Dissecting the Effectiveness of Micro-Influencers with Taylor Lagace, Ep #41
Dissecting the Effectiveness of Micro-Influencers with Taylor Lagace, Ep #41
Many people are familiar with macro-influencers, i.e., celebrities, athletes, or the contestants kicked off the Bachelor trying to launch their career. Macro-influencers usually have hundreds of thousands to millions of followers. On the flip side, macro-influencers may have between 100,000 to 450,000 followers. According to Taylor Lagace—the Co-Founder and Managing Partner at Kynship—they can be just as effective.
Any industry will have those people that are recognizable by face, and some are recognizable at the celebrity level. But the nano and the micro-influencers can still be effective. You just have to find the niche you’re trying to attack. So how do you do that? What’s the best way to use influencers to market your brand? Listen to this episode of Content Callout to hear Taylor’s strategies.
Amanda: Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Content Callout today. Today's guests is Taylor Lagace, who is a managing partner and co- founder of Kynship, which is an influencer marketing agency that works all on creating belonging so that each story is celebrated with a different influencer. Super fascinating conversation coming up about influencer marketing and all the different ways you can use it, all the different ways there's attribution, and how to work with micro and macro- influencers. Stay tuned. Hi, Taylor. Thank you so much for joining us on the Content Callout today.
Taylor Lagace: Thanks for having me, guys. Great to be here.
Amanda: Awesome. As we know, you are the managing partner and co- founder of Kynship, but we want to talk about some interesting experiences that you had before that, namely the NFL agency. Both Kayla and I were like," What? We have to talk to him about this."
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. Of course.
Amanda: Yeah. You did marketing on behalf of NFL stars Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews. Can you talk to us about this? What a cool experience.
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. It's pretty mind boggling, honestly. It was a dream come true job for me out of college. I was a football player, and so it was kind of my dream and my passion just to... I saw a lot of guys in the locker room put all their eggs in the basket, football, and so I just wanted to help them out as much as possible to make money while they could, while they were playing professionally. A lot of the guys on average only play in the league for three plus years, around that time span. I wanted to be able to help them out in a way where we can get as much money in their pockets as possible. That said, when joining the agency, what you realize is our roster was over 150 guys. But you really only market on behalf of probably about five, the people that actually bring in the most money, Clay Matthews, Aaron Rodgers, Deshaun Watson, these core stars in the NFL and the league. Our agency helped coordinate deals that you guys are probably familiar with or see on TV, the State Farm commercials with Aaron Rodgers, where you get insight into what these contracts entail and how much money it lends these players, which was just mind boggling. What I found and that I didn't necessarily enjoy, where I wanted more, was attribution. A lot of these talent agencies, even outside of just the NFL, maybe WME, UTA, they're just coordinating deals, trying to get as much money as possible for their clients, which is obviously... That's their job, right? They're trying to take care of their clients on a way that's as much money in their pockets as possible. But there wasn't much attribution, so I ultimately wanted to leave and go to the next step, and to join Common Thread Collective, which is the next step in my journey. Overall, great experience, honestly, and very unique in the sense of working with such big- time athletes and household names. It was really fun being a part of those marketing campaigns, but I wanted a little bit more.
Kayla: Yeah. Coming out of college to that is pretty crazy. I think that a lot of people would say that that's a dream job, and," Just stay there forever." Taking the next step to something else is kind of cool, I think. I have a question about something you just said, though, that really only the biggest athletes were featured in marketing campaigns. Is that something that bothered you? Or can you speak to that a little bit more?
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. It goes back to the comment about my time in the locker room, wanting to take care of these guys that wouldn't necessarily... The Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews of the world, they're going to be taken care of for the rest of their life from their careers. But these guys that have the average lifespan in the league, for three years, tops, not even that, I would love to be able to try to take advantage and put money in their pocket as much as possible within that timeframe. What you saw is those players didn't really get as much love, but there's so many brands out there in which it would be their dream to work with them. But, at the end of the day, it's not worth the agency's time as much to invest in getting and sourcing them marketing deals than people Aaron Rodgers. These people that are only in the league for three years, maybe they get a couple$ 1, 000,$ 5, 000,$10,000 deals. But in comparison to trying to go after a$ 30 million deal with State Farm on behalf of Aaron Rodgers, which one makes more sense? Which was unfortunate, but logically it does align with agency interests.
