives me. I like it when people say that I inspired them or that they look up at me or say that they bought something because I was wearing it. It gives me satisfaction. (Respondent 16, female)
This level of intimacy goes hand in hand with reciprocity. Participants invest much time in actively reacting and keeping these positive fan relationships alive. Actively responding when these fans interact with them feels like their responsibility to thank the fans for their trust and support. Concrete ways of creating reciprocity consist of at least liking positive comments, answering most of their questions, and sometimes visiting their pages and leave comments as well. At the same time, participants express that it takes a lot of time to answer all comments and try to look for efficient ways to do that, such as making a video that explains something and sending that video every time a follower asks the same question. These elements contribute to the parasocial nature of the positive fan relationship: I receive quite some fan comments in Spanish lately, but I don’t speak Spanish. But still, I do my best to understand them and to help them with their questions. In that way, I want to show all these followers that I have seen them. I also double check whether I did not forget anyone. I put a lot of time into that. (Respondent 12, female) I very often receive comments and questions about whether I am transgender. It is not that I think that transgender is something negative, but the fact that people keep asking me that seems to indicate that I have some male characteristics and I felt uncomfortable about that every time someone posted that question. So, I made a video in which I explained that I am not transgender and now every time I receive that question, I do not need to be emotionally involved anymore, I just send the link to the video, and I can get some extra views out of it. (Respondent 11, female)
The negative anti-fan relationship
The negative anti-fan relationships are also characterized by many and meaningful interactions, but now within a negative context. This aligns with the idea of disappointed anti-fandom as distinguished by Gray (2019) and is characterized by behaviors such as hate-watching, celebrity bashing, mocking, snarky criticism, and celebrity gossip (e.g. Claessens and Van den Bulck, 2014; Cohen et al., 2021; Liew, 2019). Anti-fans seem to follow the SMI actively as their comments indicate that they know a lot about them and their insecurities and this causes confusion among SMI as “it is a very weird idea that they follow you but still begrudge you.” Previous research shows that anti-fans do good research to have enough input to keep their negativity alive (Gray, 2003), and can therefore be as committed and engaged as fans (Pyo, 2023). The study of Arnesson (2022) indicated how long-term followers feel it is their responsibility to criticize and challenge SMI when there is, for instance, inconsistency in their content or when they feel disappointed by a collaboration because so many others are unconsciously influenced by their content. Indeed, research indicated that exploitative commercial and reciprocal intimacies, resulting in feelings of disappointment and frustration, were one of the most important reasons for developing an anti-fandom community oriented at a particular SMI (Gray, 2019; Mardon et al., 2023). Recent findings add that anti-fans are very often former fans, which might also explain their extended knowledge about SMI and experienced intimacy (Mardon et al., 2023). Many of their comments are personal assaults on SMI’s identity construct. For the female SMI’s, these comments often deal with the lack of authenticity in presenting their bodies. For male participants, anti-fan comments were mostly negative comments about being gay. These kinds of personal comments hurt SMI on a personal level, even more than comments about bad advice or ugly clothes: Most of the comments deal with the fact that I’m skinny. These are mostly people who see my weight as a personal attack. I had one father who said, “My daughter has anorexia, that is caused by people like you, because you are so skinny, they mirror themselves to you, you promote anorexia. (Respondent 7, female) One year ago, if you were a boy who started taking Instagram pictures, people considered you gay. I really had to think about the pictures, not taking too serious pictures or too posed, because then I immediately received comments like “Look at him.” (Respondent, 9, male)
The SMI take these comments personally. The first feelings such comments generate are feelings of defense, incomprehension, and powerlessness. As these comments are so personal and touch them so deeply and play in on their insecurities, SMI experience some intimacy within these interactions, but now in a negative sense. In line with the literature on SMI-focused anti-fandom, such intimacies might also be the result of the fact that these anti-fans used to be fans (Mardon et al., 2023), belonging to the first category. As these fans have been very influential for the success and career of the SMI, SMI are aware they might also become very influential when they turn to the other side (Gurrieri et al., 2023) and this can cause fears for their career and mental well-being. According to Gray (2005) anti-fans can be as powerful as