Journal of Interactive Advertising

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/ujia20

Leveraging Influencer Relations Professionals for

Sponsorship Disclosure in Social Media Influencer
Marketing

Ruvimbo Musiyiwa & Jenna Jacobson

To cite this article: Ruvimbo Musiyiwa & Jenna Jacobson (2024) Leveraging Influencer Relations
Professionals for Sponsorship Disclosure in Social Media Influencer Marketing, Journal of
Interactive Advertising, 24:1, 66-83, DOI: 10.1080/15252019.2023.2298994

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2298994

© 2024 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 26 Jan 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1066

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujia20
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING
2024, VOL. 24, NO. 1, 66–83
https://doi.org/10.1080/15252019.2023.2298994

Leveraging Influencer Relations Professionals for Sponsorship Disclosure

in Social Media Influencer Marketing
Ruvimbo Musiyiwa and Jenna Jacobson
Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Canada

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This research investigates the role played by influencer relations professionals—also known Compliance; influencer
as influencer intermediaries—in driving upfront and compliant disclosure of sponsorships in marketing; influencer
influencer marketing. Using semistructured interviews with 21 influencer relations professio­ relations; social media
influencer; sponsorship
nals in Canada, the research identifies how influencer intermediaries can support sponsor­ disclosure
ship disclosure in three areas: (1) legal contracts and statements of work, (2) formal and
informal content vetting processes, and (3) intermediary knowledge transfer. Using
Bourdieu’s sociological theory of field as a theoretical lens and analytical tool, the findings
identify how these intermediaries have access to forms of social, cultural, and technical cap­
ital that can influence best disclosure practices. This research has implications for theory
and practice by contributing to research in influencer relations management and by sug­
gesting sponsorship disclosure solutions that emerge directly from the perspectives of influ­
encer relations professionals.

Social media influencer (SMI) marketing is growing
dramatically by capitalizing on the online popularity
and self-branding power of social media influencers
and web personalities to enhance brand awareness,
endorse brand products, access niche consumer seg­
ments, and influence consumer purchasing decisions
(Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2019; Enke and Borchers
2019; Khamis, Ang, and Welling 2017; Lou and Yuan
2019). Budgets for influencer marketing are growing
as influencers have shown the ability to drive sales
through more personal, relatable, everyday user–
generated content (Jim�enez-Castillo and S�anchez-
Fern�andez 2019; Martensen, Brockenhuus-Schack, and
Zahid 2018; Siekierska 2019). In a survey of almost
5,000 brands, agencies, and industry professionals,
75% indicated that they planned to have a dedicated
budget for influencer marketing (Geyser 2022). As
early entrants in an emerging career, these influencer
relations professionals—also known as influencer
intermediaries—work as liaisons between influencers
and brands on social media campaigns (Stoldt et al.
2019). The advent of influencer marketing programs
at the corporate level, within traditional marketing
and public relations departments, has led to the need
for influencer intermediaries who are capable of devel­
oping frameworks for effective influencer relationship
management in the largely uncharted world of digital
advertising (Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2019;
Gallagher 2020; Stoldt et al. 2019). These trends illus­
trate brands’ and corporations’ growing reliance on
influencer marketing to expand their reach to niche
consumers and their need for professionals who can
help them build influencer relationships in the ever-
evolving social media environment.
Social media helped transform the digital consumer
experience, but they also enable the spread of decep­
tive and misleading marketing practices. Influencer
marketing–based promotion can be deceptive or mis­
leading when influencers fail to conspicuously disclose
any material (monetary or nonmonetary) relationships
with sponsoring brands (Ad Standards 2020;
Competition Bureau Canada 2022a). Such sponsorship
disclosures are necessary to ensure that consumers
can easily recognize the advertising intention. This is

CONTACT Ruvimbo Musiyiwa rmusiyiwa@torontomu.ca Communication and Culture Program, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada
Ruvimbo Musiyiwa (M.A., Toronto Metropolitan University) is a proposal writer and researcher, Communication and Culture Program, Toronto
Metropolitan University.
Jenna Jacobson (Ph.D., University of Toronto) is the Eaton Chair of Retailing and Associate Professor, Ted Rogers School of Management, Toronto
Metropolitan University.
� 2024 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
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.

particularly important in user-generated content that
lacks the clearly visible advertising markers seen in
traditional advertising (Bladow 2018). In many coun­
tries, including the United States, the United
Kingdom, and Canada, disclosures that are difficult to
recognize are prohibited, as they do not pass formal
regulators’ “upfront is best” philosophy (Ad Standards
2020, p. 7). The recurrence of sponsorship disclosure
breaches has prompted both formal regulators (gov­
ernments, self-regulatory agencies) and informal regu­
lators (everyday consumers) to pay closer attention to
the nature, adequacy, and even placement of disclo­
sures in branded or sponsored social media content
(Abidin 2021). In recent years, formal regulators
around the world have examined how applicable laws
are understood and applied in the influencer industry
(International Consumer Protection Enforcement
Network (ICPEN) 2016).
Despite efforts to use legislation and formal indus­
try guidelines to encourage voluntary compliance,
many influencers are not implementing disclosures in
accordance with current rules and regulations
(G€urkaynak, Kama, and Erg€ un 2018; Langford 2020).
Recent research into the use of written disclosure
hashtags (such as #ad, #sponsored, or #gifted) on
Instagram reveals that more than three-quarters of
influencer adverts on that platform have hidden dis­
closures (Langford 2020). Some scholars posit that
influencers’ inability to meet the standards of disclos­
ure set by regulators may be due to conflicting sym­
bolic and legal perceptions of what constitutes ethical
conduct in the influencer industry. Wellman et al.
(2020), for instance, assert that influencers tend to use
authenticity as an ethical metric for their content cre­
ation or disclosure decisions. This approach, which
upholds brand identity and audience perception
(Wellman et al. 2020), is vastly different from formal
regulators’ view of ethics in the influencer industry as
being a largely economic matter requiring targeted
legal and governmental oversight (Abidin 2021;
Asquith and Fraser 2020). As a result, formal regula­
tors in Canada and the United States have issued
warning letters directly to noncompliant influencers,
advising them of the applicability of advertising laws
to influencer marketing and on the use of best disclos­
ure practices (Boerman 2020; Competition Bureau
Canada 2019; G€ urkaynak, Kama, and Erg€ un 2018). In
Canada, the Competition Bureau’s targeting of brands
and marketing firms was an opportunity for it to
emphasize that compliance with applicable legislation
(the Competition Act) is a shared responsibility that
rests on influencers and any businesses that
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 67
collaborate with influencers (Competition Bureau
Canada 2019). This means that both businesses and
influencers may be held liable for misleading or
deceptive marketing practices (Competition Bureau
Canada 2019). Although influencer relations professio­
nals are not directly mentioned as being potentially
liable, their involvement in disclosures for influencer
campaigns and their affiliations with the types of busi­
nesses targeted by the Competition Bureau substanti­
ate why they share responsibility for regulatory and
legal compliance.
Studying the shared nature of legal and regulatory
disclosure requirements in the influencer industry is
critical, as it allows a deeper evaluation of the compli­
ance responsibilities of other actors in the influencer-
brand relationship and how these responsibilities can
be met. Prior scholarly research suggests that influen­
cer intermediaries may have some leverage over how
influencers and their clients understand and apply dis­
closure rules and guidelines (Bladow 2018). However,
there is a gap in the understanding of what tools and
mechanisms these intermediaries can utilize to sup­
port disclosure. For example, research suggests the
need for a deeper investigation into the process of
securing proper sponsorship disclosures (Childers,
Lemon, and Hoy 2019) to reduce the risk of clients
and influencers being legally penalized for noncompli­
ance. This research analyzes how influencer relations
professionals can encourage reasonable, adequate, and
consistent levels of compliance by leveraging the
power they possess within the influencer-brand rela­
tionship. Specifically, the research asks: What role do
influencer intermediaries play in encouraging compli­
ant sponsorship disclosure in SMI marketing?
Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological theory of field (and
the subconcepts of capital and cultural intermediaries)
serves as the theoretical framework for this research.
Bourdieu’s field theory provides an appropriate theor­
etical tool for conceptualizing influencer relations pro­
fessionals as intermediaries who coexist with various
actors (influencers, brands, and consumers) in a
sociocultural field we define as the SMI field. This
framing of the influencer marketing industry as a field
is inspired by Bourdieu’s concept of social life as a
domain comprising different cultural fields (Lareau,
Adia Evans, and Yee 2016). Within these fields, inter­
mediaries and other actors or institutions compete for
various forms of social, cultural, economic, or tech­
nical power or capital (Abidin 2018, 2021; Warren
and Dinnie 2018; Wolf 2007). Backed by the prece­
dent of using field theory to assess field dynamics in
different sociocultural domains (e.g., Angers 2017;
68 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
Bathmaker 2015), this research relies on Bourdieu’s
theory to conduct a theoretically sound investigation
of the potential impact of power dynamics within the
SMI field (through the leveraging or harnessing of
certain types of capital) on actors’ level of regulatory
compliance and how certain actors (intermediaries)
can encourage compliant sponsorship disclosure.
Within our framing, sponsorship disclosure require­
ments result from the SMI field converging with what
we call the regulatory field. The SMI and regulatory
fields overlap at the point of laws and guidelines
applicable to influencer marketing.
This research contributes to theory and practice by
centralizing the lived experiences of influencer rela­
tions professionals to proffer grassroots solutions for
achieving and maintaining conspicuous and compliant
disclosure in the influencer industry. Additionally, this
work contributes to a niche and less researched area
of influencer advertising by concentrating on the per­
spectives of industry professionals who work closely
with influencers (Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2019;
Lou and Jin 2021).
Literature Review
SMI Marketing and Influencer Relations
In strategic communications, influencer marketing is
often described as an electronic word-of-mouth
(eWOM) strategy that optimizes social media influ­
encers’ popularity to expand brand recognition and
affect consumer buying behavior (De Veirman,
Hudders, and Nelson 2019; Lou and Yuan 2019).
Brands and companies often pay influencers to promote
their products or services in social media campaigns
(Jacobson et al. 2019). The growth and corporatization
of influencer marketing have ushered in new core busi­
ness functions dedicated to influencer relationship
building. Influencer relations, or influencer relationship
management (IRM), is a strategic process of building,
managing, and preserving relationships with relevant
content creators and internet personalities who have
meaningful social media clout (Gallagher 2020; Holt
2019). Influencer relations is a key component in the
influencer marketing ecosystem. Influencer relations
professionals (1) identify influencers who align with the
strategic objectives of the campaign, (2) liaise between
brands and influencers with balance and fairness, (3)
build long-standing relationships with influencers and
brands, and (4) manage branded influencer campaigns
with efficiency and transparent communication (Holt
2019). Although the industry has grown large enough
to accommodate professionals dedicated solely to
influencer relations work, some public relations, social
media management, talent management, and marketing
roles have expanded to incorporate IRM in traditional
strategic communication departments (Gallagher 2020).
Influencer Marketing, Native Advertising, and
Implications for Disclosure in Canada
Influencer marketing is often likened to native adver­
tising (Boerman 2020; Campbell and Grimm 2019; De
Veirman, Hudders, and Nelson 2019), which is a form
of covert promotion “where a brand or a product is
marketed in a way that is similar to the editorial con­
tent on the platform it is presented” (G€ urkaynak,
Kama, and Erg€ un 2018, p. 17). If disclosures are not
made appropriately, native promotion can hide the
advertising intention from consumers, thus diminish­
ing their ability to make informed purchasing deci­
sions (Boerman 2020; G€ urkaynak, Kama, and Erg€ un
2018). Disclosures are written or verbal notices that
help consumers easily identify when social media con­
tent is sponsored through financial compensation or
gifting (Ad Standards 2019; Kay, Mulcahy, and
Parkinson 2020). Influencer marketing is often com­
pared to native advertising because brand-sponsored
content can mimic an influencer’s regular content and
editorial aesthetics.
In Canada, there have been calls for greater trans­
parency in native advertising and online influencer
marketing since Ad Standards began to assess and set­
tle disclosure breaches in 2010 (Asquith and Fraser
2020). Ad Standards (2022) is a not-for-profit self-
regulatory body that monitors the advertising industry
in Canada and administers the Canadian Code of
Advertising Standards. Although some scholars have
demonstrated the existence of various algorithmic
challenges to applying sponsorship disclosure stand­
ards to influencer marketing (Musiyiwa and Jacobson
2023) and suggest that the narrow focus on the eco­
nomic implications of influencer marketing is one
drawback of the current top-down approach to indus­
try regulation (Abidin 2021; Asquith and Fraser
2020), disclosure compliance has some benefits for
influencers and businesses. First, compliance reduces
the risk of being targeted by regulators and subjected
to protracted governmental enforcement actions and/
or financial penalties. In Canada, individuals and cor­
porations can be asked to stop publishing misleading
content, issue corrective notices, and/or reimburse
buyers of the product or service in question
(Competition Bureau Canada 2022b). Individuals and
larger corporations can also be court-ordered to pay