Amanda: Yeah. It makes sense. It's really tough, right? It's kind of interesting because, in your time, you moved into doing the influencer marketing space with Common Thread Collective. Then you talk a lot about micro and macro- influencers, so it's kind of similar here where it's some of these guys who, they may be lower in the league, but, see, they're hometown heroes. They're still influencers, but they're not the Aaron Rodgers, the Kylie Jenners, the Selena Gomez level of influence. Maybe they have really dedicated 10,000 followers as opposed to 10 million followers. Can you speak to why it's important to also involve people at that level, micro- influencers?
Taylor Lagace: Micro- influencers. Yeah, definitely. Because at the agency, at Athletes First, you saw a lot of brands work with a certain athlete once. What does that mean? They didn't see the return they were necessarily looking for. A lot of the time these brands are looking to leverage influencer marketing, and use influencers not only for brand equity and brand lift, and validity to the brand under the product, but they do want to see return. When a one- off social post with Clay Matthews can cost$ 50,000 and it doesn't reap at least$ 50,000 in return, you don't see a retention, or people coming back, as much. Yes, there's brand equity there, and yes, there's brand lift, and the association with Clay Matthews is huge if your product aligns with football and the NFL. But I thought there probably would be a greater way to go about this, and micro- influencers are able to do just that. What we saw was it's really about the content that's being produced by these people in comparison to using influencers as a mechanism of distribution. Micro- influencers, if you do care about distribution as a mechanism here, on average, they have a more niche audience. They have greater engagement. It's people that are following them for one to two reasons, in comparison to a macro- influencer, where their followers consist... People that follow them with a variety of reasons. Organically speaking, micro- influencers can be incredibly more effective. If you invest in micro- influencers with$ 50,000, you're going to get at least 50 to 100 posts, probably overall reaching a greater amount of people than Clay Matthews did, way greater engagement, and a way more niched audience. That's only on the organic side. That's not to mention, you'll probably get to own all of that content the micro influencers posted, and then repurpose that across all your marketing channels. If you want licensing rights to Clay Matthews and his content, that's a hefty cost on a month-to- month basis outside of the 50K. Your money can just go a lot further through the use of micro- influencers. I'm not making a case for one versus the other, as of right now. I know it probably sounded that. But it's more so, if you're going to do influencer, start with micro. Test which categories of influencers that work best for your brand. Scale up to that macro based off the knowledge and the findings that you're able to acquire.
Kayla: Yeah. It's you're saying right now, if you engage the right micro- influencer, you can get pretty much a whole campaign out of that versus just one little message. As we know with the internet today, things last for one second. Why not make, you said, 50 to 100 seconds?
Amanda: Repetition. Yeah.
Taylor Lagace: For sure.
Kayla: Yeah. Totally.
Amanda: Also, you said, not everybody has the$ 30- million budget that State Farm does. Even if you're a business that, if you're in the billing, and, say, you've got 10 million, you don't want to spend your full$ 10 million of revenue on hopefully a couple of posts that you think are going to attribute. You spoke at the beginning about attribution, and I do think that is a huge portion of what people want to see in marketing. They want to know where their sales, and where leads and stuff are coming back from, from which marketing points. To pause really quickly because I realized we didn't do this, can you define what a micro versus a macro is for people in the influencer sphere?
Taylor Lagace: Of course.
Amanda: What levels are we talking about in followers, likes, and that kind of thing?
Taylor Lagace: I appreciate, Amanda, that you have the ability to do that. I will run down a rabbit hole in these sort of conversations, so if you can just bring me back, greatly appreciated. I love you're able to do that. Yeah. Real quick, if you want to go all the way to the bottom, this is our personal definition. I think a lot of people do align with it, but terminology within influencer space is up in the air still. We define nano- influencers 5k to 10K, and following 10K to 100K, micro- influencers. 100K to about 400K, 450K for mid tier. Anything from 450 to a million, macro. Million plus, celebrity. But those are just broad definitions for it.
Kayla: You must reach, through the NFL, some of them that you would consider to be celebrity, then.
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. Definitely.
Kayla: I know I've seen that Head and Shoulders commercial.
Taylor Lagace: Right. Those are funny.
Kayla: I love that commercial. Yeah. I think if you look at any industry, there's going to be those celebrity... Those stand outs, the NBA, for example. The people who are going be recognizable by face, not just because they're the best in their industry. Obviously you've got the LeBrons, and you got the Stephen Currys. But there's other people who are recognizable in the NBA who may not be the Jordans, but they could be still at the celebrity level. I feel that goes through every industry, where, just, you said, you're looking at these mid- tiers, then you're looking at the celebrity levels. But the nanos and the micros can be very, very effective, right?
