Functional interlopers: Lifestyle journalists' discursive construction of boundaries against digital lifestyle influencers

Reconceptualising lifestyle journalism’s boundaries

The consensus is that lifestyle journalists must work with influencers in some capacity, implying that the latter has caused shifts to lifestyle journalism’s boundaries. However, it is important to note that the replies suggest such cooperation is not strictly voluntary, in that journalists feel like they need to incorporate influencers somehow, or else get left behind. This collaboration is motivated by a survival instinct and not true acceptance, as the journalists are taking advantage of the popularity and relevance of influencers (Cheng and Tandoc, 2022). Like other research suggests, influencers are still perceived as peripheral players who are not legitimate journalistic actors (Perreault and Hanusch, 2022).

For some interviewees, the impact of influencers is also so pronounced that it has prompted them to rethink what journalism entails. A senior writer believes that “the line is blurring significantly” between journalists and influencers while a senior editor explained that “everything is just part of the media ecosystem and is so melded into each other.” As the editor further discussed this, it is evident from his response that he is questioning the definition of modern-day lifestyle journalism:

“Nowadays, what is ‘media’ right?...There is still this long-standing mentality that what we do is official media and is more legitimate, verified, trustworthy...we need to stop thinking of it as a binary. As a dichotomy. Media and non-media. I do think that once you are on social media, you are media...you do have influence. That’s why they call it influencers right?...As the whole media industry is evolving, we can’t just think of it as just official and not official anymore.”

For this interviewee, the idea of whether lifestyle journalism’s boundaries should even exist is debatable. This supports the assertion by Deuze and Witschge (2018) that in today’s context, journalism should be considered as a fluid entity that is and should be constantly evolving with the times. The two interviewees here who called for a loosened segregation between journalists and influencers come from digital media websites rather than traditional news organisations, suggesting that organisational culture and the newsroom socialisation process might be an important factor that shapes how different journalists perceive new media actors (Chew and Tandoc, 2022; Gravengaard and Rimestad, 2014).

The money problem

A theme that emerged from the interviewees’ responses is that much of the lifestyle journalist-influencer relationship is shaped by economic considerations. The journalists would work with influencers because that is a requirement for an advertiser-paid project. This creates a sort of dependent relationship, where lifestyle publications need to rely on influencers to help attract advertising dollars. This finding is unsurprising, as scholars have noted that lifestyle journalism is heavily reliant on advertising revenue — sometimes even more so than subscription revenue — for profits (Cheng and Tandoc, 2021; Hanusch et al., 2017, 2020). Hence, if advertisers require featuring influencers in a paid project, it is conceivably quite difficult for lifestyle publications to argue otherwise.

Interviewees are quick to point out, however, that influencers have a lot to gain from working with lifestyle publications too. A senior editor at a women’s fashion magazine stated that for influencers:

“If they can have in their portfolio a Vogue cover, a Harper’s Bazaar cover, an Elle cover, it shows you that they are legitimate and they have been legitimised by the authorities of fashion...by being on our covers, it legitimises their standing as a fashion influencer...we get her numbers and followers, but she gets the legitimation from us.”

Another editor-in-chief divulged that sometimes an influencer will not be paid to work with a publication, but she will still do it because “she wants that visibility and she wants to be validated.” This idea of influencers wanting to be validated or legitimised by supposed proper media outlets has been found in other studies too (Cheng and Tandoc, 2022).

The interviewees often framed the lifestyle journalist-influencer relationship as a mutually beneficial one, where journalists help influencers gain legitimacy while influencers help journalists attract more eyeballs. The interviewees are downplaying the dependent aspect of their relationship with influencers by highlighting how they endow influencers with benefits too. Arguably, this is how journalists attempt to secure the boundaries of their profession, by stressing the authority they hold and which only they can confer to others.

Competition, collaborators, or something else?

This begets the question: do lifestyle journalists see influencers as friends, foes, or something else entirely? In terms of contending for advertising revenue, they are seen as competition, a finding echoed in other studies (Cheng and Tandoc, 2021; Duffy, 2013). A senior editor explained that “brands can always go directly to them and give them money…and that is directly affecting our revenue.” An editor-in-chief also lamented that this problem is compounded because advertisers’ budgets are steadily shrinking, which means that often they must choose between engaging lifestyle publications or influencers. A couple of interviewees mentioned that this is particularly pronounced with regards to beauty journalism, where beauty brands are “obsessed with KOLs (key opinion leaders), influencers” (mid-level editor) and are “really pushing all out for beauty influencers, compared to traditional media” (senior writer). Indeed, Duffy (2013) noted that compared to traditional media like magazines, blogs have demonstrated to be more effective at inspiring the purchase of beauty products amongst consumers.

Apart from competing for advertising dollars, a few interviewees suggested that influencers also compete for audience attention. Particularly, influencers with strong brandings and sizable followings are seen as more of a competitor. As a freelancer expounded:

“The serious influencers, the ones that actually take their job seriously and actually have very curated values...if you’re talking about the big brands, the big sort of influencers, yes. Because they treat themselves like they are celebrities…they treat themselves as a business.”

Still, when asked if they perceived influencers as competition, the majority of interviewees immediately discussed this with respect to advertising dollars, and only a few interviewees touched upon audience attention. This is arguably indicative of how reliant lifestyle media is on advertising revenue (Cheng and Tandoc, 2021; Hanusch et al., 2017, 2020).

While interviewees discussed influencers in terms of competition, none of them classified influencers as friends. Many of them framed working with influencers as a form of mutually beneficial collaboration and labelled influencers as collaborators. A senior editor stated that influencer collaboration is “a complementary thing. For us, they’re fodder, they are materials for us to put in our magazines and our websites that will get us clicks or whatever.” Interviewees feel they need to move beyond seeing influencers as just competition, as a mid-level editor explained: “They are opportunities for us to work with...we cannot beat these people so we work with them.” Again, working with influencers is perceived as something that must be done for lifestyle journalism to remain relevant. Thus, in such a context, lifestyle journalists then enact a variety of strategies to secure the boundaries of their profession.

Expulsion

Expulsion-based boundary work involves journalists proactively rejecting anything that they deem to be non-journalistic and unwelcome within journalism’s boundaries (Carlson, 2015; Carlson and Lewis, 2019). Because it is not possible for the interviewees to not work with influencers, what they have done instead is to impose clear criteria on the kinds of influencers they would collaborate with. Multiple interviewees mentioned that they and their publications are very “picky” with the influencers they choose. Commonly, the foremost criterion is whether a certain influencer complements the publication’s branding. When influencers are brought in to collaborate on an advertiser sponsored project, consideration must also be given to whether they match well with the advertiser: “Number one: does she suit the magazine? Number two: does she suit the brand? You know, does this three-way relationship seem authentic enough and genuine enough?” (editor-in-chief).

Another theme that featured heavily in the responses is that many interviewees admitted they would not work with those they deem as just ‘frivolous’, ‘purely influencers,’ or influencers who are “not doing anything in their lives besides taking pictures and posting them on social media” (mid-level editor). Similarly, a mid-level editor stated: “We want to work with people that have real, solid influence in their sphere of expertise, we don’t want a person that can just take photos.” The interviewees prefer to engage with individuals that are successful in their respective careers, but just happen to also have a large social media following, rather than those who are influencers full-time. In terms of who they would collaborate with, a junior writer provided the example of radio presenters, who are “content creators of their own;” a mid-level editor similarly described that his publication “has a list of tastemakers...thy are creative people from the industry. Some of them are influencers but not your er xin (disgusting) kind.” A senior editor believes that for these individuals “there is more substance to them.”

To differentiate between full-time influencers from those they work with, interviewees prefer to use different terms to refer to the latter, such as KOLs, personalities, content creators, and tastemakers. A mid-level editor explained that “I think influencers isn’t a term that we want to work with.” This can be seen as a standard of exclusion interviewees employ to distance themselves from certain types of influencers that they deem as ‘unworthy’ – the judging criterion here seems to be that influencers who are perceived as just taking photos full-time, while not offering any further value, are thought of as unfit for collaboration. This mirrors the findings from Perreault and Hanusch (2022) who found that influencers who are heavily visually oriented were seen as comparatively unprofessional by lifestyle journalists.

Lifestyle journalists impose strict criteria regarding the type of influencers they work with, and their recategorisation of influencer labels is an expulsion-based boundary strategy intended to keep out certain kinds of influencers that they perceive as unsavoury (Carlson, 2015; Carlson and Lewis, 2019). In this instance, there is the sense that interviewees are specifically expelling those who are influencers for a living, as they are deemed as too ‘insubstantial’ to be let into the lifestyle journalism field.

Expansion

While interviewees might expel deviant actors, they also do engage in expansion-based boundary strategies, though these are typically focused on adapting newer media practices into their work routines. Only a couple of interviewees mentioned inviting influencers to contribute to content creation. For instance, a writer detailed that there was a period of six months where his publication got influencers to “do like regular columns, it was very flashbangy, it was very influencer-driven journalism.” However, these interviewees work at digital media websites and not traditional newsrooms, again suggesting that newsroom socialisation can shape how journalists view influencers (Chew and Tandoc, 2022; Gravengaard and Rimestad, 2014).

Largely, interviewees are more willing to accept new practices, rather than new actors, into the lifestyle journalism field. Many admit that it is undeniable that influencers have a larger following because they tend to be much closer to their audiences than traditional media: “Bloggers are more personal...what they have above us is that sense of intimacy” (junior writer). Multiple studies have shown that influencers can usually establish more intimate relationships with their followers because they appear more relatable, authentic, and personable (Colliander and Dahlén, 2011; Marwick, 2013). Interviewees seem to be willing to incorporate this aspect of the influencer mechanism, and might find it increasingly essential: “I think everyone has to do it, in the long run. Because it gives you more engagement...there’s a face to the name. It’s not just bylines” (mid-level editor).

The interviewees try to create more intimacy with their readers by becoming more prominent on social media —as a junior editor described:

“I think editors are seeing the importance, that’s why you see a lot more editors fronting videos, trying to build that kind of relationship with readers, and then build that trust on social media, so they can get more following.”

This is akin to the phenomenon of the ‘influencer-editor,’ where editors attempt to gain a substantial personal following online (Fernandez, 2018). This is not just limited to lifestyle media, as studies have shown that even journalists within hard news are building their personal brands on Twitter (Brems et al., 2017; Molyneux, 2015).

However, interviewees also expressed certain reservations with this tactic. One, some interviewees mentioned that only higher-level editors should engage in this strategy, as they are the main representatives of the publication. A junior writer said: “If you are at the bottom then I think, no need, you just help, you just carry the magazine and carry the editor-in-chief.” Two, some interviewees still feel uncomfortable with putting themselves out there, which they feel contradicts the nature of their job: “Traditionally, most writers I think are not like people who want to be in front of the camera” (junior writer). This parallels findings about journalists’ hesitance in normalising self-marketing as a necessary journalistic practice (Tandoc and Vos, 2016). Third, this tactic could also bear negative consequences, as an editor-in-chief ruminated: “I think it really muddles up journalistic integrity...we have brands that say, eh, can you front a video, I’m like, I’d say I would really have to think very, very hard, because it looks like I’m endorsing this product...There still has to be a certain level of objectivity.”

In sum, interviewees do engage in expansion-based boundary strategies, though there is still some reluctance where interviewees discuss the perceived pitfalls to this tactic. These strategies typically revolve around interviewees incorporating aspects of influencing in their own work routines, while simultaneously still expelling influencers. Arguably, the interviewees here are demonstrating a certain degree of instrumental engagement by ‘cherry-picking’ only what is advantageous to them. This then serves to help interviewees retain their dominance and authority in this journalist-influencer dynamic.

