Openness

The first part of the analysis will relate to the theme of openness. This relates to the respondents’

perception of the influencers’ willingness to share personal information. As mentioned in the theory, PSI should increase along with perceived openness (Labrecque, 2014:136). Furthermore, it relates to whether the respondents feel like they are able to identify the influencers’ personalities. The point is not to determine how well the respondents actually know the influencers, but whether they feel like they do. Past research has focused on this aspect of PSI as it relates to an audience’s imagined perception of the media personality. The respondents’ statements have been coded under the following codes: “Knowledge of personality”, “No Knowledge of personality”, “Sponsorships increase knowledge” and “Sponsorships do not increase knowledge” (Appendix 21).

6.2.1 Rock Paper Dresses

Three respondents expressed that they know Rock Paper Dresses’ personality, while the last respondent had not been following her for that long and therefore did not feel like she knew her. One respondent says: “She’s just very open about her life and who she is. And then she uses stories a lot”

(Appendix 6, respondent 2:12). This respondent has a feeling that she knows Rock Paper Dresses’

personality, which suggests that she engages in PSI with Rock Paper Dresses. She further mentions Instagram Stories as a contributing factor to her knowledge of Rock Paper Dresses, which supports the previous point about Instagram Stories being the most efficient way of engaging and bonding

she would not have the same knowledge about her personality if Instagram Stories did not exist:

“Definitely not. Not because she doesn’t include her dog and boyfriend and so on in photos, but it’s much more alive in stories. And more ‘here and now’ than in pictures”. (Appendix 5, respondent 1:18). This comment supports the point that Instagram Stories are highly contributing to PSI between influencers and their followers.

When the respondents were asked whether commercial content affected their ability to get to know Rock Paper Dresses’ personality, three agree that execution is key. One respondent explains:

“I think it depends on the execution. She had this Nespresso sponsorship where she used Nespresso to tell something about herself...something with decaf...that she drinks decaf because she’s trying to get pregnant. So in that way the sponsorship gave me some insight into her personality. But with Adax I didn’t learn anything new about her personality. But I mean, it’s not negative, it’s just like ‘eeeh’” (Appendix 5, respondent 1:19).

This answer indicates that PSI can increase as a result of sponsored content, once a convincing personal angle exists. When asked whether she found Rock Paper Dresses to be credible in the Nespresso sponsorship, the respondent also answered yes, as she really felt like the sponsorship fit Rock Paper Dresses’ personality (ibid.:20). This answer further suggests that PSI may increase the credibility of an influencer, when Instagram users feel like they can see the influencer in organic as well as sponsored posts.

6.2.2 Emili Sindlev

The respondents whose interviews concerned Emili Sindlev do not express the same degree of deeper knowledge of her personality. Although the respondents had previously been asked to describe Emili Sindlev’s personality in relation to the match analysis, they seem to find it harder to answer whether they feel like they actually know her. One respondent explains that she finds it hard to get to know Emili Sindlev’s personality due to the lack of personal information and Instagram Stories: “I think it’s difficult with her specifically because...she posts stories but she doesn’t post as many and when she does I often think it’s work related. So with her I actually think it’s difficult” (Appendix 10, respondent 6:12). This answer suggests low PSI as a natural consequence of the lack of personal information. Another respondent also mentions that she does not feel like she knows Emili Sindlev’s personality and also mentions a lack of videos or Instagram Stories: “She’s not the type of person who sits down and talks into the camera for instance... like a kind of...I mean where she talks about how

her day is going. And that’s one of the ways where you might get to know them”. (Appendix 12, respondent 8:12). The respondent indicates that she would have a better understanding of who Emili Sindlev is, if she spoke directly to her followers, which is in alignment with Auter’s point about how PSI increases when the audience is addressed directly.

The respondents also express that sponsored posts on Emili Sindlev’s profile do not contribute to getting to know more about her personality: “Actually, you would hope that you really learned a lot by looking at the sponsorships, because that would be brands that she really loves. Unfortunately, I just don’t think reality looks like that.” (Appendix 11, respondent 7:9). This respondent implies that Emili Sindlev does not choose sponsorships based on what really reflects her personality. Other respondents explain that they do not learn more about Emili Sindlev’s personality through sponsorships, due to the nature of the products. One respondent describes her sponsorships as being

“surfacy” (Appendix 12, respondent 8:13). In this case, the respondents’ statements imply that the nature of Emili Sindlev’s profile makes her seem less open about her life and her personality, which hinders respondents from getting to know her better. Both through sponsored and non-sponsored posts. This suggests very low or no engagement in PSI. However, the respondents also agree that the lack of personal knowledge does not affect their perception of her credibility negatively: “Maybe I would find her more credible if I knew her better. But otherwise I don’t think it matters.” (Appendix 10, respondent 6:13). This perception most likely only applies to Emili Sindlev and other influencers with the same emphasis on fashion. Since respondents do not really need to know about her personality in order to determine whether they like her outfits, it also does not affect their perception of her credibility. However, if Emili Sindlev promoted products outside the fashion category, respondents may have felt that they needed knowledge of her personality in order to determine whether she was credible.

6.2.3 Emilie Lilja

Most of the respondents have a generally good feeling about who Emilie Lilja is. One respondent states: “I feel like I have a pretty good grip of what’s happening in her life, what she’s up to and what interests her” (Appendix 16, respondent 12:11). Another respondent explains that she has been following Emilie Lilja for a long time and that she uses Instagram Stories a lot: “Well, I’ve followed her for a long time. And she does this thing where she talks to the camera through stories. So in that sense, I believe that I have a good idea about who she is. That I’m not that into her anymore, that’s

personal conflict in relation to Emilie Lilja. She expresses on several occasions that she does not find Emilie Lilja too interesting anymore, however she does not have the intention of unfollowing her and even states that it would be weird to do so after having followed her for so long. While it may not seem like this respondent experiences strong PSI towards Emilie Lilja, the fact that she is choosing to keep following her might indicate otherwise. The respondent is essentially free to withdraw from the “relationship” at any point, but chooses to maintain the connection, although she does not seem to gain anything from it anymore. It is easy to imagine that someone would behave this way with an old friend that they may have lost contact with. This suggests that PSI exists, as it imitates real relationships.

Three respondents state that they have gotten to know Emilie Lilja better through sponsored posts on occasion: “Hmmm...for instance in a sponsorship with Spotify, where she had made a workout plan and a playlist. In that case, I really felt she cared. And cared about whether people liked it and wrote to her about it” (Appendix 15, respondent 11:10). They all agree that some sponsored posts show larger commitment than others and these are especially contributing to getting to know her better.

This was also seen with Rock Paper Dresses, where respondents also agreed that with the right personal angle, you can get to know an influencer better via sponsored posts. The respondents further stated that the posts that portray Emilie Lilja’s personality are more credible than others: “It’s definitely more credible than the ones where you don’t see as much personality, I think. And it’s not that she’s not excited about that Puma outfit. You just don’t feel it the same way. So to me it seems more credible” (Appendix 16, respondent 12:12).

The above shows that openness is important in establishing PSI. In the cases of both Rock Paper Dresses and Emilie Lilja, some degrees of PSI were seen, as respondents felt like they knew the influencers on a personal level. Furthermore, it is seen that personal knowledge of an influencer and thus PSI can increase as a result of commercial content under the right circumstances. Through the analysis of Emili Sindlev it was also found that this aspect of PSI is not a prerequisite for credibility in all cases, but definitely an advantage.