Neil Patel is a marketing guru I have been following for many years. Recently, there was a report on influencer marketing published on his website and the data shocked me. The report involved analyzing 46 campaigns with 2808 influencers. The report states that ROI with celebrity influencers (1 million plus followers) and Macro influencers (follower conunt 500k-1 million) is negative negative. But mid size influencers (100l-500k) and micro influencers (1k-100k) is positive. The biggest ROI comes from micro influencer whis is around 36 percent. Mid sized influencers give you 14 percent ROI, where as celebrities give you 60 percent loss and macro with 12 percent loss on ROI.
Medical Marketing Forums
The #1 Medical Marketing Forum & Marketplace
Are you a medical professional or business owner? A webmaster? Need support with your online marketing tasks? Join the newest community targeted for marketing enthusiasts.
ROI of Influencer Marketing
- Thread starter Nomad
- Start date
Very interesting indeed. Probably pretty easy to explain, as most huge accounts do have a lot of fake followers (back in the day that's how they used to grow) and, if you look at their comments/engagement percentages for each post you can gauge the potential ROI you could get. Smaller accounts have done more work into getting REAL followers, hence engagement should be better.
freelancermaria
Member
- TM$
- 1,140
It sounds interesting. I read somewhere that engagement rates for big influencers are lower than those for mid-size and micro-influencers, maybe because their niche is less targeted. Moreover, mid-size and micro-influencers tend to be more authentic. They create stronger connections with their audience.
Many years ago, I was using fanslave to earn by following social media accounts. That's how I discovered Lady Gaga. Before that I did not who she was. It seemed she or her social media manager was buying followers through fanslave. Celebrities accounts have a lot of fake followers, so engagements can be pretty low.