fans. Previous cases illustrated how the popularity of SMI can be damaged very easily when several fans turn into anti-fans and how their communities, pages, and accounts specifically aimed at attacking and criticizing the SMI take over the popularity of the SMI themselves (Duffy et al., 2022; Gurrieri et al., 2023): On Instagram, you post to a certain extent your own personality. You must have a very strong character to be able to distance yourself from comments like these. I think that is difficult, especially because it becomes more and more important to be personal, you open up about yourself, to develop a better connection with your followers; if they then repeatedly comment negatively on that exposure, you interpret that as an attack on your personality. (Respondent 10, male) It plays in on your uncertainties. You have negative comments that are completely irrelevant (cfr. Hate comments), but you also have things that are partly true. I mean, I don’t have a cup D. So, for me, that is a sensitive topic and if they then keep on picking on that topic, it makes you insecure. (Respondent 17, female)
Decisions on whether to reply or not (cfr. Reciprocity dimension) in this case are well-thought. Although SMI sometimes feel like impulsively reacting to it, they try to avoid that, because they know that can damage their online reputation, their relationships with other followers, and their commercial opportunities. The participants were aware of the immediate flow that is activated the moment they comment on something, because many people will read it and comment back, resulting in spirals of supportive as well as negative comments. Some participants referred to the internal struggle between knowing that they cannot react, and not being able to ignore their personal feelings: That moment when she made me look ridiculous on social media, my first reaction was to contact her and put her back in her place, I just lost it at that moment, I was not thinking, I just panicked. My boyfriend stopped me from doing this. (Respondent 6, female) I can be very annoyed by it, because I want to ignore and forget these feelings but still, they are in my head, and I carry them with me. I cannot just ignore it. (Respondent 13, female)
Although the interactions have a negative underlying tone, they are important for our SMI and the development of their social capital (Pyo, 2023), and that is also reflected in SMI’s commitment to them. Most SMI indicated that when the issue is disputable, they will start the conversation and thus invest in some kind of relationship to see where these can go in the future. Given the constructive nature of interactions with anti-fans SMI do not consider them as written by jealous followers or trolls but instead are motivated to invest in them (Arnesson, 2022). Indeed, that is also how our participants experienced such comments, they described how the negative anti-fandom relationships challenge them to improve themselves and to try to switch the interactions to a positive level: If it is disputable, I will open the discussion (. . .). Try to understand the person and see whether you can find an agreement. It is possible that someone else has another opinion and you should be open to that. In the end, you are a SMI, so you have to be able to defend your choices. (Respondent 2, male)
Casual follower interaction
The third type of relationship we distinguish is the casual follower relationship, which represents the largest category according to our participants. They experience this type of relationship and the associated interactions daily. This relationship starts from passive interactions between the SMI and the follower and this is within a rather neutral context. These followers come across SMI’s profiles when searching for information. The tone of the audience comments within this type of relationship is neutral to slightly positive. Most of the comments focus on SMI’s talents, tips, and choices. Their interest is thus mainly professional. Followers indicate to have noticed their styles or to have noticed their advice (e.g. for visiting some places), but do not show clear intentions of systematically copying/following the behavior. This position is comparable with what Enke and Borchers (2019) called the neutrals. In line with the description of these neutrals, these audience members do not try to develop intimacy with the SMI.
The combination of passive interactions in a neutral context results in limited intimacy and reciprocity. SMI are not motivated to build relationships with them and thus mostly choose for low-effort reciprocity, by, for instance, just liking the comment (Abidin, 2015; Lou, 2022): I try to show these people that I have seen their reactions, by for instance just hearts or reacting with emojis, or a like. (Respondent 11, female)
The outcome of this path is mostly a temporary commitment from the SMI. After a short commitment, it will become clear to SMI whether these will be temporary followers, or short-term followers as distinguished in the literature, who will either lose interest after a while or switch to the second group of positive fan interactions. Due to the latter reason, SMI believe it is important to try to keep these followers, which is why they read all their comments but do not invest much effort in building relationships with them.
