The rise of ‘de-influencing‘ on TikTok: Why some creators are telling you not to buy
Table of Contents
- The rise of ‘de-influencing’ on TikTok: Why some creators are telling you not to buy
- The Pandemic’s Impact on Holiday Travel: What to Expect This Year
- The Rise of ‘De-Influencing’ and Why Creators Are Embracing authenticity
- Medicaid work requirements have been tried in several states.Here’s what happened.
- Michigan’s Medicaid Work Requirements: A $30 Million Effort That Yielded Little
- Michigan Braces for Potential Medicaid Coverage Losses as Work Requirements Return
For years, TikTok has been a powerful engine for consumerism. A viral video could send sales of a product soaring – think Stanley cups, cloud slippers, or countless beauty items. But a new trend is emerging on the platform, one that’s pushing back against that constant stream of recommendations: “de-influencing.”
De-influencing isn’t about rejecting all products. Instead, it’s about critically evaluating what’s being promoted and encouraging viewers to avoid impulse purchases, especially of items that are overhyped or unnecessary.Creators are sharing videos pointing out products that aren’t worth the money, offering cheaper alternatives, or simply urging people to use what they already have.
“it’s about being more mindful of your spending and not falling for marketing traps,” explains TikTok creator Ava Fairchild, who posts de-influencing content under the handle @the.responsible.consumer. “A lot of these products are just designed to make you feel like you need them, when you really don’t.”
The trend seems to be a reaction to the oversaturation of sponsored content and the pressure to constantly consume. Many viewers express feeling overwhelmed by the sheer volume of products being pushed on them. De-influencing offers a refreshing option, prioritizing authenticity and financial duty.
But it’s not without its complexities. Some accuse de-influencers of simply trying to gain attention by criticizing popular products. Others point out the irony of creators building a platform by talking about products, even if it’s to discourage buying them.
Still, the rise of de-influencing signals a potential shift in the relationship between creators and consumers. It suggests that audiences are becoming more discerning and less susceptible to traditional marketing tactics. As Fairchild puts it, “People are starting to realize that happiness doesn’t come from buying things.”It was March 2020, and Robert Gordon was about to kick some 80,000 people off health insurance.As the Michigan state health director, he had just spent the past year, and some $30 million in state tax dollars, trying to avoid doing that very thing.
Gordon was a Democrat,a veteran of the Obama management,and he didn’t want people to lose the coverage they had recently gained through the Affordable Care Act.
But Gordon and his boss, Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer, had reluctantly inherited a law passed two years earlier, when Republicans led the state. And that law mandated that Michigan institute work requirements for Medicaid on January 1, 2020.
Gordon and his team managed to determine that most enrollees were already meeting the law’s requirements, either because they were already working or had an exemption. Thousands more reported their status through the newly-built phone and online systems.
The Pandemic’s Impact on Holiday Travel: What to Expect This Year
After a tumultuous 2020 and a cautiously optimistic 2021, holiday travel is once again facing uncertainty as we head into the end of the year. While many are eager to reconnect with loved ones, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic continues to cast a shadow over travel plans, bringing with it potential disruptions and new considerations.
A Surge in Demand, But With Caveats
Early indicators suggest a significant increase in holiday travel compared to last year. AAA predicts a ample rise in the number of Americans traveling 50 miles or more from home, with road trips remaining the dominant mode of transportation. Airlines are also reporting a surge in bookings, fueled by pent-up demand and the easing of some travel restrictions.However, this increased demand is colliding with several challenges. Concerns about new COVID-19 variants, rising fuel prices, and potential staffing shortages are all contributing to a complex travel landscape.What Travelers Need to Know
Be Prepared for Higher Prices: Demand is driving up costs across the board. Expect to pay more for flights, rental cars, and accommodations. Booking in advance, if possible, is crucial to securing better rates.
Versatility is key: The pandemic has taught us that travel plans can change rapidly. Opting for flexible booking options – flights and hotels that allow for cancellations or modifications without hefty fees – is highly recommended.
COVID-19 Protocols: While federal mask mandates have been lifted, individual airlines, airports, and destinations may still have their own requirements. Travelers should check the latest guidelines before their trip and be prepared to comply with local regulations. Proof of vaccination may still be required in some locations.
Potential for Disruptions: Weather events, staffing shortages, and unexpected outbreaks can all lead to flight cancellations and delays.Travel insurance that covers trip interruptions is a wise investment.
Pack Smart: along with the usual travel essentials, consider packing extra masks, hand sanitizer, and disinfecting wipes. A small first-aid kit with over-the-counter medications can also be helpful.
Navigating Airport Chaos
Airports experienced significant congestion during the summer travel season, and similar issues could arise during the holidays. Travelers should:
Arrive Early: Allow ample time for check-in, security screening, and potential delays.
Check Flight Status: Monitor your flight status regularly for any updates or changes.
Be Patient: Airport staff are working hard to manage the increased volume of travelers. A little patience and understanding can go a long way.
