This shift is showing up in real operational ways: creators are more cautious about the deals they sign, brands are more exposed to audience behaviour by creator-follower relations, and audiences are more willing to call out both sides when values don’t align.
Audiences expect creators to “be something”, not just “sell something”
The cultural pressure on creators has changed. Silence is read as positioning, yet speaking up can trigger backlash. Either way, the brand partner gets pulled into the slipstream.
We’ve seen this play out in real time at the highest levels, such as when Nike cutting ties with Australian figure Grace Tame after controversy around her political posts. This is a reminder that as a creator, free speech can become brand risk (and brand strategy) overnight.
Even when politics isn’t the issue, audiences are quicker to scrutinise authenticity, fairness, and transparency. Public blow-ups between brands and talent now happen in-feed, with millions watching, like the Who Is Elijah and Sarah’s Day dispute around a cancelled collaboration.
And when creators feel mistreated, they’ll mobilise their communities (and other creators) fast, like the Pared Eyewear controversy, where influencers publicly alleged non-payment and pushed boycotts.
The point isn’t who’s “right”. It’s that the influencer-brand relationship now behaves like a public partnership, not a private transaction. Especially when followers have an elephant’s memory; one bad deal can put a stain on your record - brands and influencers alike.
The comment section is a workplace risk
This is the part that a lot of brand plans still under-budget: hate, pile-ons, and targeted harassment.
Australian data shows how common hostile online experiences are:
- 1 in 3 adults (34%) reported seeing online hate in the previous year, and 18% reported personally experiencing it.
- Women are more likely to experience gendered online hate.
- ABS reporting also points to a high baseline of online abuse and harassment in Australia.
Brands must remember that Influencers are not just advertisements; they are an extension of your brand, from storytelling to production, they are a direct conduit to your target audience. This means that your brand strategy needs to include creator protection, not just creator output.
Reviewing whether an influencer is right for your brand goes beyond aesthetics and content; it’s now personal. For some creators, briefs now become a calculation about backlash and whether the contract properly protects them if things turn ugly. When a creator drops a deal because they’re bracing for hate, that’s not a media problem - it’s a partnership reality.
Influencers are also becoming information actors (with higher stakes)
Influencers don’t just sell products anymore; they shape opinions, even when they aren’t trying to.
The University of Canberra’s Digital News Report work has tracked social media’s rise as a primary information source, with social media overtaking online news websites as the “main source” of news for Australians in 2025 (26% vs 23%).
That backdrop raises the stakes for creator credibility, brand association, and misinformation risk, and it helps explain why audiences demand more accountability from the people they follow.
What brands need to change
This discussion isn’t to scare brands off utilising the value of influencers, rather aiming to consider the human behind the content. When a brand signs an influencer, it is a mutual relationship, not one-sided advertising. If influencers are brand extensions, brands need governance that matches the reality:
1) Treat alignment as due diligence, not “vibe”
- Values alignment (social issues, disclosure norms, content boundaries) is now as important as audience overlap.
- Ask: What topics exist for this creator’s community? What have they been pulled into before? What have they voiced their thoughts and opinions on?
2) Write contracts for the real world
Not just deliverables - but behavioural and safety realities:
- Clear disclosure requirements (platform-by-platform)
- Usage, whitelisting, and IP clarity
- Mutual morality clauses (brands and creators)
- A pathway for “pause” if pile-ons escalate (without creators having to breach to protect themselves)
NOTE: There’s a reason Australian legal guidance increasingly stresses that both brands and influencers can be liable for misleading conduct, and that disclosure needs to be unambiguous.
3) Build a creator safety plan
If you’re asking someone to put your brand into their identity space, you need to support them:
- Comment moderation support (or, at a minimum, a rapid escalation protocol)
- Community management guidelines, holding statements and response templates
- A comms contact available in real time when posts go live
The new mindset: mutual protection, not just “paid partnership”
Influencers aren’t billboards. They’re human channels with beliefs, boundaries, and audiences that expect consistency.
So the strategic question for 2026 isn’t “who can deliver the most reach for the lowest CPM?”
It’s: who can carry our story into culture without breaking them - or us - in the process?
Because when culture moves fast, clarity protects everyone.