The negative hater relationship
The last category is the negative hater relationship. SMI have limited and rather passive interactions with haters and this is within a negative context. Most of their comments are sexually abusive, sarcastically complimenting or criticizing the SMI on their bodies. SMI do not know the haters personally. Most of them appear to be accidental haters who start negative and useless interactions only once. Our SMI do not attach importance, or time to them and deal with them by blocking them and ignoring their comments. Reacting to those people is considered useless because they are not willing to understand you. SMI are not concerned about the impact of such comments on themselves, but rather on their other followers. Such interactions thus result in low to no intimacy and reciprocity. There is no commitment from the side of SMI: I almost never react to such online negativity, because that will make it worse, because people who don’t like you will find enough reasons not to like you and everything that you say, even when you defend yourself, they are not listening, and they will hate you even more. (Respondent 11, female) When there are for instance 5 guys who comment like that [sexual comments] on your picture, it gives a vulgar impression to the rest of the followers. They will see that, and I know that they sometimes also harass my followers. (Respondent 19, female)
Theoretical implications
This study offers theoretical contributions on several levels. First, the results indicate that the social capital framework of Narayan and Cassidy (2001) can also be applied within the field of SMI–audience relationships. Distinguishing between predictors, dimensions, and outcomes contributes to a better understanding of the dynamics behind SMI’s social capital and how audience behavior influences the dimensions of social capital, which in turn steers SMI’s commitment. Whereas previous research mostly focused on the number of user comments and engagement as predictors of social capital (e.g. Pyo, 2023; Yuan and Lee, 2022), this study adds that the valence of the interactions is also an important element. Although investigated in an online peer-to-peer context, Ahn (2012) already argued that positive experiences are positively related to self-esteem which in turn results in higher social capital compared with negative experiences. Our typology adds to this logic that it is the combination of frequency and valence that determines SMI’s social capital. Negative experiences with followers and negative comments can still result in high social capital when these are shared in a constructive and meaningful manner. Whereas the negative hater relationship is characterized by temporarily superficial interactions that are immediately shut down by the SMI, the negative anti-fan interaction is characterized by some level of intimacy and reciprocity, which stimulates SMI to invest in them. Future research might thus benefit from taking the interaction between both frequency and valence into account as predictors of social capital. Especially against the background of the growing research interest in the phenomenon of cancel culture, it might be interesting to take these different forms of SMI–audience interactions into account, as they might play different roles there (e.g. Bouvier, 2020).
Concerning the dimensions, it appeared that in contrast to existing research, SMI only talked about the relational dimensions of social capital and not about the cognitive dimensions. That can be explained by the fact that most of the followers’ comments sent to SMI are focused on support and relationship building and not so much on cognitive exchange. This can also be a side effect of the fact that all SMI were fashion influencers, which is a typical context in which inspiration is central. It would be interesting for future research to see whether the cognitive dimension of social capital is discussed in a context where there is more cognitive exchange with the followers, such as food or travel. Within the category of relational dimensions, one of the common elements found in previous research that was not discussed by our participants is trust. This is in sharp contrast with literature suggesting that trust is also an important predictor of SMI’s success (e.g. Cooley and Parks-Yancy, 2019). A recent study interviewing SMI on authenticity revealed different authenticity strategies, with two of these strategies representing posts and brands about which SMI are not passionate, but only participate because of the commercial advantages (Audrezet et al., 2017). Moreover, one of our participants also referred to the fact that they create an impression of being honest, which does not always mean that they are honest. Being aware of that issue, it could be that SMI do not see trust as a dimension of their social capital, because how they bring content is not always trustworthy. To further analyze this option, however, SMI need to be questioned in more depth about trust.