Taylor Lagace: I think brands can win solely on the backs of nanos and micros, one hundred percent. It's just, if a brand really cares about getting up to a macro, we just recommend going micro to macro, testing which ones work the best. Find the niche that you're really trying to attack, and then ultimately get to that macro. If it's basketball avenue, this basketball niche is really working, you're saying, you don't need necessarily the Jordans to serve as that macro, the face of your brand, but it can be another NBA player within the market you're really trying to target. I definitely think nanos and micros alone can definitely achieve this. Again, if you really care about their audience as a mechanism of distribution, we're big believers just in paid media and Facebook advertising as the mechanism of doing just that. Through whitelisting you're just able to do much more through that avenue of marketing with influencers, in comparison to having them organically post or using somebody on the commercial. That's where you're going to get all the attribution you're looking for, and that's what we really care about just scaling with.
Kayla: Can you speak to your use of Facebook ads a little bit? Because we've heard a lot from a lot of people about Facebook becoming more of a dead platform, or the target age on Facebook kind of being Boomer. Obviously it's working for you, so maybe you can speak to that a little bit for us.
Taylor Lagace: I'll speak to first... It's twofold. One, it's just a much greater mechanism of distribution of the content that influencers are creating outside of the limited audience that they have. I don't even care if this is a macro- influencer with 30 million followers, I would definitely be able to distribute that content much better than they could to their audience through Facebook. That's done through one of two ways. One is whitelisting. To quickly define what whitelisting is, it's just to be able to serve ads from that influencer's handle, and target their followers that actually follow them or have engaged with their content organically over the last 365 days. What that enables me to do... Social organic algorithms have become increasingly limited. Influencers are only able to reach up to 10% of their audience, impressions- wise, through the posts that they organically have. That's incredibly limited, especially given the fact that the price points for organic posts in my opinion are pretty inflated. It's just highly coveted by the influencers. I think brands have... They've hiked up prices for them to get them to believe that that's their market rate. When, in reality, if I'm reaching 10% of their audience with a one- off post and it doesn't exist 24 hours later, not only that, maybe 1% to 2% of the collective audience actually engages with it, it's really not that appealing. What influencers I think don't realize quite yet, and I think it creates an arbitrary opportunity, the real value is their content itself. If I can own this content... When I tell them," You don't even need to post. I'm just trying to identify the best content creators. We think you're one of them. If you can send me three videos, here's talking points, here's a creative brief. If I can use your content and distribute it within Facebook on my end, that's all we want." When you tell them they don't have to post, that price point actually becomes lower than it actually was for them to just do a one- off post. Facebook algorithm for paid media, their ability to target the right people is incredible. What you see is a lot of the people that follow this influencer in the first place end up receiving this ad. I've gotten countless messages from people that say," My friend that follows me just received this ad." The only way that's possible is if Facebook has the knowledge to be able to understand who follows this person and to put this piece of content in front of them. I'm going to get in front of these people, and then, not only them, but whoever else that Facebook determines," This piece of content will resonate with this individual." That will also end in bringing out the brand, even if they don't follow that person as well. Advertising is a great mechanism to be able to do just that. Through advertising and whitelisting, I'm not limited to reaching 10% of the audience that follows this individual, I can reach all of them. Not just one and done, I can create a customer journey off of it. It's just incredibly more lucrative and expansive in comparison to a one-off post.
Amanda: Yeah. I think the interesting thing, too, about Facebook is that, not looking from the marketing side, but we as consumers look at it sometimes because technically we're being punished on the organic friend side. But the marketing side, you're right. Their algorithm, the way they set up their ad distribution, it's a brilliant algorithm. They have put in, clearly, a lot of time in making sure it's really good for companies. Going back and speaking about working with influencers, how do you determine what is creative success on your content with them?