A cautiously Optimistic Outlook
despite the challenges, many are persistent to make the most of the holiday season and reconnect with loved ones. By staying informed, being flexible, and taking necessary precautions, travelers can navigate the current landscape and enjoy a safe and memorable holiday journey.Republicans say this is a common-sense way to weed out “freeloaders.” Democrats argue that’s just political cover for slashing a program that saved some 27,000 lives between 2010 (when the Affordable Care Act passed) and 2022.
The number of people who lose coverage, either temporarily or permanently, could vary fairly widely by state, depending on how each state implements and maintains their reporting systems.
Michigan’s experience illustrates how challenging it can be to stop large numbers of people from inadvertently losing coverage, even when leaders try their best to prevent that.
“We were very committed to implementing a law that we didn’t agree with, in a way that reduced the number of people who lost insurance, just because the government screwed something up,” Gordon said.
In 2013,then-Governor Rick Snyder,a Republican,waged a fierce battle within his own party to expand Michigan’s Medicaid program.
To Snyder, it was an opportunity to together save .
The Rise of ‘De-Influencing’ and Why Creators Are Embracing authenticity
For years, the world of social media has been dominated by “influencers” – individuals who leverage their online presence to promote products and lifestyles. But a new trend is emerging, one that seems to directly challenge the very foundation of influencer culture: “de-influencing.”
De-influencing, at its core, is about discouraging unnecessary purchases. Creators participating in this trend share honest reviews, frequently enough highlighting products that aren’t worth the hype, or suggesting alternatives to popular, often overpriced, items. It’s a pushback against the constant consumerism fueled by traditional influencer marketing.
Why the Shift?
Several factors are contributing to the rise of de-influencing. A growing awareness of overconsumption and its environmental impact is a major driver. Many consumers, particularly Gen Z, are becoming more financially conscious, especially in the face of economic uncertainty. They’re questioning the relentless pursuit of “must-have” items and seeking more value for their money.
Furthermore, there’s a growing distrust of traditional influencer marketing. Consumers are increasingly savvy and can spot inauthentic endorsements. The pressure to maintain a perfect online persona has also led to influencer fatigue, with audiences craving more relatable and genuine content.
What Dose De-Influencing Look Like?
De-influencing manifests in various ways:
“Don’t Buy This” Videos: Creators directly advise against purchasing specific products, explaining why they’re overpriced, ineffective, or simply not worth the investment.
Dupe Recommendations: Sharing affordable alternatives (“dupes”) to high-end products.
Realistic Reviews: Providing honest, unbiased reviews, even if it means criticizing a product from a brand they’ve partnered with.
Minimalism & Conscious Consumption: Promoting a lifestyle focused on owning less and making more intentional purchases.
Is This the End of Influencer Marketing?
Not necessarily. However, de-influencing is forcing a reckoning within the industry. Brands and creators are realizing that authenticity and clarity are more valuable than ever. The most successful influencers moving forward will likely be those who prioritize building genuine connections with their audience and offering honest recommendations, even if it means occasionally discouraging a purchase.
De-influencing isn’t about rejecting influence altogether; it’s about demanding a more ethical and responsible approach to it. It signals a desire for a more authentic online experience,where consumers are empowered to make informed decisions rather than being constantly bombarded with marketing messages.From a coverage perspective,Michigan’s expansion of medicaid was a success. Low-income adults signed up, ballooning new enrollment beyond what even supporters had initially estimated.
By 2019, there were nearly 700,000 new Medicaid recipients in Michigan, and the state was responsible for an increasing share of their health care costs (Medicaid is paid for jointly by states and the federal government.)
Fiscal hawks were worried. “It’s now become the largest budget problem in Michigan,” said Jarrett Skorup of the Mackinac Center for Public Policya free-market think tank
Snyder signed the bill creating the 80-hour a month work requirements in 2018, but it wouldn’t go into effect until 2020, after he left office.
That left newly-elected Democratic Governor Whitmer’s administration holding the bag. She tapped Gordon, who’d held senior roles in the federal Office of Management and Budget and U.S. Department of Education during the Obama administration, to lead the sprawling state health department.
Gordon was terrified of Michigan becoming another Arkansas, which was the first state to implement work requirementsin 2018. The change led to more than 18,000 Arkansas residents losing their coverage.
People in Arkansas were disenrolled “because computers went down, because forms weren’t clear, because they just never heard about it,” Gordon said. “Maybe they got sicker, maybe they died because of this decision.”
Medicaid work requirements have been tried in several states.Here’s what happened.
For years, conservatives have championed the idea of requiring able-bodied Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer, or participate in job training programs as a condition of receiving health coverage. The argument is that these requirements encourage self-sufficiency and reduce government dependence.
But the experience of states that have tried to implement these rules has been largely unsuccessful, and frequently enough led to coverage losses for those who struggled to meet the requirements.Michigan is the latest state to grapple with this issue. A court recently upheld the state’s work requirements, which are set to go into effect in January 2024, after a long legal battle. But experts warn that Michigan could see significant coverage losses, mirroring the experiences of states like Arkansas and Kentucky.
What happened in othre states?
Arkansas was the first state to implement Medicaid work requirements in 2018. But the program was quickly blocked by a federal judge, who found that it was inconsistent with the goals of Medicaid. Before the program was halted, tens of thousands of people lost coverage.
