Instagram, Influencers, and Perceptions of The ‘Good Life’

Definitions of the ‘good life’ have varied in object over the course of history, from the palaces of ancient Mesopotamia, to the artistic flourishing of the Renaissance. It is not a static concept, but entirely subject to the individuals’ experience of the world. In the 14th century Renaissance, this meant artistic expression and experimentation, whereas in the 17th century Enlightenment, the ‘good life’ was determined by one’s devotion to reason and science. It is in the gathering of people and the rapid fire exchange of information that a society’s understanding of the ‘good life’ is revealed. In the twenty-first century, there is no better place to analyze that than on social media. Unfortunately, just as there is no better place to understand public opinion, there is also no better place to manipulate it. It has long been the goal of advertising to associate their product with the ‘good life’ in order to achieve status in society and therefore have a good platform to sell from. So it is in those places of gathering, as the ‘good life’ is being cemented and decided upon, that advertisers have discovered an ideal position from which to influence and contextualize public opinion in favor of their product. In this respect, Instagram serves as an important case study. Unlike any other, this social media platform has given rise to the role of the Influencer and immersive advertising, which in turn has shaped an entire generation’s view of the ‘good life.’ This paper will argue that it is through a combination of high production value, unparalleled reach, and invisible presence, coupled with the strategy of immersive advertisement through lifestyle production that Influencers are able to contextualize an entire generation’s view of the ‘good life’ in terms of unrealistic product consumption.

Immersive advertising, or product placement, is not a new concept, nor will this paper argue that it is, however, it is its new context that is so drastically different. In order to understand this phenomenon, a review of the history of immersive advertising in television is necessary. The term ‘product placement’ did not show up in Academic analysis until the 1980’s (Newell et al., 2006). However, Newell et al. (2006) have analyzed the history of the practice of product placement, from Roman billboards of the 1st century, to 18th century Japanese comics. By the end of the 19th century, the line between advertisement and creative endeavor had begun to disappear. However, it was with the introduction of modern media and the television that product placement truly began to shine.

The actual value of ‘tie ups’ (as they were called until the 1980s when the term ‘product placement’ was introduced) began to be commercialized broadly in American media and production in the 1920s and 30s (Newell et al., 2006). Normalization of this practice continued throughout the 50s and 60s, however, it finally entered public consciousness with the production of one of the most recognizable films of all time: E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Kennedy & Spielberg, 1982). The movie includes a scene in which the titular character E.T. follows a trail of Reese’s Pieces through the woods. The deal, organized by Jack Dowd, cost Hershey’s one million dollars for the appearance, as well as a promotional campaign. The result was a tripling in sales for Reese’s Pieces (Van Biema, 1982) and product placement was born (Snyder 1992). From this moment forward, product placement became common practice in the film industry, as well as expanding to radio and television.

The implications of this are immense for this discussion of advertising and the ‘good life’ on Instagram. Primarily, this paper will show that product placement has transitioned markedly from these instances in film, even from other immersive advertising efforts online, where product placement has naturally made its way into internet interactions. From television, to news articles product placement has become a ubiquitous practice. According to one Stanford study, 82% of middle school students could not tell the difference between an online ad labeled ‘sponsored content’ and a real news story (Wineburg et al., 2016). Products or services that have been paid for are infiltrating the news and social feeds of millions of users, purporting to be an authentic aspect of that experience. However, this is still one step removed from the authentication of Influencers on Instagram. An Influencer is someone who lacks any sort of notoriety or celebrity status naturally, but who lives an idyllic lifestyle through sponsorship in return for product placement and endorsement. However, In order to understand how Influencers advertisement on Instagram is fundamentally different — and more problematic — than previous efforts at immersive advertising, a review of the Instagram algorithm itself is necessary.

