Influencer crisis or crisis of trust?
Influencer recession, fatigued audiences, burnt-out creators: 62 % of 13-39 year-olds are fed up with the same big names. What the numbers really show.
Key takeaways
- 58 % of 13-39 year-olds trust online creators, up from 39 % in 2022. Trust is rising, but its recipient is shifting.
- 73 % trust smaller creators more than big names, and 62 % are tired of seeing the same faces.
- Budgets, meanwhile, are climbing: 587 millions d'euros spent on influencer marketing in France in 2025, 82 % more than in 2022.
- 88 % of consumers trust recommendations from people they know more than any other format, according to Nielsen.
- After the nano-influencer, the next step is the customer: they hold the only thing that cannot be faked, proof of use.
You have probably seen the headlines. They have been piling up for months.
” Grosse fatigue : quand l’influence ne fait plus rêver ” in L’ADN. ” Consumers Are Fatigued, Influencers Are Burnt Out. What Now? ” in Vogue. And the phrase that ended up sticking, coined by New York Magazine and Vulture: the Influencer Recession.
I will skip the studies, which all point in the same direction.
The question on my mind lies elsewhere: is influence really the thing in crisis?
What do influencer numbers really say?
That influence is shifting down the pyramid.
The clearest study comes from YPulse, Celebrities and Influencers Report, conducted in May 2026 among 13-39 year-olds in North America and Western Europe:
- 58 % say they trust online creators and influencers, compared to 39 % in 2022
- 73 % trust smaller creators more than top influencers
- 62 % say they are tired of constantly seeing the same big names
- 61 % have already purchased a product recommended by an online figure
Look closely at the first figure, and especially its trajectory. Reported trust in creators gained nineteen points in four years. That is rarely what people call a collapse.
The shift lies in the next two numbers: trust concentrates on smaller, less visible profiles. What people are rejecting is industrialization.
In certain sectors, the erosion runs deeper. A study published in late 2025 in La Revue de Médecine Interne found that only 11,8 % of respondents trust beauty influencers (clinical study conducted on 142 dermatology patients in Sousse). The sample is small and clinical, so handle it with caution. Still, the figure made the rounds in French industry trade press without anyone finding it shocking.
Is influence really in crisis?
Not if you look at budgets. In France, advertisers spent 587 millions d’euros on influencer marketing in 2025, 82 % more than in 2022 (ARPP / France Pub). An industry in recession does not do that.
The first Baromètre de l’influence commerciale française provides an even more telling number. Across 47 200 creators tracked between April 2024 and March 2025, only 15,5 % of published content involved a paid collaboration (CPA / UMICC).
In other words: more than eight out of ten posts sit completely outside media plans. That is precisely the fuel trust runs on, and it is the share no ad spend can activate.
The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer adds the missing nuance to the debate. Among the 48 % of people who say they trust a food or lifestyle creator, 62 % would trust a company recommended by that creator (Edelman Trust Barometer 2026). The transfer of trust still works. It simply requires trust to be there in the first place.
This is not a crisis of influence. It is a crisis of trust.
And that distinction changes the fix. If influence were in crisis, you would pull the plug. Since it is a crisis of trust, you need to go find it where it still lives.
Why distrust does not stop at influencers
Because it is widespread, and influence faces it like everything else.
Social networks are now ranked among the least trusted information sources, even as we spend more time on them than ever. Generative AI accelerates this dynamic: when any image, voice, or review can be generated in thirty seconds, genuine proof becomes a rare commodity.
Look at what this means in practice. A before-and-after photo proves little anymore. An unboxing video is no different. A written review even less so. What remains hard to fake is someone you know, who has used the product for three months, and whom you can ask a question.
In response, consumers have become clear-headed. When people describe them as volatile, I answer that they are simply better informed than we ever were. That is what I break down in “Alternatively Influential”, or influence without an audience.
Can experts replace influencers?
They solve a legitimacy problem while leaving the proximity problem untouched.
With trust lacking, the industry looks for new figures. In her article ” La fin des influenceurs beauté ? Le boom des nouveaux prescripteurs ”, Caroline Ricard describes the rise of profiles backed by scientific authority: dermatologists, pharmacists, researchers.
It sounds logical on paper. Now ask yourself honestly what triggers a purchase. Is it “wow, this cream has 10 % niacinamide”? Is it “I am a dermatologist, trust me”?
I have strong doubts. But a friend whispering “I have been using it for three months, it really works”, that triggers a sale.
Scientific backing solves a legitimacy issue. It does not solve the proximity issue. And proximity is what drives people to checkout.
The cultural signal that confirms the diagnosis
An example outside marketing that says it all.
When Léna Situations relaunched her podcast COUCH in October 2025 with Rihanna as the first guest, everyone dissected its success. Every time, the same explanation returned: authenticity, spontaneity, zero filter. The official episode description itself promises “an authentic Rihanna and an admiring Lena who is completely at ease in her role as interviewer” (COUCH by Lena Situations).
In short: a casual chat between friends, with one of the world’s biggest superstars sitting opposite.
The top-performing format right now sells itself on its ability to feel like a private conversation. A global star, massive production resources, and the unique selling point is intimacy. The signal is hard to miss.
After the nano-influencer, what comes next?
The customer. The person who bought the product, uses it, and likes it enough to talk about it unprompted.
Let’s retrace the steps. When I started out in influence (long time ago), it was a race for follower counts. One million, two million! Then brands looked for smaller, more engaged audiences, which led to the standard tiers: celebrities, macro, mid-tier, micro, nano. Each tier smaller, closer, more credible than the last.
Follow that logic to the end and you step outside the grid. The next tier is someone with no audience, holding what no creator has by default: proof of use. They paid for the product. They use it. They have nothing to gain by lying, and everything to lose with the people reading them.
Data has pointed this way for fifteen years. 88 % of consumers say they trust recommendations from people they know more than any other format, 50 % more than bottom-ranked formats like online banners, mobile ads, or SMS (Nielsen, Trust in Advertising 2021). The full breakdown of these numbers is in Word of mouth in numbers.
| Top signature | Small creator | Paying customer | |
|---|---|---|---|
| What studies measure | 62 % reported fatigue (YPulse) | 73 % trust them more (YPulse) | 88 % trust someone close (Nielsen) |
| Proof of use | Rarely | Sometimes | By design |
| Cost | Flat fee negotiated upfront | Flat fee or commission | Paid after the sale |
| Ceiling | The agency’s address book | The number of active creators | The number of happy customers |
What people want today is real individuals. In other words, the exact strength of early influencers that made them successful in the first place. Before red carpets, press trips, and fifteen brand deals a quarter, there was someone filming in their bedroom to share a genuine find. This principle is explored in We are all influencers.
That leaves the obvious follow-up question. If a customer recommendation creates value for the brand, why should that value stay reserved for people with an audience? That customer deserves to be rewarded for what they generate. This is the paradigm shift we champion at Frak: after the Creator Economy, welcome to the Recommendation Economy.
At the end of the day, credibility drives sales. Visibility is just a rental.
Frequently asked questions
Is influencer marketing in crisis in 2026?
Budgets say otherwise: French advertisers invested 587 millions d’euros in influencer marketing in 2025, up 82 % since 2022. What is changing is trust and where it flows. 62 % of 13-39 year-olds say they are tired of seeing the same big names, while 73 % trust smaller creators more.
Why do consumers trust influencers less?
Because influence became industrialized: identical faces, identical formats, identical rehearsed pitches, across dozens of brand deals every year. Trust naturally shifts toward proximity and proof of use, which dwindle as creators become brand ambassadors. In beauty, one clinical study found only 11,8 % trust in the sector’s influencers.
What type of recommendation do consumers trust most?
Recommendations from people they know. According to Nielsen, 88 % of consumers trust them more than any other format, 50 % more than lower-ranked formats such as online banners, mobile ads, or SMS. It remains the most stable trust metric over the last fifteen years.
Is an expert more persuasive than an influencer when selling a product?
They carry more legitimacy, which does not produce the same effect. Scientific endorsement answers the question “is this product credible”, whereas purchases are usually triggered by “did this work for someone like me”. Proximity and proof of use carry more weight than credentials.
I am Virginie Maire, co-founder of Frak Labs, which turns your customers into a scalable, profitable, and authentic acquisition channel. A passionate entrepreneur and mother of two, I have spent 20 years navigating media, social networks, influence, and e-commerce… and I still love every minute of it!