By Dr. Wan Khatina Nawawi
Not all visibility is value. Not all influence is earned. And not all markets reward the right things.
I only recently started posting on LinkedIn, and like many others, I am now learning to navigate its built-in analytics. One word that stands out is impressions. It tells you how many times your post was shown to someone. That is all. Not whether they liked it, read it, or engaged in any meaningful way. Just that it appeared on a feed.
Yet this simple metric holds surprising power. It measures visibility. And in today’s digital markets, visibility often becomes a stand-in for value.
When popularity replaces credibility
This is not new. We have seen the shift in platforms like Meta and Instagram, where the number of likes, followers, or views often becomes a proxy for influence or credibility. These platforms did not invent the desire for social validation, but they certainly codified and commercialised it. A new category of work emerged: the influencer.
From a marketing and economics standpoint, this model is both efficient and targeted. Influencers offer direct access to niche audiences, and impressions become part of the language of advertising. Campaigns can be measured, adjusted, and monetised.
But the same mechanisms that make influencer marketing efficient can also erode clarity. We now have influencers promoting products entirely unrelated to their lives or expertise. For instance, a travel blogger selling skincare, or a lifestyle account endorsing digital investments. These collaborations are not always misleading, but when they are driven purely by reach, it becomes difficult to distinguish endorsement from transaction.
The result is a subtle shift in how consumers assign value. Popularity becomes a shorthand for trust. A visible recommendation appears more valid than an informed one. In such an environment, visibility can overpower merit, and impressions can replace actual influence.
A new form of market failure?
From an economic perspective, this phenomenon bears several hallmarks of market failure. Not of prices or output, but of trust, information, and allocation. Three concerns stand out:
- Information asymmetry: Markets work best when both buyers and sellers have access to reliable information. In influencer marketing, that balance can break down. Consumers may not know whether the endorsement is genuine, paid, or even informed. While some platforms and influencers disclose sponsored content, the nature of the format can blur commercial and personal lines. This creates a form of informational distortion, a subtle but significant inefficiency.
- Misallocation of resources: When firms invest in visibility rather than credibility, marketing budgets can favour popularity over substance. High-visibility endorsements may drive short-term sales but fail to reflect the product’s actual value or fit. This can crowd out better products or smaller firms, distorting competition and discouraging innovation.
- Negative externalities: Influencer-led promotions may also generate wider social costs. Consumers can be misled into purchasing items they do not need or following lifestyle advice that is inappropriate or unsafe. Where financial products, health supplements, or personal data are involved, the consequences can be serious. Yet the systems of accountability remain weak.
These failures may not always be visible on the surface. But over time, they accumulate. They distort preferences, erode trust, and weaken the foundations on which open and informed markets depend.
Drawing lines in shifting sands
Regulators are starting to take notice, though unevenly and most often after the fact. In the UK, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (UK CMA) has issued Guidance on Hidden Ads requiring influencers to clearly disclose when posts are sponsored or incentivised. In 2019, the UK CMA secured formal commitments from 16 influencers to improve transparency, including the use of standard labels such as “#ad” at the start of posts. These actions reflect a growing recognition that digital popularity, when monetised, becomes a form of commercial speech subject to scrutiny.
Singapore offers a clear example of how self-regulation is adapting to digital markets. The Advertising Standards Authority of Singapore (ASAS) requires influencers to disclose paid partnerships, gifts, or any commercial relationship under its Guidelines for Interactive Marketing Communication and Social Media. Endorsements must not be disguised as personal opinion, and disclosures must be clear and timely. In recent years, ASAS has issued public advisories reminding content creators and marketers that misleading or undisclosed promotions breach the advertising code and may face enforcement through media sanctions and reputational consequences.
In the EU, a 2024 investigation by the European Commission and national consumer authorities found that 80% of influencers failed to clearly disclose when content was paid or sponsored. The sweep covered sectors such as fashion, beauty, and financial services. Authorities have since requested corrective action, reinforcing the view that influencer marketing is a form of commercial communication that must meet basic transparency standards.
What links all these regulatory efforts is an emerging understanding that visibility is not neutral. Once commercialised, it must meet the same standards of honesty and fairness expected of traditional advertising. It is not the format that matters, but the function.
Rethinking what we reward
This is not an argument against influencer marketing. Nor is it a call for tighter controls across the board. Influencers can play useful roles by connecting brands to audiences, raising awareness, and even shaping positive behaviour. Many act responsibly and are transparent about their partnerships. But the structure of digital attention markets still leans towards scale over substance.
What needs closer attention is how visibility is created, priced, and rewarded. If impressions determine reach, and reach determines value, we must ask whether that value is based on relevance, accuracy, or merely repetition.
At the same time, regulators must move from reactive to proactive. Rather than simply responding to abuses, they can set clearer expectations about transparency and disclosures. Platforms, too, have a role in designing default settings and labelling that support honest communication rather than strategic ambiguity.
Ultimately, the challenge is to design markets that distinguish between what is visible and what is valuable. The impression count on a LinkedIn post may seem harmless, even trivial, but it reflects a larger shift in how value is perceived. When impressions become a substitute for informed choice, we risk confusing influence with noise and mistaking visibility for truth.