The article raises a fair and necessary concern about transparency in food influencer culture. Audiences deserve to know when enthusiasm is organic and when it’s sponsored. Trust is the whole meal, not the garnish. That said, the execution felt a bit overcooked. Treating food influencers like targets in an undercover operation to expose an international criminal syndicate was… ambitious. This wasn’t Watergate. It was chicken wings and Instagram DMs.
There was a far more straightforward path: interview real food influencers and travel writers about how the ecosystem actually works today, how pitches are evaluated, how disclosures are handled, and how creators balance integrity with making a living. Sunlight works better than subterfuge.
It’s also useful to place this moment in historical context. In the 1990s, food and travel writing was dominated by newspapers, glossy magazines, and a small class of gatekeepers. Reviews were largely anonymous, ad walls were rigid, and the audience rarely saw the economics behind the coverage. In the 2000s and 2010s, blogs and social media blew that model open. Writers became brands, audiences became communities, and monetization shifted from salaries to freelance fees, ads, comps, and sponsorships. Today’s food influencers are not shadowy operators; they’re part of a creator economy shaped by algorithms, shrinking media pay, and platform-driven incentives.
For perspective, influencers with just over 10,000 followers, often called micro-influencers, typically earn about $100 to $500 per sponsored post, depending on engagement and niche. That’s not hush money; it’s rent money. It explains behavior without excusing bad disclosure practices.
The piece succeeds in naming a real problem, but the theatrics overshadow the opportunity. A few honest conversations with working creators could have delivered sharper insight, more credibility, and less cloak-and-dagger drama; while still holding the industry accountable.
Furthermore, speaking as someone who started as a print journalist is in 1994, it’s worth zooming out and comparing today’s digital media landscape with the traditional media model it replaced, because the transparency gap cuts in more than one direction.
Traditional media appeared more transparent because of rigid structures: clear mastheads, editors, publishers, and formal divisions between advertising and editorial. In reality, much of its influence operated quietly. Restaurants bought full-page ads next to glowing reviews. Travel writers flew first class and stayed comped at five-star resorts under the polite fiction of “editorial discretion.” Conflicts of interest existed, but they were institutionalized and rarely disclosed to readers. The authority of the outlet masked the economics behind the coverage.
Digital media, by contrast, is messier but more visible. Influencers disclose, or fail to disclose, in real time. Audiences can see comment sections, sponsored tags, affiliate links, and sometimes the exact brand relationships at play. When creators cross ethical lines, the pushback is immediate and public. The transparency isn’t perfect, but the curtain is thinner. The business model is no longer hidden behind a publisher’s logo; it’s often right there in the caption.
The irony is that digital creators are criticized for monetization practices that traditional media normalized for decades—just with better suits and quieter conversations. The difference now is that the audience can watch the sausage being made. That visibility creates accountability, but also confusion, because the old rules no longer apply cleanly.
In short, traditional media relied on trust without disclosure; digital media demands disclosure to earn trust. Neither system is pure. But one hides its compromises behind institutions, while the other exposes them in public, for better or worse.
This is such a well elaborated comment. And explains a lot why traditional journalists nowadays regularly sh*post on influencers. Not for ethical reasons, but because their chicken with the golden eggs flew to another barn.
No doubt. I’ve written as much about the failures of traditional media as much as the failures of influencers. And not just in the past. “Traditional”media now is more corrupt than ever. Eater Chicago is now run by a grifter who often has pimped his girlfriend’s clients with no disclosure.
Fantastic work; my favorite part is easily the menu. While all of these dishes probably could technically exist, I felt the middle finger coming from each one of them.
What gets me is when influencers even make comments as if they’re paying; an influencer that’s come in to the restaurant I work at argued in their IG stories about how they spend their hard earned money at restaurants, which may be true in some cases, but when I served them, the entire meal was comped (over $300) and they only offered to tip after I asked them if they’d like to leave one- handed go knows if they would’ve left one otherwise. I’ve heard of other instances where influencers don’t tip at all with a comped meal. So where do they draw the line at thinking they should be compensated for their work but not pay the servers for their work?