fines, have their assets frozen, or even be sentenced to
prison for aggressive violation of the criminal provi­
sions (Competition Bureau Canada 2022b).
Second, industry research has found that sponsor­
ship disclosure increases the credibility of influencers
and enhances ad transparency—particularly from the
perspective of everyday consumers. Truthfulness, fair­
ness, and accuracy are key principles of Canadian
advertising and drive the mission of formal regulatory
bodies such as Ad Standards (2022). Research com­
missioned by Ad Standards has investigated how con­
sumers feel about advertising transparency in
influencer marketing. Its consumer research report
revealed that the vast majority of Canadians who are
aware of influencer marketing strategies “strongly or
somewhat agree that there should be transparency
about sponsored ads” (Ad Standards 2018, p. 21).
Seventy-two percent of surveyed Canadians agreed
that there should be penalties for regulatory noncom­
pliance. The research also indicated that most people’s
brand perceptions would improve with greater trans­
parency about advertising intentions (Ad Standards
2018). These industry findings substantiate formal reg­
ulators’ focus on disclosure breaches in influencer
marketing.
Theoretical Framework
Bourdieu’s Theory of Field and Forms of Capital
To understand how power can influence or change
behaviors in cultural fields, this research applies Pierre
Bourdieu’s theory of field to the influencer industry.
Bourdieu’s (1992) sociological theory of field describes
social life as a domain comprising many fields (Lareau,
Adia Evans, and Yee 2016). Fields are dynamic and
socially networked spaces where the “modification or
conservation of … power relations” is negotiated by
actors and institutions within those fields or external to
(but overlapping) them (Wolf 2007, p. 134). Bourdieu
posits that although cultural fields have some autonomy
in how they operate, their proximity to overlapping
fields can affect how field actors behave or coexist
(Bathmaker 2015; Lareau, Adia Evans, and Yee 2016).
Additionally, similar to a game, actors compete in the
field under a set of rules. Actors and institutions within
(or external to) the field negotiate and often struggle to
decide the rules of the game. In this same process, the
resources and benefits at stake in the field are defined
(Bathmaker 2015; Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992). The
game analogy also points to the notion of strategy
within fields. Field actors have to devise strategies to
“win” sought-after resources or maintain their power
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 69
through capital accumulation (Bathmaker 2015;
Corciolani, Grayson, and Humphreys 2020). Field
actors often compete to gain or maintain power in the
form of capital (Bathmaker 2015; Wolf 2007).
Capital, another concept theorized by Bourdieu,
signifies how societies “exercise judgements in taste,
express aesthetic dispositions, and assign status and
distinction towards different social behaviours”
(Abidin 2018, p. 19). In Bourdieu’s thought, capital is
usually economic, social, or cultural. Economic capital
is conceptualized in terms of having access to assets,
property, or goods with financial value (Abidin 2018;
Wolf 2007). Social capital can be realized through the
effective establishment and maintenance of “stable
relationships between people, organizations, or institu­
tions, through acknowledged membership within these
groups” (Abidin 2018, p. 33). Cultural capital refers to
the possession of highly valued personal attributes,
qualifications, or thought leadership in a field (Abidin
2018; Wolf 2007). Abidin (2018, 2021) posits that
social, cultural, and economic forms of capital func­
tion in the same way with influencers but adds the
element of technical exceptionalism, which combines
all three of Bourdieu’s types of capital. Technical cap­
ital, from the perspective of social media influencers,
refers to power derived from possessing exceptional,
extraordinary, uncommon, or expert skills that audi­
ences admire (Abidin 2018).
Bourdieu’s theory of field and concept of capital
are useful tools for conceptualizing how the SMI
industry functions as a sociocultural field where forms
of power flow among various actors (influencers,
influencer relations professionals, brands, audiences).
Field theory aids in the exploration of how SMI field
actors can influence one another’s compliance behav­
iors, particularly in close proximity to the regulatory
field (i.e., the rules of the field) relevant to influencer
marketing. With respect to influencer relations profes­
sionals specifically, Bourdieu’s concept of capital pro­
vides a theoretical foundation for the kinds of
influence these professionals may have access to and
can leverage to encourage compliant disclosure per
existing guidelines.
Cultural Intermediaries
Bourdieu’s field theory serves as the foundation for his
writings on cultural intermediaries and the power they
hold as influential agents within fields. Corciolani,
Grayson, and Humphreys (2020) describe cultural
intermediaries as “people and organizations who medi­
ate between those who produce cultural products and
70 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
those who are the target audience for these products”
(p. 479). Their definition is built on Bourdieu’s deliber­
ations about public myths and the emergence of what
he calls a new class of petite “bourgeoisie” tastemakers
(Bourdieu and Nice 1984). Bourdieu (1969) theorizes
that the new petite bourgeoisie ascribes value to cultural
products through the effective development of “public
myths” about these products and the production pro­
cess (p. 99). He adds that members of the new petite
bourgeoisie occupy intermediary professions focused
on both the creation and the distribution of public
myths to audiences within fields (Corciolani, Grayson,
and Humphreys 2020; Maguire and Matthews 2010).
Similar to the Marxian petite bourgeoisie, which posi­
tions itself between the interests of the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat, Bourdieu’s cultural intermediaries are
“ardent spokesmen” for the bourgeois directors and
executives in the fields of cultural production
(Bourdieu and Nice 1984, p. 310). Cultural intermedia­
ries are often tasked with “selling [bourgeois] tastes as
widely as possible” to other less influential individuals
within the cultural field (Maguire and Matthews 2010,
p. 407). Their role as sellers of cultural tastes and values
is coupled with their pedagogic role as advisers and
modelers of lifestyles defined by a culture of consump­
tion—mostly for the purpose of influencing consumer
buy-in and behavior (Bourdieu and Nice 1984; Maguire
and Matthews 2010).
Some scholars challenge Bourdieu’s description of
cultural intermediaries as extremely influential or
powerful tastemakers. They contend that claims about
the influence of intermediaries in cultural economies
are often not empirically supported and are wildly
overestimated (Moor 2008; Nixon and Gay 2002).
Despite their debated power, cultural intermediaries
do occupy an interesting position due to their prox­
imity to key business executives, their ability to medi­
ate between different actors, and their status as
recognized tastemakers.
Influencer Relations Professionals as
Intermediaries in the SMI Field
Although influencers often occupy the prominent pos­
ition of sharing branded content by being the face of a
social media campaign or engaging directly with con­
sumers online, they do not always develop independent
working relationships with brands. Formalization of the
practice has introduced intermediary organizations and
practitioners that operate across “multiple regimes of
mediation” (Cronin 2004, p. 357) to broker relation­
ships not only between brands and consumers at large
but also between brands and influencers. Cronin’s
(2004) regimes of mediation extend Bourdieu’s original
characterization of cultural intermediaries as individu­
als who mediate solely between the producers of cul­
tural products and target consumers (Maguire and
Matthews 2010; Corciolani, Grayson, and Humphreys
2020). This perspective becomes important when
assessing how intermediaries between brands and influ­
encers engage a “structured flexibility framework”
(Stoldt et al. 2019, p. 2). This framework involves bal­
ancing “a brand’s need to accomplish specific campaign
goals with an influencer’s commitment to authenticity
and audience engagement” (Stoldt et al. 2019, p. 2).
Achieving structured flexibility is about engaging in
effective influencer relations and meaningfully media­
ting between various actors in the influencer field
(Gallagher 2020). As such, intermediaries—like success­
ful entrepreneurial influencers, talent managers, brand­
ing consultants, influencer marketing managers, or
boutique agencies—have created job opportunities in a
niche intermediary space (Scott 2017).
Some brands have expanded their public relations
and communications departments to encompass influ­
encer relations by adding employee functions or hir­
ing new professionals to establish and manage
influencer relationships. The field of influencer rela­
tions is gradually becoming specialized in strategic
corporate communications because of the unique
skills offered by influencer intermediaries; while draw­
ing on traditional forms of marketing, advertising,
and public relations, they are also creating new ways
to conduct effective relationship management with
niche consumer groups and online influencers. As
Brooks, Drenten, and Piskorski (2021) maintain, the
“days of influencer marketing being a niche do-it-
yourself domain have passed” (p. 544). Influencer
intermediaries not only design and coordinate influen­
cer campaigns but also aid with contract development,
creative direction, content creation, influencer discov­
ery and talent scouting, recruitment, vetting, develop­
ment of influencer payment schedules, audience
research, impact analysis, and assessment of influencer
relevance to clients (Brooks, Drenten, and Piskorski
2021; Gallagher 2020; Stoldt et al. 2019). Influencer
intermediaries can be invaluable to the process of
“winning” the influencer game. They can support
brands and influencers by researching and strategizing
how to achieve key performance indicators (KPIs) and
optimize online visibility, labor, algorithmic preferenc­
ing, or authenticity. Brooks, Drenten, and Piskorski
(2021) demonstrate that these competencies and
unique skill sets challenge the notion that power

within the SMI field lies only with influencers and
audiences, as influencer intermediaries often play a
crucial role in the influencer celebrification process.
Methods
The research uses semistructured interviews with 21
influencer relations professionals who work closely with
influencers and brands in an intermediary capacity. To
analyze the impact these professionals have on disclos­
ure practices, the research focuses on the subjective and
unique lived experiences of practitioners who are indus­
try “experts” in the SMI field (Childers, Lemon, and
Hoy 2019). This status is based on several factors,
including educational background, current influencer-
related work, years of experience, overlapping industry
experience, and other relevant background information.
As such, this research is both qualitative and interpret­
ive in nature. Bryman, Bell, and Teevan (2012) write
that one of the core objectives of qualitative research is
to see and understand a research inquiry “through the
eyes of the people being studied” (p. 140). The subject­
ivity of qualitative research is what renders it interpret­
ive, as interpretive studies often ensure that research is
grounded in the participants’ points of view (Merrigan,
Huston, and Johnston 2012).
Recruitment of Prospective Participants
After receiving ethics approval from the Research
Ethics Board at the Toronto Metropolitan University,
participants were recruited using purposive and net­
work sampling techniques. Purposive sampling involves
intentionally identifying and approaching potential par­
ticipants in a target or relevant population (Merrigan,
Huston, and Johnston 2012). Network or snowball sam­
pling is an approach whereby participants enlist them­
selves or recruit other potential participants from their
own networks (Merrigan, Huston, and Johnston 2012).
These sampling methods were used to ensure that the
research included professionals who were eligible to
participate and able to contribute as a result of their
relevant experience. An initial list of potential partici­
pants was compiled by consulting the list of influencer
marketing agencies represented on the 2019 Ad
Standards’ Influencer Marketing Steering Committee
and then searching for publicly accessible names of
relevant professionals from those organizations. A
Google search of “influencer marketing agencies in
Canada” was also used to access relevant agencies and
professionals outside of this committee. A study
recruitment flyer was posted to one of the researcher’s
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 71
professional LinkedIn accounts. As the “world’s largest
professional network on the internet” (LinkedIn 2022,
para. 1), LinkedIn was a good way to directly contact
professionals who would likely be eligible to participate
in the research. LinkedIn was also utilized as a purpos­
ive sampling search tool to identify relevant professio­
nals by searching the site for “influencer marketing,”
“social media marketing,” “influencer marketing man­
agement,” or “influencer relations.” Snowball sampling
was also used to recruit potential candidates from the
networks of participating professionals; at the end of
their interviews, participants were asked whether they
knew any colleagues who met the study inclusion crite­
ria. If they felt comfortable doing so, they were invited
to share a digital copy of the recruitment flyer with
those individuals.
Participants
Ultimately, 151 prospective participants were con­
tacted, and 21 professionals agreed to participate in
the research (see Table 1). Based on extant research
on the ideal sample size for qualitative interviews, 21
participants was an adequate number to reach data
saturation. Data saturation is defined as the point at
which data gathering and analysis produce no new
information and can be discontinued (Guest, Bunce,
and Johnson 2006; Hagaman and Wutich 2017). The
point of data saturation in purposive and qualitative
research is highly debated. However, 10 to 40 inter­
views is a consistent range in the relevant scholarly
literature (Guest, Bunce, and Johnson 2006; Hagaman
and Wutich 2017; Hansen and Machin 2019).
Due to our focus on the Canadian regulatory and
legal context, it was imperative to ensure that the par­
ticipant pool was diversified by province, type of influ­
encer-related work, organization type, years of
experience, and other relevant background information.
The recruitment process resulted in a participant pool
consisting of relevant independent consultants or pro­
fessionals who worked for talent agencies, social media
management firms, brands, and digital marketing agen­
cies in Ontario (n ¼ 14), British Columbia (n ¼ 4),
Manitoba (n ¼ 2), and Alberta (n ¼ 1). Research partici­
pants were offered a $25 CAD honorarium to thank
them for their time and willingness to participate in the
study. Table 1 provides the participants’ profiles.
Interviews and Data Collection
Due to public health measures instituted during the
COVID-19 pandemic, interviews were conducted
72 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
Table 1. Participant profiles.
Pseudonym Scope of Work
Abigail Talent management
Belinda Talent and social media management
Cheryl Influencer relations management
Dana Social media management
Erin Influencer relations management
Faye Talent management
Gale Influencer relations management
Hunter Influencer relations management
Issa Influencer relations management
Jade Talent management
Keegan Social media management
Leslie Social media management
Moira Talent and social media management
Pat Influencer relations management
Robin Social media management
Sidney Social media management
Tory Social media management
Vincent Influencer relations management
William Social media management
Xavier Social media and marketing management
Zach Social media management
remotely in a private setting of the participant’s
choice. Most interviews were conducted by video con­
ference on Zoom. Based on personal preference or
technical difficulties, some participants chose to be
interviewed over the telephone or using Zoom audio.
All the interviews were recorded. The interview guide
consisted of 16 main questions; as is typical of semi­
structured interviews, 11 possible follow-up questions
were included in the guide for additional probing as
needed (Bryman, Bell, and Teevan 2012; Merrigan,
Huston, and Johnston 2012). Participants were asked
questions about their professional backgrounds, day-
to-day influencer relations and compliance practices,
awareness of the applicability of the Competition Act,
and regulatory compliance in an evolving social media
environment. Based on a research pilot (Gani,
Rathakrishnan, and Krishnasamy 2020), we expected
the interviews to take approximately 1 hour. Overall,
interviews lasted between 27 minutes and 1 hour and
31 minutes; the average interview duration was
54 minutes. Once the interviews were completed, the
audio recordings were transferred to an automated
transcription service, Temi. After verbatim transcripts
were generated, the researcher conducted a quality
check by comparing each transcript against its
respective audio file to verify the transcript’s accuracy
and to remove any personally identifiable information
such as participants’ names, colleagues, past or present
employers, clients, and colleges or universities
attended. In total, 347 pages of transcripts were
Overlapping Industry Experience Additional Background
Public relations
Fitness
Radio, tourism
Medical, digital marketing
Public relations, marketing, television, radio, Educator (college level)
industry research
Beauty, publishing, education Educator (college level)
Public relations
Television
Blogging
Global development, marketing, Brand owner (small)
communications
Blogging Previous influencer, content creator,
agency founder
Public relations, retail, education Educator (college level)
Retail, banking, customer service, beauty and
fashion, entertainment
Digital advertising (for children), gaming Influencer, content creator
Fashion, marketing
Advertising, fashion, retail, public relations Previous influencer, content creator,
agency founder
Communications, public and media relations
Digital marketing
Television, entertainment, writing Influencer, content creator
Fashion, marketing Influencer, content creator
Entertainment
generated from the 21 audio files recorded during
data collection.
Data Analysis
Interview data were analyzed using inductive and
deductive approaches and thematic coding. Thematic
coding is a type of qualitative analysis in which pri­
mary data are organized and condensed into thematic
codes and categories for further analysis (Bryman
2016; Marshall 2023; Thomas 2003). NVivo, software
that aids in the management, organization, analysis,
and modeling of qualitative data, was used to code
and analyze the interview data in two cycles.
For the deductive approach (the first coding cycle),
the researcher developed a start list of a priori codes
(known as nodes in NVivo) (Azungah 2018; Given
2008). This coding frame is a “record of the codes and
criteria used to classify observations” in the interview
data (Given 2008, p. 88). The initial codes were created
using the key themes in the interview questions (e.g.,
influencer relations and disclosure compliance practi­
ces, awareness of the Competition Bureau’s activities in
the industry) and salient topics from the literature
review. Concepts from the theoretical framework were
also used to generate a start list of thematic codes. For
instance, a thematic code related to intermediary power
or capital was designed to ensure that the research
highlighted any participant insights on intermediaries’
use of social, cultural, economic, or technical capital to

