By Karen Bachour
Miquela Sousa (Instagram, @lilmiquela)
19-year-old Brazilian-American Miquela Sousa, or Lil Miquela, is living the dream. The influencer first posted on Instagram in 2016, and she has since come a long way; she now shares posts on a daily basis with her 2.8 million followers. Her content includes selfies, makeup tips, memes, and she even voices her support of social causes such as Black lives matter. The multi-talented young woman has worked with Prada and Calvin Klein, and her songs are streamed by 80,000 people monthly on Spotify. Miquela was a finalist in the Shorty Award for Best Celebrity in 2019, and she was included in Time’s 25 most influential people on the internet in 2018 alongside Trump, Rihanna, and Kanye.
If her life sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is; Miquela is not real.
She is a computer-generated simulation of a person, created by Los Angeles’ mysterious transmedia studio Brud. Miquela is only one character in the new trend of virtual influencers. Her counterparts include supermodel Shudu (210K followers), fashionista Noonoouri (368K followers), model Imma (326K followers), and influencer Bermuda (288K followers).
The response to these influencers varies greatly from fascination to wariness to complete rejection. Black supermodel Shudu for example is either idolized or heavily criticized. She was first celebrated as a new symbol for diversity in the fashion industry, but most people’s hopes were crushed when they learned she wasn’t real, and that her creator was a white photographer. An article published by The New Yorker titled “Shudu Gram Is a White Man’s Digital Projection of Real-Life Black Womanhood”.
Another major concern is the ethical implications of having non-humans pose as influencers on social media. The Federal Trade Commission stated in June 2019 that “[The] FTC doesn’t have specific guidance on CGI influencers, but advertisers using CGI influencer posts should ensure that the posts are clearly identifiable as advertising.” This means that legally, these influencers are required to disclose if they are getting paid for a promotion or an ad, just like other real influencers. However, Melissa Steinman, a partner at top US law firm Venable LLP expressed her doubts: "They're not able to actually use the product. Lil Miquela isn't wearing that Calvin Klein shirt. She doesn't wear anything. Certainly, they're not eating, so how can they really endorse something?"
One issue that needs to be addressed is that the agencies responsible for these characters and the brands that use them are not required to disclose to the public that these people are not real. For now, fake influencers have some features that make people question if they are real or not. However, these characters receive regular upgrades that make them look closer and closer to humans. Soon, the public will not be able to differentiate between a fake influencer and a real one.
Bermuda before and after her update on September 6, 2019. (Instagram, @bermudaisbae)
“Social media, to date, has largely been about real humans being fake. But avatars are a future of storytelling” says co-founder of Reddit, Alexis Ohanian. Now, fake influencers are learning that to appear real, they will have to forgo perfection. Cameron James Wilson, the creator of Shudu confirmed to Vox Africa that he’s “adding imperfections rather than taking them away” and that human flaws stop the character from appearing unnervingly robot-like; “I think we’re at a place now where real people are so filtered, so photoshopped, that there is no actual differentiation between 3D art and a photo. You’ll see more natural imperfections on Shudu’s page than your average influencer.” Cameron himself wanted to be very transparent, and he revealed the process that he used to create Shudu in an interview with Harper’s Bazaar in 2018. Some however might not be so inclined to reveal their creation, and others, like @nickillian, are rumored to be fake but refuse to clarify this info.
A study by social entertainment firm Fullscreen in 2018 concluded that CGI influencers do have real influence. As CGI technologies improve, and as these characters are updated and upgraded to become more human, questions are raised about what this could mean for different industries. It will take a lot of thought before the majority of marketers switch to CGI influencers, mostly because consumers want authenticity. On the other hand, virtual influencers can be very appealing to tech-savvy millennials and Gen Z.
As can be expected, real models and influencers in the industry are not too happy about these fake characters. US television host and model Tyra Banks told BBC “Girls work their entire career hoping to book a Balmain campaign, or any campaign really. If it's just that easy to hand a campaign to CGI models, what does the future of e-commerce look like for us?”
Actress and model Jessica Markowski was also worried, not because CGI influencers threaten her job, but because of their influence on society. "I think within the modeling industry, we have come a long way in accepting women and men in all colors, shapes, and sizes," she said. "As a society, we have become more accepting of body image and so CGI models are going to have everything go in a different and negative direction."
Putting aside all criticism, working with customized characters that can be manipulated does have its perks. They are always in control and have no flaws - unless those are part of their persona, designed to attract follows and likes. When a perfect alternative exists, would companies still prefer to work with human influencers? Or will the advertising industry witness a change in its fundamental functioning?
Comments