Community: How did the show predict the wave of false influencers?

It is common for several television and streaming productions to represent their time. In fact, in the midst of so many narrative constructions, there is also space to imagine how certain social configurations will change into fiction. With a lot of creativity and endearing characters, Community, series released in 2009 by NBC, brought a very curious fact to viewers in its 3rd season.

Nowadays, it is common that we are always very connected. Whether on social networks or applications of various functions, the fact is that the world has discovered a way to basically charge your life through a simple mobile device. The change in recent years is directly linked to the emergence of a new profession: influencer.

(NBC/Reproduction)Source: NBC

Digital influencers accumulate many followers and are able to make simple disclosures for brands and companies that end up generating large financial returns for them. In 2012, when NBC aired the 3rd season of Community, viewers were taken aback by the inventiveness of screenwriter Dan Harmon, who somehow discussed a topic that was not yet popular.

Community: influencers were addressed in the series

Titled “Digital Exploration of Interior Design,” Season 3’s episode 13 featured Dean Pelton (Jim Rash) handing over a vacant university dining space to the Subway network. Although Shirley (Yvette Nicole Brown) was disappointed by the attitude, the opening caught the attention of students.

Gradually, the main group of the series realized that there could be irregularities in the business issue, in view of specific legislation for the academic campus, which guaranteed that companies could only operate there if they were majority-controlled by students.

(NBC/Reproduction)(NBC/Reproduction)Source: NBC

To get around the issue, Subway introduced a man (Travis Schuldt), who also went by the name of the fast food chain, to all students, ensuring that he was enrolled in Greendale and was the company’s commander there. Although controversial, the boy behaved like a traveling company, always speaking his slogan and drawing attention to all his promotions.

His image caught the attention of students, positively influencing them to give the company a chance on campus. Many of them started to spend their money in the company from that point on, because they trusted their appearance and also the way they behaved. Interestingly, the audience realizes that the boy had no life other than Subway, something his own name already announced.

Every time it came up, there was nothing but positively reinforcing the company I worked for. And we know that, in real life, things don’t work that way. In fact, several famous influencers have been caught doing the exact opposite of what the brands they had worked with preached.

(NBC/Reproduction)(NBC/Reproduction)Source: NBC

Generally speaking, the criticism of the episode is linked to a life of appearances, something that only works on the facade and has no depth. Currently, many “fake influencers” pop up on the internet just to maintain a status quo. AND Community had already foreseen this situation a few years ago.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *