Commentary

Are Influencer Platforms Just Impression Factories?

by Dave Morgan , Featured Contributor, Yesterday

I think most influencer platforms today are yet another impression-generating machine -- likely not more effective or durable than a bubble machine at a neighborhood kid's birthday party. It’s fun to watch in the moment, but the bubbles all burst in seconds, and there’s nothing left over once you stop feeding the machine soapy water.

I know, it's blasphemous to publicly call into question a hot trend in the ad industry, particularly one that so many of the “top” CMOs across the land are throwing accolades at in trade and business press articles or on industry event stages, desperate to be perceived as all-in on the latest hot trend.

And it’s doubly blasphemous to surface this criticism in a piece written in New York City during our venerable Advertising Week.

Let it be known: I am a double blasphemer. I believe folks selling influencers by the tens of thousands are actually best at separating brands and agencies from their dollars. They really don’t care about driving customer growth.

I do believe strong, credible endorsers can make a big difference for brands. Just look at what Michael Jordan did for Nike, and what Cindy Crawford did for Pepsi. I also believe that made-up characters “endorsing” or talking about your brand can be very powerful. Just look at Mikey for Life cereal, Mr. Whipple for Charmin or the actress Clara Peller for Wendy’s in “Where’s the beef?” And I certainly understand the extraordinary power we have seen more recently with the Kardashians and Mr. Beast.

But is taking lots of small creators/influencers, paying them money to promote your products or services, anything akin to real brand-building or real promotion?

My sense is that the vast majority of a multihundred-thousand army of influencers are only saying what they say for money, not passion, preference or principle. They will be hard to control, and will switch to competitors at the drop of a hat. The chances that they will fully comply with government regulations, truth in advertising, or state and local laws will be low.

And, in this area of agentic AI, the fact that they are increasingly likely to be bots, not people, is super-high. Which is why I ask: Aren’t these just impression machines, not unlike all the automated websites that gamed search advertising for impression arbitration until they got shut down?

What do you think? Are you all in on a creator/influencer economy as real brand-building, or just the latest impression factories?

6 comments about "Are Influencer Platforms Just Impression Factories?".

Check to receive email when comments are posted.

Darrin Stephens from McMann & Tate, October 8, 2026 at 10:52 p.m.
You're not the first to speak this truth, but you're one of the few.
I suspect nothing will change real soon, though.
Reply

Dan C. from MS Entertainment, October 9, 2026 at 3:15 a.m.

Dave, labeling your view of efficiency platforms "blasphemous" shows a clear lack of real-world context regarding how legacy media has packaged inventory for decades.

Dismissing influencer networks as mere "impression factories" ignores the fact that they operate on the exact same structural logic as Run-of-Network (RON) in digital/TV or Run-of-Book (ROB) in print. Traditional media has monetized un-targeted, broad-reach inventory for decades to drive foundational cost efficiencies. If broad-rotation programmatic or print buys are accepted as legitimate foundational tactics, why apply a double standard to social media aggregation?

Did you actually consult any working CMOs to discuss why they allocate capital to these networks, or did you just decide to insult your peers' intelligence?

There is risk and reward in all advertising. Citing Michael Jordan and Cindy Crawford requires reaching back nearly 35 years for pristine, high-budget outliers. Meanwhile, modern high-profile single-endorser bets—like Dylan Mulvaney for Bud Light—demonstrate that concentrated single-asset endorsements carry massive headline risk and no guarantee of ROI.

Finally, performance ad networks survive by dynamically optimizing toward publisher nodes and content that yield higher user engagement. Modern influencer networks operate on the exact same mechanics: you establish broad top-of-funnel reach, gain data visibility into which micro-creators generate real traction, and immediately shift budget toward those high-performing individuals and content types. It is the ultimate real-time A/B testing environment.

It is what we commonly refer to as "media math."

Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, October 9, 2026 at 6:26 a.m.

Dan, thanks for the comment. Yes. I did talk to a number of marketing leaders on this topic, which is why I decided to write about it. I also purposefully referenced some long ago endorsers speficially to harken back in a nostalgic way to individual endorsers who had enormous impacts on brands to create contrast to today's infuencers.
You are 100% right to compare these platforms and their impressions to many of the "run-of-network" RON media programs we see, used to dollar average down the CPM for more premium buys that are part of the package. I have exactly the same issue and criticism for many of them. So many of them are hollow, junk impressions that do nothing for the brand and are only there to make the buyer believe that they have some "media math" nirvana. Meta's impressions counted for be viewing in a scroll for "more than 0," many for less than a second, are the kind I include there, as well as the enormous number of impressions that are "below the fold" in web or mobile and counted in campaigns. And yes, many of the culprits for selling this are quality publishers, adding these "impression factory" units as part of "audience extensions."

Ed Papazian from Media Dynamics Inc, October 9, 2026 at 3:39 p.m.

Guys, just for clarification, are we talking about massive, rotating buys in broadcast TV networks, cable channels or streaming services or are we talking mainly about "Walled Garden's" buys on META, You Tube, etc. backed by funny data? It sounds like mostly the latter, to me.

Dan is correct about big, heavily discounted upfront TV buys being a selling strategy for at least 50 years and this is mainly because such advertisers are assured that they get a fair rotation of ad placements--at 25-30% lower total CPMs-- than by buying more selectively. Wht's more, many CMOs agree with this----providing they are assured of honest reporting on impressions, where the ads run, etc.

But times are changing and the differential between scatter and upfront CPMs has declined recently. This may cause a rethink in some quarters.

Dave Morgan from Simulmedia replied, October 9, 2026 at 4:40 p.m.

Ed, good points. I see the uasge of impression machines crossing both of those areas, plus one more. First, I see the influencer platforms putting out a lot of low quailty, self-measured/managed inventory akin to the digial walled gardens along the lines you mention. Second, while they might be sold like TV companies sold RON, I don't seem them as comparable quality or characteristics like TV RON is to the more desirable dayparts or progamming. But third, I see them very similar to the Made-For-Advertisng (MFA) sites that have plagued us for years, that fill up many of the programmatic buys seeking cheap CPMs.

Dan C. from MS Entertainment, October 10, 2026 at 3:43 a.m.

Dave & Ed,

Having repped influencers for over a decade, reading this exchange is frustrating because it conflates two completely different disciplines: ad-tech remnant inventory and creator partnerships.

Ed’s comments show a basic misunderstanding of what influencer platforms actually do. They aren't programmatic networks dropping hidden banner ads below the fold or rotating cheap TV spots. They are discovery, workflow, and attribution tools for creator campaigns.

When a brand approaches an influencer or talent platform, it’s a strategic conversation—defining campaign goals, brand guardrails, key messaging, and success metrics. Equating a creator who actively produces custom content for an engaged community to a Made-For-Advertising (MFA) farm selling 0.1-second scroll impressions is flat-out wrong.

Just as all digital ad networks aren't created equal, not all influencer platforms are the same. Broadly writing off an entire $20B+ industry as "junk impressions" without providing a single piece of data, case study, or platform example isn't media analysis—it's just uninformed generalization. Any of the "top" CMO's Dave engaged surely would have explained how they approach the space and why they like the option. But this commentary was one long accusation with zero date or case study to back it up.