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. Great question. We're completely judged... We think organic is the cherry on top, guys. We do a lot of influencer seeding where we gift the product free of cost out to people to take care of the organic side of things." We want to give this product to you free of cost. We think you'd absolutely love this product. You're in great alignment with our brand. Give it to you, no strings attached." Whatever comes from that, posting wise, and we see a good amount come from it, awesome, the cherry on top. But what we really want to do is then repurpose all that content, and contract people that become authentic lovers of the brand to actually intentionally create content with them to go into a flow within Facebook ads. All of our reporting and metrics that we care about exist within that dashboard. How we personally judge creative outside of ROAS, or return on ad spend, or CPAs, or CAC, is an acronym that we call AIDA, attention, interest, desire, action. Basically what the acronym is defined by, and obviously it's a centuries- old acronym, but how we define it within Facebook's dashboard, attention is three- second views divided by total impressions. How many people are actually stopping to watch this content for more than three seconds out of all the people it was served to? Obviously you want some stopping content, and this is the perfect way to judge just that. Are people engaging and consuming the content we're putting out? If not, we're obviously doing something wrong. We need to iterate and change something, here. Interest is video average watch time. How long are they stopping, and watching, and engaging with this content? D, desire, that's outbound click- through rate. How many people are actually clicking out to the website and expressing the desire for the product that we're advertising? Then action is ROAS, return on ad spend. How many people are actually purchasing? That's how we really break down performance of the creative. Are these people, these influencers, creating content that sells? When we go and look to identify these influencers, we're not really even looking at following. We're not really looking at," Is their feed beautiful? Can they take great photography?" What we're looking for is their ability to sell. We go on YouTubes, we go on IG story highlights. Can these people create charismatic, authentic content, speak to this product, speak to this brand in a way that will ultimately sell? That is the main variable that wins within influencer marketing. They have proven to do so. These are people that have built their followings on their ability to engage people, to authentically captivate them, to create some stopping content. In the same way they would be able to build their organic following with their ability to do just that, our hypothesis is they're going to be able to do just that to have a brand to sell products.
Kayla: I think it's really great that you have these metrics for deciding whether or not someone's a good content creator, and if there's going to be a return. But is there any part of that where you watch the content and you just it, or don't?
Amanda: For sure. I always will have my biased opinions. That's why we just try to get as much content in there as possible, especially in the beginning when brands first start to work with influencers. We're trying to get testimonial videos, unboxing videos, use case videos. Everything that you can think of in a video that a content creator could ultimately produce, we're trying to get as much of it done as possible and get it in the ad account. On a month- to- month basis, when we're doing this on behalf of brands, we typically to work and contract five influencers where they provide three videos each. We're trying to get a diverse set of that across the board. Not only that, for different touchpoints of the funnel. We're trying to get and figure out which content works best at each level of the customer journey. People that haven't heard about the brand, people that have visited the website, people that have added to cart, initiated checkout, et cetera. You guys get it. Then, outside of that, we're also stripping content that's been organically posted on behalf of the brand from our seeding campaigns. That's ultimately going into the ad account as well. From that you'll see, on a month-to-month basis, we can get up to 100 pieces of content to test within that ad account at a very inexpensive rate in comparison to a production shoot, a content studio shoot. What you see is those price points are incredibly high, and in comparison to influencers' content that's native to the feed, and it's less expensive. Then my argument, by spinning it, obviously, greater performing, this is an obvious choice in my mind. That's ultimately why I left Common Thread Collective, the second company that I was at, where it was just all Facebook paid media. We saw influencers really crush ad account performance, and in comparison to the studio shoots that they were offering, it's half the price. What are people doing here?
Kayla: Yeah. I what you said too about looking at the funnel and where people are at in the funnel. Because obviously if you're launching a new brand, you're going to be going for that awareness piece, and it sounds you're going for quantity. If you're in the middle of the funnel, are you still going for quantity? What are you changing your goals to and what you're doing to?
Taylor Lagace: You guys have good questions. You're really navigating me well, here. Just keep me on course. From a creative standpoint, how we think about and what we've seen as best practices... Prospecting, your first touchpoint, people that haven't heard of your brand, the top of the funnel, we're really going after with influencers." Can you put together content that's educational and entertaining?" We want to, one, entertain them, grab their attention, but also, two, we want to educate them on what this is. They need to understand who we are, what this product is, and how it differentiates itself from the rest of the market. Definitely educate them. As a second touchpoint, if they haven't purchased quite yet, people that have are social engagers or have seen 75% of the first video that we serve at prospecting, et cetera, we want to offer them some sort of discount, some sort of deal, re- engage them in that way. Then at the remarketing level, what we really to do at that point is piece together a lot of the influencer content that we were able to source, mash it together into one piece of creative as an edit to make it look this product's everywhere. Everyone has it, it's everyone's hands, instill a sense of FOMO in people." These two influencers had it at the first two touchpoints? Holy moly." Or," Holy( beep)," because you guys said we can cuss on the podcast. Come on. Yeah. Instill this sense of FOMO, fear of missing out, for those people. Then, at the very bottom of the funnel, they still haven't purchased, we to serve testimonial videos of how it's applicable to this person specifically, how it could potentially resonate with the audience at large that haven't yet purchased at the last touchpoint. From a creative standpoint, that's how we think of the flow, there. From a targeting standpoint, just went through the audiences that we target, one through four. But if there's any other questions that arise from that, please.
