fitness, makeup, beauty, social media agency, and the one photog that made $15k in one day.

I wonder if the advertisers get a lot of value for all that money they're spending. 

have a feeling it's budgeted into their marketing spend.  i mean, free product is a drop in the bucket for a 1MM following exposure.  Thus, they have to sweeten the deal with real sponsorship/endorsement structure.. like that belfie chick, instantly in-demand and high value asset as soon as she went viral.

Jen Selter is known for belfies but she wants to be known for fitness.

I guess I just don't understand how advertisers measure return on investment.

Is it just how much audience they got for their dollars, like TV ads?

Well right, fitness.

We all need our way in...

If they're able to track interactions that pertain to the specific post that includes a product, that seems like it give some indication as to efficacy or enthusiasm.  But as for apparel endorsements, that's the non tech classic business problem that seems all negotiation based.I think it's the difference between one-off payments for placement; vs. long-term contractual for evangelism/exclusive rights/etc.

Theory:

When it comes to beauty products, like artisan foods, they eventually get DIY produced by an advanced, knowledgeable practitioner of the craft.  This inventor would already have an established network built from within the industry, the pro community, and the ecosystem of fans/students.  So when they are ready to promote, and if they were a top talent, it wouldn't be hard for others to adopt and get behind (Again, like the amazing micro-brew community who simply love each others' beers, or jams.).  

These producers-advertisers may come from inside the industry that includes the artist or spokesperson or model or blogger, and they inherently know that the system of influence starts with 1) professionals 2) beautiful people (nothing sells beauty product better than a beautiful person, right...?).  How they quantify.. maybe it's in watching the sales after a launch or review by someone, and attaching some x value of effect to attribute to that y event.

But, just notice how this particular list, which is rather short, includes occupations revolving around image, sexuality, and beauty.

Image, sexuality, and beauty are the foundation of most Madison Avenue campaigns.

I can understand when the Instagram leads directly to sales of products, for example...

http://pandawhale.com/post/52725/michelle-phan-is-the-youtube-star-with-1-billion-views-7-million-followers-and-84-million-annual-sales-run-rate

...but a lot of the people in the Mitumix article seem to be marketing without any direct sales of products. They just mention a brand. That's gotta be less effective than providing a link to products to buy, right? If nothing else it's difficult to measure actual impact. 

right. yeah.

Michelle Phan, that's a nuts story, that's nuts.like that British vlogger girl who's book has outsold JK Rowling.

effing killing it. mindboggling.

Zoe Sugg:

http://pandawhale.com/post/55442/24-year-old-author-zoe-sugg-just-broke-jk-rowlings-sales-record-nbd

Yeah, they're both living proof that social media can make someone much, much bigger if they hit their audience in the right way.