Influencer Marketing and The Gifted Product Framing Practices and Market Shaping

Journal of Marketing Management
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20
Influencer marketing and the ‘gifted’ product:

framing practices and market shaping
Johan Nilsson, Riikka Murto & Hans Kjellberg
To cite this article: Johan Nilsson, Riikka Murto & Hans Kjellberg (2023) Influencer marketing
and the ‘gifted’ product: framing practices and market shaping, Journal of Marketing
Management, 39:11-12, 982-1011, DOI: 10.1080/0267257X.2023.2253450
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2253450
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group.
Published online: 05 Sep 2023.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 1850
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjmm20
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT
2023, VOL. 39, NOS. 11–12, 982–1011
https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2253450
Influencer marketing and the ‘gifted’ product: framing

practices and market shaping
Johan Nilsson, Riikka Murto and Hans Kjellberg
Center for Market Studies, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm, Sweden
ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

This article investigates the development of the market for influencer Received 15 September 2021
marketing in Sweden. It does so by focusing on the issue of ‘stuff’ Accepted 17 August 2023
sent to influencers. Such exchanges can be framed in different ways: KEYWORDS
e.g. stuff sent for the purpose of earning media, or as compensation Influencer marketing; market
for a marketing service. Drawing on the notion of framing in studies; market practice;
Callonian economic sociology, the paper identifies three ‘framing framing; taxation
practices’: (1) framing the sending of stuff to influencers in individual
exchanges, (2) reframing exchanges to put them in new light, or (3)
preframing how exchanges ought to be performed. In efforts to
frame exchanges of stuff, their broader context, and how stuff should
be taxed, influencers, marketing professionals and the Swedish Tax
Agency contribute to shaping the market for influencer marketing.
Introduction
Markets do not simply appear as unintended consequences of economic exchange but
gradually form, coalesce, stabilise, and change through shaping efforts undertaken by
different stakeholders (Geiger et al., 2014; Humphreys, 2010; Lee et al., 2018; Maciel &
Fischer, 2020). According to Callon (1998), one key aspect of this process is the framing
of economic exchange, which temporarily disentangles the parties and objects of
exchange from their environment and determines what is taken into account and
what is excluded from consideration. As several studies show, disagreement between
actors concerning how to best frame (economic) exchanges is not only common
across market contexts but also consequential for market development. For example,
the market for digital music has been characterised by conflicts between music framed
as freely shared resource versus music framed as marketable intellectual property
(Giesler, 2008). Likewise, the donation of eggs, sperm, and other bodily materials can
be framed as gift giving or as commodified market exchange (Hartman & Coslor, 2019;
Roscoe, 2015). Further, conceptualisations of the sharing economy as collaborative
consumption versus on-demand economy frame the provision of services such as
ridesharing as true sharing or as market exchange, respectively (Chimenti, 2020).
Both Giesler (2008) and Chimenti (2020) stress the importance of these framing
CONTACT Riikka Murto riikka.murto@hhs.se Center for Market Studies, Stockholm School of Economics,
Stockholm, Sweden
© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or
with their consent.
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT 983
conflicts for understanding the overall development of the markets they study, and
Hartman and Coslor (2019) suggest that market actors rely on the strategic framing of
exchanges to navigate the institutional complexity created by contradictory frames. In
this paper, we explore how multiple framing efforts contribute to shaping the market
for influencer marketing in Sweden.
Over the past 15 years, marketers have come to acknowledge the ability of ‘influencers’
to affect consumer decisions (Ye et al., 2021). Influencers are ‘everyday, ordinary Internet
users who accumulate a relatively large following on blogs and social media through the
textual and visual narration of their personal lives and lifestyles’ (Abidin, 2016, p. 3), and
whom marketers recognise as influential. To capitalise on the clout of influencers, market
ers sponsor posts, guest appearances at events (Abidin, 2016), and other forms of
collaborations (Rundin & Colliander, 2021), but also seek to benefit without offering
compensation (Wolf & Archer, 2018). Much of the attraction of influencer marketing lies
in its position at the intersection of commercial and personal relationships (e.g. Cocker &
Cronin, 2017; Petersson McIntyre, 2020). Despite increasing formalisation, influencer
marketing remains based on – and creates tensions concerning – intimacy, authenticity,
and sincerity (Duffy, 2017; Petersson McIntyre, 2020). These tensions are linked to differ
ent ways of framing influencer marketing exchanges.
The growth of influencer marketing has taken place in tandem with the creation of
a market for such services. This has led to changes in the marketing system, including new
ways of working for marketing professionals, new third-party intermediaries (Stoldt et al.,
2019), and a blurring of lines between public relations (PR) and advertising (Wolf & Archer,
2018). In addition, it has presented challenges for advertising regulators and other autho
rities, notably concerning ad marking and hidden advertising (Colliander & Erlandsson,
2015) but also, as we show in this study, in terms of taxation. One longstanding controversy
in influencer marketing concerns the sending of ‘stuff’ to influencers. This practice involves
advertisers and PR agencies sending products and other items to influencers. We use the
term ‘stuff’ to avoid an overly rigid description: that which is sent can be referred to as gifts,
compensation, samples, review copies, etc. It is precisely this ambiguity of stuff that
motivates our study. Examples of stuff range from clothes and makeup to luxury items
like watches and electronics, to services such as travel or beauty treatments.
Our study maps the different ways in which involved actors frame this circulation of
stuff (cf. Zelizer, 2000) within the Swedish market for influencer marketing. From a PR
perspective, stuff is sent for the purpose of earning media, e.g. by packaging stuff in
visually pleasing ways, senders hope that recipients will be inspired to feature them in
their channels. Alternatively, stuff sent may be framed as compensation for a marketing
service (C. Davies & Hobbs, 2020; Navarro et al., 2020). Furthermore, we find that the
Swedish Tax Agency and advocates for professionalising influencer marketing suggest yet
other frames. The regulatory role of the Agency creates a situation where one actor is
tasked with determining the nature of these exchanges, leading to ethnographically
productive conflict and friction. While many actors advocate increased formalisation (i.e.
explication of rules and processes), they do not fully agree about what this means for the
sending of stuff. Rather, the stakeholders propose different frames that focus on fair
compensation, clear division of responsibilities, or smooth exchanges. We explore how
these competing efforts of framing the sending of stuff contribute to shaping the market
for influencer marketing.
984 J. NILSSON ET AL.
Relying on Callon’s (1998) notion of framing, we suggest that the way in which an
exchange is framed is the outcome of concrete activities, which we refer to as ‘framing
practices’. We distinguish three types of framing practices: framing, reframing, and pre
framing. Framing refers to enacting a frame for the purpose of consummating a specific
exchange, as when a sender proposes products as compensation for a specified number
of social media posts or, alternatively, presents a product as something for the influencer
to try, with no obligation to post about it. Reframing, then, refers to efforts to cast new
light on past exchanges and their context, as when the Tax Agency rules whether the
interactions between a marketer and an influencer count as taxable exchange. Finally,
preframing refers to efforts that seek to define how actors ought to frame future
exchanges they engage in, as when advocates of influencer professionalisation encourage
influencers to not accept stuff as compensation. Our exploration is guided by two
questions:
● How do senders, recipients and third parties frame the sending of stuff to
influencers?
● How do framing practices contribute to shaping the market for influencer
marketing?
The paper is structured as follows: Next, we review previous research on influencer

marketing. We then present our theoretical lens for studying market shaping through
framing practices. After that we outline our methodology. Our findings describe the
framing practices of senders, recipients and third parties and identify four proposed
frames for the sending of stuff to influencers. We then discuss how framing practices
are employed in efforts to shape markets. Finally, we summarise our contribution to the
market shaping and influencer marketing literatures.
Previous research: ambiguities in the influencer market

Research on influencer marketing has grown significantly in recent years. While the main
topic has been the efficacy of influencer marketing campaigns (Hudders et al., 2021;
Vrontis et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021), research has also explored the emergence and
practices of influencer marketing. This includes attention to (1) influencer work (e.g.
Abidin, 2016; Duffy, 2017); (2) influencer marketing relationships (e.g. Stoldt et al., 2019;
Wellman et al., 2020); and (3) the tensions between PR and marketing logics within this
field (e.g. Wolf & Archer, 2018). These three streams of research have highlighted several
ambiguities about influencer work, influencer marketing relationships, and marketing
work. However, research has had little to say about the ways in which these tensions
are managed in situations where different perspectives need to be reconciled.
Studies of influencer work focus on influencer content and the work of producing it.
Influencer content encourages engagement and follower responses (Ge & Gretzel, 2018),
creates intimacy (Berryman & Kavka, 2017; Petersson McIntyre, 2020) and expresses
contrived authenticity and reflexivity (Abidin, 2016). Research on the experiences of
influencers highlights the strain of having to produce content and the pressure to be
‘always on’ (Duffy, 2017), and their demanding and ill-defined work (Ashman et al., 2018).
Petersson McIntyre (2020) notes how influencers manage the relation between
themselves as performing individuals and the personas they perform – turning displays of
intimate disclosure into entrepreneurial activity. The extant research suggests that influ
encer work involves significant pressures in combining personal expression and commer
cial obligations.
Research on influencer marketing has also studied the relationships between influen
cers, followers, and marketers. Scholarship exploring the relationship between influencers
and their followers includes how YouTubers’ charisma is shaped and upheld by their
community of followers (Cocker & Cronin, 2017; Reinikainen et al., 2020), how influencers
consider issues of privacy (Archer, 2019a), and the emotional labour that influencers and
their followers undertake vis-à-vis each other (Mardon et al., 2018). Research on influen
cers’ relationships to buyers of marketing services has highlighted the desire of many
influencers to receive compensation for posting about products and brands (Archer,
2019b; Archer & Harrigan, 2016). Marketing and PR practitioners, on the other hand,
seek control and influence (Archer & Harrigan, 2016), stressing that influencers provide
authenticity and trustworthiness through their intimate relationship with followers
(Childers et al., 2019). While influencers offer new possibilities for firms to communicate
and relate with consumers, recent research also notes that arrangements between buyers
and sellers of influencer services are often characterised by significant open-endedness,
e.g. over the extent of buyers’ and influencers’ control over campaigns (Borchers & Enke,
2021). While previous scholarship has pointed out these ambiguities involved in influen
cer marketing, there is a paucity of work on how ambiguities play a part in ongoing and
changing market practice.
Some research within this relational stream has highlighted the nature of influencer
marketing as an emergent field where the connections between influencers, marketers
and audiences are still taking shape. Influencers are yet to develop a formalised code of
ethics but often rely on an ethics of authenticity in navigating decisions regarding brand
collaborations (Wellman et al., 2020). Childers et al. (2019) note that advertisers still lack
a cohesive view of how to approach influencer marketing as part of campaigns and that
its value remains unclear. Stoldt et al. (2019) suggest that while influencer marketing
builds on established practices of marketers working with journalists, journalists and
influencers differ in important ways in their professional norms and practices related to
content production, financial models, and professional ethics. The changing work of PR
professionals is the focus of a third stream of research, dealing with the ways in which the
emergence of influencer marketing is challenging established distinctions between PR
and paid marketing.
PR work has traditionally sought to secure ‘earned’ media coverage for clients. The
concept of ‘earned’ media signifies media exposure that a company does not directly
control as distinct from ‘bought’ media like advertising and ‘owned’ media like
a company’s own channels (see Stephen & Galak, 2012). The use of gifts in PR predates
influencer marketing; PR agencies have long offered products and services to journalists
and celebrities, free of charge (Naulin, 2016; Stoldt et al., 2019). Naulin (2016) describes
the efforts of French PR agents to gift in ways that maximise the frequency and quality of
reciprocation. For example, by contacting the journalists before and after sending stuff, to
check for interest and to see if the journalist plans to write something, the agents seek to
exploit the implicit obligations that come with gift giving, while steering clear of suggest
ing a market exchange. Avoiding a market exchange framing is crucial, as journalists see
receiving compensation from those they cover as a breach of journalistic ethics (Naulin,
2016; Stoldt et al., 2019). Influencers, on the other hand, are responsible for generating
their own income and tend to believe that they can both receive payment from a brand
and produce ethical content reflecting their personal opinions (Stoldt et al., 2019;
Wellman et al., 2020). According to Naulin (2016), PR agents might ask a blogger to
agree to a counter-prestation (see Mauss, 1925/2005) before receiving a costly item.
Indeed, research has suggested that the incorporation of influencer marketing into PR
work, given that PR agents sometimes use products as payment or offer monetary
compensation to influencers, is challenging the clear separation between PR and paid
marketing (e.g. C. Davies & Hobbs, 2020; Navarro et al., 2020; Wolf & Archer, 2018). In
negotiating these competing logics, the framing of the sending of stuff to influencers
remains a key point of contention.
Taken together, the reviewed studies begin to illuminate the formation of a market for
influencer marketing. However, as a marketing form in flux, the market for influencer
marketing is still negotiated. From the perspective of communications professionals,
influencer marketing is difficult to organise as it straddles distinctions between PR and
marketing, and relationships are often open-ended. While differences between PR and
marketing approaches have been noted, the practical work of navigating these logics in
specific exchanges remains unclear. In short, further research is needed on the connection
between practices of framing market exchanges and the shaping of the market for
influencer marketing, including the role of intermediaries and regulating actors.
Research has had little to say about the ways in which these tensions are managed
in situations where different perspectives need to be reconciled.
Conceptual starting points: studying market shaping through framing of