Kayla: Actually that ties into something that Amanda said the other day that I saw you posted about, Amanda, which is, in marketing you're not selling a product, you're selling a lifestyle. You're selling an easier way to do things. I forget what you had all on-
Amanda: Yeah. It was about, you're selling a lifestyle or you're selling a painkiller. For a lot of people, it's either your striving to be something, or you have a current stress or pain point in your life that you need to be solved. You see this a lot with influencers. I think before influencer marketing was really done well, you see a lot of," Take this sugar gummy bear thing, and your hair will look mine." That's the," I want to live you," right?
Taylor Lagace: Right.
Amanda: Then there's also the," I've had this problem too. Here's what I used." Then I feel it became that point where it was a little bit more focused on, especially I think in the recent years, authenticity. Then there became a lot more focus on, you said, how people sell. Because I feel this is a common journey in marketing. We went from the car sales ads where the car guys are just yelling at you the prices, and being like," Buy, buy, buy, buy, buy," to," Here's what the car represents in your life." You saw that in commercials. That's what you're talking about. Either it's the FOMO, the fear of missing out on a product, or it's the," Strive to be me," or it's a," I've experienced this. You want to experience it too," kind of thing.
Taylor Lagace: Right. I think it achieves everything that you just went through, the pain points, the authenticity, the influence that these people have, et cetera. What we're just trying to do through influencers... One, through the seeding campaigns, we're able to see who becomes adopters of the brand and authentic lovers. I know that word" authenticity" is probably the most redundant, oversaturated term in the space. It remains true. That's why we don't to source and contract influencers cold. We want to seed them the product, see who becomes adopters who actually authentically love it. From there, those are the people that are going to be able to create great content on behalf of the brand. We are just really trying to show these products and these brands in people's lives in a very authentic, genuine, and seamless way. We don't want it to look produced. We don't want it look staged. These are real- life examples of how this product is used and lived out in day- to- day lives. It just so happens these people are professional full- stack content creators, at the disposal of these brands at a very effective cost, given the fact that they love this brand and love this product. A lot of the time, it happens for free. When you have that at your disposal, it's an incredible resource for your brand to take advantage of. It takes advantage of... All these real use case scenarios are pain points that are being solved. It's promoting that lifestyle that you're talking about in a variety of different ways as people live it out. We're able to see through a diverse set of content which lifestyle is really scaling and performing on behalf of this brand." Let's go find more of these lifestyles and influencers that are really living this style, and make them brand adopters." I think it solves all these pain points in a very authentic and genuine way that is native to these social feeds that we're advertising on.
Amanda: Yeah. We actually interviewed somebody earlier last year, Chinae Alexander, who is an influencer. She mentioned a point of, when brands are looking at influencers, kind of what you're saying, but brands should also look at, what is the content outside of the sales posts, outside of just the post where they're talking about products? It's like," What is the rest of their feed?" She talked about value alignment, and I think that is also definitely becoming a bigger thing. I think you've seen this over and over again, where just because someone is popular does not mean that their values align with where your company aligns with, nor do you always want to be... One small thing on their end that might not fit with your brand's values can basically dissolve a relationship. I what you're talking about, though, you start off small. Like," Here's the product for free." Seed the product. You build up to a partnership, as opposed to going in cold. It's a lot sometimes how I think about some people in marketing... You get those slide into your DMs in LinkedIn, where they're just like," Here's my product," and," Sell, sell, sell." I'm like," Yo."
Taylor Lagace: Right.
Amanda: "If this was in the dating"... Yeah, right?
Taylor Lagace: Oh, my gosh. Say what you're about to say. Dating. That's the exact analogy that we use.
Amanda: No. Yeah. That's the analogy. Yeah. If this was dating, it would be sliding into somebody's DMs and being like," Yo, you want to get married?" Then as opposed to being like," I think your picture's cute." To me, that's the exact same analogy, of being just like-
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. We have a much more aggressive analogy. We compare it to prostitution in comparison to actually dating this person in a very genuine way. You alluded to two things here. You pointed out great pieces. One, you need to make sure these people are a brand fit outside of just," Can they sell?" What are they actually advertising? What are they promoting on their social feeds? You need to look at what they're talking about, what they're posting, who they are. Because, at the end of the day... Again, we start every influencer program with laying those foundations for influencer seeding. With the hope of, as many of these people that we're seeding and reaching out to become authentic lovers of the brand begin organically posting, begin giving us content on a basis. The only way that they do that is not because they have this great engaged following that has no affinity to our brand, it's, no, they're a great fit, and it makes sense. That's what we're reaching out to them with. The messaging that we're using is," We think you're a great brand fit and you'd absolutely love our product. We want to give it to you, no strings attached. Send us your address. We'll send this right out to you." That's how we're beginning this relationship. The only way... They ultimately... Obviously you have the end goal. It's not no strings attached for us. We're still gifting them. We're not the guy that's saying," We want three posts and then we'll send you this product. Can you commit and give us confirmation that you'll do this?" That's very transactional. It's an incredibly different beginning to a relationship, one in which that's very repulsive instead of flattering, and lends itself in that way.
Kayla: Why do you guys think that people still do that, just bomb your inbox with something that you don't want?
Taylor Lagace: Ignorance, I would say. I think these guys are just on the mass outreach, going rogue and just trying to get as many people to agree to it. But, at the end of the day, what they don't realize is... If I'm an influencer and I don't have a moral compass, I'm just going to say," Yeah. I'm in." Then they send me the product. Then I don't post. You see that all the time. We just tell brands when we're doing seed on their behalf," This is a relationship builder." If we don't ask for this stuff, what you see is these people not only end up posting more, but you're starting the relationship in a way where they're not putting their negotiation cap on and trying to raise these price points, and you're automatically asking them for something in return. If you tap into the psyche here, they ultimately want to give you something in return free of cost, especially if they your brand. These guys are consistently expected to put out content about products. That's what people follow them for, a lot of the time. If you get your products in their hands, you probably will get shout out at some point at a very inexpensive rate, I said.
Amanda: Yeah. Going back to what you were saying about those guys, I feel they're doing the old school," I'm going to throw some shit at the wall and see what sticks and with who." Then they go from there. Which is a very ineffective plan, basically. It's a waste of your product. It's a waste of your time. It's a waste of your resources. It's not strategic.
Kayla: As a brand, too, you have to think about," Who do you want to be aligned with?" Like we've been saying, you said, an influencer without a moral compass that is going to end up posting about your brand, do you really want to be aligned with that person? Do you want that shit on the wall to stick? Maybe not.
Taylor Lagace: You're not even going to see they are adopters of your brand. They automatically opt in to posting about it before they actually receive the product, they're opting in to something they don't even know if they or not. This strategy is not only probably going to lend itself more opt in and more organic social buzz, but what we really use it for is, out of these people that become brand adopters, that are authentic lovers of the brand, the content that they post about it, we go in and see," Okay. How good of content creators are they in tandem with this product? Do they speak well? Can they articulate the value adds, the talking points that we want to be able to do?" Those are the people that we ultimately end up engaging with for greater, more expansive deals. Those are the people, the five content creators that we had alluded to earlier, that we're sourcing and contracting for three videos per month in a greater capacity. What you see is, if we just started the relationship in a way where we engaged them for," What's your price point for three videos, images that we can use, and Facebook ads?" That price point, from what we've seen, is double the amount it ultimately is by starting the relationship in this way. We're even getting it at a lower price point than we would have in the first place. That's lower than in comparison to other ways of receiving creative to supplement your ad accounts. It all is a part of a greater strategy that ultimately goes into Facebook ads, and that's what we really see scale.
Amanda: You've talked a lot about Facebook ads, but let's talk about the other social media. Obviously Facebook owns Instagram and WhatsApp, but do you find bigger success... It sounds you've talked about Facebook a lot, but do you find success in Instagram, Twitter, YouTube? Which channels are you also working with?