influence best disclosure practices during influencer
marketing collaborations. Developing a priori codes
related to intermediary capital or awareness of the
overlapping nature of the SMI and regulatory fields
ensured that the analysis was deeply contextualized
and aligned with field theory as the orienting frame­
work. The researcher ran the first coding cycle by using
the text search query in NVivo to quickly identify
phrases and passages related to the start list of codes.
The inductive cycle involved using in vivo (or ver­
batim) and axial coding to capture emerging themes
derived from a line-by-line review of each interview
transcript (Azungah 2018; Given 2008). Given (2008)
underscores that in vivo codes “ensure that concepts
stay as close as possible to research participants’ own
words or use their own terms” (p. 472). The
researcher read each transcript and highlighted key
phrases that were then used to develop new codes
reflecting fresh insights from the participants. For
example, a new thematic code generated through
inductive coding was based on the participants’ recur­
ring prioritization of “paid” (i.e., involving monetary
or financial compensation) partnership disclosures
over gifted collaborations in the development of legal
contracts, content vetting, or education on best dis­
closure practices.
Results
The findings indicate that influencer relations profes­
sionals play a significant role in how disclosure guide­
lines are understood and applied in the influencer
industry. In their capacity as intermediaries, these pro­
fessionals often act as a key link between the industry
and formal regulation, serving as compliance facilita­
tors to support conspicuous disclosure practices. By
applying Bourdieu’s concept of capital, the research
demonstrates that influencer relations professionals
can leverage social, cultural, and technical forms of
capital within the SMI field to shift influencers and
brands toward compliant disclosure practices. These
intermediaries can shorten the compliance knowledge
gap between formal regulators and influencers who
may have a limited understanding of the legalities of
influencer marketing or the value of ad transparency
through conspicuous disclosure. Specifically, the
research identifies how influencer relations professio­
nals can secure disclosure in three areas: (1) legal con­
tracts and statements of work that codify clear
expectations for disclosure, (2) formal and informal
content vetting procedures, and (3) intermediary
knowledge transfer. Social, cultural, and technical
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 73
forms of capital can augment the efficacy of these three
mechanisms as drivers of compliant sponsorship
disclosure.
As analyzed below, social capital within the SMI
field can be harnessed through intermediaries’ role as
enforcers of contractual disclosure requirements
coupled with their influential positions as mediators
between brands and influencers. Intermediaries’
thought leadership and industry expertise are often
the sources of their cultural and technical power,
which is typically exercised during the content vetting
and approval process and in the transfer of knowledge
to the next generation of influencer relations practi­
tioners. Although influencer relations professionals
can access economic capital through entrepreneurial
success in the industry, this research does not find
that their financial standing has an impact on influ­
encers’ disclosure practices. Figure 1 illustrates the
connection between Bourdieu’s concept of capital and
the findings.
How Influencer Intermediaries Secure Compliant
Sponsorship Disclosure
Using Legal Contracts and Statements of Work to
Secure Disclosure
Legal contracts serve as a vital link between the influ­
encer industry and formal regulation due to brands’
and agencies’ growing interest in outlining disclosure
requirements in contractually binding agreements and
clearly establishing all the legalities surrounding col­
laboration (Gallagher 2020). The contract develop­
ment stage is important to ensure that influencers
understand what is expected and required of them
(Gallagher 2020). Some influencer intermediaries
describe the contract phase as the time when influ­
encers are made aware of applicable laws and regula­
tions and the regulatory bodies that mandate these
guidelines. Influencer relations professionals some­
times participate in drafting these contracts using
online templates or in collaboration with legal profes­
sionals. At the influencer contracting stage, influencer
relations professionals can play an active role in
ensuring that applicable laws are clearly articulated
and clarified. Abigail (a talent manager) states that, in
her experience, paid partnership disclosure is “always
a requirement” in both brand and agency contracts
with influencers.
In conjunction with contractual agreements, some
influencer relations professionals use statements of
work (SOWs) and campaign briefing materials to
communicate the disclosure requirements for paid
74 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
Figure 1. Theoretical conceptualization. This figure has been designed using icons created and published by Freepik, nangicon,
Gajah Mada, and Vectorslab on Flaticon.com.
partnerships. Hunter (an influencer relations manager)
defines SOWs as documents that “include all the legal
terms of doing the campaign.” The influencers Hunter
works with are required to sign her agency’s standard
SOW to demonstrate that they are aware of Ad
Standards’ advertising guidelines and disclosure
requirements. Her agency recommends that paid part­
nership disclosures be displayed early—either in the
first 30 seconds of a video or in the first three lines of
a written caption. These recommendations align with
Ad Standards’ (2020) view that upfront disclosures are
the best practice, even in rapidly evolving digital
environments.
Abigail’s and Hunter’s elucidation of how contracts
and SOWs are used in the influencer industry demon­
strates that intermediaries have an opportunity to
exercise their social capital as the enforcers of disclos­
ure guidelines. As defined in the theoretical frame­
work, social capital can be obtained through effectual
relationship management between key stakeholders
(Abidin 2018). A vital component of influencer rela­
tions practice is the strategic leveraging of social cap­
ital to establish and manage relationships with
influencers and brands (Gallagher 2020; Holt 2019).
Vincent (an influencer relations manager) challenges
the underestimation (Nixon and Gay 2002) of influen­
cer relations professionals’ social power within the
influencer-brand relationship. Vincent asserts that
when it comes to communicating disclosure require­
ments to influencers, contracts give influencer inter­
mediaries “a lot more power [in the SMI field] than
they think.” As such, influencer intermediaries’ social
standing in the eyes of influencers can be greatly
enhanced by their input into what rules and
guidelines are included in contracts, SOWs, and cam­
paign briefing materials and their consistent enforce­
ment of these guidelines. In a later section, this work
explores the social power that legal contracts and
SOWs confer to intermediaries: what one intermedi­
ary describes as being influential “middlemen”
between influencers and brands.
Using Formal and Informal Content Vetting to
Secure Disclosure
Influencer relations professionals can ensure that
sponsorship disclosures are checked and verified dur­
ing the content vetting and preapproval phase. It is
standard practice for intermediaries involved in the
influencer contracting and content creation stages of a
collaboration to assist in formal or informal content
vetting and approval of branded influencer content.
This vetting and approval stage ensures that the paid
partnership disclosures required in legal contracts,
SOWs, and other briefing materials are fulfilled.
There are both formal and informal methods of
vetting and approving sponsored content. Hunter
describes her agency’s formal approach: “We have a
really thorough preproduction stage. And then from
there … the creators would shoot and edit. They send
me the content; I’ll review it and then send [it] to the
client. We get any feedback from clients in terms of
legal, as well as … any notes they have. And … once
we have approval, then we will launch. And … once
it’s launched, I’ll make sure … [to] do a quality check
that everything is correct.” In Hunter’s experience, the
content and its associated disclosures go through lev­
els of intermediary, brand, and legal review during the
preproduction and content creation phases. If proper

disclosures are missing, influencer intermediaries can
ask influencers to amend the content before post­
ing it.
As Leslie (a social media management consultant)
elaborates, “even if [influencers] say they forget it, or
they just sent the caption, I send it back with #ad,
#sponsored and make sure that they copy and paste
that exact thing word for word.” Belinda (an inde­
pendent talent and social media management consult­
ant) offers an alternative approach to securing
disclosures. She prefers to publish the content on the
influencer’s behalf to ensure that all the required
deliverables are included. She builds trust with her
influencers so that they feel comfortable granting her
permission to post branded content on their social
media accounts.
Informal content vetting for sponsorship disclosure
usually involves a basic review of the content by the
influencer intermediaries themselves. Cheryl (an influ­
encer relations manager for a brand) and Erin (an
influencer relations consultant) conduct quick infor­
mal checks to ensure that influencers have correctly
implemented the expected sponsorship disclosures.
Xavier (a social media and marketing manager for a
fashion brand) does not specifically monitor influ­
encers’ content for disclosure; rather, he checks that
the brand he works for has been clearly tagged in the
content. It is essential to note, however, that in the
Canadian regulatory context, merely tagging a brand
or sponsor within the content is not an effective form
of disclosure, as it may not clarify the material rela­
tionship between an influencer and a brand (Ad
Standards 2020). Although informal content vetting
procedures may be necessary due to limited resources,
this research does not encourage quick and superficial
checks for disclosure, as they often result in inad­
equate levels of ad transparency.
Some influencer intermediaries note that sponsor­
ship disclosure is particularly difficult with ephemeral
social media, for which the disclosure rules are not
well defined. For example, Instagram Stories are
short-form pieces of social media content that often
disappear after 24 hours (Chen and Cheung 2019).
Cheryl speaks to the challenge of securing disclosure
for real-time Instagram Stories that have not been
prerecorded and approved prior to publication. At the
time of the study, stories were posted in 15-second
increments, making disclosure integration and place­
ment difficult for influencers who posted longer sto­
ries. Ad Standards (2020) has now provided
guidelines for disclosure on Instagram Stories, recom­
mending consistent written and verbal disclosure
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 75
throughout the duration of the content. Xavier con­
tends that the limited availability of ephemeral content
makes it difficult to check that disclosures have been
included and implemented properly. For this reason,
legal practitioners in the field recommend that con­
tracts outline the consequences of not delivering what
has been negotiated—especially for ephemeral content
(Tobin 2019).
It is important to highlight that not all influencer
relations professionals consider content preapproval a
reliable mechanism for ensuring voluntary sponsorship
disclosure. Even if the approval phase provides influen­
cer intermediaries an opportunity to ensure that regula­
tory standards for disclosure have been met, the
influencers ultimately decide whether to be compliant
when they publish the sponsored content. Jade (an
influencer talent manager), for example, is apprehensive
about the efficacy of approving and monitoring influen­
cer content, asserting that the final steps of publishing
are in the hands of the influencers: “Ultimately no mat­
ter how many times I say, ‘you have to change this, you
have to do this’ I’m not in control of the influencer or
the brand accounts. I can’t force anyone to do that.
They ultimately decide they’re just going to forget it
and assume there will be no consequences.” In Jade’s
view, influencers have ultimate control over what is
published on their platforms. As such, they can decide
to post content without the required forms of disclos­
ure. In some cases, it is easy to edit noncompliant con­
tent after it is posted, but with some social media
content types and formats, corrections are impossible
without removing the content completely. Some brands
and agencies do not like to reshoot or relaunch content
because of project timelines and budgets, so posts with­
out the proper disclosures often remain published on
an influencer’s account. Until proper sponsorship dis­
closure is widespread and consistently integrated in
influencer marketing, active intermediary participation
in content vetting and approval is generally beneficial
for normalizing a culture of conspicuous disclosure—
particularly at the early stages of a sponsored campaign.
There are varying perspectives on the effectiveness
of content vetting and preapproval procedures, but in
general, these phases of a campaign can have a posi­
tive impact on compliance outcomes. Like their role
as enforcers of legal contracts and SOWs, intermedia­
ries can actively participate in the content vetting and
preapproval process to ensure that influencers and
brands meet their disclosure obligations. Influencer
relations professionals can leverage their cultural and
technical capital to ensure that content reviewers
evaluate branded content against a high standard of
76 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
sponsorship disclosure and legal compliance. As
described in the theoretical framework, cultural capital
is often derived from possessing highly valued creden­
tials or being a thought leader in a certain field
(Abidin 2018; Wolf 2007). Similarly, technical capital
focuses on the power of having expert knowledge, but
it also captures the exceptionalism that can come
from having an uncommon skill set (Abidin 2018,
2021). Combined, cultural and technical capital can
give influencer intermediaries an uncommon mastery
and technical understanding of the rules and dynam­
ics of the SMI field. Influencer relations professionals
can rely on their cultural and technical capital to offer
trusted advice to influencers on how best to apply dis­
closures during the content production, review, and
publishing stages of a campaign. As demonstrated in
Table 1, influencer relations professionals are often
industry thought leaders with years of overlapping
industry expertise and experience.
Using Intermediary Knowledge Transfer to Secure
Disclosure
Influencer intermediaries can drive compliant spon­
sorship disclosure by taking on the responsibility of
educating influencers about the applicable laws and
best disclosure practices for both paid and gifted
influencer campaigns. Cheryl and Erin note that they
educate influencers on relevant Canadian and/or
American guidelines for disclosure during contracting.
Cheryl often attaches the latest Ad Standards or
Federal Trade Commission disclosure guidelines to
the contracts she sends to influencers. Directly linking
these resources allows her to reacquaint herself with
the latest industry guidance while showing influencers
how to access these regulatory resources directly.
Intermediary knowledge transfer is also a valuable
mechanism for securing disclosure when the applic­
able rules are still greatly misunderstood. Tory (a
social media manager) underscores that the gifted
campaign (when influencers receive nonmonetary gifts
as compensation) is one area in which the meaning of
“material connection” has caused great confusion
among intermediaries, influencers, and clients:
I would say the number one [gray area] is “material
connections,” two words that mean a lot. I would say
that is the biggest one. And any type of events,
products, a gift, any of that, getting [clients] to
understand that now with the new regulations,
anything we give them is now essentially seen as a
payment. That was something that I think for folks
who weren’t following very closely on the
development of the disclosure guidelines, I think that
caught them off guard or in a way that they didn’t
really understand or that they just didn’t want to
acknowledge. That’s … I think what I’ve run into the
most is people who don’t want to acknowledge that a
trip or this [gift] that you sent to them needs to be
disclosed. They think, well, no money, no contract,
no disclosure.
Through intermediary knowledge transfer, Tory is
able to challenge prevailing misconceptions surround­
ing disclosures for gifted collaborations by educating
clients and influencers on the legal and regulatory def­
initions of payment in the SMI field.
In addition, some influencer intermediaries operate
as links between the industry and regulatory compli­
ance through their roles as formal and informal edu­
cators. Prior research recognizes the educational
benefit of influencer intermediaries, highlighting their
ability to effectively reconcile the goals of brands and
influencers, manage influencer marketing campaigns,
and fulfill a pedagogic function by offering meaningful
advice or educational resources to aspiring influencers
(Maguire and Matthews 2010; Stoldt et al. 2019).
Faye, Erin, and Leslie teach social media marketing
courses, and they have taken it upon themselves to
expand the syllabi to cover influencer marketing and
influencer relations. In these courses, they share their
personal experience with communications, advertising,
and marketing students who aspire to work with dif­
ferent types of influencers. Faye extends her know­
ledge transfer role beyond her students by advising
colleagues on paid partnership disclosure and other
regulatory compliance issues. Her role as an educator
in her workplace has been well received, and she has
become the “de facto Ad Standards Canada company
figurehead” at the talent agency she works for. This
type of knowledge transfer can help influencer rela­
tions specialists–in–training develop a strong under­
standing of disclosure compliance at the beginning of
their careers and can also direct seasoned professio­
nals toward compliance through peer mentorship.
These findings demonstrate how influencer profes­
sionals can utilize their cultural and technical capital
to encourage disclosure compliance in dynamic ways.
Some intermediaries engage in valuable knowledge
transfer at the influencer contracting or content vet­
ting and preapproval stage, while others apply their
cultural and technical capital to encourage disclosure
beyond a brand campaign. Some influencer interme­
diaries gain cultural and technical capital by engaging
in communal information sharing or in thought lead­
ership at the management level to support their peers
and colleagues. In addition, some influencer relations
professionals build cultural and technical capital
through teaching in the academic space, advising the

next generation of influencer relations professionals
on compliance with disclosure guidelines. The follow­
ing section describes in more detail the avenues
through which influencer relations professionals can
build cultural and technical capital.
The Influence of Intermediary Social, Cultural, and
Technical Capital on Disclosure Practices
Social Capital: Positioning between Brands and
Influencers
Some influencer intermediaries maintain that they
have limited control over how influencers ultimately
choose to publish branded content, while others argue
that intermediaries’ influence over disclosure is
unfairly underestimated. In alignment with Vincent’s
view that intermediaries have more social capital than
they think, Robin (a social media manager) posits that
influencer intermediaries have “a bit of control” over
how influencers and brands collaborate due to their
negotiation powers and proximity as “middlemen” in
the influencer-brand relationship. In Robin’s view,
being a middleman in an influencer campaign grants
him some control (or social capital) when it comes to
managing the influencer-brand relationship and fulfill­
ing the needs of all parties involved. Robin demon­
strates that, through effective influencer relationship
management, this same social capital can be used to
ensure compliant sponsorship disclosure and best
industry practices in the SMI field.
Influencer relations professionals can augment their
social capital as advocates or “enforcers” of the disclos­
ure requirements in legal contracts and SOWs by capi­
talizing on their role as liaisons between influencers
and brands. Intermediaries are empowered when they
are viewed as the “ardent spokesmen” (Bourdieu and
Nice 1984) of brands and participate in the inclusion of
disclosure requirements in legal contracts and SOWs.
More importantly, the legal force of a contract or SOW
augments intermediaries’ social capital when working
with influencers or brand clients that may want to par­
ticipate in covert native advertising. Intermediaries
offer great social value not only by making it easier for
influencers and brands to collaborate within legal boun­
daries but also by ensuring that both parties are compli­
ant with applicable regulations.
Cultural and Technical Capital: Thought Leadership
and Field Expertise
This research demonstrates that through content vet­
ting and approval and through intermediary knowledge
transfer within the community (i.e., the SMI field),
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 77
intermediaries can encourage compliant sponsorship
disclosure. Cultural and technical forms of capital are at
the core of how influencer relations professionals drive
compliant disclosure practices. Intermediaries build
cultural and technical capital in the SMI field by focus­
ing on the professional competencies, experiences, and
skills that allow them to operate as effective compliance
facilitators. Although there may be other sources of cul­
tural and technical capital within influencer relation­
ship management, this research identifies three: (1)
thought leadership and knowledge transfer skills, (2)
educational contributions, and (3) experience related to
personal content creation and overlapping industry
experience.
Thought Leadership and Knowledge Transfer.
Influencer intermediaries gain cultural and technical
capital through thought leadership and communal
knowledge transfer and information sharing within
their field. For example, Faye’s leadership in and
understanding of compliance-related matters is a
highly valued and admired professional attribute on
her talent management team. Investments in this kind
of cultural and technical expertise can inspire fellow
influencer intermediaries and the influencers and
brands they collaborate with to work toward consist­
ent and compliant sponsorship disclosure.
In addition, some influencer intermediaries build
thought leadership and technical expertise by engaging
in communal knowledge and information transfer.
Within the SMI field, knowledge transfer related to
regulatory guidelines and other salient industry issues
often occurs through the exchange of relevant articles,
newsletters, and industry publications. For instance,
Keegan (a social media manager and agency leader)
and her team created an internal Slack social network­
ing channel to share relevant industry news and
updates. Slack is a digital platform used by businesses
to facilitate organizational communication through
features such as direct messaging and private chat
rooms (Slack Help Center n.d.).
Educational Contributions. Cultural and technical
capital can be achieved through teaching in the aca­
demic space. Like Faye, Leslie and Erin demonstrate
the value of cultural and technical capital by being
thought leaders in the research and academic arenas.
In addition to their influencer relations work, all three
teach college-level courses (see Table 1) that introduce
influencer marketing and influencer relations. Erin, in
particular, bolsters her teaching with her hands-on
consulting experience and scholarly research on
78 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
influencer relations. These influencer intermediaries
acquire their cultural and technical capital from edu­
cational institutions that recognize their unique
expertise and voices in the industry. It is important to
expand influencer marketing knowledge within trad­
itional academic spaces. Gale, who recently graduated
from a media and communications program, attested
to the limited source material on influencer marketing
in relevant academic programs: “My school gave me
the writing skills and stuff I have now. And maybe
the presentation and oral communication skills. We
didn’t really learn much about influencer marketing.
It was maybe something that would be brought up in
a lecture or if we had a guest speaker, they would talk
about their influencer marketing campaigns. But we
never actually really learned how you outreach, how
you find influencers, how you do the whole process. I
kind of had to learn that as I was going.” Prior to
entering the field, Gale gained exposure to and pre­
liminary knowledge of the influencer industry through
guest speakers, her own undergraduate research, and
mentors at her internships. This perspective reveals
the uniqueness of influencer marketing and relations
expertise at the training level. Influencer intermedia­
ries can support students and future influencer rela­
tions professionals by helping them build foundational
knowledge of compliance requirements at an early
stage in their careers.
Personal Content Creation and Overlapping Industry
Experience. Influencer intermediaries can draw cul­
tural and technical capital from their experience as
influencers in the SMI field and from overlapping
industry experience. Some influencer intermediaries
(e.g., Keegan, Pat, Sidney, William, and Xavier) accu­
mulated cultural and technical capital through their
professional influencer relations work as well as
through their experience as content creators. Keegan,
for instance, did not gain her cultural and technical
capital as the founder of a talent agency through for­
mal education or training. To prove to clients that she
could offer meaningful social media marketing and
influencer relations advice, she became an influencer
and content creator herself. Keegan built a community
of almost 30,000 Twitter followers and was able to
monetize her craft and transform it into a viable rev­
enue stream. Similarly, Sidney’s fashion blog attracted
a million views per month, and he used this personal
success as an influencer to enter the entrepreneurship
and management side of the business. The cultural
and technical capital gained from personal experience
has given these influencers the power to run their
own agencies and provide valuable advice about how
to successfully navigate the SMI field.
In terms of overlapping experience, some influencer
intermediaries started in the more traditional fields of
communications and marketing (see Table 1). Their
knowledge and appreciation of regulatory compliance
are enhanced by lessons learned from radio, television,
and advertising. This background is a source of cul­
tural and technical knowledge that gives credence to
these intermediaries’ advocacy of clear and upfront
sponsorship disclosure. Pat (an influencer relations
professional with talent management experience) pre­
viously worked for a boutique talent agency that
focused on children and family influencer brands.
This introduced him to the necessity of regulatory
and legal compliance, as the rules and regulations sur­
rounding family-oriented advertising are extremely
strict. Because of this previous experience, Pat was
eager to learn about applicable disclosure guidelines
and to rigorously apply them to his current work with
adult influencers.
Discussion
Our research finds that influencer intermediaries can
have a significant impact on disclosure practices in
the SMI field. Influencer intermediaries can play key
roles as compliance facilitators and catalysts by their
involvement in influencer contracting as well as for­
mal and informal content vetting. Through active par­
ticipation and intervention in the development of
influencer contracts, SOWs, and briefing materials,
influencer relations professionals can help reduce dis­
closure breaches and normalize regulatory compliance
at critical points in the establishment of working rela­
tionships with influencers. Knowledge transfer is also
identified as a vital mechanism to encourage sponsor­
ship disclosure, as influencer intermediaries can edu­
cate influencers about formal regulatory frameworks
and best practices guidelines. Furthermore, influencer
intermediaries can improve disclosure and compliance
outcomes by educating influencers, clients, and other
intermediaries about the legal and regulatory require­
ments applicable to less common forms of influencer
marketing. For example, knowledge transfer related to
the legal definition of material connection can dispel
the misconception that gifts do not constitute a form
of payment. Our findings on the educational role of
influencer relations professionals are consistent with
extant research that recognizes the pedagogical value
of intermediaries within cultural fields (Maguire and
Matthews 2010; Stoldt et al. 2019). Comprehensively,