Protection of autonomy

The protection of autonomy involves journalists defending their profession by fending off perceived incursions onto their field by outsiders who might seek to influence journalism in some form (Carlson, 2015; Carlson and Lewis, 2019). The interviewees engage in the protection of autonomy by stressing the unshakeable core beliefs and values of professional journalism (Carlson and Lewis, 2019), with the discourse then being about how influencers do not conform to such ideals, and hence are unwelcome within the lifestyle journalism field.

The first aspect of journalism that interviewees emphasise is the skills, education, and background one requires to be a legitimate journalist. An editor-in-chief said:

“I haven’t met a single influencer who is a great writer or journalist. So, um…maybe you’d be inspired by them based on their lifestyle and how they look and how they dress. But I wouldn't say they have the capacity to educate, because educate is a heavier word.”

In comparison, most interviewees believe that their publications are more credible, trustworthy, and prestigious because they possess the actual knowledge and skills needed to produce quality content. A junior writer exclaimed: “Like, if I were a consumer, I would believe an editor more...She has the background, she has the knowledge.” Then, when influencers put out good quality content, interviewees feel conflicted about how to categorise them. A senior writer at a digital media website contemplated:

“...but at the same time, I have read blogs where...a lot of the stuff they have said have been well-supported...it’s quite common to find people in the investment community or even in the tech community, for a lot of them to also write their own blogs, some of them are actually pretty good because they are people who are actively invested in the ecosystem, and so they are able to speak...like there’s substance to what they are saying.”

This interviewee then went on to admit that in such cases, the distinction between journalist and influencer can get “very blurred.”

The second aspect of journalism that interviewees tend to discuss relates to the work routines and structures that usually govern the way the profession operates. Interviewees draw a clear line between the personal nature of influencers and the objective nature of journalism. While for influencers “personality is a very big part of their branding” (junior writer), interviewees stress that journalism should embody a “very intentional detachment from the reader” (senior writer). A mid-level editor summarised: “I guess for a blog you kind of speak for yourself right...if you’re a news company, you cannot speak as personally.” Indeed, objectiveness has long been thought to be a key cornerstone that defines the journalism profession (Deuze, 2005).

Additionally, interviewees commented on the differentiated editorial process between journalists and influencers, where a media company has a fixed workflow and system. In comparison, a junior writer suggested that for blogs: “there’s no one to counter against you… it’s always a sort of process you go through to make sure that something is more balanced, something is more objective.” The writer further explained that this would involve reaching out to multiple sources and verifying information, whereas for influencers “it can just be a ramble of thoughts.” That is, influencers cannot be considered as legitimate journalists because they do not undergo the same rigorous production process (​​Niblock and Machin, 2014).

The last aspect that interviewees bring up revolves around editorial integrity, especially regarding sponsored content. A senior writer commented: “When I see some of the influencers, you know almost every post is paid? I get quite turned off.” This could be compounded by the fact that interviewees believe influencers are probably not as transparent with sponsored content as journalists. A junior writer said:

“...you need to be able to hold yourself up to higher standards of transparency, which means that if you are funded by something, you need to disclose it, you need to follow the ethical rules of journalism...whereas for blogs, you can just like, you know, be more free with that.”

Being ethical and truthful, particularly regarding paid content, is a longstanding journalistic tenet (Deuze, 2005). Yet, this presents an interesting contrast – just as Perreault and Hanusch (2022) note, while lifestyle journalists invoke core tenets of journalism (i.e., integrity, independence) to set themselves apart from influencers, they themselves have traditionally been criticised for not meeting these journalistic standards themselves. In terms of advertising, for instance, Cheng and Tandoc, 2021 described how lifestyle journalists at women’s magazines were at times so beholden to advertisers that they did not disclose sponsored content clearly.