Audience Decision-Making

The Ring Light Wasn’t the Problem. The Strategy Was.

Jennifer Neeley · September 7, 2026 ·

A debate about influencer behavior at the US Open debate exposed a broader influencer-marketing problem: access can generate attention while making the activation itself more visible than the event.

On September 4, Yahoo reporter Kelsey Weekman quoted me about influencer fatigue at the US Open. The line that made the article was that fatigue begins “when creator access starts to feel more visible than the event itself.”

I stand by it. But the easiest version of this story is also the least useful: influencers showed up, behaved badly and ruined something people love.

That is satisfying. It is also much too simple. This is not a complaint about creators. It is a question about the strategy built around them.

The backlash is not really about influencers

The US Open is a natural creator environment. Fashion, celebrity, luxury hospitality, sports fandom and spectacle already overlap there. Inviting people who can translate the experience for audiences who may not follow tennis is not inherently cynical. Done well, it is smart audience development.

The expansion had a stated purpose. The USTA told Front Office Sports that it approved close to 100 creator credentials in 2026, up from 54 in 2025, to broaden coverage of the tournament. It also said the first credentialed cohort generated more than 5.5 million social engagements. Players quoted by the Associated Press recognized the value of reaching new audiences even as they objected to behavior that interrupted play.

Reach was measurable. Meaning was the harder question.

The AP reported that a chair umpire stopped play while people in a suite recorded a video and that a bright ring light was used during another incident. Yet the accountability was more complicated than much of the backlash suggested. Forbes reported that the guests involved in the widely circulated suite incident were not part of the official creator-credential program.

That distinction does not weaken the strategic lesson. It strengthens it. This was not simply an influencer problem. It was an experience-design, access and governance problem.

Promotional sameness is a strategy problem

When every invited person films the same entrance, holds the same drink, photographs the same sandwich and poses against the same recognizable backdrop, the result may produce enormous volume without adding much meaning.

That is promotional sameness: different people producing versions of the same advertisement.

The creators may be doing exactly what they were invited to do. If the brief rewards recognizable repetition, access display and immediate posting, it is strange to blame them when the output feels repetitive, transactional and detached from the event.

The strategic question is not whether creators belong at the US Open. It is whether the program gives them a reason to notice, understand and contribute something an ordinary sponsorship placement cannot.

Access changes the meaning of content

Scarcity changes the calculation. When fans see the best seats and hospitality spaces as expensive or out of reach, creator access is not judged as content alone. It becomes a story about fairness, status and who the institution appears to value.

A courtside photo is no longer only a courtside photo. It becomes evidence of who got in, who did not and whether the person with access seems to understand what that access was for.

Brands often treat access as a distribution asset. Audiences experience it as a social signal.

That gap is where resentment grows.

We often apply a different test to celebrities

Two years earlier, Travis Kelce arrived at the US Open in head-to-toe Gucci, generated headlines about his clothes and later acknowledged watching football on his phone during the match. He was certainly part of the spectacle. Yet celebrity performance is often treated as charming, while creator performance is treated as proof of cultural decline.

Why? Is celebrity distraction more legitimate because the fame came first? Or did the same behavior look charming because it fit the celebrity we already thought we knew?

I do not raise this to criticize Kelce. I raise it because “influencers ruin everything” often disguises a less comfortable conversation about status. We tolerate performance from people whose access already feels culturally authorized. We resent it from people whose access feels newly manufactured.

What a better program would do

A stronger creator or hospitality strategy begins before anyone enters the suite.

Define the guest’s role. Are they there to explain the sport, interpret its culture, reach a new audience, document hospitality or merely produce recognizable proof that the event is desirable? Those are different assignments.

Brief for difference. Give people access to angles, experts and stories that allow them to make something other than the same post everyone else is making.

Make the norms explicit. If silence during play matters, explain why, reinforce it in the environment and make hosts responsible for the conduct of invited guests. Etiquette cannot remain an assumption when audience expansion is the strategy.

Measure beyond reach. Did new audiences understand more about tennis? Did the activation improve affinity? Did it attract people the sport wants to retain? Did fans feel invited into the experience, or reminded that the best parts were reserved for someone else?

Millions of impressions cannot answer those questions by themselves.

Reach can grow while trust shrinks

The US Open did not create influencer fatigue. It gave the problem a stadium.

The answer is not fewer creators by default. It is better judgment about access, context, difference and the audience on the other side of the post.

Attention can expand while trust contracts. A campaign can travel farther while making the institution feel smaller. A marketing program can hit its numbers while quietly teaching people to resent the people carrying the message.

The ring light was the easiest thing to blame. The strategy deserves the harder look.

Before you add more attention

If your organization is planning a creator program, sponsorship, high-visibility launch or public repositioning, start with the Strategic Advisory Diagnostic.

If the issue is larger than a campaign and touches positioning, reputation or stakeholder trust, explore Strategic Advisory.

Sources and further reading

When Engagement Does Not Convert: Why Expert-Led Brands Need an Influence Strategy

Jennifer Neeley · August 18, 2026 ·

A campaign can look successful and still fail where it matters.

I have seen this happen in everyday marketing conversations. The engagement numbers look strong, so the campaign gets treated as proof that the strategy is working. More likes. More comments. More shares. More views. More people talking about it. That may be useful. It is not the same thing as influence. Engagement tells us that something happened. It does not tell us whether the right people became more likely to trust, refer, book, buy, invest, recommend, or choose. That is the distinction too many organizations blur. Digital platforms are very good at rewarding reaction. Research has found that social media design can amplify moral outrage, and engagement-based ranking systems can favor emotionally charged content. That does not mean every high-performing post is shallow or manipulative. It means engagement alone is not enough evidence that a strategy is working. Outrage engages. Confusion engages. Spectacle engages. Conflict engages. Manufactured intimacy engages. Parasocial attachment engages. But reaction is not strategy. A post performs well. A creator campaign generates activity. A video gets comments. A media moment travels. And suddenly the assumption becomes: The strategy is working. Maybe. But maybe not. In healthcare, law, financial services, consulting, and other expert-led fields, that mistake can get expensive. A physician can have a popular post and still fail to make a prospective patient feel safe enough to book a consultation. A lawyer can get views on a sharp legal take and still make a potential client question their judgment. A financial advisor can publish constantly and still fail to create the confidence required for someone to trust them with intimate, consequential decisions. A specialist practice can generate consults and still lose money if the strategy does not account for what happens after the consult: procedure conversion, treatment acceptance, referral quality, partner credibility, and long-term patient value. That is where the marketing read often gets too shallow. The visible conversion point is not always the real business conversion point. For years, many professionals could rely more heavily on credentials, referrals, location, institutional affiliation, or reputation by default. Those signals still matter. But they no longer operate alone. Search results, online reviews, social proof, media visibility, social content, and AI-mediated discovery now shape first impressions before a prospective patient, client, buyer, investor, or referral partner ever reaches out. Recent healthcare survey coverage, for example, reports that patients are using online reviews, AI tools, and social media when researching physicians. Pew has also found that users are less likely to click traditional search results when Google AI summaries appear, which matters for any organization still assuming search visibility works the way it used to. But attention alone does not carry the decision. Professionals do not just need to be seen. They need to be believed. They need to be understood. They need to be credible before the consult, sales call, referral conversation, board discussion, or treatment decision ever happens. This is where I see many organizations get stuck. They have activity. They have visibility. They may even have engagement. But they do not have a clear influence strategy. The audience is too broadly defined. The expert is visible, but not clearly positioned. The content is performing, but not qualifying. The message is active, but not tied tightly enough to trust. The campaign is moving, but not moving people toward a decision. That is when more content is not the answer. Better strategic architecture is. The same issue shows up outside professional services. A founder can become highly visible without becoming more trusted. A brand can dominate a conversation without becoming more differentiated. A campaign can generate interaction without moving anyone closer to choosing the organization. That is why I care less about engagement in isolation and more about what kind of engagement it is creating. From whom? In what context? Driven by what emotion? Connected to what business goal? At what reputational cost? Most importantly: Does this attention make the brand more credible – or merely more visible? I see this tension often in my Digital Marketing and Influencer Marketing courses at UC San Diego Extended Studies. Many younger, digital-native students understand attention manipulation faster than some organizations expect. They know when something is bait. They know when a creator feels scripted. They know when a brand is trying too hard to manufacture intimacy. They have grown up inside these systems. Activity alone does not impress them. That is the part many organizations still underestimate. A post can spread widely and still weaken trust. An influencer can generate attention without changing anyone’s decision. A brand can dominate a conversation and still fail to build authority. Engagement is a signal. It is not strategy. The real work is building the strategy that turns attention into trust, trust into confidence, and confidence into action. Otherwise, engagement is just noise with better metrics.

Sources and Further Reading

This article draws on research and reporting about engagement-based amplification, online trust signals, patient decision-making, and AI-mediated search, including:

Brady et al., “Emotion Shapes the Diffusion of Moralized Content in Social Networks,” PNAS. Useful for understanding why emotionally charged content can travel farther online. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1618923114
Brady et al., “How Social Learning Amplifies Moral Outrage Expression in Online Social Networks,”
Science Advances. Useful for understanding how social reinforcement can encourage outrage expression online. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641
Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, “Engagement, User Satisfaction, and the Amplification of Divisive Content on Social Media.” Useful for understanding why engagement-based ranking does not always align with user value or satisfaction. https://knightcolumbia.org/content/engagement-user-satisfaction-and-the-amplification-of-divisive-content-on-social-media
Pew Research Center, “Google Users Are Less Likely to Click on Links When an AI Summary Appears in the Results.” Useful for understanding how AI summaries are changing search behavior. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/07/22/google-users-are-less-likely-to-click-on-links-when-an-ai-summary-appears-in-the-results/
Medical Economics, “Patients Turn to AI, Social Media When Choosing Doctors, Survey Finds.” Useful as healthcare industry context on patients using reviews, AI tools, and social media when researching doctors. https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/patients-turn-to-ai-social-media-when-choosing-doctors-survey-finds
rater8, “The Next Evolution of Patient Choice.” Useful as directional industry context on patient choice, online reviews, AI, and social media. https://rater8.com/the-next-evolution-of-patient-choice-2025-report/

Put the insight to work

Is attention becoming trust, authority and action?

The Neeley Trust Framework helps leaders separate visibility, influence, integrity and impact before deciding what to change.

Explore Strategic Advisory →Explore the Trust Framework →

Europe’s Top Tech Cities, Revisited: Where Innovation, Talent and Quality of Life Could Move Next

Jennifer Neeley · June 20, 2026 ·

An archive is not a museum. It is a record of what you noticed, what you missed and what the world taught you to ask next. Here I find myself revisiting a post from the archive with a fresh take.

I first wrote about Europe’s emerging technology hubs in November 2015. I returned to the article in June 2026 as part of a larger project: going back through my own archive and testing old ideas against the questions that define my work now.

That is part of what I am developing through The Influence Project, Generationisms and my applied research. I am interested not only in whether an old prediction held up, but in how our assumptions about technology, ambition, work, trust and progress changed around it.

In 2015, my scorecard for a technology city was familiar: founders, capital, engineers, accelerators and digital infrastructure. Those variables still matter. Reading the article now, I was more interested in what the list did not capture.

Where can ambitious people build lives as well as companies? Which places make professional risk possible without requiring personal instability? What helps a city attract talent, and what gives people enough confidence to stay?

Those questions feel especially relevant from California. I was part of the first dot-com boom in the late 1990s, and I have watched the state sell more than sunshine ever since. It sold a working theory of ambition: if you wanted to build the future, you came here, worked harder than felt reasonable, paid more than seemed rational and accepted the trade because the talent, capital and velocity were supposed to be worth it.

California’s 2026 Proposition 40 debate is one reason this old article feels newly relevant. It has pulled wealth, residency, taxes, public services and technology leadership into the same uncomfortable conversation. This is not evidence that companies are already fleeing California en masse. It is a reason to revisit the larger question behind the original article: what makes a technology city worth choosing now?

What Proposition 40 does and does not establish

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office says affected billionaires may respond to the proposed wealth tax in ways that reduce income-tax payments, including leaving California. Its fiscal analysis estimates a possible ongoing revenue decrease of less than $1 billion per year, alongside temporary wealth-tax revenue of tens of billions over several years.

That is an official acknowledgement that behavior may change. It is not proof of a general company exodus.

The Yes on 40 campaign argues that the measure could raise approximately $100 billion for healthcare and that the January 1, 2026 residency date limits later relocation as a way to avoid the tax. Those are campaign claims, not neutral fiscal findings.

KPBS reported on campaign spending, competing migration claims and Sergey Brin’s reported move to the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe. One reported move does not prove a trend. But the public threat of movement has become part of how leaders evaluate risk.

Sometimes the strategic pressure is not only what has happened. It is what credible people believe might happen next.

A tech hub is more than startups and venture capital

My 2015 article relied on the familiar scorecard: founders, capital, engineers, accelerators and digital infrastructure.

Those variables still matter. They are no longer enough.

A serious 2026 location decision should evaluate:

early, growth and specialized capital;
depth in AI, deep tech, health technology, cybersecurity and product leadership;
research commercialization through universities, hospitals and corporate labs;
cost, housing, transportation and quality of life;
worker mobility, healthcare and basic security during career transitions;
institutional trust and regulatory predictability;
the ability to retain founders and employees after the first exciting year.

The old question was where the next startup hub would emerge.

The better question is where ambitious work can remain sustainable enough to keep its people.

Five European hubs, five different strategic bets

The European Commission’s Regional Innovation Scoreboard offers one authoritative framework for comparing innovation performance across regions. It is not a relocation ranking, and Europe should not be treated as one market or one regulatory personality.

The shortlist below is therefore not a declaration of a single winner. It is a map of distinct strategic advantages, informed by the Commission framework and current ecosystem reporting.

London: capital and global access

London remains the most obvious European choice when access to growth capital, global finance, international talent and English-language market entry matter most. Its breadth is the advantage: fintech, AI, life sciences, media and professional services can draw from overlapping networks.

The tradeoff is familiar. Cost and competition can shorten runway and reproduce some of the quality-of-life pressures that make California’s bargain feel less secure.

Paris: enterprise AI and state-backed scale

Paris is increasingly difficult to dismiss as a secondary European technology market. Its research institutions, engineering talent, public investment and enterprise-AI momentum create a credible base for companies building infrastructure rather than another lightweight consumer app.

For founders and companies that need technical legitimacy, large institutional partners and a path to later-stage capital, Paris offers a different proposition from London’s finance-led density.

Berlin: founder energy and international talent

Berlin’s appeal remains cultural as well as financial. It has a strong startup identity, international workforce and lower operating costs than London or Paris, even as housing pressure and bureaucracy complicate the old “cheap Berlin” story.

Its strategic advantage is experimentation: a company can recruit people who came to build a life in the city, not only to pass through a corporate headquarters.

Stockholm: specialization, public trust and sustainable ambition

Stockholm is especially interesting for health technology, fintech, climate and technically ambitious companies that do not need the largest possible city. Its record of globally visible technology companies gives it credibility beyond its size.

It also sharpens the quality-of-life argument. Scott Galloway has described trust, worker mobility, R&D and capital participation as part of Europe’s competitive infrastructure. That is his interpretation, not settled fact, but it points to something location models often underprice: public systems can reduce the personal risk of taking professional risks.

Zurich: research commercialization and deep-tech concentration

Zurich is the specialized bet. ETH Zurich, corporate R&D and the surrounding Swiss research ecosystem make it compelling for AI, robotics, climate technology and life sciences where technical depth matters more than startup volume.

It is not a low-cost alternative. It is a high-capability environment where a smaller ecosystem may offer unusually dense access to research and patient technical talent.

The younger-worker question is not a stereotype

Location strategy also has to account for a changing definition of a good career.

Suzy Welch and Becoming You Labs reported that Gen Z respondents in their Values Bridge research prioritized self-care, authentic self-expression and helping people. Welch reported only 2 percent overlap between the surveyed Gen Z value combination and the values surveyed hiring managers prioritized. The NYU Stern summary and primary white paper provide the methodology and limits.

This does not mean an entire generation is lazy, fragile or unwilling to achieve. It suggests a values mismatch between some younger workers and institutional expectations built around workcentrism.

The next generation of technical talent may still want ambitious work. They may be less willing to accept that ambition requires self-erasure.

A city competing for that talent cannot rely only on salary, nightlife and a famous company logo. Housing, healthcare, transportation, community, mobility and institutional competence become part of the employer value proposition whether the employer controls them or not.

Location is now a trust signal

Where a company chooses to build says something about what it values. The decision signals how leadership thinks about workers, customers, governance, cost and long-term credibility.

For California, the answer is not panic. The location bargain has to be continually re-earned.

For Europe, the opportunity is not to market itself as a cheaper or calmer imitation of Silicon Valley. It is to prove that technical ambition can coexist with quality of life, research depth and institutions people trust enough to build around.

I am not rooting against California. I am watching the bargain change.

The winning technology hub will not merely attract smart people. It will give them enough confidence in the future to stay.

Sources

California Legislative Analyst’s Office, Proposition 40 analysis.
California Secretary of State, qualified ballot measures.
Yes on 40 campaign.
KPBS, reporting on Proposition 40 and migration claims.
European Commission, Regional Innovation Scoreboard 2025.
EU Tech Future, 2026 city comparison, used as a secondary ecosystem source rather than an authoritative ranking.
Scott Galloway, Europe IRL.
Becoming You Labs, Hiring Managers vs. Gen Z Priorities.

An earlier version was published November 9, 2015.

If your organization is making a location, talent or market-positioning decision, explore Strategic Advisory.

Related: Generationisms | The Influence Project | About Jennifer Neeley