our research illustrates that the power of influencer
intermediaries is not limited to the influencer celebri­
fication process (e.g., talent scouting, influencer
recruitment, impact analyses) (Brooks, Drenten, and
Piskorski 2021) but extends to the legal and regulatory
aspects of influencer marketing that can expose both
influencers and brand clients to great risk.
Despite influencer intermediaries’ underestimated
power in the SMI field, they have access to forms of
social, cultural, and technical power that can be maxi­
mized to influence best disclosure practices and high
standards of compliance with formal regulatory guide­
lines. The belief that influencer intermediaries have no
or limited power to encourage high standards of dis­
closure and regulatory compliance comes from an
inability to independently identify the mechanisms
(e.g., legal contracts, SOWs), unique field positioning
(e.g., proximity to brands and influencers), and pro­
fessional and personal experience that grant influencer
intermediaries social, cultural, and/or technical capital
in the SMI field. Their proximity to brands and influ­
encers means that they can generate enough social
capital through their trusted relationships with these
actors to advocate for upfront, consistent, and con­
spicuous disclosure in a consequential way.
Establishing trust and maintaining a healthy rapport
with both the brand and the influencer make it easier
to negotiate and reach mutually agreeable compro­
mises on disclosure. Our findings align with
Bourdieu’s conceptualization of social capital, which
posits that social capital can be gained through the
development of strong relationships and networks
between people or groups (Abidin 2018). In addition,
legal agreements and SOWs that outline the necessity
of disclosure can augment the social power of influen­
cer intermediaries—particularly when the influencers
and clients may intend to violate the requirements for
ad transparency. Social capital is thus achieved by
being viewed as standard setters at the point of estab­
lishing a working relationship with influencers, at hir­
ing, during the production of content, or at the
publishing of branded content.
As our research reveals, social capital is also exem­
plified through influencer intermediaries’ relational
proximity to influencers. As influencers’ day-to-day
representatives or managers, influencer intermediaries
are often relied on for advice on how to navigate the
rules of the SMI field. Bladow (2018) contends that
this advisory role largely confers the responsibility for
disclosure compliance to influencer intermediaries.
Furthermore, depending on the type of organizations
they work for, influencer intermediaries can operate
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 79
as influential “referees” (referencing Bourdieu’s game
analogy), assisting in the negotiation, definition, or
enforcement of the rules of the influencer game (e.g.,
being a member of the Ad Standards Influencer
Marketing Steering Committee).
Our research identifies the value of cultural and
technical capital within influencer relations. Influencer
intermediaries can harness sources of cultural and
technical power through (1) the development of
respect by means of thought leadership and know­
ledge transfer, (2) educational and academic contribu­
tions through teaching and research within the
influencer industry, and (3) personal content creation
and industry experience. Although some influencer
intermediaries do not recognize the positive impact
their cultural and technical expertise can have on dis­
closure compliance, we find that these professionals’
personal experiences as industry researchers, college-
level educators, content creators, brand owners, and/
or agency leaders can position them as trusted advis­
ers on many areas of regulatory compliance relevant
to the SMI industry. By locating these forms of social,
cultural, and technical capital within the experience
and professional competencies of the interviewed pro­
fessionals, this research demonstrates that some influ­
encer intermediaries struggle to independently identify
the tools, relationships, and competencies that sub­
stantiate the value of proper influencer relationship
management.
Theoretical Implications
This research applies Bourdieu’s field theory to a new
environment: the influencer marketing industry. It
does so by assessing how cultural field dynamics (e.g.,
the overlapping nature of fields) can affect sponsor­
ship disclosure practices and regulatory and legal
compliance in the Canadian influencer field. Other
scholars have similarly applied Bourdieu’s field theory
(and the concepts it gives rise to) to examine how
actors compete for power or capital in a given field,
to contemplate the effect of overlapping fields on their
autonomy (e.g., Bathmaker 2015), or to assess how
the “rules of the game” within fields are negotiated
and can change over time (e.g., Angers 2017). In a
similar fashion, this research applies Bourdieu’s field
theory and concepts of capital and cultural interme­
diaries to challenge the underestimated power of
influencer intermediaries and investigate how inter­
mediary power materializes in the SMI field. For
example, the positioning of influencer relations pro­
fessionals between influencers (consumers) and brands
80 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
(producers of cultural products) is conceptualized by
Bourdieu’s cultural intermediaries concept, while the
impact of applicable laws on disclosure practices finds
theoretical support in Bourdieu’s elucidation of how
the “rules of the game” govern actors’ behavior.
Together, field theory and the subconcepts of capital
and cultural intermediaries allowed this research to
frame compliance as an issue of power and contem­
plate how influencer intermediaries can capitalize on
this power (i.e., capital) to encourage voluntary dis­
closure among influencers and brand clients.
Managerial Implications
The managerial implications of this research are three­
fold. First, because influencer marketing is still an
emergent area of strategic communications at the cor­
porate level (Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2019), our
study highlights the impact an actively engaged influ­
encer relations professional can have on disclosure
and regulatory compliance. This is evidenced by the
discovery that the legal contracting, content vetting
and preapproval (formal and informal), and mentor­
ship and knowledge transfer (to influencers and peers)
phases of an influencer marketing campaign provide
influencer intermediaries an opportunity to normalize
the standard of disclosure at the beginning of a cam­
paign and emphasize the shared responsibility and
legal basis of sponsorship disclosure. Moreover,
through the mechanisms of legal contracts and SOWs,
content vetting, and knowledge transfer, influencer
intermediaries have the opportunity to close any com­
pliance knowledge gaps among clients and influencers.
Second, although the influence of intermediaries is
often debated and sometimes underestimated (Nixon
and Gay 2002; Moor 2008), our research finds that
influencer intermediaries have access to forms of
social (e.g., as trusted “middlemen” between influ­
encers and brands), cultural (e.g., as thought leaders
and compliance advisers), and technical (e.g., as hold­
ers of uncommon industry competencies) expertise
that can position them as trustworthy advisers on
industry best practices and mentors who can set high
compliance standards for influencer relations special­
ists–in–training at the start of their careers or for their
colleagues through peer-to-peer mentorship.
Third, as both a managerial and a scholarly contri­
bution, the research offers industry-led solutions to
reduce noncompliant disclosure practices that infringe
on applicable laws and pose consumer protection con­
cerns for formal regulators. These solutions amplify
the voices and lived experiences of influencer
intermediary professionals—a perspective of advertis­
ing and influencer marketing research that has been
greatly understudied (Childers, Lemon, and Hoy 2019;
Lou and Jin 2021).
Limitations and Future Research
As is typical of any study, this research has some limi­
tations. Although extant literature on ideal sample
pools for qualitative interviews reveals that a sample
of 10 to 40 participants is a reasonable number to
achieve adequate data saturation (Guest, Bunce, and
Johnson 2006; Hagaman and Wutich 2017; Hansen
and Machin 2019), a larger sample would generate
more intermediary contributions that could, in turn,
be extrapolated to a larger group of relevant industry
professionals. Juxtaposing the qualitative findings
against an additional engagement with influencer
intermediaries through more semistructured inter­
views or focus groups would help assess whether our
findings are consistent across a larger sample of influ­
encer relations professionals.
In addition, due to the small sample size, our find­
ings may not be generalizable to other markets or
legal jurisdictions. The generalizability of qualitative
inquiry is limited due to the subjectivity of the data
collected. However, because of the exploratory nature
of the research methodology, external generalizability
was not a core objective of this work. The research
findings are useful for exploratory purposes and can
be used as a basis for subsequent quantitative or
qualitative research (Clow and James 2014). Our goal
was to ensure the validity and reliability of our
research method and analysis within the Canadian
context. We aim to rely on the findings of this
research as a foundation for future research.
The experiences of influencers and brand clients
are absent from the current work, yet they are an
integral part of the research because their commercial
relationship is what necessitates the involvement of
influencer relations professionals and confers the legal
duty to disclose on both sides of a collaboration.
Allowing influencers and brand representatives to par­
ticipate in future research through surveys, interviews,
or focus groups would provide a more holistic under­
standing of why compliant and upfront disclosure is
such a challenging area of influencer marketing–
related work. Moreover, future research can explore in
greater depth the disclosure challenges posed by
ephemeral and short-form video formats that have
gained popularity on platforms such as Instagram and
TikTok.