Finally, our study offers insights into SMI’s perceptions of the outcomes of social capital. Based on the literature, it was expected that SMI’s outcomes would consist of a combination of personal, social, and economic advantages. However, SMI themselves mostly talked about the commercial advantages laying the basis for their decisions to invest or not in the relationship. Two possible reasons can be found for this. First, it could be that SMI only see these interactions as their job. As one of the citations made clear, for some SMI the main drivers are the algorithms and not their personal feelings. That would also be in line with the finding that they consider their followers as followers or fans, but not as friends or people they know in person (García-Rapp, 2017). The literature today is too limited to clarify whether this is the case for all SMI, or just an individual difference between them. Second, it could be that SMI’s motivations do result from a combination of personal and brand considerations, but they let the commercial considerations prioritize. Previous research investigated the dynamics between both levels in explaining how SMI deal with negative comments and reported that SMI sometimes feel bad personally and want to react, but their position as a human brand stops them from doing that (Ouvrein et al., 2023). This aligns nicely with the concept of emotional labor that was previously linked to the work of SMI (e.g. Kalvi and Knuutinen, 2021; Mäkinen, 2021; Raun, 2018). Based on the conversations with our participants, the concept of emotional labor can be broadened and also includes some paradox between wanting to develop intimacy with the followers because this is good for their commercial success and personal development, but at the same time not wanting them to come too close or intervene in their personal lives.
Practical implications
This study has implications for SMI, marketers collaborating with them and society in general. SMI constantly establish new interactions and relationships with followers, sometimes motivated by marketing purposes, sometimes inspired by personal and/or brand motivations, and sometimes by a complex dynamic between both. Based on our study marketers can be advised to look further than the typical quantitative measures, such as the number of likes and shares when evaluating the potential match with SMI. Elements such as the amount of intimacy and reciprocity might be interesting to also consider as these determine the commitment. Moreover, gaining insights into the dynamics between the different characteristics of these relationships can inform both SMI and marketers on whether and how to further invest and manage these interactions in the future to optimize their commercial and societal value.
Although casual follower relationships have not many personal advantages for SMI, they can be interesting from a marketing perspective. That is because these followers already need information on a particular topic and come across SMI profiles when looking for that information. We know that a simple like or casual comment from these followers can boost the effectiveness of endorsements (Enke and Borchers, 2019; Reinikainen et al., 2020). Moreover, as was argued by Enke and Borchers (2019), dynamics are possible between the different types of relationships, and casual follower relationships can become positive fan relationships when SMI invest in them. Therefore, SMI should be encouraged to keep these interactions alive, as they can form the basis for new commitments.
Positive fan relationships are the most powerful relationships for marketing purposes; the “ideal audiences” (Muramaa-Mengel and Siibak, 2020). On one hand, the high level of intimacy and reciprocal contact has positive outcomes for the credibility, trust, and loyalty toward the SMI, which can then be transferred to the brand (e.g. Marôpo et al., 2020; Reinikainen et al., 2020). On the other hand, because SMI are personally motivated to keep these interactions alive. Having a relatively high number of positive fan relationships might be enough for a very successful endorsement without much guidance. It might even be better than endorsements with SMI with only many casual follower relationships. In that way, this typology supports literature suggesting that micro-SMI with limited though valuable contacts and networks, can be as successful as meso- or macro-SMI (e.g. De Veirman et al., 2017). Positive fan relationships might also have positive consequences for the followers. Research indicated that developing interactions and relationships with SMI stimulates followers to share their own experiences and gives them feelings of being heard and supported (Moyer and Enck, 2020). Moreover, by opening up about some topics (e.g. gender-neutral clothing) SMI can create safe environments (“communities”) that can help followers with their identity development and stimulate them to try out certain actions (Bond, 2021; Decorte and Ouvrein, in press).