Not only do a lot of influencers not tip, but they also get paid for like rideshare and other expenses related to the whole process of having a meal. It's quite honestly insane.
A very interesting article. As a travel writer it is difficult to know where to go from here. Journalists have always received free stays or food when they write travel articles. Is declaring that fact enough? Because most can't afford to eat in tip restaurants.
Thanks for reading. I think if you're in the position to have to take free stuff, declaring it and being transparent with a disclaimer is always the best step. If a publication doesn't disclaim, you have to wonder why? As a writer who has been a full time freelancer since 2005 I understand the shoes most writers are in. I took a second job in 2015 when the places I worked for increasingly started telling me to take freebies and have worked that way ever since. I know most don't want to do that. I understand that, but also I think a lot of publications that take freebies if you look at the balance sheet they had no problem paying high executive salaries or for other things and were just taking advantage of a market and they also took advantage of writers in that equation. I think obviously things have changed and those profits have disappeared for the most part now too. That being said I've always felt just because you want to do something doesn't mean you get to do it. Of course I'd like to be a full time food writer only. But if the market doesn't support it and I'm forced to take shortcuts to keep my dream alive, then I either don't do it or I have to find a way to get better or create in a way that the market does to sustain it. You might also argue that consumers get the market they deserve. If they don't want to pay for objective independent writing, then they get content creators serving them advertisements on behalf of market that does pay. What I have found is there is a market demand for independent writers and this publication is growing every day. Is it sustainable yet for me, not quite, but it's very close to being so. For many writers Substack already is. I think food writing is a little more niche, but I have no doubts if I chose political writing I could go on my own, no problem. But even in food I think maybe another couple years I'll get there. If I didn't have to pay healthcare costs out of pocket as we do in America I could do it full time now, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
A lot of the leverage that these influencers use is their follower count. What im skeptical about is how many of them are bots and or people who dont live in Chicago. If only half of your followers are real and can easily come to my establishment, why would I pay your full rate? You dont see In-N-Out ads in Chicago.
I have been on the receiving end of dozens of offers for free meals, free products and influencer payments. I’ve come to suspect that 90% of everything posted about a restaurant or a food product is marketing related in some fashion. That includes student journalists, which means these expectations of freebies or payments are now being set at the beginning of careers. That’s scary.
Very interesting article/contribution. To me, the whole 'influencer' thing is simply a load of crap. Giving unquestioned credence to the opinions of random individuals on social media is unreliable on so many levels. You surrender the validity of your own experiences.
The number of responses that said some form of that they'll 'focus on' things that are 'unique' suggest there may be some guidance being passed around to help influencers avoid running afoul of the FTC.
This phrasing suggests the possibility of avoiding positivity or even including negativity, thus casting some doubt on whether this is a true advertising relationship.
Let me be clear, I think this is the flimsiest of pretexts and would never hold up, but the similarities have me wondering if there isn't a bit of collusion and/or intentionality in trying to dodge FTC requirements happening here. Perhaps even the influencers are being advised by someone who doesn't have their best interest at heart...
Most of these people believe they have their own best interests at heart and yet the way they act is actually against their own best interests long term by not operating a semitransparent and ethical business.
I would like to know what Michael Nagrant’s “best interest of heart” is here by ‘exposing’ such creators and sending scam emails for such research. The call is coming from inside the house, and may I say also unethical?¿? Let’s look in the mirror!!!! Reflect what your point of sharing this was? This looks just as “bad”.
Thanks for your feedback. We have looked in the mirror for sure. As the writer acknowledges in the article this is a controversial method. I would agree with that. I debated deeply whether the methods used to report should allow for publication. However, our ultimate takeaway is that the good for consumers is of very high value here and overrides or necessitates the method. No one here did anything they wouldn't do if they were speaking to a real restaurant. They conducted themselves in the way they conduct themselves with any client. If they want to keep this stuff secret, then you have to ask why? And the why is that if people knew that their favorite creators were taking cash or free meals and not disclosing that, it would likely hurt any "trust" they've developed. To mitigate the controversial nature of gathering this information however we deliberately didn't associate the promises with the creator. In the end if you like what these people do and you think it's ok for them to take money in exchange for promotion without transparency, then there is no harm to the creator.