Media information has long existed in a chronological, linear format. TV shows come on, one after another, universal to all people watching, according to what time it is. The database was small, and there was no need for vast means of organization. With the internet revolution, however, this changed, primarily because the quantity of information increased exponentially. Digital media platforms needed a way to organize this information. The algorithm is the response to this immense quantity of information, it is the narrative that contextualizes information in ways that are understandable to the user and hint at relationships beyond that which is indicated explicitly by the data (Hayles 183). Instagram’s algorithm is simply an iteration in this process of making sense of large quantities of data through prioritization. Much of Instagram’s priorities are revealed through analysis of this algorithm, as well as the platform’s interface. The manner of organization reveals the intent. In order to organize data, though, an algorithm must transcode information, or represent material reality through binary. This is a key factor in Instagram’s evaluation of content, content which is itself material, but when coded can be subjected to various other digital processes (Manovich 45). The material is represented in code, and therefore open to manipulation.

For example, the process of presenting information to the user can be automated as the particular value of a piece of content has been arrived at through coded judgments. However, these judgments may or may not correspond to the user’s wishes. This automation removes the human element of deciding on value, and gives that role to an algorithm, with the idea that this will ultimately create a more efficient process. However, all algorithms must be directed in some manner as to what is ‘valued’ and what is ‘not valued.’ This can reveal both the intent of the platform itself, corresponding with the financial incentive of the app, while also remaining grounded in implicit assumptions of the coders who design it.

In a recent ‘friends and family’ update to the algorithm, Instagram departed from the traditional chronological organizational method, and introduced a ranking — or value — system based on a few key components. The algorithm transcoded value into three areas of assessment. First, there is the question of a user’s interest, or how likely they are to engage with content based on past preferences. Then, the algorithm considers recency, favoring new content over old. Third, the algorithm favors relationship, which is quantified by interaction with posts by that account. Unfortunately, users don’t actually end up interacting with ‘friends and family’ more. The algorithm can be manipulated.

While the end goal might be advertising, an Influencer must first check two necessary prerequisites in order to manipulate the algorithm to their advantage so that they might represent the product in an immersive and influential manner. The first is an irresistibly high production value. Instagram is different from most platforms in that it is largely a pictorial platform. Contemporary platforms such as twitter focus more on the captions, allowing users to post without even including pictures. Instagram favors the visual. This is important because the interface that a user engages with fundamentally changes their experience and expectations. It is the meeting point between the ideology of the creator and their culture with the user’s experience (Sweeney 218). Instagram’s interfacial prioritization of pictures reveals the ideological importance of presentation, visualization, and production. That which is presented is more valued than that which is explained. That which is visualized is more real than that which is textualized. Highly produced images are prized. Influencers capitalize on this interfacial reality.

Image 1. Screenshot of new user Instagram explore page.

In order to create a platform that advertises to millions of viewers subconsciously, Influencers first create highly produced content. Corporate sponsorship allows these people to live highly affluent experiences that are unattainable for the average working person precisely because doing so is their job. Excessive and luxurious vacation time sells products because it is what everyone wants, but paradoxically also what no one who works can have. Beyond this affluence is the unattainable beauty. Through physical and virtual means, Influencers continue a process that has long been a part of human culture: the beautifying of oneself. However, the means to do so are now more accessible, and cheaper, but again, unattainable for the average person. The rise of Botox and FaceTune gave way to an age in which beauty was no longer a reality, but a virtual experience. Beginning with digital software like photoshop, and then becoming more accessible through facial reconstruction apps, the posted self has become beautified in a way that the real self cannot be (Tolentino 2019). It is only with the advent of digital media that Manovich argues gives rise to variability in which information can exist in a multitude of different states. Code can be changed, and therefore the image, video, or other content can be altered in an infinite variety (Manovich 36). Influencer’s lives and bodies have become the means of making money, and in order to do so, they must be perfected.

Digital media allows this to happen. The standards of beauty and affluence are escaping reality because it is in the best interest of the sponsors to create a highly attractive visual of the ‘good life’ with which to associate their product. In terms of quality, this content is far superior to that which is posted by the average person. The average person views these images both as authentic, and also as the standard and goal to aspire towards. Unfortunately this can have incredibly detrimental effects on the mental health and aspirations of millions of people as they visualize themselves in comparison to that which they see on Instagram, an image that is, in reality, impossible to attain. This problem has been thoroughly documented, however, and the aim of this paper is to demonstrate how it influences advertising practices and aspirations towards the ‘good life.’ This highly produced content does no good if it does not reach viewers.