Taylor Lagace: Great question. I'm glad you made that clarification. More and more within our language as a brand we have said Facebook and Instagram advertising. When I say Facebook ads, I do mean both. It's just the umbrella company overall, their placements. When I say Facebook ads, I mean literally all 20 plus of their placements. But the reason we use Facebook is just their Pixel is far more sophisticated. Their machine learning system is far more sophisticated than any other social media platform's. From a paid media stance, that's all I'm really interested in. They have the ability to optimize and scale for conversions. When I say that, I just mean you can run an impressions campaign, or a brand awareness campaign, or a conversions campaign, which is what a lot of brands honestly, truly care about. Which is, they have the ability to pool people together in the audiences that you're targeting that are most likely to convert instead of engage, or like, or watch the video on behalf of the product you're putting them in front of. Their ability to do that is far more advanced than the TikToks of the world, the Snapchats of the world. Not to say I haven't advertised on those platforms, I very much so have. But the return on your investment when targeting the same way is far less effective. Facebook's far, far advanced.
Kayla: They've had more time to perfect that, right? They've been around-
Taylor Lagace: One hundred percent.
Kayla: Yeah. I mean-
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. What you see is, these other social platforms, their dashboards directly mimic Facebook's. Their Pixel is just not there yet, but it's growing 100%.
Kayla: My God. Me and Amanda spend a lot of time on LinkedIn, and I just can't get over lately how much LinkedIn is trying to be Facebook. It's just...
Taylor Lagace: Everyone is.
Kayla: In that regard it's a little bit strange, because LinkedIn started with a very clear purpose, which is," This is the site for professionals to network on." It's not so much based on social content, it's based on professional content. It just feels they're pushing more and more towards it being social content. It's just a strange time.
Taylor Lagace: Yeah.
Amanda: They even used to say," LinkedIn is not Facebook." That used to be the whole tagline, is," LinkedIn is the anti- Facebook. LinkedIn is strictly for professionals." Now it feels very... The lines have gotten blurred, which always worries me when brands get their lines blurred. Because if you have a clear purpose, you have a clear message, it's a lot easier to market. But then when you start blurring the lines and people aren't sure... It is muddy now, right?
Kayla: That being said, we know Facebook's had longer than anyone else to work this out. You spend more of your time using that platform. How much time do you spend investigating new platforms?
Taylor Lagace: All the time. Definitely. That's why, organically speaking, through the seeding program, we're not asking them to post on any given platform. They can post on one of them. They can post on all of them. Through that, we're able to see, organically speaking at least, which one is able to perform at greater lengths, which one runs itself, greater engagement, greater reach, greater conversion rate. Organically speaking, conversion rate's never quite honestly there in the capacity that you want to see, or that people honestly probably expect when they pay for posts, which is a model that I definitely think is dead. But, from the paid media side of things, yeah, we're advertising on all these platforms. But I definitely harp on Facebook the most. It's just because that's where the greatest return is at this time. But all these other platforms will probably inevitably catch up at some point, or at least I hope so. Because, at the end of the day, I want to use this content in a diverse set as much as possible as I can on different platforms. As they scale and as they get more sophisticated, that would be awesome. But Snapchat isn't quite there yet. TikTok is even further away, from a Pixel standpoint. They just need time to develop these things.
Kayla: You said the pay- for- post model is dead. Can you speak to that a little bit?
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. It's just, paying for posts organically, like we've alluded to... If you care about influencer audiences as a mechanism of distribution, I would just whitelist them. You have the ability to then run ads into their audience and you can create a customer journey. Paying$ 50,000 for a post or even$ 1000 dollars for a micro to post this one- off thing that reaches 10% of their audience, minimal engagement, you're not going to see revenue come in from that. You're just not. Trust me. I've done over 10,000 of these. What you do instead is seed. Gift this product out free of cost. Instead of allocating$ 1, 000 for one micro- post or$ 5, 000 for five micro- posts, use that$ 5, 000. Take that into account for how much the cost of your product is. If your cost of your product is$ 50, let's send out 100 of these. It's going to be the same price point as those five posts. Send out 100 of them, I guarantee you, you will probably get 20 posts at a minimum from those hundred. Compare that 20 posts to these five, it's four times the amount of content, four times the amount of reach, et cetera. It was at no cost, and you're able to identify these 20 people that are authentic lovers of your brand. I a hundred percent think the pay- for- post model is dead. It's ineffective. It lacks strategy. It's not longterm.
Kayla: Yeah. I think you're crushing the dreams of high school girls everywhere that want to get paid to be that person, but, yeah, you're totally right. I feel like that hasn't really caught on yet in the grand scheme of marketing.
Taylor Lagace: For sure.
Kayla: I think a lot of people still think that that is the way to go. I guess they should talk to you.
Taylor Lagace: Are we sharing some groundbreaking news right now?
Amanda: No. I think the difference is... I'm not knocking on any other agencies. But I think the difference is kind of what you alluded to, is a lot of agencies will have these really small divisions or one person who deals with influencer marketing. It's a very pay- for- post campaign style, or that's what they focus on. Whereas your agency is strictly built around this partnership influencer idea, with funnels, with attention, with distribution, and with attribution. That is a different type of agency. Whereas a lot of people are trying in marketing to do multiple sets of things, whereas yours is a focused agency, which means that you can excel at it. That's no different than anything. If you focus on one thing, you tend to excel better. I do want to speak to another portion of our audience, though, who may be thinking," Influencer, just for B2C." They're just for consumer products and that's it. But we work with a lot of B2B companies. Do you think influencers can be used for B2B?
Taylor Lagace: Awesome. One hundred percent. Again, this may sound biased, and protect your ears and hedge your bet here, but at the end of the day there's an influencer in every category, in every industry, whatever you're in. Say you're a B2B brand that your products appeals to HR departments on behalf of companies, and you're selling to them. There's somebody that influences that person. I'll give you an example. B2B. Brand called SnackNation. We worked with them. What they were selling... A B2B company that had snacks that wanted to fill up offices with their product. Who are we selling to? The HR department. Who is somebody within that space that these individuals within HR listen to for advice, listen to and look to, that have clout over them? We wanted to use somebody called... What was her name? It was Gary V's head of HR. Her name's slipping my mind right now, but she crushes that audience. That's a B2B space, one hundred percent. We worked with her. We sent her SnackNation, the products. Got a bunch of video content of her packaging up all these snacks and sending it to everybody that was working at home as care packages. SnackNation was all over that content, and how she created testimonials about it, unboxing and real use- case videos. We're using all of that content then to then put into Facebook and then target... You can honestly target job titles, people within HR. Boom. Yeah. That's a definite effective mechanism of using influencers in a B2B style in a campaign. Like I said, I definitely think there's an influencer in any given space on behalf of every product.
Kayla: Yeah. Basically anything Gary V. If you can involve anyone from that team for B2B, I think you're probably doing all right.
Amanda: Yeah. It's going to be some good gold, there. All right.
Taylor Lagace: Yeah.
Amanda: Thank you so much for your time today, Taylor. This has been such a fascinating conversation. I feel like we could have talked to you for hours, so we'll definitely have to have you back on the pod to talk more about influencers. Something we didn't even get to that I definitely want to talk about next time is the effect that the pandemic had on influencers. That's going to be my tease for the next episode with Taylor.
Taylor Lagace: I'm coming back. crosstalk
Amanda: Yeah. Exactly. Let's give you a little bit of time to talk about your agency, here, and how people can connect with you online.
Taylor Lagace: Yeah. Just go to kynship. co. That's where you can find us. We're also actually coming out with a Kynship influencer marketing course called The Blueprint to Influencer Marketing, Influencer Marketing Blueprint. That's just for brands as well that can't necessarily afford greater packages that agencies have as the price points. If you're also just looking to do it internally, I think it'd be a great resource for you guys. That will be on the kynship. co website. Yeah. We would love to work with you guys to start a conversation, and be happy to service you.
Amanda: Awesome. Kynship is spelled K- Y- N- S- H- I- P, right?
Taylor Lagace: Always taking care of the way I slip. Yes, it is. K- Y- N.
Amanda: No, I'm just making sure.
Taylor Lagace: No, it's a great clarification.
Amanda: Yeah. For sure. Awesome. Thank you again, Taylor. We really appreciate your time today.
Taylor Lagace: Thanks for having me, guys.
Kayla: Hey, guys. That was such a good conversation today with Taylor. I learned so much about influencers and the models of working with influencers. One of the things he said really stuck with me, that the model is dead of pay per post for influencers. I think a lot of people that don't work in that space, when they think of working with an influencer, that's what they're thinking of. I don't think a lot of people have realized how much that industry has actually evolved, even in the last 12 months. I found that to be really fascinating. Yeah. He had some really great points. Amanda, did you have any takeaways from today's chat?
Amanda: Yeah. I think when you hear the word influencer, there's definitely a moment where people still cringe. I think Taylor's talk today definitely takes away those kinds of cringey feelings, and it totally opened up in the space of how you can effectively market using it. I really loved it.
Kayla: Okay. Great. Thanks again for joining us today, guys. We'll catch you next time on the Content Callout. Bye.