For a decade, influence ran on a simple equation: bigger audience, more belief. Follower count was credibility. If a million people were watching someone, they were worth listening to.
That equation is breaking. Trust is moving — away from scale, toward proximity; away from polish, toward honesty; toward people who feel like us, not people performing for us. The influencer economy isn’t dying. But the assumption that bigger means more believable, certainly is.
Humans learn by copying, and one of our oldest shortcuts is prestige bias: since judging real skill is hard, we look for indirect cues instead — who’s admired, who’s copied, who’s deferred to — and copy that person. Prestige stands in for competence. This competence is no longer a ‘brand’, it’s real, lived experience.

Social media used to manufacture prestige. Now it audits it. Comment sections, side-by-sides, and review threads give audiences something they never had at scale: a cheap way to check if a claim is actually true.
Today, most users on the ‘Gram can sniff sponsored content a mile off. Is the influencer losing their influence? Perhaps.
Instead, people are pivoting towards relatable, everyday content creators. The historian deep-diving into colonial-era Delhi. The foodie gobbling his way around Mumbai. The museologist researching textiles. The paleontologist gabbing about dinosaurs. The neurologist teaching their audience how to stave off dementia. Sommeliers explaining the nuances of a sparkling wine. Krish Ashok, a ‘techie’, draws science into his food reels; he has 1.4 million followers on Instagram. Eleanor Barnett of the account HistoryEats is a researcher and food historian – she has 42.5K followers. These are people who never wanted a “personal brand” but know something real and are willing to explain it on camera. Their currency is niche, specific expertise, not charisma, and they are the new online experts. People trust them because they come bearing deep, researched, specific knowledge. Intelligence is becoming the new ‘influence.’
The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer makes this explicit. Most consumers now name relatable, everyday creators — not perfectly-polished, face-filtered celebrities — as their most credible, authentic source on brands. This is part of a wider retreat into smaller, familiar circles of trust, away from ‘influencers’ to ‘content creators’.
The second shift? People are no longer online only to be entertained or to be sold a particular product; they’re going to Instagram to learn something. It’s no wonder then that many users prefer viewing niche, educational creators rather than entertaining ones.
And they’re being found through search, not discovery feeds. Nearly half of US consumers now use TikTok as a search engine — a number that’s jumped sharply in two years — and a real chunk say they’d trust ChatGPT over Google for some queries.

None of this is entirely new. Edelman’s own study back in 2005 explained that “trust shifts from authorities to peers.” This isn’t a new phenomenon. It’s the swing of the pendulum, accelerated and made visible by platforms built for it. The word ‘trust’ here is key; in the age of AI influencers and fake engagement, who can viewers even believe anymore?
What is new is verification speed. People don’t just prefer peers over authorities in theory anymore — they can check a claim in seconds.
That could be what is finally deflating the influencer bubble. Not that audiences have stopped wanting people to follow, admire or imitate. Prestige bias is too deeply embedded in our psyche to vanish overnight. But it is no longer enough.
The creators who thrive in the next phase of the internet may not be those with the biggest platforms, the most polished feeds or the most lucrative brand partnerships. The new measure of influence may be surprisingly old-fashioned: knowing what you are talking about.

















