Rational Consumption, Digital Silence, And Deinfluencing: The Intersection Of Microeconomics And Netnography On Instagram

Öz

Instagram platformunda “#deinfluencing” etiketiyle paylaşılan içeriklere yönelik yapılan netnografik inceleme, dijital tüketici eğilimlerinde bazı değişim işaretlerine dikkat çekmektedir. Tüketim karşıtı yaklaşımlar, finansal farkındalık, sürdürülebilirlik, otantiklik ve pazarlama şeffaflığı gibi temaların, geleneksel influencer temelli tüketim kalıplarına yönelik alternatif söylemler olarak şekillendiği gözlemlenmektedir. Bireylerin bütçe kısıtlarını dikkate alarak daha rasyonel ve ihtiyaca yönelik kararlar alma eğiliminde oldukları düşünülmektedir. Sessiz kullanıcıların (lurkers) etkileşim biçimleri ise görünmeyen ancak anlamlı tüketici davranışlarının varlığına işaret etmektedir.Mikro iktisat ve pazarlama kuramları ışığında değerlendirildiğinde, bu tür içeriklerin yalnızca bireysel tüketici tercihlerine değil, aynı zamanda dijital ortamda şekillenen daha geniş çaplı tüketim stratejilerine de dolaylı etkilerde bulunabileceği öngörülmektedir. Özellikle marjinal fayda, alternatif maliyet ve bütçe kısıtı gibi temel mikroiktisadi kavramlar bağlamında, kullanıcıların satın alma kararlarını yeniden gözden geçirdikleri ve daha az, ancak daha işlevsel tüketim biçimlerine yöneldikleri anlaşılmaktadır. Pazarlama perspektifinden bakıldığında ise, de-influencing içeriklerinin hem geleneksel reklam pratiklerine duyulan güvensizliği artırabileceği hem de otantik ve dürüst iletişime dayalı yeni bir dijital pazarlama dili geliştirilmesine katkı sağlayabileceği düşünülmektedir. Bu doğrultuda, görünürde pasif olan ancak dikkatli biçimde içerik tüketen sessiz kullanıcılar da, dijital pazarlama stratejilerinin yeniden yapılandırılması açısından önemli bir veri kaynağı olarak değerlendirilebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• deinfluencing
• mikro iktisat
• tüketici davranışı
• netnografi
• dijital pazarlama

Rational Consumption, Digital Silence, And Deinfluencing: The Intersection Of Microeconomics And Netnography On Instagram

Abstract

A netnographic analysis of content shared on Instagram with the hashtag "#deinfluencing" highlights some signs of change in digital consumer trends. Themes such as anti-consumerism, financial awareness, sustainability, authenticity, and marketing transparency are observed to be shaping alternative discourses to traditional influencer-based consumption patterns. It is thought that individuals are increasingly inclined to make more rational and need-based decisions, taking into account their budget constraints. The interaction patterns of silent users (lurkers) point to the existence of invisible yet meaningful consumer behaviours. When evaluated in light of microeconomics and marketing theories, it is anticipated that such content may have indirect effects not only on individual consumer preferences but also on broader consumption strategies shaped in the digital environment. Especially in the context of fundamental microeconomic concepts such as marginal utility, opportunity cost, and budget constraints, it is understood that users are re-evaluating their purchasing decisions and shifting towards consuming less but more functional products. From a marketing perspective, de-influencing content is thought to both increase distrust in traditional advertising practices and contribute to the development of a new digital marketing language based on authentic and honest communication. In this regard, silent users who appear passive but consume content carefully can also be considered an important source of data for restructuring digital marketing strategies.

Keywords

• deinfluencing
• microeconomics
• consumer behaviour
• netnography
• digital marketing

Kaynakça

1. Akshit Sharma (2024), From Obscurity To Clarity: The Transformative Impact Of Market Transparency On Financial Crısıs Prevention Int. J. of Adv. Res. (Aug). 876-886] (ISSN 2320-5407).
2. Alavi, S. (2015). Netnography: An internet-optimised ethnographic research technique. In M. R. Zikmund, B. J. Babin, J. C. Carr & M. Griffin (Eds.), Market research methodologies: Multi-method and qualitative approaches (pp. 71-77). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6371-8.ch005
3. Baddeley, M. (2010). Herding, social influence and economic decision-making: socio-psychological and neuroscientific analyses. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 365(1538), 281-290.
4. Bainotti, L. (2023). TRENDING RESISTANCE: A STUDY OF THE TIKTOK# DEINFLUENCING PHENOMENON. AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research.
5. Barua, A., Desai, P. S., & Srivastava, R. (2001). Economic perspectives on digital marketing. Digital Marketing. New York: Wiley, 102-130.
6. Barua, A., Desai, P. S., & Srivastava, R. (2001). Economic perspectives on digital marketing. Digital Marketing. New York: Wiley, 102-130.
7. Chiyachantana, C. N., Nuengwang, N., Taechapiroontong, N., & Thanarung, P. (2013). The effect of information disclosure on information asymmetry. Investment Management and Financial Innovations, 2013(1), 225.
8. Costello, F. J., Yun, J., & Lee, K. C. (2022). Digital dark nudge: an exploration of when digital nudges unethically depart.

9. Cotter, K. (2019). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New media & society, 21(4), 895-913. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684
10. Ekvall, M., & Mellberg, E. (2023). This is crap'Consumers' experience of de-influencing on TikTok. interaction, 12(68).
11. Elhajjar, S., & Itani, O. S. (2025). Examining the impact of social media de-influencing on audiences. Internet Research. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-04-2024-0574
12. Elsantil, Y., Sekar, S. B., Abo Hamza, E., & Bedair, K. (2025). From promotion to prevention: the influence of de-influencers on sustainable consumer behavioural intentions. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), 2462271. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 23311975.2025.2462271
13. Glaser, B. G. (2016). Open Coding Descriptions. Grounded theory review, 15(2).
14. Honeychurch, S., Bozkurt, A., Singh, L., & Koutrapoulos, A. (2017). Learners on the periphery: lurkers as invisible learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 20(1), 191-211.
15. Iyer, R., & Muncy, J. A. (2009). Purpose and object of anti-consumption. Journal of business research, 62(2), 160-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.023
16. Keller, J. W., & Yang, Y. E. (2008). Leadership style, decision context, and the polyheuristic theory of decision making: An experimental analysis. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52(5), 687-712.
17. Kovalsky, K. L., & Lusk, J. L. (2013). Do consumers really know how much they are willing to pay?. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 47(1), 98-127.
18. Kozinets, R. V. (2002). The field behind the screen: Using netnography for marketing research in online communities. Journal of marketing research, 39(1), 61-72. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.39.1.61.18935
19. Langer, R., & Beckman, S. C. (2005). Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qualitative market research: An international journal, 8(2), 189-203. https://doi.org/10.1108/13522750510592454
20. Leland, H. E., & Pyle, D. H. (1977). Informational asymmetries, financial structure, and financial intermediation. The journal of Finance, 32(2), 371-387.
21. Martin-Woodhead, A. (2022). Limited, considered and sustainable consumption: The (non) consumption practices of UK minimalists. Journal of Consumer Culture, 22(4), 1012-1031. https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405211039608
22. Md. Mokshud Ali. (2022). Microeconomic Approaches to Financial Digitalisation: A Perspective from the Bank Financial Institution. Global Mainstream Journal of Innovation, Engineering & Emerging Technology, 1(03), 08-13. https://doi.org/10.62304/jieet.v1i03.39
23. Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2001). Why lurkers lurk. AMCIS 2001 Proceedings.
24. Pan, M., Blut, M., Ghiassaleh, A., & Lee, Z. W. (2025). Influencer marketing effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 53(1), 52-78.
25. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2
26. Picard, Julien, A Model of Pro-Social Policies (January 6, 2023). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3784009 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3784009
27. Pochenchuk, G., Babuch, I., & Baraniuk, D. (2018). Innovations of the digital era and economic choice. USV Annals of Economics and Public Administration, 18, 63-69. http://annals.seap.usv.ro/index.php/annals/article/viewArticle/1053
28. Ruan, Z., Yu, B., Zhang, X., & Xuan, Q. (2021). Role of lurkers in threshold-driven information spreading dynamics. Physical Review E, 104(3), 034308. https://doi.org/10.1103/PHYSREVE.104.034308
29. Sheldon, P., & Bryant, K. (2016). Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Computers in human Behaviour, 58, 89-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059
30. Sheng, J., & Yesiloglu, S. (2025). The de-influencing movement. Influencer Marketing: Building Brand Communities and Engagement.
31. Sindhuja, P., Panda, A., & Krishna, S. J. S. (2023). Influence of social media on consumer buying behaviour. International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management, 7(8).
32. Skjott Linneberg, M., & Korsgaard, S. (2019). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice. Qualitative research journal, 19(3), 259-270. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-12-2018-0012
33. Sun, N., Rau, P. P. L., & Ma, L. (2014). Understanding lurkers in online communities: A literature review. Computers in Human Behaviour, 38, 110-117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.05.022
34. Teheran, F., Mortazavi, A. A., & Thomas, V. L. (2024). The Influence of De-Influencing: Examining the Effect of Negative Endorsements by Social Media Influencers.
35. Tien, C., & Phau, I. (2010). Consumers' skepticism towards advertising claims. In Recent Advances in Retailing and Services Science conference proceedings. Recent Advances in Retailing and Services Science. University of San Diego. (n.d.). Social media analytics. https://pce.sandiego.edu/why-should-i-benchmark-my-social-media-strategies/
36. Van Tuinen, H. K. (2011). The ignored manipulation of the market: Commercial advertising and consumerism require new economic theories and policies. Review of Political Economy, 23(2), 213-231.
37. Wallbaum, J. (2023). TikTok's recent deinfluencing trend and its effect on fast-fashion versus slow-fashion brand valuations (Master's thesis, Universidade Catolica Portuguesa (Portugal)).
38. Xun, J., & Reynolds, J. (2010). Applying netnography to market research: The case of the online forum. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 18, 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.29.