Kentucky also attempted to implement work requirements, but its plan was also blocked by a federal court.
In both cases, the courts found that the Trump administration, which had approved the waivers allowing these requirements, had not adequately considered the potential impact on access to care.
What are the potential consequences in Michigan?
If Michiganders lost coverage at the same rate as Arkansans, as many as 180,000 people would lose their health insurance within a year, according to one estimate.
Trying to make Medicaid work requirements…work
In some ways, Michigan was actually better positioned than other states to implement work requirements, gordon said. The unemployment rate was
Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, right, during an appearance at Care Free Medical, a safety-net clinic in Lansing, on Dec. 2, 2019. Whitmer encouraged uninsured Michiganders to enroll in Medicaid or other coverage through the Affordable care Act. She was joined by U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-mich., and Dr. farhan bhatti, CEO of Care Free Medical. Paul Sancya/AP
Michigan’s Medicaid Work Requirements: A $30 Million Effort That Yielded Little
Michigan spent approximately $30 million implementing Medicaid work requirements, a policy ultimately blocked by a federal court after just three months in effect. The initiative, intended to tie Medicaid coverage to employment, faced significant hurdles from the start, with state officials acknowledging the potential for widespread coverage loss.
Data revealed that the vast majority of the nearly 700,000 Medicaid expansion recipients already met the work requirements or were exempt. This left roughly 100,000 individuals whose status was initially unknown, requiring them to actively report their work activity. By March 2020,approximately 80,000 of these individuals had failed to report,placing them at risk of losing coverage – a number considered “enormous” by former state Medicaid director Gordon.
The rollout coincided with a period where the state health department’s resources were heavily focused on implementing work requirements, according to Renuka Tipirnen, MD, MSC, a researcher at the University of Michigan.She noted that “all of the oxygen in the room was dedicated…to the work requirement implementation.”
Despite the investment and effort, the system proved largely unnecessary. A federal court ruling on March 4, 2020, halted the policy, leading officials to concede to legislators that the $30 million expenditure had been for “no purpose.”
The brief implementation period highlighted the challenges of such systems, with officials anticipating significant coverage losses even with a functioning program. While the coverage loss rate was lower than in Arkansas, which also implemented similar requirements, the potential impact on tens of thousands of Michiganders remained a serious concern.
Michigan Braces for Potential Medicaid Coverage Losses as Work Requirements Return
Michigan is once again facing the possibility of significant Medicaid coverage losses as work requirements are reinstated,sparking debate over the program’s impact on the state’s budget and residents. The return of these requirements comes years after a court ruling halted a previous attempt to implement them, a decision that coincided with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Currently, approximately 2.6 million Michiganders – roughly one in four residents – are enrolled in Medicaid.The state estimates that as many as 500,000 individuals could lose coverage within the first year of the new work requirements being enforced, according to a recent report from the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS).
The debate centers on the financial implications of Medicaid expansion.Republican lawmakers, like Senator Kevin Skorup, argue the program is straining the state budget, “crowding out” funding for essential services like teacher pay, pensions, and road repairs.
However, supporters of Medicaid expansion contend the program has provided economic benefits to Michigan. Research from the University of Michigan’s Institute for Healthcare policy and Innovation (IHPI) suggests Medicaid expansion boosted employment and school enrollment among enrollees. A 2019 study published in Health Affairs found that medicaid expansion was a net positive for the state financially, with benefits exceeding costs in every year studied.
The history of work requirements in Michigan is complex. A previous attempt to implement them was blocked by a court ruling in early 2020. This ruling came just days before Michigan’s first confirmed cases of COVID-19 were announced. Had the work requirements been in effect, approximately 80,000 Michiganders could have lost their health coverage as the pandemic began.
Robert Gordon, who served as Michigan’s health director during the initial Medicaid expansion and the pandemic, resigned in 2021 following disagreements with Governor Gretchen Whitmer over pandemic restrictions. He now expresses frustration with the renewed push for work requirements,stating that they are “more wasteful administratively,and more confusing to everyone” than simply reducing Medicaid eligibility. He feels a sense of déjà vu, recalling the previous attempt to implement similar policies.
Gordon argues that reinstating work requirements is a needlessly complex and costly way to reduce Medicaid enrollment,and ultimately just as harmful as outright cuts to the program.
This story is a collaboration between NPR, Michigan Public, and KFF Health news.
Sources:
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS): https://www.michigan.gov/mdhhs/-/media/Project/Websites/mdhhs/Inside-MDHHS/Newsroom/ED-2025-3-FINAL.pdf
Executive Directive 2025-3: https://www.michigan.gov/orders-and-directives/2025/04/17/executive-directive-2025-3-impact-of-federal-medicaid-cuts
IHPI research on Medicaid Expansion & Employment: https://ihpi.umich.edu/news-events/news/jump-employment-seen-among-medicaid-expansion-enrollees-especially-most-vulnerable
Health Affairs Study on Medicaid Expansion Financial Impact: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31675091/#:~:text=Findings:%20We%20find%20that%20Medicaid%20expansion%20in,exceed%20the%20state’s%20costs%20in%20every%20year.](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih