Influencer autonomy: Navigating authenticity, agencies, and algorithms

The concept of authenticity plays a pivotal role in influencer studies, addressing influencers’ performances, activities, and relationships with followers and fans (Abidin, 2018; Marwick, 2013; Senft, 2008). Being “real” and “authentic” is typically described as an essential currency for influencers and a feature distinguishing them from other types of celebrities. Senft’s (2008) well-known study on camgirls in the early 2000s describes how micro-celebrities on the Internet were expected to display themselves as unedited and genuine individuals with real-life issues, because their popularity depended on it. Marwick (2013) further explored the concept by describing how successful micro-celebrities perform and curate a persona that continuously feels authentic, interactive, and celebrity-like. As Marwick (2016: 334) argued, “celebrity becomes something a person does, rather than something a person is”, highlighting that authenticity is an intentional performance. This performance involves carefully self-presenting as someone to be consumed by others and cultivating a mindset that friends and followers on the Internet are prospective audience members and fans.

Studies like these show that authenticity and intimacy are not innate traits of influencers – authenticity and intimacy are practised (Marwick, 2016; Jerslev, 2016) – and they can be strategically capitalised on and exploited (Duffy & Hund, 2015; Raun, 2018). Authenticity and intimacy thus provide credibility that can be traded into fame, followers, commercial operations, media careers, and financial rewards. Furthermore, authenticity is often strategic and carefully constructed. While influencers reveal personal experiences, they do so selectively; they may share challenges – but only those that align with their brand or resonate with their followers. They also gauge their audience performance and adapt their content accordingly. In short, authenticity is shaped by what followers want to see.

As argued by Enli (2015), mediated authenticity goes beyond influencer studies and presents a more general paradox: We rely on media representations to shape our understanding of the world, even though we know these representations can be constructed, manipulated, or fabricated. Spontaneity, immediacy, ordinariness, and imperfection are crucial for creating “authenticity illusions” (Enli, 2015: 136–137; see also Nussbaum, 2024; Serazio, 2024).

In summary, authenticity and intimacy stand in an ambiguous relationship with autonomy. On the one hand, expectations from followers and fans may limit autonomy by requiring and rewarding some influencer performances (“the intimate”, “the real”) over others. On the other hand, one might hypothesise that mastering the regulation of authenticity vis-à-vis followers and fans entails a sense of autonomy and control. Consequently, influencers assert their independence and authority within the carefully orchestrated process of defining one’s public image and strategically promoting certain narratives while concealing others.

Platform studies have extensively documented the profound impact of Big Tech and social media on societal, economic, cultural, and political dimensions, including how algorithms shape market dynamics, industry practices, and cultural production (Gillespie, 2010; Poell et al., 2022; van Dijck et al., 2018). Numerous studies have recognised the benefits that platforms offer content producers, such as increased visibility, audience engagement, and innovative new formats. These benefits also exist for influencers who perform and monetise their lives on social media platforms (Poell et al., 2022). Nevertheless, critical studies have pointed to the asymmetrical power relationships between platforms and media producers (Chua & Westlund, 2022; Nielsen & Ganter, 2018). Research has shown that even minor changes within algorithms can have significant implications for those who depend on them, including media organisations (Nielsen & Ganter, 2018; Meese & Hurcombe, 2020) and influencers (Bishop, 2019; Poell et al., 2022). Consequently, influencers adapt to algorithms to increase visibility and maximise their reach, a strategy that can sometimes compromise their sense of autonomy and their efforts to seem authentic.

Algorithms define cultural productions by what they are doing and what they are perceived to be doing; thus, they have an impact beyond the technological. Because algorithms are difficult to see, we build our understanding of how we believe they operate. Bucher’s (2017) concept of algorithmic imaginary and van Es and Poell’s (2020) concept of platform imaginaries both describe how people’s behaviour on platforms is guided by how they imagine algorithms to work. Focusing on content creators specifically, Bishop (2019) introduced the concept of algorithmic gossip to characterise the public discussion about the YouTube algorithm and how it affects the practices of content creators. According to Bishop, creators of social media content strategically utilise gossip to enhance their visibility on social media platforms. Despite this strategic manoeuvring, Bishop has also highlighted their limited power (or autonomy) in negotiating their terms with platform owners, emphasising the imbalanced power dynamic.

In summary, influencers have limited autonomy to impact the logic of the social media platforms on which they depend. Still, the occurrence of algorithmic gossip and the social ways of thinking and talking about how algorithms work indicate that there may exist a narrative about autonomy among influencers where they describe how they master the algorithmic game and use it to their advantage. Many influencers also simultaneously establish themselves on multiple platforms to reduce their vulnerability to specific platforms and their ever-changing algorithms. Finally, it is also a question of whether influencers might cognitively dissociate themselves from the importance of platforms to keep a sense of autonomy.

Influencer management and agency bureaus have not been thoroughly studied by influencer scholars (see, however, Duffy, 2017; Hund, 2023). Nevertheless, they play a crucial role as intermediaries between influencers and their professional endeavours, managing influencers’ professional careers and personal lives. One example is marketing agencies providing software to measure user traffic. Another example is management bureaus, which can be crucial in pitching and promoting influencers for brands, collaborations, and reality shows, thus helping influencers reach a larger audience or attract commercial collaborations (Deller, 2016; Nussbaum, 2024). Management bureaus may also function as essential gatekeepers for hosting jobs in the event market, which is known to represent a lucrative opportunity for well-known entertainment profiles.

Not all influencers have management or an agency; most influencers do not and operate instead as a single enterprise. For middle- and top-tier influencers, however, being represented by a manager or an agency bureau is more common. These influencers may rely on agency bureaus for various services, including practical tasks such as organising video and photo shoots, making travel arrangements, handling payments, and legal and strategic support such as goal setting, advice, and negotiating business deals. Agency bureaus may even provide emotional support, including lending a shoulder to cry on. The personal and intimate relationship is emphasised in the self-descriptions of many agency bureaus as “human-centric bureaus” (BrandPeople, 2022) or “managers of personal brands” (Max Social, 2022).

In summary, these agency bureaus hold significant power. They manage some of the biggest entertainment brands for young people, giving them cultural and economic influence. On the one hand, the term agency implies that these companies must act on someone’s behalf, meaning influencers have delegated parts of their autonomy and control to an external entity. Agencies provide legal, strategic, and financial advice but do not bear formal responsibility, meaning they share earnings without assuming risk. On the other hand, these companies offer strategic expertise and emotional sensitivity that may inform influencers to operate more safely and effectively in their market. Moreover, by increasing the bargaining power of influencers vis-à-vis potential commercial collaborators, agency bureaus may increase influencers’ degree of choice in what deals they accept or not. Consequently, the practical, strategic, and emotional services they provide may both constrain and enhance influencers’ feelings of autonomy.

Our informants echoed findings from previous studies by addressing the importance of being “real”, “unscripted”, and “authentic” (Abidin, 2018; Senft, 2008). For instance, one informant emphasised authenticity as a qualification for influencer work: “You must be genuine and honest. […] Essentially, that is our job” (Influencer, EIA). While “authentic content” could be planned, scripted, and very much an illusion (Enli, 2015), it was associated with the personal and the intimate, that is, influencers’ willingness to share and engage. As one noted, “they must want to present themselves” (Media, SP), and another added that “they need to show their vulnerable sides” (Media, NS).

Authenticity expectations were not only put forward by followers and fans but also by commercial collaborators, industry partners, and legacy media who engaged influencers specifically for their skill in presenting themselves as genuine. One media executive explained: “Creating authenticity is fascinating. […] It’s not necessarily what they say but how they appear” (Media, NS). Another informant explained how allowing influencers the “freedom” to be personal and authentic was crucial for his division, which focused on “profile-based entertainment universes” for young audiences:

We want to put the profiles and content creators at the centre of our content. Content should come from them. Most of the content I enjoy comes from someone, not necessarily twelve people in a room with much laughter. Freedom is important. (Media, MJ)

These quotes show how legacy media strategically use “the authentic” to cultivate a personal signature and “authorship” (Gray & Johnson, 2013) when collaborating with influencers. “Authorship” refers to the unique tone of voice, personal touch, and genuine style in content, which may be challenging to achieve in collaborative efforts. These quotes also show the ambiguity that influencers work within: They must produce content reflecting their personal interest, granting them autonomy, while also meeting strong expectations to perform authentically.