exchange
Markets are continuously shaped by a broad range of actions. The literature on market
shaping (e.g. Nenonen et al., 2019, 2021; Sprong et al., 2021) emphasises purposive
actions of (groups of) actors to ‘change market characteristics by re-designing the content
of exchange, and/or re-configuring the network of stakeholders involved, and/or re-
forming the institutions that govern all stakeholders’ behaviours in the market’
(Nenonen et al., 2019, p. 618). In addition to such purposive efforts, however, markets
are also shaped by actors’ attempts to improve their own position, as well as ordinary acts
of making do in the market (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2007).
Markets are thus the combined outcomes of multiple direct, indirect, and unintended
shaping efforts that are not necessarily aligned. The resulting tensions and controversies
have been variously theorised as multiplicity (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2006), competing
orders of worth (Finch et al., 2017), and institutional complexity (Dolbec, Arsel, et al., 2022;
Dolbec, Castilhos, et al., 2022; Ertimur & Coskuner-Balli, 2015), and have been shown to be
consequential for how markets develop. For example, Giesler (2008) describes how
a market characterised by competing logics evolves through a series of tenuous institu
tional compromises. Organisations (Dolbec, Castilhos, et al., 2022), brands (Ertimur &
Coskuner-Balli, 2015) and consumers (Husain et al., 2019) conform to competing institu
tional logics, often through the dual strategies of decoupling and hybridising incompa
tible practices. Reconciling competing logics or orders of worth in moments of exchange
demands ‘considerable, pragmatic and often costly work’ (Finch et al., 2017, p. 87).
Sometimes this involves questions on the nature of the exchanges themselves, as actors
can disagree on whether a sphere such as education (Dolbec, Castilhos, et al., 2022) or egg
donation (Hartman & Coslor, 2019) is best organised through market exchanges. We
approach the organising of exchanges through the concept of framing.
Building on the work of Goffman (1974), which places emphasis on how interactions
are shaped by how they are contextualised, or ‘framed’, Callon (1998) suggests that
economic exchanges are distinguished from other workings of the world through
ongoing acts of framing. Goffman (1974) sees the notion of a frame as the way in which
one may answer the question ‘what is going on here?’: essentially, the frame establishes
kinds of activity and their boundaries. The interactions that are of interest to Callon (1998)
are economic exchanges that form part of markets, but the separation of economic
phenomena from other activities is not given (but rather the outcome of framing).
Specifically, Callon argues that framing makes calculation possible by (temporarily) dis
entangling the agents and goods involved from their environments. This framing process
establishes what the object of exchange is, who the relevant parties are, the mode of their
interaction, as well as when an interaction begins and ends. As such, framing makes it
possible to distinguish market exchanges as interactions of a certain kind. For Callon, the
at times disinterested, at times calculative actions of people are not explained by inherent
selfishness or calculativeness, nor are they explained by different relationship types or
sectors of activity. Rather, Callon suggests that the formatting – or framing – of specific
relationships orients agents towards calculativeness or disinterestedness, i.e. towards
market exchange or gift giving. Gift giving, according to Callon, is distinguished from
market exchange by framing that excludes the return gift from consideration.
Some markets see simultaneous efforts at market exchange framing and other forms of
framing. Previous research has explored the contested status of market exchange framing
in the paid donation of human eggs (Hartman & Coslor, 2019), in subsistence markets
(Mwiti & Onyas, 2018), and in the sharing economy (Chimenti, 2020). This research high
lights the different ways in which the relationship between market and non-market
frames of exchange can be configured. Hartman and Coslor (2019) explore the rhetorical
framing strategies that intermediary agencies use to relate to the competing frames of gift
giving and commodified market exchange. On the one hand, they find that these
agencies’ donor recruitment ads frame egg donation ‘as being just like a job’ (p. 414).
This frame represents an assimilation of the logic of gift giving by the logic of market
exchange: ‘If egg donation is “just like a job”, rather than primarily altruistic, monetary and
other compensation is both natural and fair’ (Hartman & Coslor, 2019, p. 414). On the
other hand, they also find that many ads propose a form of hybrid rhetorical frame,
combining elements of market exchange and gift giving (Hartman & Coslor, 2019).
Likewise, Mwiti and Onyas (2018) find hybrid frames of exchange in subsistence markets.
Finally, Chimenti’s (2020) study of the sharing economy showcases the range of different
frames proposed by ridesharing platforms: pure market exchange, collaborative sharing
of resources, or a hybrid frame.
This scholarship informs our study in three important ways. First, it points to the
participation of a variety of actors in the processes through which exchanges are framed.
Hartman and Coslor (2019) highlight the strategic efforts of intermediary agencies in
framing egg donation and suggest that IRS classification of compensation as taxable
income and the placement of donor recruitment ads in the ‘jobs’ section of Craigslist both
support the intermediaries’ framing of egg donation as being ‘just like a job’. Framing is
done by buyers and sellers (Mwiti & Onyas, 2018), intermediaries and authorities (Hartman
& Coslor, 2019), and platforms (Chimenti, 2020). Second, it points at the occurrence of
framing controversies. Actors with a strong vision for a particular market can question the
accuracy and/or appropriateness of other actors’ proposed frames, as when the rideshar
ing community in Chimenti’s (2020) study accuses other players in the market of ‘share
washing’, or rhetorically framing the exchanges they enable as sharing while in practice
setting up market exchanges. Third, Hartman and Coslor (2019) hint at the contribution of
exchange framing controversies to broader market shaping processes when they high
light that framing egg donation as ‘just like a job’ contributes to legitimising the market
for commercial egg donation.
To further explore the contribution of multiple actors to the framing of exchanges, the
role of framing controversies, and the links between the framing of exchanges and
broader market shaping processes, we turn our attention to framing practices. Callon
(1998) emphasises that framing is ongoing, never done once and for all. Crucially, the
successful framing of an economic exchange is an achievement that relies on various
sociomaterial means such as rules, contracts, currencies, methods of measurement and
calculation, and physical marketplace arrangements. Hence, Callon’s conception of fram
ing is not purely rhetorical or discursive but involves investments in material arrange
ments that allow parties to treat an economic exchange as a discrete event. We use the
noun ‘frame’ to denote a particular way of framing an exchange, e.g. an earned media
frame. With ‘framing practices’, we refer to all activities involved in enacting such frames.
We distinguish three types of framing practices (see Figure 1). First, framing refers to
enacting a frame for the purpose of consummating a specific exchange. This concept is
Figure 1. Framing practices: illustration of framing, reframing, and preframing of exchanges.

aligned with the original Callonian framing concept. In the simplest of cases, framing
involves a seller proposing a frame and a buyer accepting it, but framing can also involve
the parties proposing different frames, as well as the participation of other human and
non-human actors. For example, both intermediary agencies and the Craigslist category
of ‘jobs’ take part in framing the interactions between an egg donor and prospective
parents (Hartman & Coslor, 2019). Second, reframing refers to efforts to cast new light on
past exchanges and their context. The purpose of reframing is to reinterpret and provide
an alternative answer to the question ‘what is going on here’ based on already consum
mated exchanges. Conversely, we label the third type of practice preframing to highlight
that it proposes how actors ought to frame future exchanges they engage in (and there
fore, how they should understand what is going on). The sharing community in Chimenti’s
(2020) study engages in reframing when they suggest that commercial ridesharing plat
forms facilitate market exchanges rather than sharing. The community’s message that
ridesharing should not involve market exchanges is an attempt at preframing. The three
concepts of framing, reframing, and preframing align well with the conceptualisation of
market practices proposed by Kjellberg and Helgesson (2006, 2007). The original Callonian
framing concept links to the notion of exchange practices, defined as the concrete
activities that contribute to realising specific economic exchanges. The proposed concept
of reframing relates closely to representational practices, defined as activities that con
tribute to depicting markets and their workings. Finally, the proposed concept of pre
framing aligns with the notion of normalising practices, defined as activities that
contribute to establishing normative objectives for markets. We suggest that this
expanded vocabulary of ‘framing’, ‘reframing’, and ‘preframing’ is useful for exploring
how different actors seek to frame (and hence contextualise) exchanges, and how such
efforts contribute to shaping their market context.
Methodology
The paper is based on ongoing fieldwork on the development of the Swedish market for
influencer marketing. It draws on a range of qualitative data generated by participant
observation with the Swedish Tax Agency, interviews with market actors, content from
social media and other online sources, media articles, and documents. Participant obser
vation (C. A. Davies, 2008) with the Tax Agency included sitting in on four work meetings
dealing with the issue of taxation of influencer services from 2019–2022, undertaken both
remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and on site in Stockholm and Gothenburg. We
also took part in the Agency’s dialogue seminar with representatives of the influencer
industry, dealing with the issue of taxation of influencer services, and followed Tax
Agency representatives to an industry summit and a breakfast seminar organised by
a Stockholm PR firm.
Besides regular conversation with tax agents, we have undertaken 22 recorded inter
views with 26 respondents working in various positions with influencer marketing (see
Table 1). These interviews were helpful in defining issues and lines of reasoning across the
many kinds of involved actors and offered useful explications of the stakes involved in
shaping the market for influencer marketing. Participants were selected based on relevant
experience, having a high profile within the industry, or expertise and formal responsi
bilities. Recruitment was pragmatic: often we identified interlocutors in documents or on
990
Table 1. Interview participants.

