BusinessCover StoryOpinion

Influencer De-marketing: Why Mega-Content Creators Must Smell the Coffee

4 Mins read

 

By Ugochukwu Ugwuanyi

The reality of life being filled with ups and downs – a la nothing lasts forever – is conveniently attributed to fate and believed to be how the universe rolls. That is because people would rather not take responsibility for their wrong choices. Hubris, avarice, callousness, and living in a fool’s paradise are at the heart of an unexpected turn in fortune. A crash from an enviable height is often self-inflicted!

When was the last time you saw your favourite celebrity promoting a product or service on billboards, TV, or the internet? Marketing managers and agencies have since abandoned them due to the same baggage and attitudes that A-rated social media influencers are currently putting up. Only a few celebrities get such gigs now.

There was a time when organisations and businesses were falling head over heels for top-tier musicians, actors, and comedians to be their brand advocates. Today, entertainer endorsement is no longer fancied for brand activation, amplification, or equity. From all indications, this may be the lot of digital creators who mindlessly profiteer from the millions of users following their pages to the detriment of influencer marketing.

Prominent but pricey influencers are increasingly being taught the lesson that the digital marketing ecosystem does not revolve around them. They had better be paying attention because they don’t enjoy a monopoly on platforms. Let them learn from one of the proverbs in Chinua Achebe’s Things Fall Apart, to wit: “Eneke the bird says that since men have learned to shoot without missing, he has learned to fly without”.

A-list influencers have, over the years, painstakingly built actual audiences, real engagement, and star cultural power; this has monetary value, and no one should begrudge them for reaping the rewards of their toil. But charging entrepreneurs above their business’s net worth for just a post on social media is outrageous. These youths’ failure to understand the buying power of the average Nigerian businesses makes them overprice themselves, even though they now hire managers.

With this being the case, the sustainability of the influencer marketing business is severely threatened, especially when their steep charges only deliver visibility, not leads. Outcomes have shown that a single post online doesn’t build brand equity, nor does a viral moment on social media drive sustained conversion. This must be making business owners ask the critical question: “All things considered, is it actually worth it?

While it is still foolhardy to underestimate the relevance of influencers in this attention economy, the concerns recently raised by the businessman Fekomi are germane and foreboding. The humongous amount he was charged (N20 million and N12 million for posting one video on Instagram!) made him take up the challenge of trending the same content on his handles. Many entrepreneurs who can’t deal are adopting the man’s approach. Fekomi also called out an influencer who defaulted on their contract after being paid a princely sum.

Meanwhile, businesses using internal resources for social media campaigns that they would ordinarily contract to these big boys should be the least of their worries. There are more effective platforms that offer higher return on investment (ROI), posing a huge threat to their cash cow. These alternative marketing channels and options are treated as follows:

Customer Review

This is where satisfied customers become your brand’s loyal advocates. The dictum that the best marketing doesn’t feel like an ad but like a friend offering advice rings true with customer review. It is like word-of-mouth advertising, which is quite convincing. They engender credibility and trust, which are major currencies in today’s business world.

There’s more propensity for your next customers to be lurking among your current customer base than in a social media influencer’s audience. Getting a four or five-star rating on platforms such as Google, Trustpilot, Yelp, TripAdvisor, G2, Capterra, App Stores delivers more value than content creators ever can. And the interesting part is that it’s free!

Positive reviews don’t just build credibility; they, most importantly, enhance the chances of brands being recommended by AI. Can you beat that! Businesses are yet to realise the efficacy of this channel because they’ve not been creating experiences that customers would want to talk about nor asking clients to share feedback where it matters.

They are sitting on potential advocates because studies have revealed that 70 per cent of customers will leave a review when asked to do so. As such, business owners can now spare themselves the shenanigans of content creators whose best efforts can’t facilitate the top-of-mind recall that customer reviews guarantee.

User-Generated Content (UGC) Campaigns

Marketing today is about building trust networks, not merely buying attention. This is why UGC comes in handy; it’s about real customers, raw experiences, and real trust. This campaign has consistently outperformed polished brand content in click-through and conversion rates. And it costs a fraction of the cost of a celebrity post. Brief 10 to 20 nano-creators to develop authentic content about your brand and amplify it with paid ads. UGC is becoming the dominant marketing format because it blends with organic content for lead generation and better conversion. That’s leverage!

Micro & Nano Influencers

The quality of the influencer’s audience matters. A creator with 8,000 highly engaged followers in your niche will deliver higher ROI than a mega influencer with two million passive scrollers. They are so effective that celebrity influencers rely on them as echo chambers to make their clients’ content go viral. Marketing is shifting from reach to trust. Micro and nano creators now outperform mega influencers because audiences trust them more.

Strategic Brand Partnerships

This is where businesses partner within their niche or industry to build credibility and reach a more targeted audience. They collaborate with complementary brands that share their target audience to co-create content, co-host events, and then cross-promote. This is very cost-effective as they split the cost while doubling the reach.

Organic Content & Community Building

Business owners have realised that visibility and virality are not marketing strategies. They are now fixated on consistency, community, credibility, and conversion, hence are building their own audiences through which they can consistently show up. In markets like Nigeria, where trust and relatability matter more than polished celebrity content, brands that have a content strategy and ecosystems, not just intensity moments online, win in the long run. Rather than renting attention that costs an arm and a leg, businesses must be patient with organic content, which will eventually become their infrastructure. Despite the prevailing attention economy, an influencer’s audience isn’t your customer base but theirs.

Paid Amplification of Good Content

Create strong content, then put money behind it! N500,000 in well-targeted Meta ads on content that convert will always outperform an N15M celebrity post with no follow-through strategy. The world of marketing has moved from vanity metrics to performance. While mega influencers would always want to impress with the former, sponsored ads ensure the latter.

Ugochukwu, a Branding Strategist and Media Trainer, welcomes feedback via nmiringwu@gmail.com

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com