The fake bar/restaurant as sting op has a pretty legendary past in this city (the Mirage Tavern series from the Sun-Times back in the day most famously)
No, the influencers are the unethical ones in this situation. I don’t have an issue with people making money through collaboration. However, if you build a following based on what you’re saying about places you review, the review needs to be genuine and if you’re being paid, you should be up front about that. Two words. Steve Dolinski. There is a reason he is “no longer in journalism”
Legality and disclosures aside, it's troubling that there's a market for this at all. Short-form video has taken over our attention (read: lives). People aren't listening to the words being said in these food videos; they're just mindlessly seeing shapes and colors and deciding they want to visit based on the fact that someone is posting something, anything about a place. Even if you put "THIS IS A PAID FOR AD" in all caps at the top of an IG caption, I don't think that would squash the market or really change anything. As much as I'd like to point fingers at the influencers, they're capitalizing on a market created by somewhat braindead consumers, which to me is the real issue.
I don't understand this comment. Why is it acceptable to buy a product after we've seen an ad on TV but the same is not acceptable if it comes from the content of an influencer? The point of this article is whether influencers are committing fraud if they post undisclosed paid collab, not if it's ethical being paid to promote goods or services.
I expect the influencers immediately to start protesting that they deserve to be compensated for their labor... but then disclose that you got paid! But what they're selling is a simulacrum of authenticity, not their actual time and opinion, so they won't.
I hate these people so much. I feel bad whenever my friends send me influencer content and I subsequently shit on said poster. Maybe I don't feel that bad...
This is amazing
Parasites all of them
The article raises a fair and necessary concern about transparency in food influencer culture. Audiences deserve to know when enthusiasm is organic and when it’s sponsored. Trust is the whole meal, not the garnish. That said, the execution felt a bit overcooked. Treating food influencers like targets in an undercover operation to expose an international criminal syndicate was… ambitious. This wasn’t Watergate. It was chicken wings and Instagram DMs.
There was a far more straightforward path: interview real food influencers and travel writers about how the ecosystem actually works today, how pitches are evaluated, how disclosures are handled, and how creators balance integrity with making a living. Sunlight works better than subterfuge.
It’s also useful to place this moment in historical context. In the 1990s, food and travel writing was dominated by newspapers, glossy magazines, and a small class of gatekeepers. Reviews were largely anonymous, ad walls were rigid, and the audience rarely saw the economics behind the coverage. In the 2000s and 2010s, blogs and social media blew that model open. Writers became brands, audiences became communities, and monetization shifted from salaries to freelance fees, ads, comps, and sponsorships. Today’s food influencers are not shadowy operators; they’re part of a creator economy shaped by algorithms, shrinking media pay, and platform-driven incentives.
For perspective, influencers with just over 10,000 followers, often called micro-influencers, typically earn about $100 to $500 per sponsored post, depending on engagement and niche. That’s not hush money; it’s rent money. It explains behavior without excusing bad disclosure practices.
The piece succeeds in naming a real problem, but the theatrics overshadow the opportunity. A few honest conversations with working creators could have delivered sharper insight, more credibility, and less cloak-and-dagger drama; while still holding the industry accountable.
Furthermore, speaking as someone who started as a print journalist is in 1994, it’s worth zooming out and comparing today’s digital media landscape with the traditional media model it replaced, because the transparency gap cuts in more than one direction.
Traditional media appeared more transparent because of rigid structures: clear mastheads, editors, publishers, and formal divisions between advertising and editorial. In reality, much of its influence operated quietly. Restaurants bought full-page ads next to glowing reviews. Travel writers flew first class and stayed comped at five-star resorts under the polite fiction of “editorial discretion.” Conflicts of interest existed, but they were institutionalized and rarely disclosed to readers. The authority of the outlet masked the economics behind the coverage.
Digital media, by contrast, is messier but more visible. Influencers disclose, or fail to disclose, in real time. Audiences can see comment sections, sponsored tags, affiliate links, and sometimes the exact brand relationships at play. When creators cross ethical lines, the pushback is immediate and public. The transparency isn’t perfect, but the curtain is thinner. The business model is no longer hidden behind a publisher’s logo; it’s often right there in the caption.
The irony is that digital creators are criticized for monetization practices that traditional media normalized for decades—just with better suits and quieter conversations. The difference now is that the audience can watch the sausage being made. That visibility creates accountability, but also confusion, because the old rules no longer apply cleanly.
In short, traditional media relied on trust without disclosure; digital media demands disclosure to earn trust. Neither system is pure. But one hides its compromises behind institutions, while the other exposes them in public, for better or worse.
This is such a well elaborated comment. And explains a lot why traditional journalists nowadays regularly sh*post on influencers. Not for ethical reasons, but because their chicken with the golden eggs flew to another barn.
You said it much simpler! LOL
No doubt. I’ve written as much about the failures of traditional media as much as the failures of influencers. And not just in the past. “Traditional”media now is more corrupt than ever. Eater Chicago is now run by a grifter who often has pimped his girlfriend’s clients with no disclosure.
Fantastic work; my favorite part is easily the menu. While all of these dishes probably could technically exist, I felt the middle finger coming from each one of them.
What gets me is when influencers even make comments as if they’re paying; an influencer that’s come in to the restaurant I work at argued in their IG stories about how they spend their hard earned money at restaurants, which may be true in some cases, but when I served them, the entire meal was comped (over $300) and they only offered to tip after I asked them if they’d like to leave one- handed go knows if they would’ve left one otherwise. I’ve heard of other instances where influencers don’t tip at all with a comped meal. So where do they draw the line at thinking they should be compensated for their work but not pay the servers for their work?
Not only do a lot of influencers not tip, but they also get paid for like rideshare and other expenses related to the whole process of having a meal. It's quite honestly insane.
A very interesting article. As a travel writer it is difficult to know where to go from here. Journalists have always received free stays or food when they write travel articles. Is declaring that fact enough? Because most can't afford to eat in tip restaurants.
Thanks for reading. I think if you're in the position to have to take free stuff, declaring it and being transparent with a disclaimer is always the best step. If a publication doesn't disclaim, you have to wonder why? As a writer who has been a full time freelancer since 2005 I understand the shoes most writers are in. I took a second job in 2015 when the places I worked for increasingly started telling me to take freebies and have worked that way ever since. I know most don't want to do that. I understand that, but also I think a lot of publications that take freebies if you look at the balance sheet they had no problem paying high executive salaries or for other things and were just taking advantage of a market and they also took advantage of writers in that equation. I think obviously things have changed and those profits have disappeared for the most part now too. That being said I've always felt just because you want to do something doesn't mean you get to do it. Of course I'd like to be a full time food writer only. But if the market doesn't support it and I'm forced to take shortcuts to keep my dream alive, then I either don't do it or I have to find a way to get better or create in a way that the market does to sustain it. You might also argue that consumers get the market they deserve. If they don't want to pay for objective independent writing, then they get content creators serving them advertisements on behalf of market that does pay. What I have found is there is a market demand for independent writers and this publication is growing every day. Is it sustainable yet for me, not quite, but it's very close to being so. For many writers Substack already is. I think food writing is a little more niche, but I have no doubts if I chose political writing I could go on my own, no problem. But even in food I think maybe another couple years I'll get there. If I didn't have to pay healthcare costs out of pocket as we do in America I could do it full time now, but that's a whole 'nother issue.
A lot of the leverage that these influencers use is their follower count. What im skeptical about is how many of them are bots and or people who dont live in Chicago. If only half of your followers are real and can easily come to my establishment, why would I pay your full rate? You dont see In-N-Out ads in Chicago.
I have been on the receiving end of dozens of offers for free meals, free products and influencer payments. I’ve come to suspect that 90% of everything posted about a restaurant or a food product is marketing related in some fashion. That includes student journalists, which means these expectations of freebies or payments are now being set at the beginning of careers. That’s scary.
Very interesting article/contribution. To me, the whole 'influencer' thing is simply a load of crap. Giving unquestioned credence to the opinions of random individuals on social media is unreliable on so many levels. You surrender the validity of your own experiences.
