Why nano-influencers

Nano-influencers existed before marketers named them. They emerged through everyday social interactions. Back in the day, purchase decisions often relied on trusted friends. Advice came from those with proven experience. At that time, influence was personal and situational. Today, although it is not as personal as before, similar roles exist in digital spaces. Bloggers, forum moderators, and active reviewers replace offline peers. They operate within niche and micro communities. This is the nano-influencers that we are referring to.

Micro communities in digital spaces are formed through repeated interactions. Social media platforms allow ordinary people to share stories, experiences, and specific expertise. Some contribute opinions or practical advice that others find useful. Followers begin to gather around narratives they find relatable. Interaction grows in comment sections, where questions invite responses and discussion. Over time, regular participants recognize each other. From this process, certain voices gain more influence than other. Nano-influencers emerge from within the community itself.

Influence is often measured by follower numbers alone, while the formation process is usually ignored. This often leads to mistakes in influencer selection, as brands confuse visibility with influence. Nano-influencers typically earn followers through participation and interaction, while others inherit followers from status or fame. This distinction matters because it affects the level of trust and persuasion a brand can realistically cultivate. Hiring influencers without understanding how their influence was formed increases the risk of weak outcomes. Community-built influence behaves differently from reputation-driven influence.

We can use the chess world as an example. Today, the most recognized names in that world are Levy (GothamChess) with more than 10 million followers across YouTube, Twitch, and Instagram; Hikaru Nakamura with over 5 million followers on Twitch and YouTube; and Magnus Carlsen with more than 3 million followers on Instagram and X. However, if we go back to 2017 the picture looks very different. At that year, Magnus Carlsen was already the world’s top chess player and reigning world champion. He was widely recognized for his elite performance level. Hikaru Nakamura was also already a strong professional with significant competitive reputation. He was ranked among the top 10 players globally though not yet as culturally prominent as today. In contrast, Levy (GothamChess) was not widely known in mainstream chess circles. He was only one of 4200-ish International Master that struggle to get GM tittle. He may be known in his little league but he was definitely not an influencer.

Levy Rozman launched his chess streaming on Twitch in 2018, starting with only a handful of viewers. He learned the craft through interaction and community engagement, long before he gained millions of followers. Before COVID, he already had a respectable audience, with roughly 17,000 followers. The pandemic gave him a break, as a sudden influx of people entered the online chess world, bringing almost 80,000 new followers within ten months. He was able to utilize this opportunity because he was ready. Audiences connected with his content because he narrated chess games like stories. He brought emotion and honesty into his streaming. He built habit, not virality, and interacted early and often. Five years later, his brand continues to expand

Brand partnerships further highlight the difference in how influence is utilized. Magnus Carlsen has long been associated with global brands that leverage his status as the world’s elite player, such as betting platforms, major chess organizations, and lifestyle brands. Hikaru Nakamura sits somewhere in between, combining competitive credibility with active content creation, which attracts both esports organizations and commercial partners. In contrast, Levy (GothamChess) built his relevance primarily through community engagement and education before entering branded collaborations. His partnerships tend to emerge after audience trust is established, not before. This reinforces the distinction between reputation-driven endorsements and community-built influence.

This pattern does not occur only in the chess world. It appears across many fields, from personal care, such as cosmetics, to family care, such as food, and up to performance-based products, such as automotive. The context can also be narrowed further, from a global scale to specific demographic and geographic markets. Within these contexts, two distinct types of influencers emerge: reputation-based influencers and nano-influencers.

Reputation-based influencers primarily do the broadcast. Their communication is one directional. It is focused on reach, attention, and message delivery. They tell, endorse, or signal authority while assuming legitimacy is already granted. They are effective for awareness and visibility but it leaves little room for negotiation or adaptation. Nano-influencers, by contrast, converse. Their influence is built through interaction, listening, and response. Meaning is co-created within the community, shaped by shared context and repeated exchanges. Conversation is not about scale, but about trust, relevance, and norm formation. This is why nano-influencers often shape behavior more deeply than broadcasters shape opinions.

Before discussing how nano-influencers should be used, it is important to address how they are often misused. Many brands hire nano-influencers as if they were small broadcasters. Selection is based primarily on follower numbers, while success is measured through views, likes, and reach. This approach treats nano-influencers as reduced versions of celebrities rather than as community participants. As a result, interaction is overlooked, conversation is discouraged, and community dynamics are ignored. What is measured is visibility, not influence.

To conclude, here are five guidelines for using nano-influencers more effectively.

1. Don’t rent reach. Enter communities.

Nano-influencers are embedded within micro-communities. Hiring them is not about buying exposure, but requesting access to an existing social space. This requires the brand to fit naturally into ongoing conversations. Forced messaging disrupts trust and can damage both the influencer and the community.

2. Preserve voice, not scripts.

Nano-influencers gain trust by speaking naturally and consistently. Over briefing or scripted content undermines this credibility. Brands should provide direction, not copy, and allow influencers to translate messages into their own language and context.

3. Optimize for interaction, not impressions.

The value of nano-influencers lies in dialogue, not scale. Effectiveness should be assessed through comment quality, response depth and follow up discussions. Likes and views capture visibility but not influence.

4. Think relationship, not campaign.

Nano-influencers work best over time. Repeated collaboration compounds trust within the community. One off activation often feels transactional and fail to leverage accumulated social capital.

5. Match influence type to objective.

Not all marketing goals require nano-influencers. They are most effective for trust building, education, community seeding, and norm shaping. They are less suitable for mass awareness, symbolic endorsement, or instant reach.

Thanks for reading and best regards,

Dr. Ardi Wirdamulia