How many women now consume their "news" or perform "information-gathering" via instagram, tiktok or podcasts? It seems that every plastic surgeon under the sun now has a social media feed littered with the inevitably filmed "podcast" they are appearing on, and every influencer is now a podcaster, and vice-versa.
The really interesting thing about that is the veneer of authority that it seems to lend these folks. We see someone saying something with a microphone in front of them and I reckon most people would be inclined to assign greater weight to that statement compared to some joker just talking to their phone in a selfie video on instagram. Please correct me if I'm wrong. And I think that this little trick of assumed authority (if they're being interviewed, they must know that they're talking about, right?) is being exploited aggressively.
A recent study in the US put some interesting numbers to how we consume news. In the US, 1 in 5 people get their news via "influencers". Given that influencers are incentivised to maximise their reach, nearly all are present across social media platforms, and increasingly podcasts. The numbers are even more revealing for younger consumers: 37% of people aged 18-29 consume news via influencers (rather than so-called legacy media). And when we talk about news, it isn't just current affairs. It is any search for "facts" - whether that be current affairs, politics or (more concerning) health research.
Obviously, from my point of view, I am talking about the way people are looking for, finding and consuming "health" information. In particular, I am interested in the veracity of information presented to people, and how some of the utter junk "advice" being doled out is clearly dangerous, but when presented with a veneer of authority, is more readily consumed, digested and promulgated.
Now, I have recently written something about the issue of facts and opinions becoming increasingly confused in plastic surgery. In that article, I alluded to the issue that can crop up with how plastic surgeons present their opinions (on podcasts, for example). It got me thinking that it would be worth exploring that issue in greater depth, and the logical avenue to follow relates to surgeons popping up on podcasts left, right and centre.
First thing to say is that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with plastic surgeons jumping on podcasts. It is obviously a very legitimate form of publicity with far greater reach, potentially, than conventional methods.
So, it isn't the medium, per se, that is in question.
Blaming podcasts is a bit like blaming Meta for the trash on instagram. I don't think it works that way.
This is more of an exploration of how the medium can boost the volume of an expressed opinion in a way that could be rather divorced from reality. It is a question of just how much influence do these influencers peddle, and what is the transference to a "guest" who may then be making claims that could be a risk to the consumer.
...just how much influence do these influencers peddle, and what is the transference to a "guest" who may then be making claims that could be a risk to the consumer.
If we think about that, there are a couple of genres of podcast that really do raise some serious questions. The most prevalent are the podcasts that discuss "nutrition" (you know the type: seed oils will kill you, genetically modified crops will kill you, anything that isn't organic will kill you, gluten will kill you, we should eat like neanderthals or we'll die, come make an avocado smoothie with me kind of rubbish), fitness (pick your preferred training method, insert an influencer, and proceed to hear about how only the very specific training program that person is peddling will ever help you to achieve your goals...oh, and creatine/protein/blah blah), and of course, condition-specific health/medical advice. And of course it is the latter that seems to be the current target of plastic surgeons who are seeking to differentiate themselves.
So what are the issues here? I reckon there are at least 4 major issues that are hard to get past, and which threaten to tar any plastic surgeon on a podcast with a significant loss of authority and reputation (but, that would depend on the knowledge of the listener of course)
1. Podcasters are not journalists (usually).
Journalists have certain responsibilities (technically) - objectivity, factual reporting, and legal obligations to avoid certain imputations.
Podcasters and influencers do NOT have the same obligations. Whilst most of them are smart enough to avoid things like defamation, they have much greater freedom to spout utter nonsense with relative impunity.
The really interesting thing is that the rise of the podcasters and health influencers has seen a parallel rise in the accounts which seek to call-out the falsehoods and lies. But who's to say those self-appointed "fact-checkers" are right? Most of those accounts are just chasing eyeballs by seeking to take down the biggest accounts they can find and screaming about it into their echo chambers. It is a perverse, somewhat cannibalistic ecosystem of scammers and grifters, and ultimately I wouldn't trust any of them.
2. Podcasters are not (ever) impartial.
Much of what is being said is opinion being presented as fact. Much of what is being asked is biased, or driven by an agenda.
Let's be honest - most podcasts arise from a social media account trying to find whatever space they can to grow, and that normally involves finding a "market" and telling that "market" exactly what it wants to hear.
So, consider how plastic surgeons might fold into this phenomenon. I see plastic surgeons sitting in front of microphones for a few main reasons:
3. Podcasters have one goal - listeners.
More listeners = more $. Podcasting is not a benevolent or charitable cause. It is a revenue raising activity (by virtue of advertisement or sponsorship) and there is always the potential that the podcaster themselves is peddling some line of products as well.
Now, if we're cynical (or maybe just honest), then of course we have to admit that plastic surgeons are, in some cases, fundamentally guilty of presenting information (in person, during a consultation) as a means of generating income. There are absolutely those surgeons out there who will tell the patient what they want to hear if it results in a "conversion" of a consultation patient (which might represent a few hundred dollars to that surgeon) to a paid surgery patient (which could easily represent tens of thousands of dollars).
Every surgeon knows that they will make money ONLY when they operate. At all other times (consulting, seeing post-ops) surgeons lose money. So the imperative to convert those loss-making consulting sessions into lucrative, income-generating operating sessions, exists for every surgeon. And in the cosmetic surgery space, when that surgery is entirely discretionary and never a requirement (as compared to most other forms of surgery which involve a patient with a condition that requires medical treatment), there is then a bit of a grey zone, where surgeons can potentially influence patients to undergo surgery by presenting information in a certain way, or conversely they may lose that "conversion" by failing to tell a patient what they want to hear. This is, to me, an unresolvable ethical dilemma and the only way to behave in good conscience is to ensure that you present facts, rather than opinions as much as possible.
But of course, podcasts are pure opinion. And only sometimes fact.
I promise you also, you never want to be privy to what passes for plastic surgery marketing discussions. When the goal is conversions (from a google ad or SEO, to consultation, to surgery) and then the issue of "conversion ratios" interacts with costs-per-click, there is an extraordinarily slippery slope down which I think plenty of surgeons fall in their pursuit of a new Ferrari.
4. Plastic surgeons on podcasts have one goal - patients.
More patients = more $.
Like I said above, surgeons are just as guilty as podcasters in chasing a monetised goal by appearing on a podcast. I don't care how altruistic a surgeon pretends to be by appearing on these formats, it goes without saying that every surgeon is chasing cachet and seeking to bolster their own reputation, because that is how we monetise our knowledge and skills.
The summary I would suggest is this: every podcast is a long-form advertisement and nothing more. As podcasts approach ubiquity on social media feeds, perhaps the punters will come to understand this. But, arguably, podcasts have the potential to cause much more harm than a paid google ad. And that is the crux of the issue.