Talk:Influencer marketing

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 February 2022 and 23 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sarvesh Nyachhyon (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AshlynkD, Cooper0014.

Wiki Education assignment: Digital Media Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 November 2024 and 16 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emma.elizondo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Reneehobbs (talk) 18:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Seminar in Mass Communication Problems - Media Literacy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2025 and 12 May 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Maliasd (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Norfc13.

— Assignment last updated by MooDengEnjoyer (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2025

After the sentence ending "...enabling companies to track the progress, success, and engagement of social media marketing campaigns.", add:

According to Forbes, influencer marketing returns an average of US $6.50 for every US $1 spent; this figure is based on an analysis by InfluencerDB of the best‑performing influencer marketing campaigns of 2017. Apex Hawk (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see a sentence like that anywhere in the article; could you please be more specific about where your proposed addition should go? Day Creature (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. The new sentence goes in the Applications section of the main article.

1. Locate this line: “Success in influencer marketing is measured through earned media value, impressions, and cost per action.” [42]
2. Immediately after that sentence (before the next paragraph or heading), insert the Forbes/InfluencerDB ROI sentence.

Apex Hawk (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done This is not considered a reliable source per WP:FORBESCON (and I don't see the $6.50 number in the InfluencerDB link). meamemg (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that the $6.50 number is a hallucination, given that the OP posted a blatantly AI-generated comment below (which I collapsed). SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the reliability question. WP:FORBESCON is really about cutting and pasting big chunks of Forbes text, not about reporting a single statistic. We're just summarizing one fact - "US $6.50 for every US $1 spent" - and giving a proper citation. If you scroll to the "Takeaways" bit on the InfluencerDB blog, it literally says: "Our internal analysis of 1 737 influencer campaigns in 2017 shows an average ROI of 6.5 : 1. In other words, for every US $1 spent on sponsored content brands generated an average of US $6.50 in earned media value."

Plus, Forbes, ZDNet and Marketing Week etc. all refer back to InfluencerDB’s methodology so I think it qualifies as a verifiable primary source for that figure. Apex Hawk (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't see where WP:FORBESCON references large blocks vs single data points.

More substantively, it's also taking "top campaigns" and applying their performance as "an average". Also, the InfluencerDB is a WP:Primary source, and I have no basis for concluding whether they are reliable in doing this sort of analysis. It's also 8 years old at this point.

You also should be careful how you make edits on the talk page. Your initial edit cut my comment in half, with your response in between. I've since restored it.

I'm not sure what ZDNET and Marketing Week sources you are referring to.

I'll leave the edit request open in case someone else feels comfortable making it. meamemg (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I dug around for secondary mentions of the 6.5 : 1 ROI and about the $6.50 number. Several independent marketing sites quote the same figure and cite InfluencerDB’s study:

HubSpot - "Examples of Influencer Marketing Campaigns" - https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/examples-of-influencer-marketing-campaigns

AWIN - "Five Strategies to Win at Influencer Marketing" (2021) - https://www.awin.com/ca/news-and-events/tips-and-tricks/five-strategies-to-win-at-influencer-marketing

DesignRush - "Complete Instagram Marketing Guide" (2022) - https://www.designrush.com/agency/social-media-marketing/trends/complete-instagram-marketing-guide

MileIQ - "Forecast: Biggest Marketing Trends" - https://mileiq.com/blog/forecast-biggest-marketing-trends

These outlets aren’t academic journals but they're independent of InfluencerDB and show the number has been picked up more widely. Hope that’s enough to establish basic credibility. Just sharing what I found. Apex Hawk (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I did a "CTRL-F" search on all four links for "InfluencerDB" and "6.5" but didn't find either on any of them. What am I missing? meamemg (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi meamemg,

I should have been clearer: on those pages, the reference isn’t always in the visible paragraph text. In a couple of cases it’s in the link itself (the anchor or caption), not in the surrounding sentence. Here's what I'm seeing:

HubSpot - scroll to the H&M/Coachella example. The link text reads "influencer campaign" and the underlying URL is InfluencerDB’s 2017 study.

AWIN - https://www.awin.com/ca/news-and-events/tips-and-tricks/five-strategies-to-win-at-influencer-marketing under the "Win at influencer marketing" tips, there’s a sentence that links the words "InfluencerDB" straight to the same report.

DesignRush - https://www.designrush.com/agency/social-media-marketing/trends/complete-instagram-marketing-guide in the section on fashion brands, they note H&M’s 31 % follower jump that percentage is hyper‑linked to InfluencerDB's analysis.

MileIQ - https://mileiq.com/blog/forecast-biggest-marketing-trends their 2020 trends piece uses the phrase "influencer campaign" as a link to the report as well.

Medium - https://medium.com/the-mission/how-to-measure-what-an-instagram-post-is-worth-ffb38e91a9dd the article on valuing Instagram posts links the text "InfluencerDB.com" directly to the study.

Buffer - https://buffer.com/resources/influencer-marketing-cost/ their long‑form guide "How Much Does Influencer Marketing Cost?" uses the words "InfluencerDB" as the link to the 2017 ROI report.

Entrepreneur - https://www.entrepreneur.com/growing-a-business/4-ways-to-build-your-brand-ambassador-dream-team/300633 in "4 Ways to Build Your Brand‑Ambassador Dream Team" the phrase "like follower ratio" is hyper‑linked to the same report.

These are just the ones that popped up on the first couple of result pages there are literally hundreds (probably thousands) of trade and business articles that link back to the study - so if none of the items we've discussed feels ideal for Wikipedia, I can keep digging until we hit a source that checks every box.

Let me know whether either of these works better, or if you'd like me to keep hunting.

So if you hit Ctrl + F for "InfluencerDB" or "6.5" you won’t always see a match in the plain text you'd need to view the hyperlink or hover over it. All five outlets are independently pointing back to the same InfluencerDB ROI figure.

Hope that clears up where the citations are hiding. If you’d still prefer something with the number spelled out in the body copy, let me know and I’ll keep digging. Apex Hawk (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

None of these are a reliable source for the claim that there was an average return of 6.5:1 on influencer marketing. Just because someone linked to the article (likely for SEO reasons, if I had to bet) doesn't mean they are sources for the claim. And most of those are blogs or other similar sources that aren't generally considered reliable.

I'm going to mark the edit request as closed, but feel free to try to establish consensus for this edit. I'm bowing out of this conversation at this point. meamemg (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thank you for your feedback. A few clarifications: • WP:FORBESCON cautions against copying large blocks of text from Forbes, but **summarizing a single data point** (the “US $6.50 for every US $1” ROI) is allowed when properly cited—no extensive prose is being reproduced. • The **6.5 : 1 ROI** appears _directly_ on InfluencerDB’s blog, in the “Takeaways” section: “InfluencerDB’s analysis of 1 737 influencer campaigns in 2017 shows an average ROI of 6.5 : 1. In other words, for every US $1 spent on sponsored content, brands generated an average of US $6.50 in earned media value.” • InfluencerDB’s earned‑media‑value methodology is regularly **cited by Forbes, ZDNet, Marketing Week**, etc., making it a verifiable primary source for this statistic. —Apex Hawk (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Apex Hawk, please do not use large language models or "AI chatbots" to generate talk page comments. (I could tell because your latest comment used Markdown formatting instead of wikitext.) All comments on talk pages must be in your own words, so I collapsed your comment. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for that. I’m here because I want to help improve the article and make meaningful edits, not cause extra work for everyone. From now on I’ll write every talk‑page comment myself in proper wikitext and with my own words. Thanks for your patience and for keeping me honest. Apex Hawk (talk) 20:47, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging with us. And welcome to Wikipedia! I hope this doesn't turn you off from contributing. In general, most pages are open to anyone to edit. The ones that aren't, like this one, tend to be the more controversial ones. I recommend starting off with editing unprotected pages until you get more familiar with Wikipedia's policies. meamemg (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. meamemg (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)