The Dark Side of Family Influencing on Social Media
· side-hustles
The Family Influencing Epidemic: A Glimpse into the Dark Side of Social Media Stardom
The rise to YouTube stardom of The Family Fun Pack, a family vlog channel, has been marked by accidental virality and calculated monetization. Kristine and Matt, the parents behind the channel, stumbled upon success with their first vlog in 2014, accumulating over 316 million views since then. This phenomenon raises urgent questions about the ethics of family influencing on social media.
The proliferation of family vlogs has created a lucrative industry, with influencers like The Family Fun Pack earning an estimated $200,000 per month from AdSense revenue and brand sponsorships. However, this growth comes at a cost. As Fortesa Latifi’s book “Like, Follow, Subscribe” reveals, the focus on creating content for clicks has led to a desensitization of viewers who might otherwise consider the implications of sharing children’s personal moments online.
Sharenting, or the practice of sharing children’s intimate moments online, can have serious consequences. The case of Ruby Franke, an early family vlogger convicted of child abuse, serves as a stark reminder of the risks involved. Latifi’s book paints a disturbing picture of how tech companies resist regulations and parents tolerate risks to their children for financial gain.
The phenomenon of family influencing began with mommy bloggers in the early 2000s. However, these women largely didn’t receive payment for sharing their personal experiences. The shift towards curated images of children’s lives on social media has led to a more lucrative industry than ever before. Research by Pew found that videos featuring children under 13 garnered three times as many views as those without kids.
The appeal of family vlogs lies in their mundanity – viewers want to see how other families function and measure themselves against others. Brands, however, exploit this impulse by seeking to reach a captive audience through sponsored content featuring children. A mom influencer on Instagram and TikTok revealed that she has turned down brand deals due to her decision not to show her kids’ faces online.
The question remains: what are we comfortable watching on our screens? The Family Fun Pack’s success serves as a warning sign, highlighting the need for viewers to actively choose not to watch. By scrutinizing our social media feeds and questioning the content we consume, we can slow down the momentum of this industry. Ultimately, it is up to us – by being mindful of what we watch.
The growth of family influencing has also raised concerns about the commodification of childhood. Children’s most vulnerable moments are used to garner attention and clicks, with brands seeking to feature kids in social-media ads and sponsored content because they believe it increases engagement and drives sales. This commercialization of childhood comes at a steep price.
Tech companies continue to prioritize profits over child safety, resisting regulations that could protect vulnerable children. Parents are often pressured into tolerating risks for financial gain, even if it means exposing their children to potential harm. As Latifi notes, this is a disturbing trend that must be addressed.
The rise of family influencing reflects a broader societal shift towards prioritizing online visibility and monetization above all else. We must ask ourselves: what kind of society do we want to create? One where childhood is commodified for clicks or one where we prioritize the well-being and safety of our children?
The answer lies in our collective responsibility as viewers. By choosing not to watch, by questioning the content we consume, and by advocating for regulations that protect child safety, we can create a more just society. The Family Fun Pack’s story serves as a warning sign – let us use it as an opportunity to reflect on what we’re comfortable watching on our screens.
The epidemic of family influencing will not go away unless we take action. It is time to scrutinize the content we consume and demand better from the tech industry. Only then can we hope to create a world where childhood is cherished, not exploited for clicks and profit.
Reader Views
- MLMei L. · etsy seller
The Family Fun Pack's success story is just the tip of the iceberg in this exploitative industry. What's often overlooked is the emotional labor required to maintain these fabricated personas online. Behind every curated image and vlog post lies a family juggling parenting responsibilities with the demands of producing content for clicks. It's not just about monetizing kids' lives; it's also about creating unrealistic expectations for parents who feel pressured to present a perfect facade on social media, ultimately perpetuating an unhealthy dynamic between influencers, brands, and their young viewers.
- THThe Hustle Desk · editorial
The Family Fun Pack's rags-to-riches story masks a far more insidious issue: social media's normalization of childhood exploitation. While Kristine and Matt may not have set out to hurt anyone, their platform has created an environment where children are commodified for clicks and cash. We need to be having harder conversations about what it means to profit from our kids' lives online – including the impact on their emotional well-being and future relationships with intimacy and trust.
- RHRiley H. · indie hacker
The article touches on the dark side of family influencing, but neglects to mention the algorithmic amplification of these content creators' success. Platforms like YouTube and Instagram reward engagement-hungry channels with prioritized feed placement and more aggressive recommendation algorithms, fueling the cycle of clickbait-worthy content. This creates a self-perpetuating feedback loop where brands are drawn to popular family influencers, further cementing their online presence. The article would benefit from an exploration of how these algorithmic incentives contribute to the proliferation of sharenting and its consequences.