The second prerequisite is the unparalleled reach that Influencers enjoy through the manipulation of Instagram’s algorithm. Previously, the Instagram algorithm was explained as relating primarily to three areas of value assessment: interest, recency, and relationship. While these are supposed to allow the reader to engage primarily with friends and family, each of these are open to manipulation by any person with sufficient time and resources. The area of interest is manipulated through content that keeps users engaged for long periods of time and engaged with more content from their account than others. Recency can be manipulated by posting large quantities of content. Relationship is defined as engagement, and so can be manipulated by creating opportunities for users to interact with posted content.

Influencers are able to post higher quality photos and videos because of their access to, and ability to use, digital software. This increases the likelihood users will view their content over that of friends and family who may have less quality content. Instagram, as a pictorial platform, favors content that is eye catching, rather than a more connection focused software, such as some might argue Facebook is. Furthermore, Influencers are able to post more videos and host live events, which lengthen the amount of time a user spends looking at one account’s content as opposed to a photo which can be quickly overlooked. Influencers are also able to engage more with viewers through comments and giveaways, increasing the illusion of relationship for Instagram’s algorithm. Finally, they are able to carefully craft their captions and hashtag presence through the use of analytical software, as well as post during peak usage hours — which are often during nine to five work hours — in order to garner the most attention and widest breadth of users. In general, posting more content is better than less as it will increase likelihood of engagement and recency.

Each of these strategies is incredibly difficult for the average person to incorporate, nor do they have a reason to spend the time and energy to do so. Unfortunately, over time the use of these strategies moves Influencers’ content further up the feed as it appears to be more interesting, recent, and relational. They can simply flood a user’s feed with high quality and interesting content that requires engagement and perpetually remains recent, and it will result in an algorithmically valued position. The algorithm is unable to actually determine what the user wants, or genuine relationship, it can only transcode the data it has into a value judgment. This judgment leads to unparalleled reach for the influencer as opposed to the average person.

Each of these prerequisites contribute finally to the Influencers goal of immersive advertising. That is, advertising through the use of the implicit processing center in viewers’ brains. While textual information is often processed explicitly, or consciously, the visual stimuli in product placement hacks the brain’s processing ability. Immersive advertising first places the product in a visual field that is otherwise engaging. This engages the explicit processing center of the brain as it watches a video, listens to someone talk, or looks at a beautifully produced photo. This leaves the implicit processing center of the brain open to manipulation. It has been shown to to change behavior and attitudes, while also being undetectable to the viewer (Folkvord et al., 2016). It is the subtle associations that happen in implicit processing that immersive advertising aims to achieve. Associations that a viewer might never consciously make can be tricked into occurring while they are otherwise distracted.

Instagram influencers function in the same manner as these TV advertisements, by engaging the reader with a visually stimulating experience in order to subconsciously associate the product with that experience. The unrealistically affluent, beautified lifestyles of Influencers are captured and posted through software manipulation in a manner that will manipulate the algorithm to create high levels of user engagement. All of this potential viewer engagement is finally capitalized in the immersive advertising model by associating the sponsored product with the unattainable and ever present ‘good life’ that Influencers lead.

This is fundamentally different from previous forms of immersive advertising in that it is undetectable and inescapable. Influencers are not marked as sponsored, nor do they appear as recognizable corporate or otherwise famous accounts. They simply appear to be highly popular, incredibly influential, and illustriously beautified accounts that post consistently. As discussed earlier, they not only enjoy an invisible advertising presence, but an inescapable one on the platform. Because of the algorithmic manipulation, influencers content is far more likely to garner attention than average users’ posts. Whereas previous efforts at immersive advertising were largely secluded to specific media, allowing the user some agency in whether or not to engage with that particular movie, Influencers have become such a ubiquitous experience on Instagram, they are largely regarded as part of the app’s ecosystem. They are, essentially, fundamental to the Instagram experience, often providing people with advice, engagement, and a picture of the ‘good life.’ It would be difficult to engage with the platform without coming across Influencer content because the algorithm prioritizes interesting and high profile content above those that are less. In a newly created account, the ‘Instagram recommended’ profiles to follow are a confusing mixture of celebrity accounts and Influencers.

