Though kidfluencer marketing is becoming more prevalent, research into children as senders of commercial messages is scarce. Considering the roles of parents, followers and commercial partners, this study is the first to conceptualise and explore kidfluencers’ authenticity management. In total, 19 in-depth interviews with kidfluencers (aged 7–12 years) and their parents show that kidfluencer profiles are not an authentic representation of the children’s true digital selves, but rather a representation of how parents wish to present their children’s digital identities. This is achieved by parents balancing their own wishes against those of their children, followers and commercial parties. A privacy (openness) paradox thereby occurs and parents undertake measures in attempt to guard against the potential risks.
AbidinC (2017a) #familygoals: family influencers, calibrated amateurism, and justifying young digital labor. Social Media + Society3: 2056305117707191.
AbidinCOtsM (2016) Influencers tell all?Unravelling authenticity and credibility in a Brand Scandal. In: EdströmMKenyonATSvenssonE (eds) Blurring the Lines: Market-Driven and Democracy-Driven Freedom of Expression. Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 153–161.
4.
AlruwailyAMangoldCGreeneT, et al. (2020) Child social media influencers and unhealthy food product placement. Pediatrics146(5): e20194057.
5.
ArcherC (2019a) How influencer ‘mumpreneur’ bloggers and ‘everyday’ mums frame presenting their children online. Media International Australia170(1): 47–56.
6.
ArcherC (2019b) Social media influencers, post-feminism and neoliberalism: how mum bloggers’ ‘playbour’ is reshaping public relations. Public Relations Inquiry8(2): 149–166.
7.
ArriagadaAIbáñezF (2020) ‘You need at least one picture daily, if not, you’re dead’: content creators and platform evolution in the social media ecology. Social Media + Society6: 205630512094462.
8.
AudrezetAde KervilerGGuidry MoulardJ (2018) Authenticity under threat: when social media influencers need to go beyond self-presentation. Journal of Business Research117: 557–569.
9.
AutenriethU (2018) Family photography in a networked age: anti-sharenting as a reaction to risk assessment and behaviour adaption. In: MascheroniGPonteCJorgeA (eds) Digital Parenting: The Challenges for Families in the Digital Age (The International Clearinghouse on Children, Youth & Media). Gothenburg: Nordicom, pp. 219–231.
10.
BalabanDSzambolicsJ (2022) A proposed model of self-perceived authenticity of social media influencers. Media and Communication10: 235–246.
Blum-RossALivingstoneS (2017) ‘Sharenting’, parent blogging, and the boundaries of the digital self. Popular Communication15(2): 110–125.
13.
BorchersNS (2023) To eat the cake and have it, too: how marketers control influencer conduct within a paradigm of letting go. Social Media + Society9(2): 20563051231167336.
14.
CampbellCFarrellJR (2020) More than meets the eye: the functional components underlying influencer marketing. Business Horizons63(4): 469–479.
15.
Castillo-AbdulBRomero-RodríguezLMLarrea-AyalaA (2020) Kid influencers in Spain: understanding the themes they address and preteens’ engagement with their YouTube channels. Heliyon6(9): e05056.
16.
ChalklenCAndersonH (2017) Mothering on Facebook: exploring the privacy/openness paradox. Social Media + Society3(2): 2056305117707187.
17.
ChoiE (2023) Brand integration, disclosure, and ethics in child-targeted YouTube videos: a content analysis. Journal of Media Ethics38(1): 34–47.
18.
ChungJDingYKalraA (2023) I really know you: how influencers can increase audience engagement by referencing their close social ties. Journal of Consumer Research50: 683–703.
19.
CraigDCunninghamS (2017) Toy unboxing: living in a(n unregulated) material world. Media International Australia163: 77–86.
20.
DewarSIslamSResorE, et al. (2019) Finsta: creating ‘fake’ spaces for authentic performance. In: CHI EA ‘19: extended abstracts of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, 4–9 May, pp. 1–6. New York: ACM.
21.
DiCicco-BloomBCrabtreeBF (2006) The qualitative research interview. Medical Education40(4): 314–321.
22.
DuffyB (2017) (Not) Getting Paid to Do What You Love: Gender, Social Media, and Aspirational Work. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
DuffyBEHundE (2015) ‘Having it all’ on social media: entrepreneurial femininity and self-branding among fashion bloggers. Social Media + Society1(2): 2056305115604337.
24.
DuffyBEHundE (2019) Gendered visibility on social media: navigating Instagram’s authenticity bind. International Journal of Communication13: 20.
25.
FaleatuaR (2018) Insta brand me: playing with notions of authenticity. Continuum32: 721–732.
26.
FellerGBurroughsB (2022) Branding kidfluencers: regulating content and advertising on YouTube. Television & New Media23(6): 575–592.
27.
Fleming-MiliciFPhaneufLHarrisJ (2023) Prevalence of food and beverage brands in ‘made-for-kids’ child-influencer YouTube videos: 2019–2020. Pediatric Obesity18(4): e13008.
28.
GaleNKHeathGCameronE, et al. (2013) Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Medical Research Methodology13(1): 117.
29.
GhaniMACambreC (2020) Ethan’s golden YouTube play button: the evolution of a child influencer. In: WarfieldKCambreCAbidinC (eds) Mediated Interfaces: The Body on Social Media. London: Bloomsbury, pp. 83–108.
30.
GilaniPBolatENordbergD, et al. (2019) Mirror, mirror on the wall: shifting leader–follower power dynamics in a social media context. Leadership16(3): 343–363.
31.
HolidaySNormanMSDensleyRL (2020) Sharenting and the extended self: self-representation in parents’ Instagram presentations of their children. Popular Communication20: 1–15.
32.
HuCZhaoLHuangJ (2015) Achieving self-congruency? Examining why individuals reconstruct their virtual identity in communities of interest established within social network platforms. Computers in Human Behavior50: 465–475.
33.
HuangJKumarSHuC (2021) A literature review of online identity reconstruction. Frontiers in Psychology12: 696552.
34.
HuddersLBeuckelsEVan den AbeeleE, et al. (2022, 9-10June). Children, children on our wall: a mixed-method study exploring the risks associated with the portrayal of children on influencer accounts [paper presentation]. UNESCO Child And Family Research Centre 10Th Biennial International Conference, Galway, Ireland.
35.
HuddersLDe PauwPCaubergheV, et al. (2017) Shedding new light on how advertising literacy can affect children’s processing of embedded advertising formats: a future research agenda. Journal of Advertising46: 333–349.
36.
HunterA (2016) Monetizing the mommy: mommy blogs and the audience commodity. Information, Communication & Society19(9): 1306–1320.
37.
JorgeAGarcezBJaniquesdeCarvalhoB, et al. (2023) Parenting on celebrities’ and influencers’ social media: revamping traditional gender portrayals. Journalism and Media4(1): 105–117.
38.
JorgeAMarôpoLNetoF (2022a) ‘When you realise your dad is Cristiano Ronaldo’: celebrity sharenting and children’s digital identities. Information, Communication & Society25: 516–535.
39.
JorgeAMarôpoLCoelhoA, et al. (2022b) Mummy influencers and professional sharenting. European Journal of Cultural Studies25: 166–182.
40.
KalanÖ (2020) Digital transformation in marketing: a sample review on kid influencer marketing and toy unboxing videos on YouTube. In: Akkor GülAErtürkYDElmerP (eds) Digital Transformation in Media & Society. Istanbul: Istanbul University Press, pp. 127–149.
41.
KernisMHGoldmanBM (2006) A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology38: 283–357.
42.
KhamisSAngLWellingR (2017) Self-branding, ‘micro-celebrity’ and the rise of social media influencers. Celebrity Studies8: 191–208.
43.
KozinetsRVGretzelUGambettiR (2023) Influencers and Creators: Business, Culture and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
MaaresPBanjacSHanuschF (2020) The labour of visual authenticity on social media: exploring producers’ and audiences’ perceptions on Instagram. Poetics84: 101502.
45.
MäkinenK (2021) Resilience and vulnerability: emotional and affective labour in mom blogging. New Media & Society23(10): 2964–2978.
46.
MarwickAE (2013a) Online identity. In: HartleyJBurgessJBrunsA (eds) A Companion to New Media Dynamics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 355–364.
47.
MarwickAE (2013b) Status Update: Celebrity, Publicity, and Branding in the Social Media Age. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
48.
MastersonMA (2020) When play becomes work: child labor laws in the era of ‘kidfluencers’. University of Pennsylvania Law Review169: 577–607.
49.
McGinnisN (2022) ‘They’re just playing’: why child social media stars need enhanced Coogan protections to save them from their parents. Missouri Law Review87(1): 1–21.
50.
McQuarrieEPhillipsB (2014) The megaphone effect in social media: how ordinary consumers become style leaders. Gfk Marketing Intelligence Review6: 16–20.
PedersenIAspevigK (2018) Being Jacob: young children, automedial subjectivity, and child social media influencers. M/C Journal21(2): mcj.1352.
53.
PöyryEPelkonenMNaumanenE, et al. (2019) A call for authenticity: audience responses to social media influencer endorsements in strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication13: 336–351.
54.
RasmussenEERiggsRESauermilchWS (2022) Kidfluencer exposure, materialism, and U.S. tweens’ purchase of sponsored products. Journal of Children and Media16: 68–77.
55.
SongH (2023) Mothers’ baking blogs: negotiating sacrificial and postfeminist neoliberal motherhood in South Korea. Feminist Media Studies23(1): 216–231.
Tur-ViñesVNúñez-GómezPGonzález-RíoMJ (2018) Kid influencers on YouTube. A space for responsibility. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social73: 1211–1230.
60.
Van den AbeeleEVanwesenbeeckIHuddersL (2023) Child’s privacy versus mother’s fame: unravelling the biased decision-making process of momfluencers to portray their children online. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 27 April. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2023.2205484.
61.
Van der HofSLievensEMilkaiteI, et al. (2020) The child’s right to protection against economic exploitation in the digital world. The International Journal of Children’s Rights28(4): 833–859.
62.
Van DrielLDumitricaD (2020) Selling brands while staying ‘authentic’: the professionalization of Instagram influencers. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies27(1): 66–84.
63.
WagnerAGascheLA (2018) Sharenting: making decisions about other’s privacy on social networking sites. Paper Presented. Lüneburg: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik.
64.
WellmanMLStoldtRTullyM, et al. (2020) Ethics of authenticity: social media influencers and the production of sponsored content. Journal of Media Ethics35(2): 68–82.
65.
WuytsDVansteenkisteMSoenensB, et al. (2015) An examination of the dynamics involved in parental child-invested contingent self-esteem. Parenting15(2): 55–74.