The number of responses that said some form of that they'll 'focus on' things that are 'unique' suggest there may be some guidance being passed around to help influencers avoid running afoul of the FTC.
This phrasing suggests the possibility of avoiding positivity or even including negativity, thus casting some doubt on whether this is a true advertising relationship.
Let me be clear, I think this is the flimsiest of pretexts and would never hold up, but the similarities have me wondering if there isn't a bit of collusion and/or intentionality in trying to dodge FTC requirements happening here. Perhaps even the influencers are being advised by someone who doesn't have their best interest at heart...
Most of these people believe they have their own best interests at heart and yet the way they act is actually against their own best interests long term by not operating a semitransparent and ethical business.
Your point is very interesting for sure.
I would like to know what Michael Nagrant’s “best interest of heart” is here by ‘exposing’ such creators and sending scam emails for such research. The call is coming from inside the house, and may I say also unethical?¿? Let’s look in the mirror!!!! Reflect what your point of sharing this was? This looks just as “bad”.
Thanks for your feedback. We have looked in the mirror for sure. As the writer acknowledges in the article this is a controversial method. I would agree with that. I debated deeply whether the methods used to report should allow for publication. However, our ultimate takeaway is that the good for consumers is of very high value here and overrides or necessitates the method. No one here did anything they wouldn't do if they were speaking to a real restaurant. They conducted themselves in the way they conduct themselves with any client. If they want to keep this stuff secret, then you have to ask why? And the why is that if people knew that their favorite creators were taking cash or free meals and not disclosing that, it would likely hurt any "trust" they've developed. To mitigate the controversial nature of gathering this information however we deliberately didn't associate the promises with the creator. In the end if you like what these people do and you think it's ok for them to take money in exchange for promotion without transparency, then there is no harm to the creator.
The fake bar/restaurant as sting op has a pretty legendary past in this city (the Mirage Tavern series from the Sun-Times back in the day most famously)
I think the method was unethical. I wouldn’t do it.
No, the influencers are the unethical ones in this situation. I don’t have an issue with people making money through collaboration. However, if you build a following based on what you’re saying about places you review, the review needs to be genuine and if you’re being paid, you should be up front about that. Two words. Steve Dolinski. There is a reason he is “no longer in journalism”
Awesome work and a great underlying dataset. Huge fan of continuing to challenge these norms.
If the influencers go away, how will I know where to buy the best $38 cacio e pepe?
and make sure to look for the "foie"/"truffle"/"gold"/"caviar"/"lobster"/"wagyu"/"iberico" add on :-)
Life will always find a way.
Legality and disclosures aside, it's troubling that there's a market for this at all. Short-form video has taken over our attention (read: lives). People aren't listening to the words being said in these food videos; they're just mindlessly seeing shapes and colors and deciding they want to visit based on the fact that someone is posting something, anything about a place. Even if you put "THIS IS A PAID FOR AD" in all caps at the top of an IG caption, I don't think that would squash the market or really change anything. As much as I'd like to point fingers at the influencers, they're capitalizing on a market created by somewhat braindead consumers, which to me is the real issue.
I don't understand this comment. Why is it acceptable to buy a product after we've seen an ad on TV but the same is not acceptable if it comes from the content of an influencer? The point of this article is whether influencers are committing fraud if they post undisclosed paid collab, not if it's ethical being paid to promote goods or services.
Shortform video and social media are ruining society.
That’s right. The culture enables what happens.
I’ve been particularly curious if Sassy Confetti’s recent Atsumeru post is an undisclosed ad. I appreciate this reporting!
As an update — it looks like she edited the caption to add (hosted)
Imagine making a purchasing decision based on the advice of "Sassy Confetti."
To be fair The Hunger sounds like a porn or a horror movie? Or a Cure track. :-)
Thank you for this reporting.
I expect the influencers immediately to start protesting that they deserve to be compensated for their labor... but then disclose that you got paid! But what they're selling is a simulacrum of authenticity, not their actual time and opinion, so they won't.
I hate these people so much. I feel bad whenever my friends send me influencer content and I subsequently shit on said poster. Maybe I don't feel that bad...