Interview person(s) Pseudonym Organisation Duration Format
Influencers
Influencer chef Imogen Self-employed 1h 04min In person
Influencer, blogger Iris Self-employed 1h 04min In person
J. NILSSON ET AL.
Influencer, blogger Ingrid Self-employed 1h 37min Online video

Book influencer Isla Hobbyist 24min Online audio
Influencer, influencer network staffer Inga Influencer network 1h 06min Online video
PR professionals
PR consultant Patricia PR Agency 1h 01min In person
PR consultant Pia PR Agency focused on food industry 1h 07min In person
PR consultant Phoebe PR Agency 56min In person
PR consultant Paula PR Agency focused on culture sector 57min Online video
Brand representatives
Brand manager Bill Wine importer 58min In person
Marketing manager Brian Clothing brand 1h 09min In person
PR manager Barbara Bedlinen brand 39min In person
Industry experts
Advertising consultant Edwin Advertising agency 59min In person
Industry analyst Eric Advertising industry organisation 51min In person
Industry expert, activist Edgar Non-Government Organisation 45min Online video
Teacher of influencer media production course Edina Adult education institution 1h 01min Online video
Influencer platform executive Emile Influencer platform 51min In person
Regulators
3 Advertising ombudsman representatives Rose; Rita; Rebecca Advertising industry self-regulation organisation 1h 07min In person, group interview
2 Consumer protection agents Rachel; Rosalie Consumer protection agency 56min Online video, group interview
Tax agent Rune The Swedish Tax Agency 28min In person
Media professionals
Blogger covering social media and influencers Maya Online news site 1h 48min In person
2 Journalists covering influencer marketing Mia; Marie Industry news media 58min Online video, group interview
social media, approached people during events, and routinely asked for recommenda
tions for further sources during interviews. Such a snowball recruitment approach works
well within Sweden’s relatively small business networks.
To capture the formation and formalisation of influencer marketing we have also
collected and analysed a range of documents and online content. This includes books
on influencers and influencer marketing (e.g. Hörnfeldt, 2018), as well as newspaper
articles on the subject from 2007 until 2022. Further, we have followed and analysed
blog posts and open Instagram accounts, and gathered documents such as government
reports and recommendations, as well as information published by the Tax Agency on its
website.
As such, we have worked with a broadly ethnographic methodology (C. A. Davies,
2008), drawing on a wide range of sources, while being attentive to the context and
generation of research materials. Such a holistic approach allows for comparing different
traces, perspectives and viewpoints, as the juxtaposition of partial accounts contributes to
a richer understanding of a studied phenomenon. Based on Kozinets’s (2019) notion of
‘netnography’, we see acts of researching online as an active engagement, integrated
with rather than separate from offline phenomena. Materials have been produced by two
of the authors, with analysis shared between all authors. Fieldwork materials are primarily
in Swedish. All fieldwork quotes are from materials in Swedish and have been translated
by the authors.
Analysis has consisted of close reading, content coding and thematic elaboration of
research materials for sections, statements or situations dealing with exchange, taxa
tion thereof and tensions expressed over such practice (Saldaña, 2021). This has
produced a range of ethnographically rich strings, which were then thematically
analysed jointly by the authors. More specifically, we analysed the material with
attention to the different proposed frames and framing practices involved (Callon,
1998; Goffman, 1974), assuming an agnostic stance regarding the nature of actors in
relation to the network (Latour, 2007; Law, 2004). This means that we have followed
how exchanges, rules, actors and relationships are defined and proposed in the
material. In order to protect the identity of our interlocutors, we have used pseudo
nyms for the quoted interview participants according to their roles, e.g. influencers are
given names starting with ‘I’ (see Table 1).
Findings: framing the sending of stuff to influencers

Many different market actors take part in framing the sending of stuff to influencers.
Framing that seeks to consummate exchanges is primarily done by the senders of stuff: PR
professionals and marketers. Influencers, as recipients of stuff, often play a more reactive
role; either accepting the sender’s proposed frame or refusing the offer of stuff. However,
these are not the only actors seeking to frame stuff sent to influencers. Defining what goes
on in these exchanges matters for advertising regulators deciding on the rules for ad
marking, alcohol industry stakeholders discussing the legality of product samples sent to
influencers, tax authorities dealing with the taxation of stuff, and influencers and others
advocating for professionalising influencer marketing. While these actors are not neces
sarily involved in the consummation of particular exchanges, they bring forward inter
pretations of what is actually going on when stuff is sent to influencers – engaging in
reframing. Further, they promote frames that they consider to be aligned with regulation
or with their vision of the market – thereby engaging in preframing. As the most long-
standing controversies around the sending of stuff to influencers in Sweden have con
cerned taxation and the professional role of influencers, we map the framing practices of
the Swedish Tax Agency and advocates of influencer professionalisation.
In this section, we first describe senders’ framing practices, focused on the con
summation of successful influencer marketing exchanges. Senders propose two alter
native frames, which we refer to as the earned media frame and the bought exposure
frame. We then go on to describe the framing practices, primarily reframing and
preframing, of the Tax Agency and influencer professionalisation advocates, and
their proposed frames of taxation and professionalism. Table 2 compares the four
proposed frames.
Framing exchanges of stuff: the proposed frames of earned media and bought
exposure
The senders of stuff primarily engage in framing to ensure the successful con
summation of exchanges. We identify two proposed frames: PR professionals
propose an earned media frame while marketers propose a bought exposure
frame. While both frames build on established practices in PR and media buying,
framing particular exchanges still requires effort. The two sections that follow
outline the concrete activities through which senders seek to frame the sending
of stuff as earning media and buying exposure, respectively.
Framing the sending of stuff as earning media

Pursuit of earned media predates the rise of influencer marketing and has parallels in
publishing and celebrity endorsement (Childers et al., 2019; Martínez-López et al.,
2020; Naulin, 2016). Earning mentions in blogs became part of the work of Swedish
PR agents in the period 2005–2010. Bloggers and other social media content produ
cers started to receive the same kinds of invitations, press releases, and packages as
journalists. As these groups developed into influencers, PR agencies became involved
in ‘paid’ influencer marketing as well, offering monetary compensation in return for
social media posts. However, the practice of sending stuff to influencers remains, and
has become increasingly established in the organisational routines of PR professionals.
Owing to its roots in earlier PR practices, the proposed frame of earned media bears
resemblance to the way in which stuff sent to journalists has been framed, identified
by Naulin (2016) as a gift frame.
In the days when blogging was considered a hobby rather than a possible line of work,
recipients were simply happy to be noticed and to get ‘free stuff’, and packages could be
sent to them without much forethought. Today, a lot of work goes into increasing the
chances of a desired response. This resembles the efforts directed at journalists described
by Naulin (2016) and involves carefully selecting recipients, assessing interest before
sending something, packaging the product to produce the desired response, checking
in afterwards, and monitoring counter-prestations. The PR professionals in our study, as
Table 2. An overview of the proposed frames identified in the study.
Proposed frame Earned media Bought exposure Taxation Professionalism
Primary proponents PR professionals Marketers Tax Agency Influencer advocates
Role of stuff Means for content Compensation; Free products Compensation (salary or benefit) or work tools. (Poor) compensation or means for content
production; Cause of production.
delight.
Role of sender Relationship builder Buyer Marketer with commercial intent (responsibilities Supporting or exploiting party
partially determined by the frame enacted by
the parties to the exchange).
Role of recipient Content producer; Service provider; Influential consumer. Influencer (responsibilities partially determined Serious content producer or freebie-
Consumer. by the frame enacted by the parties to the seeker; Professional marketer or
exchange); Consumer vulnerable newcomer.
Expectations on Implicit Explicit Explicitness of expectations irrelevant for Explicitness of expectations matters.
reciprocation taxation.
Emphasised value Inspirational value of Value of stuff to the recipient as Economic value of stuff; Value to the average Economic value of content; Value of stuff
stuff as delight and consumer; Recognition as influencer. consumer. downplayed.
content
View on calculation Discouraged Calculation in terms of a consumer Assumed. Promotes inclusion of taxes in Encouraged to ensure fair compensation.
getting a deal calculations.
Relationship to the A type of gift frame A hybrid frame: a market exchange An expansive market exchange frame. A market exchange frame: Condemns the
frames of market distinguished from frame that may strategically draw on bought exposure frame and condones
exchange and gift market exchange. the earned media frame. the earned media frame.
giving
JOURNAL OF MARKETING MANAGEMENT
993
well as those in Naulin’s (2016) study, avoid monetary compensation and contractual
obligations to instead gift in ways that maximise the likelihood of reciprocation.
The earned media frame enacts the role of the sender as a relationship builder. On the
topic of selection, Pia explains: ‘I can, without much in-depth research as I know the
market, know for whom this is a good product, for whom this isn’t interesting for real’.
(Personal interview.) Once PR agents have identified the potential recipients, they typi
cally make contact to check interest. Our interlocutors describe introducing the product
and asking the influencer whether they are interested in receiving it or testing it. Phoebe
emphasises: ‘If you just send out a gift without having agreed [to send something] or
having paid them for it, they won’t publish anything unless you’re extremely lucky’.
(Personal interview)
A lot of effort can go into packaging items in a visually appealing way to increase the
likelihood of social media posts. Often, the focal product is complemented by other items
and information. For example, a cream cheese might come with a sandwich recipe, freshly
baked bread, ‘something wonderfully green sticking up’, and a nice basket (Pia, personal
interview). Packages often include handwritten notes and can be personalised by, for
example, printing the name of the recipient on the cover of a notebook. Indeed, Pia
suggests that the recipient should ‘almost’ feel like they are receiving a gift. Iris, a blogger
who has been active in Sweden for over a decade, notes that PR firms show care to send
her the right things:
Early every year, all the PR firms send out a questionnaire where you give your sizes for
everything. When I started getting things, maybe ten years ago, [. . .] I could get odd, huge
clothes. Stuff that was completely irrelevant and that they had only found somewhere. Now
you get really fancy, like, tailor made things. [. . .] And it feels so . . . everything is handwritten:
‘I saw this and I thought of you. You would look great in this’ and like ‘these clothes could be
matched’, you know. Amazing, like. It feels caring, and that’s really smart of them. (Iris,
personal interview)
While Iris recognises the ‘smart’ strategy involved, her appreciation of stuff received
focuses on the delight and care involved.
The packaging of items, and the earned media frame, addresses the influencer both as
a professional content producer and as an individual consumer, or as Pia suggests: ‘you
feel you’ve received free content or a free experience’. While a visually appealing package
might delight the influencer as an individual, it can also offer valuable content to the
influencer in their professional role. A beautiful package is good content for Instagram.
The earned media frame enacts stuff as both a means for content production and a cause
for delight.
When done well, the proposed frame of earned media keeps expectations on recipro
cation implicit. While PR agents cannot demand a counter-prestation, social nudges may
come in the form of checking in – Patricia notes that she will not contact influencers to ask
when they will be posting content, but that she might get in touch to see if a recipient of
a product enjoyed it or has questions, as a reminder (see Bourdieu, 1991 for more on the
role of timing of reciprocity in interaction). Many PR agents monitor the resulting social
media posts, and often include them in their reports to clients. The quality of the counter-
prestations also matters for the future relationship between the PR agent and the
influencer. PR agents tell us that they might follow up on freely offered content with
offers to do paid collaborations. While Paula maintains that she does not follow the
resulting social media posts that carefully, she suggests that some book influencers
might be ‘blacklisted’ by publishers because ‘they want to have everything and that
sometimes maybe no review pops up, rather you’re just building someone’s private
library’ (Personal interview). Possibly, then, lack of reciprocation leads to not being sent
further stuff, at least if there is a pattern, and at least for book influencers who as hobbyists
have low status compared to both traditional media and professional lifestyle influencers.
Distinguishing between the earned media frame and the bought exposure frame,
a type of market exchange frame, is important for PR professionals. While PR agents
work with market exchange frames in other parts of their work (i.e. when offering
influencers monetary compensation), they typically shun it when sending stuff. For
instance, the PR agents that we interviewed avoid requiring explicit counter-prestations.
Pia explains:
If I were to [. . .] write to a person ‘I’ll send this to you, and it would be great if you posted it on
your channels’. Then I would feel like I’ve placed an order and then basically the person on the
other side could start calculating ‘the value of this kit is SEK400 (EUR37). Now she expects me
to, this person or this agency, to post this. Oh, so I need to take a good picture, I need to style
it in a nice way’ and blah blah blah and then SEK400 is very poor compensation for the work
and the publicity that you get in return. And there are many PR agencies that are very bad at
this when they, well, make demands of a person. Because if you make it a requirement, there
needs to be a payment involved. (Pia, personal interview)
To Pia, the calculative frame (Callon, 1998) implied by bought exposure is problematic as
it may reveal to the influencers that they are poorly paid for their work. In contrast, the
earned media frame discourages calculation, instead leveraging the social obligations of
gift giving. In interviews, Imogen professes to sometimes accept items because she feels
refusing would be a personal slight, and Iris acknowledges the social awkwardness of
refusing a gift.
Framing the sending of stuff as bought exposure

Like the practice of seeking earned mentions in blogs, the practice of paying with stuff
goes back to the early days of influencer marketing. Over time, the use of stuff as
compensation has seen both increased formalisation and wider application linked to
strategies relying on less established influencers. For example, Swedish watch company
Daniel Wellington and phone case brand iDeal of Sweden have both received praise as
influencer marketing pioneers for their strategies which are heavily reliant on paying
influencers with stuff (Lundin & Winberg, 2019). Intermediary actors such as micro
influencer marketing platform Boostified have attempted to both provide the infrastruc
ture for companies looking to purchase influencer services with stuff and for influencers
wishing to pay in-store with their Instagram posts (Caesar, 2019).
The bought exposure frame represents a type of market exchange frame. It enacts
explicit expectations on reciprocation: A rejected collaboration offer, shared by an
insulted influencer on Instagram Stories, promises ‘free product(s) and will be free ship
ping’ in exchange for ‘1 Instagram feed post + 1 Instagram story (with a link sticker/swipe-
up link)’ (fieldnotes). This offer clearly states what is expected from the influencer in return
for the stuff. The bought exposure frame, as exemplified by the above offer, clearly frames
the stuff as compensation. At the same time, the wording ‘free product(s)’ suggests
a different identity for stuff. Presumably, the characterisation of stuff as ‘free’ aims to
direct attention away from the work involved in producing the required counter-
prestation – unsuccessfully in this case as the prospective recipient questioned the fair
ness of the deal.
The bought exposure frame enacts the sender of stuff as a buyer of influencer market
ing services. Brian, who works as a marketing manager at an international clothing brand,
describes a large campaign that involved offering hundreds of influencers gift cards in
exchange for social media posts. He describes weighing in factors such as the number of
followers, average likes and comments, as well as brand fit in deciding whether to offer an
influencer a GBP100 or 200 gift card. Influencers who accepted were directed to a special
version of the brand’s online store where they could use their vouchers to buy selected
garments to feature in their social media posts.
The bought exposure frame proposes two different roles for the recipient. On the one
hand, the recipient is a service provider producing social media exposure in exchange for
stuff. On the other hand, the bought exposure frame often treats recipients as influential
consumers paying for stuff with social media posts. This is evident in the clothing brand’s
shop-like interface and in Boostified’s explicit references to paying with posts. The bought
exposure frame seeks to promote calculation in terms of a consumer getting a good deal.
This is also evident in the email exchanges between senders and prospective recipients.
A collaboration offer shared by an influencer on Instagram Stories promises the recipient
a 35% discount if buying three posters and a 50% discount if buying five or more posters
in exchange for a picture posted together with a discount code (fieldnotes). When the
influencer confronted the company, pointing out that this deal would mean the influen
cer in fact pays to be able to advertise the company, the company countered that
recipients usually appreciate the ‘cheap posters’ and the opportunity for collaboration.
The prospective sender’s reply makes visible how the bought exposure frame, in addition
to emphasising the value of stuff to the recipient as a consumer, highlights the value of
being recognised as an influencer. Likewise, offers evoke recognition of the recipient as an
influencer when they rely on wordings linked to the activities of more established
influencers, using labels such as ‘collaboration’, ‘sponsorship’, and ‘ambassador’.
Even if it firmly frames the sending of stuff as market exchange, the bought
exposure frame may still incorporate earned media strategies. For instance, by main
taining informal contacts, personalising messages, emails, etc. Further, both Brian and
Barbara (PR manager at a premium bedlinen company), highlight the importance of
making the influencer feel chosen. They stress the personal touch created by contact
ing influencers directly via email, rather than via a PR agency or an influencer market
ing platform. When asked if influencers were willing to commit to the deal with a bed
linen set as the only compensation, Barbara replied that contacted influencers were
certainly motivated ‘as a set is about SEK9,000 (EUR848) . . . That was enough as
payment’ she added, as the company had not ‘watered down this system’ so influen
cers ‘felt they had been extremely carefully chosen’. (Barbara, personal interview) By
strategically drawing on aspects of the earned media frame, marketers propose
a hybrid frame that combines market exchange and gift giving (see Hartman &
Coslor, 2019; Mwiti & Onyas, 2018).
Reframing and preframing exchanges: the proposed frames of taxation and

professionalism
The issue of sending stuff to influencers is a concern for both the Swedish Tax Agency and
advocates of influencer professionalisation, though neither are directly involved in con
summating these exchanges. The Tax Agency is engaged in reframing and preframing the
sending of stuff because determining what goes on in these exchanges is consequential
for their taxation. The Agency proposes a taxation frame that seeks to realise taxable
exchanges. Professionalisation advocates (some of whom are influencers or journalists,
and as such potentially recipients of stuff) are engaged in reframing and preframing the
sending of stuff because determining what goes on in these exchanges matters for their
vision of strengthening the professional status of influencers. The advocates propose
a professionalism frame that seeks to improve the standards and position of influencer
work. The two sections that follow map the concrete activities through which the Tax
Agency and advocates of influencer professionalisation have sought to reframe and
preframe the sending of stuff, as well as other actors’ reactions to these activities.
Reframing and preframing taxable exchanges

The Swedish Tax Agency recognises that senders and recipients frame the sending of stuff in
two different ways, as either earning media or buying exposure. The extent to which the
frame enacted by senders and recipients matters to the Tax Agency has evolved over time.
The Agency’s interest in stuff sent to bloggers became public in February 2009, when a tabloid
‘revealed’ that the Tax Agency was monitoring blogs in order to detect tax fraud (Julander,
2009). Early media coverage distinguished between a product received as ‘compensation for
work performed’ and a product received ‘without having asked for it’ and suggested that
while the Tax Agency saw the former as something that ‘must of course be taxed’, the fiscal
treatment of the latter was under investigation (Pettersson, 2009). The same year, the Agency
arrived at an expanded definition of stuff as taxable that amounted to extending a market
exchange frame to all sending of stuff, irrespective of the frame enacted by senders and
recipients. The explicit or implicit nature of the counter-prestation is thus not a factor. This
taxation frame assumes calculation and promotes the inclusion of taxes in the calculations of
senders and recipients. A 2009 investigation argued that companies do not give to bloggers
‘out of pure generosity’ but ‘for purely commercial reasons’. Since then, the Agency’s refram
ing has remained constant. In 2019, the Agency wrote:
A product or service that you receive from a client or a company because you are an
influencer is not considered a tax-free gift. It is compensation for your work as influencer
[. . .] – it is enough that you have accepted the product and kept it, and that the sender hopes
that you will advertise the contents. (Skatteverket, 2019)
While the Tax Agency reframes all sending of stuff as market exchange, the frame enacted
by the sender and the recipient matters for determining the more precise identity of stuff
as well as how the Tax Agency defines the roles and responsibilities of sender and
recipient.1 When the parties to the exchange enact the bought exposure frame, the
taxation frame defines stuff as salary, the sender as an employer, and the recipient as
an employee. Consequently, the sender is expected to report the payment of
compensation to the Agency (if the value of stuff together with other compensation to
the same recipient amounts to at least SEK100 (EUR9) during the calendar year) and pay
employer contributions (if the value of stuff together with other compensation to the
same recipient amounts to at least SEK1,000 (EUR95) during the calendar year). When the
parties to the exchange enact the earned media frame, the taxation frame does not assign
these responsibilities to the sender. Instead, the recipient is responsible for including the
stuff in their tax declaration as taxable benefits. In either case, it is the assumed commer
cial intent of the sender that defines the exchange as market exchange and stuff as
compensation. Likewise, the taxation frame always views the recipient as an influencer,
receiving stuff in that role.
However, the taxation frame also recognises the role of the recipient as consumer. Stuff
is taxable because it is seen as having personal value to the recipient. This is evident when
the Tax Agency writes that stuff lent to influencers is to be seen as a taxable benefit if it is
‘products that are typically purchased by consumers for private use’ (Skatteverket, 2020).
An exception to the Agency’s reframing of all stuff as compensation are products
considered as tax-free work tools. A product lent to an influencer is seen as a tax-free
work tool when ‘the product is of essential importance for the recipient to be able to
perform their duties’ and the benefit is ‘of limited value to the recipient and difficult to
distinguish from the usefulness for the task’ (Skatteverket, 2020). This exception does not
question the Agency’s characterisation of these exchanges as market exchange but rather
justifies the tax-free status of work tools with the absence of private consumption value.
To ensure the compliance of senders and recipients with the taxation frame, the
Swedish Tax Agency seeks to preframe the sending of stuff through information and
industry dialogue. This is part of a wider effort towards tax compliance (Björklund Larsen,
2018). Much of the reasoning for the Agency’s focus on influencers was expressed by tax
agents as oriented around shaping young social media users’ willingness to pay tax, as
well as stifling unfair competition from tax avoidance and mitigating the risk of tax error.
In order to achieve these goals, the Agency issued press releases and set up dialogue
sessions with the influencer marketing industry. Such efforts were described to us both as
opportunity to gather input and identifying if there were issues over taxation that needed
to be addressed.
In connection to the Tax Agency’s announcement that influencer marketing would be
one of its focus areas for tax compliance during 2019, detailed information was released
targeting ‘influencers and bloggers’ and structured into questions and answers:
I have received products, do I have to pay tax?
Yes. The basic rule is that you pay tax if you keep a product irrespective of whether you
advertise it or not. What you must pay tax for is the market value, i.e., the price you would
have had to pay had you bought the product – it can be anything from inexpensive products
to designer jeans and mobile phones.
You also have to pay tax for products that you have received but you give away, sell, save or
raffle off to your followers, the value does not matter.
You do not need to pay tax for a product you return or do not pick up. This should also apply
if an item you received clearly has lacked value for you both privately and in your professional
activity and has seen no other use. You should then state, when filing your tax return, which
items you have received that you have not reported as income. (Skatteverket, 2019)
The Agency website specified that influencers must pay tax on received stuff they use,
give it away, or raffle it off. This includes travel (except business trips), free breakfasts,
lunches, and dinners (but not refreshments like coffee, pastries, and fruit), discounts (that
are used) and gift bags. The Agency takes an inclusive, if not all-encompassing stance on
what constitutes taxable exchange. In addition to providing information about tax rules,
the Tax Agency can conduct audits to ensure compliance. While both senders (Karlsson,
2020) and recipients (Ericson, 2019) have been audited, and have had to pay additional
taxes, audits are rare, and many recipients consider the threat of audits as largely
theoretical.
The Tax Agency’s preframing has had an effect. For example, some PR agents
have started to inform recipients of their responsibility to pay tax on items received
(and their value). Our influencer interlocutors sometimes discuss how to account for
the stuff they receive for their tax return. However, a range of contestations around
the Tax Agency’s reframing and preframing practices have been raised over time.
Such attempts at reframing the issue involve influencers arguing that they have not
asked for stuff, or that the stuff received is actually work tools. Many influencers
stress that they should not have to pay tax for such items: the argument is that it is
‘unfair’ or ‘unreasonable’ that ‘you are supposed to pay tax for something you
haven’t asked for or where you haven’t promised something in return’ (Ingrid,
personal interview).
Influencers’ attempts at reframing have varied significantly over time, from a scattered
range of early arguments to more precise contestations in the Tax Agency’s dialogue
seminar. In 2010, the Tax Agency’s push for bloggers to declare stuff received as income
garnered attention in both news media and blogging communities. In the debate, stuff
appeared open to different reframings, with bloggers and media commentators propos
ing several different accounts, even within the same text. Bloggers and media commen
tators often compared the stuff received by bloggers to the review copies, samples, and
invitations received by journalists (Skott, 2010). Commentators both drew similarities and
distinctions between the two groups, with some suggesting that the stuff received by
journalists was a matter of ‘press ethics and credibility’ rather than taxation (Creutzer,
2010). Generally, the articles and blog posts referred to stuff sent to bloggers as ‘gifts’ or
‘presents’. One group of bloggers wrote an opinion piece reframing themselves as
particularly well-connected consumers, willing to tell others about their ostensibly private
consumption practices. The argument was that ‘blogging as such is not a job but
a lifestyle, a way to share what is going on in one’s life. And [. . .] that this is not something
you can tax’ (Hjertén, 2010).
While early controversies around taxation could question the market exchange frame
of the Tax Agency, reframing stuff as gifts, or blogging as a lifestyle, this has given way to
reframing efforts that do not question the market exchange frame but rather focus on
questioning the value of stuff to the recipient as consumer. Some influencers argue that
they receive stuff in their capacity as influencers and do not personally benefit from it. In
the dialogue seminar with the Agency, one influencer claimed they were ‘working twenty-
four-seven’, with no time to benefit personally from the stuff sent to them. This questions
the taxation frame’s definition of the recipients as influencers and consumers, emphasis
ing the influencer role alone. Others focus on specific stuff not being valuable to them due
to the large quantities received or a mismatch with their taste, lifestyle, or diet. While this
brings to the frame individualised consumer value, the taxation frame highlights eco
nomic value – stuff is taxed based on market value – and value to the average consumer.
A related dilemma was brought up by a tax agent during our fieldwork. An expensive
oven had been lent by a home appliance brand to a food influencer, replacing her regular
oven. The influencer argued that the new oven did not provide a benefit over her
temporarily unavailable private oven. Influencers and the Agency often differ in their
views regarding the boundary between private use and business use. As tax agents like to
point out, the Agency’s interpretations have yet to be tried in court. Often the information
from the Tax Agency has a dual message: on the one hand, stressing that ‘it’s really quite
simple’. On the other hand, agents try not to precede court decisions, in instances where
questions get technical. While the rules are clear in principle, the exact boundaries of their
application are not.
In dialogue and breakfast seminars, influencers and marketing professionals express
frustration around how the Agency failed to grasp ‘how things are done in the
business’. Essentially, this is an example of how industry professionals take issue with
how the Agency’s proposed frame translates to the framing practices involved in
consummating exchanges. Over time, however, industry practice in Sweden appears
to have shifted towards informing influencers about their fiscal obligations. Yet, there
were also calls on the Agency to contribute to bringing order to the industry. For
instance, in the dialogue seminar we took part in, PR agency representatives urged the
Tax Agency to set up a system for reporting transactions. During work meetings and in
conversations with the Tax Agency, this suggestion has been repeatedly dismissed by
agents. The Agency does not wish to ‘organise the market’ but seeks to preframe its
exchanges for tax compliance.
Reframing and preframing professional exchanges

In 2010, influencer marketing, not yet known by this name, was still very much an
emerging field. While many bloggers earned much of their blogging income from
banner ads and contracts with blog portals, covert advertising was common since
being included in blog content was recognised as valuable to marketers. However,
many questions regarding who would capture this value and through what means
remained open. This was reflected in the plurality of frames suggested by bloggers in
response to the prospect of taxation, as discussed in the previous section. In the years
that have followed, several efforts have been made at professionalising influencer
work. For example, a professional network was founded in 2014 under the name
Better Bloggers by Linda Hörnfeldt, rebranding as Influencers of Sweden in 2016. In
2018, Hörnfeldt, published a handbook for influencers (Hörnfeldt, 2018). She also runs
an online course and influencer certification programme. In addition, influencer
courses have been offered in Sweden by a beauty magazine, an upper secondary
school, and an adult education institution. While efforts of professionalising influencer
work have dealt with various aspects of being an influencer, relating to different
frames of sending and receiving stuff is a recurring topic. The professionalism frame
proposed by influencer advocates seeks to improve the standards and position of
influencer work.
Professionalisation advocates’ reframing of stuff depends on the frame enacted by

senders (and recipients). For them, exchanges framed in line with the earned media frame
are not controversial. As such, their reframing of these exchanges tends to reproduce
many aspects of this frame. Especially, influencers and influencer advocates working in
content areas where influencers publish ‘reviews’, such as books, beauty products, and
alcoholic beverages, support the earned media frame. The ideal influencer in these areas
is described as a serious content producer with passion and expertise in the subject.
Review copies and product samples help these influencers produce better content by
allowing them to compare a larger number of goods or review new products before
launch. In other areas of content, stuff is reframed more ambiguously as PR packages and
deliveries. In any case, the professionalism frame considers stuff, when framed by the
sender as earning media, as means for content production and sees the sender as a party
supporting the recipient in such work.
While professionalisation advocates envision the recipient in the professional role of an
independent reviewer, they acknowledged that not all recipients live up to this ideal.
A long-time advocate for beauty influencers argues that the growing number of influen
cers has coincided with a decrease in seriousness:
I have always said that influencers are almost as competent and have just as much integrity as
journalists. It was true for a long time but is not anymore. There are still credible influencers
but there are even more freebie-seekers who put themselves before their followers. (Norman,
2019)
This advocate of beauty influencers, a journalist, further discusses recipients’ betrayal of

the professionalism frame in a series of Instagram Stories. She suggests that when
influencers merely show off stuff they have received or publish posts thanking the sender,
stuff appears as something that is of private benefit to the influencer rather than as a tool
that helps the influencer better serve their audience. The professionalism frame, like the
earned media frame, distinguishes between market exchange and gift giving. However,
the professionalism frame emphasises that the recipient receives stuff in professional
rather than private capacity. The influencer advocate writes:
Don’t publish content just to show that you HAVE RECEIVED press packages! It has no value to
the reader, is unserious and it is precisely because of such behaviour that the Tax Agency
thinks that you should pay tax for the value of these press packages! Put it in context! Have an
opinion! Help your follower, not yourself! (@kickinorman, Instagram Stories, 2022)
Here, influencers’ betrayal of the professionalism frame is proposed as the reason why the
Tax Agency wants to tax these packages.
While they condone the use of the earned media frame, advocates of influencer
professionalisation condemn the use of stuff as compensation, or the bought exposure
frame, and seek to reframe these exchanges. For those who emphasise the independent
reviewer role, the freedom of the influencer to independently decide on content is key,
which means that an influencer should not agree to post about stuff as a condition for
receiving it. More often, however, the use of stuff as compensation is reframed as
exploitation. This reframing relies on a conceptualisation of the influencer as
a professional marketer rather than a professional reviewer. This form of professionalism
is suggested by influencers and influencer advocates who emphasise the value that
entrepreneurial influencers provide to paying clients. According to this market exchange

frame, the valuable work of influencers deserves fair compensation beyond the stuff that
is sent to them. The professionalism frame sees stuff as poor compensation. At the same
time, professionalisation advocates highlight that it is often newer and smaller influencers
that get these offers. Hörnfeldt (2022) calls paying with stuff ‘a deeply strategic and
manipulative strategy’ that seeks to make micro-influencers ‘feel special and chosen,
while the companies actually take advantage of them without paying either market
wages or employer contributions’. She labels micro-influencers ‘modern black-market
workforce who not only have their time stolen – but also their integrity’. When the sender
proposes the bought media frame, the professionalism frame sees the sender as an
exploiter and the recipient as a potentially vulnerable newcomer. Professionalisation
advocates see accepting products as payment as selling oneself short or ‘working for
free’. The fact that the recipient is taxed for the value of received stuff is brought in to
further bring to light the exploitation of influencers; worse than ‘working for free’, the tax-
paying influencer has to ‘pay to work’.
In order to bring to light the exploitation of influencers, influencers and influencer
professionalisation advocates sometimes call out companies that pay with stuff. In an act of
reframing, this can involve an influencer posting a picture of an email on their Instagram
Stories, often with a caption explaining why the offer is bad, sometimes followed up by the
influencer’s reply to the company. Sometimes these posts tag professionalisation advo
cates such as Kicki Norman and Linda Hörnfeldt, and often are shared by them. In addition
to naming-and-shaming exploitative companies on social media, professionalisation advo
cates have worked with traditional media to bring up the problem (Olheden, 2022).
To address the problems of exploitation and lack of seriosity, influencers and influencer
professionalisation advocates engage in preframing. This involves creating professional
norms for influencers, encouraging them to decline offers of stuff as payment. These
norms are discussed in forums such as social media discussions, courses, and books. In her
influencer handbook, Hörnfeldt (2018) argues that accepting stuff as payment is bad for
both the influencer and the industry as it contributes to the slashing of prices. Likewise,
advocates of reviewer-influencers suggest that accepting stuff as payment harms the
credibility of all reviewer-influencers, as it plays into the imagery of bought opinions. The
professionalism frame, as a market exchange frame, promotes calculation. Through pre
framing, professionalisation advocates encourage forms of calculation that ensure that
the influencer is receiving fair compensation, considering the value they provide, but that
also incorporate the broader interests of the professional group. Furthermore, influencers
and influencer advocates seek to establish norms for companies sending stuff. In social
media posts and in interviews with traditional media, they implore marketers to offer
monetary compensation. In a series of Instagram Stories, a beauty influencer criticising
the use of stuff as compensation, suggests that, rather than pay with stuff, companies
with small budgets should rely on a PR approach and send samples to influencers. In other
words, she promotes the use of the earned media frame and a clear separation between
market exchange and gift giving. In February 2022, Therese Lindgren, one of Sweden’s
leading influencers, unveiled a widely publicised list of demands for collaboration part
ners that, among points related to sustainability work, included a demand that any
company with which she is to collaborate needs to ‘comply with relevant laws and
regulations that apply to advertising collaborations as well as give remuneration and
not in products’ (Nilsson & Rågsjö Thorell, 2022). Finally, influencers have sought support
with the Tax Agency. In a meeting with the Agency, two influencers called for the Agency
to take a more active role in reigning in marketers that pay with stuff by means of audits.
The Agency’s response was noncommittal, stressing the need for continued work with
existing national and EU legislation and thanking them for an informative dialogue.
Discussion
This inquiry into the sending of stuff to influencers in Sweden has focused on attempts to
frame these exchanges and the market (or non-market) context in which they take place.
Callon (1998) suggests that the consummation of economic exchanges relies on the
successful linking up and separation of actors, objects, and practices from the rest of
the world into a distinct exchange of goods. Our inquiry into the changing market for
influencer marketing shows actors working both to redefine exchanges and to locate
them within broader circumstances. It also identifies efforts by actors to more proactively
frame exchanges that are yet to come, thus linking our study to the growing body of
research on market shaping (e.g. Humphreys & Carpenter, 2018; Lee et al., 2018; Nenonen
et al., 2019).
Taken together, our empirical account offers an empirically based answer to our first
research question concerning how different actors engaging with influencer marketing
frame the sending of ‘stuff’ to influencers. We identify four different ways of framing the
sending of stuff to influencers – or four proposed frames – and shed light on the means
through which these frames are enacted. The proposed frames are summarised in Table 2.
Senders seek to frame stuff in ways that achieve the desired response: visibility in the
influencer’s channels. To achieve this, two different frames are proposed. The earned
media frame of PR agents, in Callon’s (1998) terms, resembles gift framing in that it
excludes the counter-prestation expected from the influencer. What is expected in return
is left unsaid to discourage calculation. Moreover, the marketers’ proposed bought
exposure frame defines what is given (e.g. number and type of products) and what is
expected in return (e.g. number and type of posts). Influencers can accept or decline these
offers or propose an alternative frame, as some influencers do when offered stuff as
compensation. The Tax Agency and professionalisation advocates propose two additional
frames. The taxation frame proposes that, ultimately, the commercial intent of the senders
means that all sending of stuff to influencers is really market exchange and hence taxable.
Alternatively, the proposed frame of professionalism, in general, espouses a market
exchange frame that asks whether an influencer is compensated in accordance with the
value they provide. This frame recasts the bought exposure frame as exploitation, while at
the same time condoning the PR agents’ earned media frame. Like previous studies
(Chimenti, 2020; Hartman & Coslor, 2019; Mwiti & Onyas, 2018), we find several ways in
which the relationships between market and non-market frames of exchange are config
ured. The proposed frames range from the purified gift frame of earning media and the
expansive market exchange frame of taxation to the hybrid frame of bought exposure and
the separation of market exchange and gift giving in the professionalism frame. We show
that the proposed frames differ in a number of dimensions that include the implicit versus
explicit expectations on reciprocation but also distinct understandings of the roles of
senders and recipients and emphasis on different types of value.
As for the means through which frames are enacted, our conceptualisation of framing
practices as sociomaterial allows us to shed light on the diversity of these activities. The
means differ between framing, reframing, and preframing. Further, different actors are
differently equipped in their framing practices. Senders’ framing efforts are both material
and rhetorical and involve interactional as well as infrastructural work. Material framing
includes PR agents’ gift-like packaging of stuff as well as brand managers’ contracts and
gift cards. Rhetorical framing, in the case of the earned media frame, includes the use of
labels such as ‘review copy’ or ‘PR package’. The bought exposure frame, on the other
hand, sometimes relies on hybrid rhetorical framing (Hartman & Coslor, 2019), utilising
vocabulary associated with the earned media frame (e.g. ‘gift’), paid influencer marketing
(e.g. ‘ambassador’) and a consumer frame (e.g. ‘free delivery’, ‘cheap posters’).
Interactional framing involves communication between the sender and the recipient,
typically via email. In the case of the earned media frame, it involves checking for interest
before sending something. In the case of the bought exposure frame, it revolves around
setting expectations. Infrastructural framing work refers to the creation of tools that
facilitate the enactment of specific frames in framing practices. For example, compiling
a database of influencers’ preferences and sizes allows PR agents to match stuff with the
right influencers in the way required by the earned media frame. The creation of
a dedicated online store interface supports the large-scale enactment of the bought
exposure frame. The concept of infrastructural work links framing to preframing, as it
highlights how organisational and professional best practices and guidelines, as norms for
framing future exchanges, are implemented through the creation of infrastructures.
Reframing involves creating and distributing representations. The Tax Agency reframes
the sending of stuff in internal documents and external communications, including press
releases, presentations, web pages, and statements to media. In addition, the audits
conducted by the Agency involve reframing past exchanges, with the potential conse
quence of upward adjustments to the tax owed by influencers and/or businesses. In
emphasising that the rules concerning the taxation of stuff are yet to be tried in court, the
Agency suggests that it is the legislature and judicature that hold the ultimate power to
reframe exchanges. Professionalisation advocates seek to reframe the sending of stuff
through social media posts, books and other written materials, courses, and statements to
media. Reframing efforts can point to clashes between other market actors’ rhetorical and
material framing strategies, as when the Tax Agency suggests that calling something a gift
does not make it a gift (see also Chimenti (2020) on how a sharing community accuses
commercial ridesharing services of ‘sharewashing’). In their preframing efforts, both the
Tax Agency and professionalisation advocates rely on means similar to those used for
reframing, like when they communicate rules and norms to senders and recipients. The
Tax Agency, however, does this from a position of formal authority with legal backing and
the (rather hypothetical) threat of audits, while the professionalisation advocates mainly
build on experience and connections. Beyond communicating rules and norms, prefram
ing could conceivably include more direct attempts at enforcing rules and norms, as is
done by the senders through infrastructural framing. Indeed, influencers have called on
the Tax Agency to create an automated system for the reporting of stuff by senders, but
the Agency has considered this infrastructural framing as being beyond their remit.
Our second research question concerns how framing practices contribute to shape
markets. First, we argue that framing contributes to shape markets by allowing for the
consummation of particular exchanges formatted according to the interests of successful

framers. Market actors can use framing to encourage specific forms of calculation, as when
marketers frame stuff as something that influencers receive for ‘free’, or to discourage
calculation, as PR agents do when they rely on the earned media frame. Framing can also
seek to establish particular exchanges as legitimate, as also noted by Hartman and Coslor
(2019). Naulin (2016) suggests that this is the case when PR agents use gift framing when
they send stuff to journalists. A journalist can legitimately accept review copies and
product samples from PR agents, whereas receiving products as compensation would
be a breach of journalistic ethics. Given the moral qualms of reviewer-influencers over
stuff as payment, it is conceivable that the earned media frame does such legitimising
work at least in some influencer marketing exchanges. Framing of exchanges can also
play a role in navigating the applicability of regulation. While the rhetorical framing of
stuff as ‘gifts’ has become a futile strategy for avoiding taxation, the choice between the
earned media frame and the bought exposure frame does play a role in determining the
sender’s payroll tax responsibilities and the requirement for ad marking. Framing can
serve attempts to avoid taxation and other forms of regulatory responsibilities – but only
if the proposed frame resists reframing.
Issues related to calculation, legitimacy, and regulation are also at stake in reframing
and preframing. We argue that reframing contributes to shaping markets by bringing to
light perceived problems in them. We see representations as both informing efforts to
propose rules and norms for how a market should function – you cannot address
a problem if you have not shown that it exists – and shaping how the parties engaging
in exchanges understand these interactions (Kjellberg & Helgesson, 2007). The Tax
Agency’s reframing of sending stuff makes visible the possibility of tax error in the market
for influencer marketing. The professionalisation advocates’ reframing represents
a market where big business takes advantage of the unpaid labour of budding influen
cers. Finally, we argue that preframing contributes to shape markets by allowing market
actors not directly involved in exchanges to take part in formatting these interactions. The
Tax Agency seeks to address the problem of tax error by incorporating taxation into the
framings of senders and recipients. The professionalisation advocates strive to both
address the problem of exploitation and build a professional market for influencer
marketing. To this end, they advocate responsible framing practices.
Just like other market practices, the work to frame exchanges and markets relies on
translations between exchange, representational and normalising practices (Kjellberg &
Helgesson, 2006, 2007). Accordingly, the level of success in shaping a market (Nenonen
et al., 2019) through framing depends on how reframing and preframing efforts translate
to framing for the purpose of consummating exchanges. Influencers seeking to profes
sionalise the market face the challenge of bringing the steady inflow of new and
inexperienced influencers into the fold. The willingness of small-time influencers to accept
stuff (Duffy, 2017), at least before becoming more established, hinders much of the
professionalisation efforts proposed by influencer spokespersons. Similarly, the prefram
ing efforts of the Tax Agency rely on influencers falling in line. To succeed in imposing its
version of a strict market exchange frame, the Tax Agency must contend with ongoing
relationships between PR and marketing professionals and influencers, with the organisa
tional routines of the former, and the steady inflow of new and inexperienced practi
tioners in the latter group.
Previous research on influencer marketing has suggested that the incorporation of

influencer marketing into PR work is challenging established distinctions between PR and
paid marketing (C. Davies & Hobbs, 2020; Navarro et al., 2020; Stoldt et al., 2019; Wolf &
Archer, 2018). Indeed, the PR agents in our study commonly manage paid influencer
marketing campaigns as well as work with influencer PR. Notably, the PR agents do not
appear bothered by this combination. We see parallels with the strategy of decoupling
(e.g. Dolbec, Castilhos, et al., 2022). PR agents seem capable of separating the part of their
work that involves offering monetary compensation to influencers from the part that
involves the traditional PR tactics of seeking earned media. We suggest that the framing
of exchanges plays an important role in this decoupling of practices. Framing the sending
of stuff in such a way that avoids a market exchange frame helps separate these
exchanges from the PR agents’ other interactions with influencers.
While the blurring of boundaries between PR and paid marketing is not an issue for the
PR agents in our study, it is productive of opportunities and tensions in the market. Some
marketers make strategic use of a hybrid frame that combines a market exchange frame
with allusions to established PR practices – a practice reframed as exploitation by
influencer professionalisation advocates. Likewise, tensions are revealed when influencer
advocates represent some influencers as betraying the professionalism frame’s separation
of paid marketing and earned media when they accept stuff as payment or showcase stuff
without providing value to their audience. The Tax Agency struggles to ensure the
compliance of other market actors with its proposed frame that, to a large degree, erases
the distinctions between PR and paid marketing. It is through framing, reframing, and
preframing market actors seek to capitalise on or resolve the tensions between logics.
Conclusions
We have investigated the ongoing shaping of the market for influencer marketing in
Sweden, focusing in particular on the practice of sending ‘stuff’ to influencers and how
this practice is framed. This extends previous insights about the role of framing in the
organising of markets (Callon, 1998) and suggests that market framing, while always
involving a measure of purification, does not produce homogenous markets (Fourcade &
Healy, 2007). Instead, we have shown how a heterogeneous set of actors employ a range of
framing practices pertaining to specific exchanges as well as to their broader market
context. This is consistent with the view of framing as a temporary suspension or bracketing
of certain links to the world outside (Callon, 1998). Depending on framing, different links are
taken into account and suspended, leading to an emphasis on some consequences and
a suppression of others. Further, it suggests the importance of translations between
proposed frames. We propose that our conceptualisation of framing practices as framing,
reframing and preframing will be especially useful for exploring other markets that are
characterised by competing proposed frames of exchange. Examples could include the
sharing economy, markets for bodily goods such as sex cells, organs, and breastmilk, as well
as marketisation processes where an area moves from non-market to market organising
(Çaliskan & Callon, 2010; Dolbec, Castilhos, et al., 2022).
Our exploration of competing and hybrid frames involved in sending influencers stuff
contributes to a wider scholarship stressing ambiguities and open-endedness in influen
cer marketing (e.g. Duffy, 2017; Petersson McIntyre, 2020). This adds to previous
scholarship on influencer marketing as demanding (Abidin, 2016) and ill-defined work

(Ashman et al., 2018), by showing the efforts of a range of actors, to establish what kind of
exchanges are (and should be) going on (Borchers & Enke, 2021). Research on influencer
marketing should continue to look beyond the measurement of communication effects
(Hudders et al., 2021; Vrontis et al., 2021; Ye et al., 2021), not least as the continued efficacy
of influencer marketing in this respect depends on the outcomes of framing practices.
Importantly, rather than simply navigating pre-existing but different logics, the involved
stakeholders produce, and can act to maintain, a range of such logics. From a strategic
perspective, then, they should be asking what kind of market for influencer marketing
they desire.
Note
1. Whether or not the recipient has a registered business also influences the Tax Agency’s
precise understanding of the roles of stuff, sender, and recipient. Here, we discuss the details
of the taxation frame as they apply to recipients who do not have a registered business. In
either case, the Tax Agency applies a market exchange frame to the sending of stuff, so this is
of little significance for our analysis.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council under Grant number [2018-01093]; and
Jan Wallander’s and Tom Hedelius’s foundation as well as Tore Browald’s foundation under Grant
number [P18-0219].
Notes on contributors
Johan Nilsson is an interdisciplinary researcher at the Center for Market Studies at Stockholm School
of Economics. He holds a doctorate in Technology and Social Change from Linköping University. His
research focuses on how markets, technology and knowledge shape human relationships.
Riikka Murto is a postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Market Studies, Stockholm School of
Economics. Her research focuses on the relationships between marketing, markets, and society.
Current projects explore the emergence of the Swedish market for influencer marketing and trace
changing ideas of gender in marketing research and practice.
Hans Kjellberg is Professor of Marketing at Stockholm School of Economics, Sweden. His research
focuses on economic organizing, particularly the organizing of markets. Recent publications include
articles in EPA: Economy and Space, Journal of Business Research, Socio- Economic Review,
Marketing Theory, and JAMS. Current projects include a comparative study of valuation and pricing
of cancer drugs, a study of how online influencers redefine commercial and social relations, and a
project on value conflicts in Nordic forestry.
ORCID
Riikka Murto http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3793-5411
References
Abidin, C. (2016). “Aren’t these just young, rich women doing vain things online?”: Influencer selfies
as subversive frivolity. Social Media+ Society, 2(2), 205630511664134. https://doi.org/10.1177/
2056305116641342
Archer, C. (2019a). How influencer ‘mumpreneur’ bloggers and ‘everyday’ mums frame presenting
their children online. Media International Australia, 170(1), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1329878X19828365
Archer, C. (2019b). Social media influencers, post-feminism and neoliberalism: How mum bloggers’
‘playbour’ is reshaping public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 8(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.
1177/2046147X19846530
Archer, C., & Harrigan, P. (2016). Show me the money: How bloggers as stakeholders are challenging
theories of relationship building in public relations. Media International Australia, 160(1), 67–77.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X16651139
Ashman, R., Patterson, A., & Brown, S. (2018). ‘Don’t forget to like, share and subscribe’: Digital
autopreneurs in a neoliberal world. Journal of Business Research, 92, 474–483. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jbusres.2018.07.055
Berryman, R., & Kavka, M. (2017). ‘I guess a lot of people see me as a big sister or a friend’: The role of
intimacy in the celebrification of beauty vloggers. Journal of Gender Studies, 26(3), 307–320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2017.1288611
Björklund Larsen, L. (2018). A fair share of tax: A fiscal anthropology of contemporary Sweden. Springer
International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69772-7
Borchers, N. S., & Enke, N. (2021). Managing strategic influencer communication: A systematic
overview on emerging planning, organization, and controlling routines. Public relations review,
47(3), 102041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102041
Bourdieu, P. (1991). The logic of practice. Stanford University Press.
Caesar, J. V. (2019, April 21). Deras plattform för micro-influencers tar in miljoner. Resumé. https://
www.resume.se/marknadsforing/sociala-medier/deras-plattform-for-micro-influencers-tar-in-
miljoner/
Çaliskan, K., & Callon, M. (2010). Economization, part 2: A research programme for the study of
markets. Economy & Society, 39(1), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140903424519
Callon, M. (1998). Introduction: The embeddedness of economic markets in economics. The
Sociological Review, 46(1_suppl), 1–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1998.tb03468.x
Childers, C. C., Lemon, L. L., & Hoy, M. G. (2019). # Sponsored# ad: Agency perspective on influencer
marketing campaigns. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 40(3), 258–274. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2018.1521113
Chimenti, G. (2020). Conceptual controversies at the boundaries between markets: The case of
ridesharing. Consumption Markets & Culture, 23(2), 130–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10253866.
2019.1657100
Cocker, H. L., & Cronin, J. (2017). Charismatic authority and the YouTuber: Unpacking the new cults
of personality. Marketing Theory, 17(4), 455–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593117692022
Colliander, J., & Erlandsson, S. (2015). The blog and the bountiful: Exploring the effects of disguised
product placement on blogs that are revealed by a third party. Journal of Marketing
Communications, 21(2), 110–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2012.730543
Creutzer, A. (2010, April 9). När gåvan inte är en gåva. SvD Näringsliv. https://www.svd.se/nar-gavan-
inte-ar-en-gava
Davies, C. A. (2008). Reflexive ethnography: A guide to researching selves and others. Routledge.
Davies, C., & Hobbs, M. (2020). Irresistible possibilities: Examining the uses and consequences of
social media influencers for contemporary public relations. Public Relations Review, 46(5), 101983.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101983
Dolbec, P.-Y., Arsel, Z., & Aboelenien, A. (2022). A practice perspective on market evolution: How
craft and commercial coffee firms expand practices and develop markets. Journal of Marketing, 86
(6), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429221093624
Dolbec, P.-Y., Castilhos, R. B., Fonseca, M. J., & Trez, G. (2022). How established organizations
combine logics to reconfigure resources and adapt to marketization: A case study of Brazilian
religious schools. Journal of Marketing Research, 59(1), 118–135. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022243721999042
Duffy, B. E. (2017). (Not) getting paid to do what you love: Gender, social media, and aspirational work.
Yale University Press.
Ericson, A. (2019, June 19). Skatteverket granskar influencers – upptaxeras. Sveriges Radio. https://
sverigesradio.se/artikel/7244286
Ertimur, B., & Coskuner-Balli, G. (2015). Navigating the institutional logics of markets: Implications for
strategic brand management. Journal of Marketing, 79(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.13.
0218
Finch, J. H., Geiger, S., & Harkness, R. J. (2017). Marketing and compromising for sustainability:
Competing orders of worth in the North Atlantic. Marketing Theory, 17(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1470593116657924
Fourcade, M., & Healy, K. (2007). Moral views of market society. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1),
285–311. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131642
Ge, J., & Gretzel, U. (2018). Emoji rhetoric: A social media influencer perspective. Journal of Marketing
Management, 34(15–16), 1272–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2018.1483960
Geiger, S., Harrison, D., Kjellberg, H., & Mallard, A. (Eds.). (2014). Concerned markets: Economic
ordering for multiple values. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781782549758
Giesler, M. (2008). Conflict and compromise: Drama in marketplace evolution. Journal of Consumer
Research, 34(6), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.1086/522098
Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Harvard University
Press.
Hartman, A. E., & Coslor, E. (2019). Earning while giving: Rhetorical strategies for navigating multiple
institutional logics in reproductive commodification. Journal of Business Research, 105, 405–419.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.05.010
Hjertén, L. (2010, April 9). Varför ska vi skatta för gratis skitgåvor? Aftonbladet. https://www.afton
bladet.se/nyheter/a/A27RE5/varfor-ska-vi-skatta-for-gratis-skitgavor
Hörnfeldt, L. (2018). Yrke: Influencer. Brombergs förlag.
Hörnfeldt, L. (2022, March 3). Microinfluencers – den moderna svarta arbetskraften. La Linda. https://
www.lalinda.se/microinfluencers-den-moderna-svarta-arbetskraften/
Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2021). The commercialization of social media stars:
A literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers.
International Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 327–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2020.
1836925
Humphreys, A. (2010). Megamarketing: The creation of markets as a social process. Journal of
Marketing, 74(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.74.2.1
Humphreys, A., & Carpenter, G. S. (2018). Status games: Market driving through social influence in
the US wine industry. Journal of Marketing, 82(5), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.16.0179
Husain, S., Molesworth, M., & Grigore, G. (2019). ‘I once wore an angry bird T-shirt and went to read
Qur’an’: Asymmetrical institutional complexity and emerging consumption practices in Pakistan.
Marketing Theory, 19(3), 367–390. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593118821717
Julander, O. (2009, February 6). Bloggarna övervakas av skatteverket. Expressen https://www.expres
sen.se/nyheter/bloggarna-overvakas-av-skatteverket/
Karlsson, J. (2020, June 15). Skatteverket lägger ned granskning av influencers. Di Digital. https://
www.di.se/digital/skatteverket-lagger-ned-granskning-av-influencers/
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. F. (2006). Multiple versions of markets: Multiplicity and performativity
in market practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 839–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
indmarman.2006.05.011
Kjellberg, H., & Helgesson, C. F. (2007). On the nature of markets and their practices. Marketing
Theory, 7(2), 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107076862
Kozinets, R. V. (2019). Netnography: The essential guide to qualitative social media research. Sage.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003001430-2
Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford University
Press.
Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. Routledge.
Lee, B. H., Struben, J., & Bingham, C. B. (2018). Collective action and market formation: An integrative
framework. Strategic Management Journal, 39(1), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2694
Lundin, J., & Winberg, Y. (2019, March 6). Vi sålde kollegans stjärt – influencers och nätverk okritiska
till annonsbluffen. Resumé Insikt. https://www.resume.se/insikt/resume-insikt/vi-salde-kollegans-
stjart-influencers-och-natverk-okritiska-till-annonsbluffen/
Maciel, A. F., & Fischer, E. (2020). Collaborative market driving: How peer firms can develop markets
through collective action. Journal of Marketing, 84(5), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022242920917982
Mardon, R., Molesworth, M., & Grigore, G. (2018). YouTube beauty gurus and the emotional labour of
tribal entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Research, 92, 443–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2018.04.017
Martínez-López, F. J., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Fernández Giordano, M., & Lopez-Lopez, D. (2020). Behind
influencer marketing: Key marketing decisions and their effects on followers’ responses. Journal
of Marketing Management, 36(7–8), 579–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2020.1738525
Mauss, M. (1925/2005). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. Routledge.
Mwiti, F. G., & Onyas, W. I. (2018). Framing hybrid exchanges in subsistence contexts. International
Marketing Review, 35(4), 601–618. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-08-2016-0162
Naulin, S. (2016). L’exhortation à rendre: comment les organisations fabriquent du contre-don. In
S. Naulin & P. Steiner (Eds.), La Solidarité à distance. Quand le don passe par les organisations (pp.
227–255). Presses Universitaires du Mirail. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.pumi.8379
Navarro, C., Moreno, A., Molleda, J. C., Khalil, N., & Verhoeven, P. (2020). The challenge of new
gatekeepers for public relations. A comparative analysis of the role of social media influencers for
European and Latin American professionals. Public Relations Review, 46(2), 101881. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101881
Nenonen, S., Fehrer, J., & Brodie, R. J. (2021). Editorial: JBR special issue on market shaping and
innovation. Journal of Business Research, 124, 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.062
Nenonen, S., Storbacka, K., & Windahl, C. (2019). Capabilities for market-shaping: Triggering and
facilitating increased value creation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 617–639.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00643-z
Nilsson, T., & Rågsjö Thorell, A. (2022, March 9) . Sveriges största influencer tackar nej till fast
fashion – så resonerar andra stora profiler. Resumé. https://www.resume.se/insikt/resume-insikt
/sveriges-storsta-influencer-tackar-nej-till-fast-fashion-sa-resonerar-andra-stora-profiler/
Norman, K. (2019). Influencerskolan: ’Tack snälla pr-byrån för att du gör ditt jobb’ är content som
inte är bra för någon. Daisy Beauty. https://www.daisybeauty.com/influencerskolan-tack-snalla-pr
-byran-for-att-du-gor-ditt-jobb-ar-content-som-inte-ar-bra-for-nagon/
Olheden, F. (2022, March 1). Så kan privatpersoner få en skatteskuld – genom samarbeten med
svenska företag. Veckorevyn.com. https://veckorevyn.com/nyheter/ekonomi/sa-kan-
privatpersoner-fa-en-skatteskuld-genom-samarbeten-med-svenska-foretag/
Petersson McIntyre, M. (2020). Agencing femininity: Digital Mrs. Consumer in intra-action. Journal of
Cultural Economy, 13(1), 54–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/17530350.2019.1639529
Pettersson, E. (2009, February 26). Allt fler tjänar pengar på bloggen. ÖP. https://www.op.se/artikel/
allt-fler-tjanar-pengar-pa-bloggen
Reinikainen, H., Munnukka, J., Maity, D., & Luoma-Aho, V. (2020). ‘You really are a great big sister’ –
Parasocial relationships, credibility, and the moderating role of audience comments in influencer
marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/

0267257X.2019.1708781
Roscoe, P. J. (2015). A moral economy of transplantation: Competing regimes of value in the allocation
of transplant organs. In C.-F. Helgesson, F. Lee, & I. Dussange (Eds.), Value practices in life sciences.
Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199689583.003.0005
Rundin, K., & Colliander, J. (2021). Multifaceted influencers: Toward a new typology for influencer
roles in advertising. Journal of Advertising, 50(5), 548–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.
2021.1980471
Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Skatteverket. (2019). Influerare (influencer) och bloggare. Skatteverket. Archived at Wayback Machine
(https://web.archive.org/) > https://www.skatteverket.se > 12 February 2019 > Skatter > Arbete
och inkomst > Inkomster > Delningsekonomi > Internet > Influerare, bloggare och spelare >
Influerare och bloggare. Citing a capture dated 15 March 2019.
Skatteverket. (2020). Rättslig vägledning: Internetinkomster mm. https://www4.skatteverket.se/ratt
sligvagledning/edition/2020.15/364826.html
Skott, J. (2010, April 9). Sluta slå ner på bloggtjejerna. Aftonbladet. https://www.aftonbladet.se/
debatt/a/m65MgO/sluta-sla-ner-pa-bloggtjejerna
Sprong, N., Driessen, P. H., Hillebrand, B., & Molner, S. (2021). Market innovation: A literature review
and new research directions. Journal of Business Research, 123, 450–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jbusres.2020.09.057
Stephen, A. T., & Galak, J. (2012). The effects of traditional and social earned media on sales: A study
of a microlending marketplace. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(5), 624–639. https://doi.org/10.
1509/jmr.09.0401
Stoldt, R., Wellman, M., Ekdale, B., & Tully, M. (2019). Professionalizing and profiting: The rise of
intermediaries in the social media influencer industry. Social Media + Society, 5(1),
205630511983258. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F2056305119832587
Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., & Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer marketing:
A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of
Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcs.12647
Wellman, M. L., Stoldt, R., Tully, M., & Ekdale, B. (2020). Ethics of authenticity: Social media influencers
and the production of sponsored content. Journal of Media Ethics, 35(2), 68–82. https://doi.org/10.
1080/23736992.2020.1736078
Wolf, K., & Archer, K. (2018). Public relations at the crossroads: The need to reclaim core public
relations competencies in digital communication. Journal of Communication Management, 22(4),
494–509. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-08-2018-0080
Ye, G., Hudders, L., De Jans, S., & De Veirman, M. (2021). The value of influencer marketing for
business: A bibliometric analysis and managerial implications. Journal of Advertising, 50(2),
160–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1857888
Zelizer, V. (2000). Fine tuning the Zelizer view. Economy and society, 29(3), 383–389. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03085140050084570

Influencer Marketing and The Gifted Product Framing Practices and Market Shaping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Influencer Marketing and The Gifted Product Framing Practices and Market Shaping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Marketing Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjmm20

Influencer marketing and the ‘gifted’ product:

Johan Nilsson, Riikka Murto & Hans Kjellberg

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2023.2253450

© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Informa

Published online: 05 Sep 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1850

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Influencer marketing and the ‘gifted’ product: framing

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The paper is structured as follows: Next, we review previous research on influencer

Previous research: ambiguities in the influencer market

Conceptual starting points: studying market shaping through framing of

Figure 1. Framing practices: illustration of framing, reframing, and preframing of exchanges.

Table 1. Interview participants.

Influencer, blogger Ingrid Self-employed 1h 37min Online video

Findings: framing the sending of stuff to influencers

Framing the sending of stuff as earning media

Framing the sending of stuff as bought exposure

Reframing and preframing exchanges: the proposed frames of taxation and

Reframing and preframing taxable exchanges

Reframing and preframing professional exchanges

Professionalisation advocates’ reframing of stuff depends on the frame enacted by

This advocate of beauty influencers, a journalist, further discusses recipients’ betrayal of

entrepreneurial influencers provide to paying clients. According to this market exchange

consummation of particular exchanges formatted according to the interests of successful

Previous research on influencer marketing has suggested that the incorporation of

scholarship on influencer marketing as demanding (Abidin, 2016) and ill-defined work

marketing. Journal of Marketing Management, 36(3–4), 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/

You might also like