Image 2. List of ‘Instagram Recommended’ Accounts for New User

An entire generation is defined by their use of social media, with sixty seven percent of young adults (18–29 year olds) using Instagram and over sixty percent of users checking it every day (Pew 2020). The practices of unrealistic beautification and affluence are dangerous in and of themselves, as this age range is already highly susceptible to social comparison and self evaluation (Harter 2012). There has been significant research into the effect of social media mediated by social comparison theory on mental health, and there is even beginning to be research into Influencer’s affect on self esteem (Dion 2016), however, this is not the end goal but simply a byproduct of Influencers presence. The practice of creating subconscious synaptic associations that did not exist previously in the minds of countless young adults is wreaking havoc on their mental health with an aspiration towards an unattainable ‘good life.’ Because value is not human-determined, but transcoded, it is therefore ‘hackable’ or open to manipulation. In an attempt to create a more efficient, high speed experience, algorithms have instead begun to determine what is value and what is not simply by matter of appearance. Content which does not appear for a user is less and valued over time, while that which does appear is given more value as the user interacts with it. Ultimately, associations and values that one might never have had become commonplace because of exposure. The profit margin, it seems, justifies such manipulations.

The ‘good life’ has been co-opted by advertising firms, and is being ingrained into the minds of young adults as something that is entirely composed of product consumption. People in this stage of life are especially susceptible to immersive advertising as they are just learning to navigate the world and create their own, independent lives. This life is defined by one’s ability to buy and travel, but at a level that is not feasible, nor an original thought of the users, but that which has been unconsciously thrust upon them through invisible advertising practices. The thoughts and buying intentions of millions of young people are being influenced towards an unattainable lifestyle, without their knowledge, and to the detriment of themselves.

Works Cited

Constine, Josh. How Instagram’s Algorithm Works. 1 June 2018, techcrunch.com/2018/06/01/how-instagram-feed-works/.

“Demographics of Social Media Users and Adoption in the United States.” Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech, Pew Research Center, 5 June 2020, www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/social-media/.

Dion, Nicole Annette. “The Effect of Instagram on Self-Esteem and Life Satisfaction.” (2016).

Folkvord, Frans, et al. “Food advertising and eating behavior in children.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 9 (2016): 26–31.

Harter, Susan. “Self-perception profile for adolescents: Manual and questionnaires.” Denver, CO: Univeristy of Denver, Department of Psychology (2012).

Hayles, N. Katherine. How We Think: Digital Media and Contemporary Technogenesis. The University of Chicago Press, 2012.

Manovich, Lev. The Language of New Media. MIT Press, 2001.

Newell, Jay, Charles T. Salmon, and Susan Chang. “The hidden history of product placement.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50.4 (2006): 575–594.

Snyder, Steven L. “Movies and product placement: is Hollywood turning films into commercial speech.” U. Ill. L. Rev.(1992): 301.

Sweeney, Miriam E. “The intersectional interface.” The intersectional internet: Race, sex, class and culture online(2016): 215–228.

Tolentino, Jia. “The Age of Instagram Face.” The New Yorker, 12 Dec. 2019, www.newyorker.com/culture/decade-in-review/the-age-of-instagram-face.

Van Biema, David. “Life is sweet for Jack Dowd as Spielberg’s hit film has ET lovers picking up the (Reese’s) pieces.” People27 (1982).

Wineburg, Sam, and Sarah McGrew. “Why students can’t google their way to the truth.” Education Week 36.11 (2016): 22–28.