Ethical Approval
Ethical approval was granted on December 8, 2020, by
the Research Ethics Board at Toronto Metropolitan
University (REB 2020-406).
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
Funding
This work was supported by Ted Rogers School of
Management Research Advancement Grant (PI: Jacobson).
ORCID
Ruvimbo Musiyiwa http://orcid.org/0009-0002-9325-
7456
Jenna Jacobson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1371-1077
References
Abidin, C. 2018. Internet Celebrity: Understanding Fame
Online. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Abidin, C. 2021. “The Governance and Regulation of the
Influencer Industry.” Perth: Curtin Corner Presentations.
Ad Standards. 2018. Consumer Perspectives on Advertising,
1–24. Toronto: Ad Standards.
Ad Standards. 2019. “The Code Online.” Ad Standards.
Ad Standards. 2020. “Influencer Marketing Steering
Committee: Disclosure Guidelines.” [PDF].
Ad Standards. 2022. “About Us.” Ad Standards.
Angers, K. 2017. “Learning to Master the Rules of the
Game: A Study of Austrian Diplomats’ Adaptation to the
EU.” Eurostudia 12 (1): 46–69. https://doi.org/10.7202/
1039780ar
Asquith, K., and E. M. Fraser. 2020. “A Critical Analysis of
Attempts to Regulate Native Advertising and Influencer
Marketing.” International Journal of Communication 14:
5729–49.
Azungah, T. 2018. “Qualitative Research: Deductive and
Inductive Approaches to Data Analysis.” Qualitative
Research Journal 18 (4): 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1108/
QRJ-D-18-00035
Bathmaker, A.-M. 2015. “Thinking with Bourdieu: Thinking
after Bourdieu. Using ‘Field’ to Consider in/Equalities in
the Changing Field of English Higher Education.”
Cambridge Journal of Education 45 (1): 61–80. https://
doi.org/10.1080/0305764X.2014.988683
Bladow, L. E. 2018. “Worth the Click: Why Greater FTC
Enforcement is Needed to Curtail Deceptive Practices in
Influencer Marketing.” William & Mary Law Review 59
(3): 1123–64.
Boerman, S. C. 2020. “The Effects of the Standardized
Instagram Disclosure for Micro- and Meso-Influencers.”
Computers in Human Behavior 103:199–207. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2019.09.015
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 81
Bourdieu, P. 1969. “Intellectual Field and Creative Project.”
Social Science Information 8 (2): 89–119. https://doi.org/
10.1177/053901846900800205
Bourdieu, P., and R. Nice. 1984. “Distinction: A Social
Critique of the Judgement of Taste.” In Class tastes and
lifestyles, 257–365. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Bourdieu, P., and L. J. Wacquant. 1992. “The Logic of
Fields.” In An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology, 94–114.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Brooks, G., J. Drenten, and M. J. Piskorski. 2021.
“Influencer Celebrification: How Social Media Influencers
Acquire Celebrity Capital.” Journal of Advertising 50 (5):
528–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1977737
Bryman, A., E. A. Bell, and J. J. Teevan. 2012. Social
Research Methods. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University
Press.
Bryman, A. 2016. “The Nature and Process of Social
Research.” In Social research methods, 5th ed., 2–15.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Campbell, C., and P. E. Grimm. 2019. “The Challenges
Native Advertising Poses: Exploring Potential Federal
Trade Commission Responses and Identifying Research
Needs.” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 38 (1): 110–
23. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743915618818576
Chen, K.-J., and H. L. Cheung. 2019. “Unlocking the Power
of Ephemeral Content: The Roles of Motivations,
Gratification, Need for Closure, and Engagement.”
Computers in Human Behavior 97:67–74. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2019.03.007
Childers, C. C., L. L. Lemon, and M. G. Hoy. 2019.
“#Sponsored #Ad: Agency Perspective on Influencer
Marketing Campaigns.” Journal of Current Issues &
Research in Advertising 40 (3): 258–74. https://doi.org/10.
1080/10641734.2018.1521113
Clow, K. E., and K. E. James. 2014. “Qualitative Research.”
In Essentials of Marketing Research: Putting Research into
Practice, 95–126. SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/
10.4135/9781483384726
Competition Bureau Canada. 2019. “Influencer Marketing:
businesses and Influencers Must Be Transparent When
Advertising on Social Media.” [News Release]. December
19.
Competition Bureau Canada 2022a. “Influencer Marketing
and the Competition Act.” January 20.
Competition Bureau Canada 2022b. “Penalties and
Remedies for Non-Compliance.” June 24
Corciolani, M., K. Grayson, and A. Humphreys. 2020. “Do
More Experienced Critics Review Differently?” European
Journal of Marketing 54 (3): 478–510. https://doi.org/10.
1108/EJM-01-2019-0095
Cronin, A. M. 2004. “Regimes of Mediation: Advertising
Practitioners as Cultural Intermediaries?” Consumption
Markets & Culture 7 (4): 349–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1025386042000316315
De Veirman, M., L. Hudders, and M. R. Nelson. 2019.
“What is Influencer Marketing and How Does It Target
Children? A Review and Direction for Future Research.”
Frontiers in Psychology 10:2685. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2019.02685
Enke, N., and N. S. Borchers. 2019. “Social Media
Influencers in Strategic Communication: A Conceptual
82 R. MUSIYIWA AND J. JACOBSON
Framework for Strategic Social Media Influencer
Communication.” International Journal of Strategic
Communication 13 (4): 261–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1553118X.2019.1620234
Freepik. (n.d.). “Paper Free Icon [Icon].” Flaticon. https://
www.flaticon.com/free-icon/paper_2541979
Gallagher, S. 2020. “Influencer Logic: How Influencer
Relations Works.” Journal of Professional Communication
6 (2): 37–61.
Gani, N. I. A., M. Rathakrishnan, and H. N. Krishnasamy.
2020. “A Pilot Test for Establishing Validity and
Reliability of Qualitative.” Journal of Critical Reviews 7
(5): 140–3.
Geyser, W. 2022. “The State of Influencer Marketing 2021:
Benchmark Report.” Influencer Marketing Hub, July 29.
https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-
benchmark-report-2021/
Given, L. M. 2008. The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative
research methods (Vol. 1–2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guest, G., A. Bunce, and L. Johnson. 2006. “How Many
Interviews Are Enough?” Field Methods 18 (1): 59–82.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
G€urkaynak, G., O. Kama, and B. Erg€ un, 2018. “Navigating
the Uncharted Risks of Covert Advertising in Influencer
Marketing.” Business Law Review 39 (Issue 1): 17–9.
https://doi.org/10.54648/BULA2018004
Hagaman, A. K., and A. Wutich. 2017. “How Many
Interviews Are Enough to Identify Metathemes in
Multisited and Cross-Cultural Research? Another
Perspective on Guest, Bunce, and Johnson’s (2006)
Landmark Study.” Field Methods 29 (1): 23–41. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1525822X16640447
Hansen, A., and D. Machin. 2019. Media and
Communication Research Methods. London, UK: Red
Globe Press.
Holt, C. 2019. “Influencer Relationship Management: How
to Create and Maintain Relationships with Influencers.”
Influencer Insights, February 5.
International Consumer Protection Enforcement Network
(ICPEN) 2016. Online Reviews & Endorsements: ICPEN
Guidelines for Digital Influencers.
Jacobson, J., A. Gruzd, P. Kumar, and P. Mai. 2019.
“Networked Influence: An Introduction.” Social
Media þ Society 5 (3): 205630511986547. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2056305119865473
Jim�enez-Castillo, D., and R. S�anchez-Fern�andez. 2019. “The
Role of Digital Influencers in Brand Recommendation:
Examining Their Impact on Engagement, Expected Value
and Purchase Intention.” International Journal of
Information Management 49:366–76. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.07.009
Kay, S., R. Mulcahy, and J. Parkinson. 2020. “When Less is
More: The Impact of Macro and Micro Social Media
Influencers’ Disclosure.” Journal of Marketing
Management 36 (3-4): 248–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0267257X.2020.1718740
Khamis, S., L. Ang, and R. Welling. 2017. “Self-Branding,
‘Micro-Celebrity’ and the Rise of Social Media
Influencers.” Celebrity Studies 8 (2): 191–208. https://doi.
org/10.1080/19392397.2016.1218292
Lareau, A., S. Adia Evans, and A. Yee. 2016. “The Rules of
the Game and the Uncertain Transmission of
Advantage.” Sociology of Education 89 (4): 279–99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040716669568
Langford, R. 2020. “Three Quarters of Instagram
Influencers Hide Their Advertisement Disclosure in
Their Posts.” Netimperative, September 22.
LinkedIn 2022. “What is LinkedIn and How Can I Use It?”
LinkedIn Help.
Lou, C., and S. Yuan. 2019. “Influencer Marketing: How
Message Value and Credibility Affect Consumer Trust of
Branded Content on Social Media.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 19 (1): 58–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15252019.2018.1533501
Lou, C., and V. Jin. 2021. “Untapped and Understudied
Issues in Influencer Advertising.” Journal of Interactive
Advertising 21 (2): 139–40.
Mada, G. (n.d.). “Tag Free Icon [Icon].” Flaticon. https://
www.flaticon.com/free-icon/tag_3642114
Maguire, J. S., and J. Matthews. 2010. “Cultural
Intermediaries and the Media.” Sociology Compass 4 (7):
405–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2010.00285.x
Martensen, A., S. Brockenhuus-Schack, and A. L. Zahid.
2018. “How Citizen Influencers Persuade Their
Followers.” Journal of Fashion Marketing and
Management: An International Journal 22 (3): 335–53.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2017-0095
Merrigan, G., C. L. Huston, and R. Johnston. 2012.
Communication Research Methods. Don Mills, ON:
Oxford University Press.
Moor, L. 2008. “Branding Consultants as Cultural
Intermediaries.” The Sociological Review 56 (3): 408–28.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2008.00797.x
Marshall, H. 2023. “Thematic Coding.” BetterEvaluation,
November 27. https://www.betterevaluation.org/methods-
approaches/methods/thematic-coding
Musiyiwa, R., and J. Jacobson. 2023. “Sponsorship
Disclosure in Social Media Influencer Marketing: The
Algorithmic and Non-Algorithmic Barriers.” Social
Media þ Society 9 (3): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/
20563051231196870
Nangicon. (n.d.). “Influencer Free Icon [Icon].” Flaticon,
April 11. https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/influencer_
10026100
Nixon, S., and P. D. Gay. 2002. “Who Needs Cultural
Intermediaries?” Cultural Studies 16 (4): 495–500. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09502380210139070
Scott, M. 2017. “Hipster Capitalism’ in the Age of
Austerity? Polanyi Meets Bourdieu’s New Petite
Bourgeoisie.” Cultural Sociology 11 (1): 60–76. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1749975516681226
Siekierska, A. 2019. “Canadian Companies Are Jumping In’:
Inside the Rise of Influencer Marketing.” Yahoo! Finance,
June 18. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/influencer-marketing-
growing-in-canada-184127949.html
Slack Help Center. (n.d.). “What is Slack?” Slack. https://slack.
com/intl/en-ca/help/articles/115004071768-What-is-Slack-
Stoldt, R., M. Wellman, B. Ekdale, and M. Tully. 2019.
“Professionalizing and Profiting: The Rise of
Intermediaries in the Social Media Influencer Industry.”
Social Media þ Society 5 (1): 205630511983258. https://
doi.org/10.1177/2056305119832587
Thomas, D. R. 2003. A General Inductive Approach for
Analyzing Qualitative Evaluation Data.
 JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE ADVERTISING 83

Tobin, J. 2019. “Influencer Marketing: Three Areas Brand Wellman, M. L., R. Stoldt, M. Tully, and B. Ekdale. 2020.
Lawyers Commonly Struggle With.” Forbes, May 29. “Ethics of Authenticity: Social Media Influencers and the
Vectorslab. (n.d.). “Auction Free Icon [Icon].” Flaticon. Production of Sponsored Content.” Journal of Media
https://www.flaticon.com/free-icon/auction_9367178 Ethics 35 (2): 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.
Warren, G., and K. Dinnie. 2018. “Cultural Intermediaries 2020.1736078
in Place Branding: Who Are They and How Do They Wolf, M. 2007. “Bourdieu’s ‘Rules of the Game’: An
Construct Legitimacy for Their Work and for Introspection into Methodological Questions of
Themselves?” Tourism Management 66:302–14. https:// Translation Sociology.” Matraga, Rio De Janeiro 14 (20):
doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.12.012 130–45.