Being authentic – and vulnerable – often involves a finetuned balancing act, and in these assessments, influencers exercise autonomy: They understand that appearing authentic and genuine is part of their job but can still choose how to meet these expectations. One influencer explained that he was willing to share some personal information as he believed it would help convey his message and inspire others:

It’s a balancing act. We should focus most on the message and the content, but we must also show that we are humans behind the account. We are both gay, and I have an immigrant background. People appreciate that we talk about these things because they might feel seen. We can be a role model for someone out there. (Influencer, MSTAZ)

In this balance, we find significant variations among the influencers. On the one hand, several addressed the need to establish boundaries and develop strategies to help them navigate the social media economy, including what to share and how. For instance, one informant explained how he had rented a studio for his video productions to separate his private and professional life and how he anonymised his child if she was present:

Of course, I have boundaries. I do not share things about my daughter. She has been in a couple of my food videos, but then she has worn a balaclava so as not to show her face. I do not want my choices to affect her. (Influencer, KKK)

The quote demonstrates that informants can assert their personal autonomy by choosing which aspects of their private lives to share and which to keep private. The example of the daughter wearing a balaclava is interesting as it highlights the process of negotiation and the fact that many of these choices involve ambiguous behaviour and compromises. The informant could have excluded his daughter from the videos; however, she was involved but anonymised. Relatedly, other influencers expressed how they worked to keep certain things private, even when being very personal on other topics, again illustrating how influencers manage their autonomy in practice:

I believe it’s healthy to have something you don’t share with the rest of the world but keep to yourself and possibly your partner or family. I have a private room for me and my closest ones that is not accessible to the rest of the world. If you don’t carve out that room for yourself, I’m afraid you’ll end up depleted and your relationships will suffer as you have nothing to share with them that you haven’t already given to tens of thousands of strangers. (Influencer, GAGA)

On the other hand, our study also includes influencers who experienced fewer problems with sharing personal information and had fewer rules about what to share, or at least fewer rules that were explicit or followed. For instance, one influencer explained how she shared continuously throughout the day, including from her father’s deathbed, and found her private and public life intertwined:

There is no natural separation anymore. They [social media] are with me from when I wake up until I go to bed. They are with me when my father dies; they will be there when there is ash scattering, and they are virtually with me to the gynaecologist. Many followers wish to see everything. If I had set up a 24/7 livestream, people would watch. (Influencer, EIA)

This approach can be viewed as either giving up personal autonomy by sharing everything out of necessity or exercising autonomy by sharing everything willingly and freely as an act of agency and control.

In sum, influencers experience tremendous pressure to be personal and authentic from followers, fans, and media collaborations, highlighting the cultural structures shaping influencer autonomy. While being authentic is something influencers do rather than something they are (Marwick, 2016), we identify expectations for influencers to be willing to perform intimacy and genuineness. Influencers express varying needs to protect themselves from such demands, and their experience of autonomy appears uneven. Naturally, we find that influencers adopt different strategies to meet authenticity expectations: While some strongly preferred not to share personal information, others felt compelled to do so and even found support and joy in sharing.

Social media platforms lay the ground on which influencers operate. In our study, all the informants were keenly aware of platforms’ power and how algorithms shape and affect their work. However, they reflected slightly different strategies to deal with platform power and algorithms, uncovering nuances and reflecting different ways of exercising autonomy and control.

To start with, many informants emphasised how “serving” the algorithm was essential to maintain visibility and reach to followers and fans, thus stressing algorithmic customisation as one way to exercise control and autonomy. One obvious way to “serve” the algorithm was to post frequently. As explained by one manager, “taking a break” was not an option if you wanted to optimise your visibility:

If a profile has been absent from social media for a while, his or her reach will drop. They don’t show up in their followers’ feeds anymore. So, algorithms are important […] To maintain a good algorithm, you must post frequently. It’s a seven-day-a-week job. (Agency, LK)

Relatedly, one of the younger influencers we interviewed expressed a strong need to maintain a presence on social media. She even described feeling obligated to continue posting when a close family member became ill and passed away: “I had to keep posting to keep my algorithmic track record. I mourned but didn’t risk taking a break” (Influencer, EIA).

In addition to posting frequently, many informants emphasised the importance of tailoring content to the specific platforms and their algorithms. Such algorithmic customisation was often described as natural and unproblematic: “Long texts do well on Facebook, not Instagram. On TikTok, you need shorter texts and many videos that go quickly to keep attention” (Influencer, MSTAZ). Another influencer explained how “serving” the YouTube algorithm strongly guided his strategies and practices when planning and editing videos: “We are very keen on attracting viewers and keeping them through the videos, especially at the beginning of each video, because that’s important for YouTube’s algorithm. […] We carefully edit videos to suit YouTube’s algorithm” (Influencer, ZJ). Among these informants, we find multiple examples of algorithmic imaginaries and gossip (Bucher, 2017; Bishop, 2019) aimed at informing influencers to navigate strategically on precarious platforms.

However, many informants stressed that “serving the algorithms” was an unstable way of making a living, highlighting the uncertain aspects of platform work. While informants representing agency bureaus commonly referred to platform insight and knowledge, many influencers had experiences of posts going viral for no reason or suddenly experiencing fame. For instance, one influencer referred to an episode in which he had created a new religion as an experiment on TikTok, but it took on a life of its own on social media, and he felt like he had lost control of it. The experience undoubtedly made a strong impression on him, as he kept referring to it during the interview. He was also one of the informants who stressed the harmful effects of social media the most. As he concluded: “Many influencers have an extremely insecure job where attention is currency. They often exaggerate and do what they know will create engagement according to the algorithms” (Influencer, KKK).

Many informants had experienced hasty shifts between virtual trends and the unpredictability of navigating and trying to make a living on platforms, particularly TikTok. One influencer addressed the everchanging nature of platforms and how this impacted his feelings of autonomy and control:

Platforms are constantly changing, and it happens quickly. You must constantly adapt to algorithms in order to be shown to your followers, which inevitably has an impact on how you create content. It feels like we are heading towards something quite chaotic, where the one who shouts the loudest is seen. There’s so little room for nuances now, which feels like an ominous development. (Influencer, GAGA)

For some, platform unpredictability was a critical factor in their decision to seek other opportunities for their work. Therefore, a second approach to maintaining autonomy in response to platform algorithms was to reduce dependence on platforms through counterbalancing strategies (Chua & Westlund, 2022). For instance, one informant explained how the unpredictability of TikTok made him more sceptical and cautious about the social media platform. As a result, he decided to shift his activities and businesses to platforms where he felt he had more control.

What is ironic is that I try to stay away from TikTok as much as possible. TikTok has become messy and unpredictable. It is easier to know the average of likes and comments on Instagram compared to TikTok, where it is very sporadic, and you never know what hits and what doesn’t. (Influencer, KKK)

Some informants even contested algorithmic sovereignty by stressing the value of hard work and high-quality content: “Social media is so algorithm-driven that it rewards good content. So, you must be a good content creator, but that is something you can learn to be” (Agency, CSE). In other words, influencers may maintain some aspect of autonomy vis-à-vis algorithms by producing high-quality content. Influencers expressed similar sentiments, stressing their adaption to platforms as “work” and “a job”. For instance, one influencer explained how she constantly worked on finding new ways to earn an income and planned for changes in the future: “I know that social media today won’t last forever, and I know that when I’m 50, it’s unlikely that I’ll be making a living by cooking on Snapchat. Presumably, Snapchat will no longer exist by then” (Influencer, EIA). Another influencer questioned the power of algorithms by stressing the value of high-quality content:

You can always become relevant. Many like to blame the algorithms – “no, the algorithms do not like me, I got shadow banned” – but, ultimately, it has to do with your content. What do you choose to post, at what time and place? (Influencer, KKK)

In short, influencers have limited control of social media algorithms. However, they may use strategies to understand and leverage platform algorithms to their advantage. We have identified two such strategies: serving algorithms and counterbalancing. In both strategies, influencers’ autonomy is initially limited. However, as we have shown, this does not mean influencers have no room to navigate or exercise control strategically.

Finally, we turn to the role of influencer management and agency bureaus, which we analyse as an economic structure surrounding influencers. The agency industry is known for its rapid changes and has been significantly professionalised in recent years. Nevertheless, many informants highlighted the historically bad reputation of the industry. For example, several had stories of greedy or unethical managers and agents who had deceived or exploited influencers when the industry was less mature: “We operate in an industry with a bit of a rough reputation. Many careers have been ruined. […] There have been some real sleazebags out there who have taken advantage of many young influencers” (Agency, CSE). Similar stories were also evident among influencers, some of whom had experiences with “bad managers”: “Some of these other managements were quite slick. They would take a lot of money, and when I read the contracts, I thought this was nonsense” (Influencer, KKK). Being in a position where you can choose your management or agency bureaus is beneficial. According to one informant: “I think it matters a lot who you get as a manager; a good manager can be a gamechanger in this industry” (Influencer, EIA).

We understand the relationship between influencers and their agency bureaus as positioned between the professional and the personal, significantly shaping the degree of influencer autonomy. On the one hand, our study highlights the industry’s emphasis on professionalism and hard work as core standards. For example, agency informants consistently described successful influencers as hard-working and goal-oriented. They actively avoided characterising influencers as individuals who casually post pictures of their daily lives in their free time. Such sentiments can be seen as strategies for increasing the value and status of authentic and aspirational labour, highlighting that “being oneself” 24/7 online is a job. One informant explained: “It’s easy to get big, but it’s hard work. Of course, it helps if you’re creative and come up with ideas. But mostly it’s about the fact that you must be willing to work” (Agency, CSE). As the same informant further explained, agency bureaus and management played a crucial role in feeding insight and knowledge into influencers and helping them strategically reach their goals: “A good profile is a profile listening to their management and doing what we recommend him or her to do. We know what they need to do to become big” (Agency, CSE).

For some influencers, such strategic advice and professional help translate to an increased degree of autonomy vis-à-vis the market. One influencer shared that he was now able to select which commercial brands to collaborate with, stating, “I’m in a position where I can choose. If a brand has been criticised for child labour, I won’t work with them. Smaller influencers must often accept whatever opportunities come their way” (Influencer, KKK). More generally, agencies effectively advocated the benefits of influencer advertising: “When you collaborate with influencers, you get good content, borrowed credibility, and distribution. People may not trust ‘Influencers’, but they trust individuals. It’s product placement in their lives” (Agency, ML).

On the other hand, our study also illustrates the personal nature of the relationships between influencers and their agency bureaus. Many influencer and management informants shared intimate stories that reflected strong emotional ties. According to one manager: “We know so much about them. We go through their divorces and funerals. For many profiles, it’s very personal” (Agency, CSE). Being an effective manager for influencers thus requires more than insight into platforms and business strategies; it also requires strong social skills. Many of the influencers also reflected on the intimate relationship. For instance, a young influencer used the term “mom-a-ger” to represent the dual role of a manager and a mother: “They are not just managers, but ‘mom-a-agers’. When I broke up with my ex, I sat with my manager, it was completely chaotic and much drama” (Influencer, EIA).

The importance of providing care is also evident among individuals within legacy media who work with influencers. According to one informant responsible for profiles at the commercial broadcaster TV 2: “The most important thing we do is taking care of the people” (Media, KRA). Similarly, the person working with profiles at the public broadcaster (NRK) explained: “How can we take care of profiles? By seeing them” (Media, LP).

The close relationships many influencers have with their managers and agencies provide them with structures of support, advice and guidance, and help them navigate expectations of authenticity on unpredictable platforms. However, this support usually also leads to a loss of control and autonomy for influencers. One influencer explained: “The disadvantage [of having a manager] is that you no longer have as much control. You must trust those you give responsibility to take it and do it well (Influencer, EIA). Or, as elaborated by another:

For two years, we managed everything on our own, and it went smoothly. However, our email correspondence was piling up, and negotiations were taking a lot of time. It was a relief to delegate the preparatory work to management and have someone to discuss ideas with. There is always someone available to provide constructive criticism. The downside is that an extra layer of communication is added to the transaction time. (Influencer, MSTAZ)

In short, influencers may benefit from ceding some of their autonomy to an agency, as they receive guidance and support for handling their numerous responsibilities. However, they also expressed concern about losing control and decisions taking longer time. Furthermore, influencers gossiped about specific managers, labelling them as “sleazebags”, suggesting that not all managers are effective and that working with them may mean sacrificing both autonomy and support.