Looking at the two categories of negative relationships, it can be concluded that whereas negative hater relationships have no commercial or societal value, negative anti-fan relationships do. Due to their motivation to stay committed to the disliked SMI, they generate traffic (Giuffre, 2014) and attention (Mardon et al., 2023; Muramaa-Mengel and Siibak, 2020) and can in that way contribute to the development of social capital (Pyo, 2023). Moreover, the constructive nature of their critiques is informative (Pyo, 2023). Anti-fans constantly participate in in-depth analyses of potential “glitches,” elements that can point to contradictions or signs of non-authenticity (Muramaa-Mengel and Siibak, 2020), which they then mock or gossip about (Claessens and Van den Bulck, 2014; Cohen et al., 2021; Duffy et al., 2022). Their goal is oftentimes just to be heard (Burkhardt et al., 2021). SMI and marketers should thus pay attention to this information and use it to optimize their image construct. Moreover, it can be advised for SMI to strategically double-encode their texts with hidden contradictions to appeal to their anti-fans and keep them in that position (Muramaa-Mengel and Siibak, 2020). Due to the working of algorithms, which do not make a difference between positive or negative comments, anti-fans contribute to the online user engagement of this person (Liew, 2019) and keep him or her popular (Pyo, 2023). Also, for themselves, SMI must take the feedback from the anti-fandom groups into account, as previous research already indicated how powerful these communities can become. They can ruin the careers and lives of SMI and take over their popularity online (Gurrieri et al., 2023; Mardon et al., 2023).
Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, our participants were active in the fashion niche. Therefore, we should be careful with generalizing the findings to all SMI. Although it is known that fashion influencers are very active with their audience (Casaló et al., 2018), differences in interactions and relationships might arise between fashion influencers and other types of SMI. The domain of fashion is based on the development and evolution of trends (Wiedmann et al., 2010). This is a clear difference with, for instance, the food industry, as food is one of the elementary needs. In comparison with food SMI, fashion SMI are expected to first create a need among consumers to buy new fashion items (Wiedmann et al., 2010). Moreover, fashion influencer marketing puts high attention to creativity and the symbolic value of the content (Jansom and Pongsakornrungsilp, 2021). Portraying luxury fashion brands has been associated with a certain status, which might also impact the type of interactions and relationships that are developed with fashion influencers and the gains followers are looking for (Jansom and Pongsakornrungsilp, 2021). Future research including SMI from different niches is necessary to specify the potential differences, as well as overlaps. Moreover, it would be interesting to also develop more insights from male influencers and influencers that had been doing this business as a full-time job for a longer time to see whether there are differences in their strategies and experiences. Second, our interviews were focused on SMI’s own posting behavior and own decisions to interact. Although none of our participants mentioned that they have a manager to help them with their posts and decisions, it should be taken into account that some (larger) SMI are part of an organization or at the very least have a team that is preparing their posts. Their input can have implications for audience interactions and relationships. It would be interesting for future research to compare different types of SMI (micro, meso, macro) to see what role the number of followers and the support of a manager might play in how they develop their interactions and relationships. Third, our approach started from how SMI interpret the interactions and relationships with their followers but only paid limited attention to the sociocultural or political context in which this is happening. SMI increasingly got involved in moral issues or took a clear stand in political contexts, which might further steer the dynamics between them and their followers. This context might be further steered by the cultural background of the SMI. All SMIs in our study had a Flemish nationality and were white. The Western culture is characterized by a strong focus on individualism and authenticity, which is also reflected in communication styles and advertising strategies (e.g. Cui et al., 2013; Kolo and Haumer, 2018). This has been linked to different audience responses toward SMI content compared with collectivistic countries. Cruz et al. (2017) for instance found that the overuse of directly addressing the audience with second-person pronouns had a negative impact in collectivistic countries. It is thus worthwhile to investigate SMI–audience interactions and relationships within more collectivistic cultures and compare the results.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-nms-10.1177_14614448241253770 – Supplemental material for Followers, fans, friends, or haters? A typology of the online interactions and relationships between social media influencers and their audiences based on a social capital framework
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nms-10.1177_14614448241253770 for Followers, fans, friends, or haters? A typology of the online interactions and relationships between social media influencers and their audiences based on a social capital framework by Gaëlle Ouvrein in New Media & Society
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-nms-10.1177_14614448241253770 – Supplemental material for Followers, fans, friends, or haters? A typology of the online interactions and relationships between social media influencers and their audiences based on a social capital framework
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-nms-10.1177_14614448241253770 for Followers, fans, friends, or haters? A typology of the online interactions and relationships between social media influencers and their audiences based on a social capital framework by Gaëlle Ouvrein in New Media & Society
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Celine Catteeuw and Evelynn Delbaen for their help with the recruiting and conducting of the interviews.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author biography
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
