Journal of Marketing & Social Research (2025) — Influencer marketing in niche markets

Summary:

This 2025 paper from the Journal of Marketing & Social Research asks whether influencer marketing works better in niche markets than in mass markets, and compares macro influencers with micro and nano creators. It is written by Chaitanya Koneti, a DBA student at SP Jain School of Global Management, with two co-authors from the same school. The niches covered are vegan skincare, indie fitness apparel and sustainable tourism.

The study uses mixed methods: a literature review, regression models on 63 campaigns built from secondary data (influencer platforms, brand reports, analytics tools and industry reports), and coding of posts and comments from three purposefully chosen case studies. It does not say which brands, platforms or time period the campaigns cover.

Key findings:
• Smaller influencers performed better. Nano influencers had the highest average engagement rate (8.4%) and conversion rate (4.5%). Micro influencers reached 5.7% and 2.8%, and macro influencers 1.8% and 0.9%.
• Smaller influencers were also cheaper per customer. Cost per acquisition was about $28.75 for nano, $42.30 for micro and $85.50 for macro influencers.
• Authenticity was the strongest driver of conversion. Campaigns rated as more authentic had about three times the odds of converting.
• Audience-brand fit mattered at every stage. Better fit was linked to higher engagement, higher conversion and lower acquisition cost. It roughly doubled the odds of conversion.
• Narrative content helped and sponsorship labels hurt slightly. Storytelling posts performed better, while #ad-style disclosure slightly lowered engagement and conversion.
• The vegan skincare case got the best audience response. Posts focused on personal use, ingredient knowledge and shared values. 85% of reactions were positive, compared with 79% for tourism and 72% for fitness apparel.

Margin notes:
The sample is small (63 campaigns) and relies on secondary data, including brand-provided reports that the authors admit may be optimistic. The data sources are mixed and not described in detail, so the regression results should be read with caution. The case studies were selected on purpose and do not represent niche markets as a whole. The paper has quality problems: several figure titles don't match what the charts show, the ROI panel shows negative returns for all tiers even though the text calls them superior, the definitions of micro and nano tiers are inconsistent, and most of the reference list cites unrelated engineering and IT papers. The tier-by-tier comparisons for engagement, conversion and CPA are the most usable figures.