LONG POST WARNING - “Influencers” don’t really work the way you think they do. The biggest myth of social media is the impact of influencers in CHANGING voting decisions. They don’t. They are however very effective in REINFORCING political choices.
First. Understand all social media works differently. Instagram is not twitter, twitter is not youtube & youtube is not Instagram. They are similar but not the same.
Check your own Instagram - you’ll see you follow what you aspire for but can’t really afford or do. They can get you to make calls and inquire about those holidays in Maldives & Costa Rica, but most can’t afford it. Nothing the influencer says or does will change the reality that you can’t afford it. So why do companies pay influencers? Simple - the more likes & comments the post gets the higher the probability that someone who can afford it will see it. The walkthrough is massive but catchment is minuscule.
Now do youtube - people discover new things - like Instagram. But unlike Instagram (which is food, travel, lifestyle thirst traps) - Youtube is about information. Be it recipes, deep dives into history, etc etc etc. for many people youtube is WHYtube, because it answers the why. Yet even here the Instagram dictum plays out. You’ll watch someone say something - say a liquor scam explainer. It will either bufuddle you, irritate you, or excite you. Your follow will be dictated by one of these 3. Befuddlers don’t get followers (nuance doesn’t sell). Irritaters do get followers - antagonistic ones, who enjoy getting irritated. Exciters get the most followers because they are articulating something you felt, but couldn’t verbalise or crystallise.
And this brings us to twitter. Imagine if Rana Ayyub stood for elections in her native mumbai. Do you think she’ll get the 1.6 million votes of her followers? Of course not - they’re geographically distributed. Like multi-award winner Irom Sharmila who barely managed 1000 votes. Twitter following is geographically distributed and contributes squat to actual elections. The same applies for Youtube. Similarly on twitter too you have befuddlers, irritaters and exciters - with similar following. Yet again many walk-ins/enquiries/walkthrough but minuscule catchment. The good thing about twitter is you can actually measure this. I have 230K followers, but my videos can sometimes get over 1 million views but more often 40-50K views or much less. Even less are the number of people who like and even less are people who RT. The RT guys are your voters - because RTing like voting is a commitment - it requires effort (QTing and replying require even more effort). Now transpose this to voting day. The effort of walking in the Sun or taking your car out, standing in queue, and the prior effort of ensuring you got your voting slip and your name was on the roll - all require VASTLY more effort than tapping out a few sentences on your phone on twitter. The more the effort/cost - the less the catchment & even this meagre catchment is hopelessly divided by physical geography.
Statistically therefore influencers simply don’t influence elections at all. They are at best the marketing department whose salary gets measured by footfalls - unlike the sales department whose salary depends on actual sales. Influencers are just that - marketers - the party cadre are the real salesmen. And as we’ve seen - footfalls ≠ sales. So if influencers have convinced you they’re salesmen and you’re depending on them, best of luck, because this con-job is one of the dirty secrets of the marketing industry.
Think of this in geopolitical terms - everyone knew on which side they would be if Russia invaded Ukraine or the Pandavas and Kauravas went to war right? Did any video or sermon change anyone’s view? Heck! Krishna reciting the Bhagawad Gita didn’t change the Kauravas mind did it? And you think some hourly rental little shit sitting in germany will?