De-Influencing as a Means of Preventing Overconsumption

Definition

De-influencing is an emerging trend that appeared in 2023 on the TikTok platform as a reaction to overconsumption. De-influencers are content creators who, through their videos, seek to discourage consumers from purchasing products or services widely promoted by major brands. They position themselves in opposition to traditional social media influencers, who are oriented toward paid brand promotion and driven by the commercial logic of the influencer marketing. Through their content, de-influencers advocate for the mindful use of the planet’s resources and for the consumption of goods and services in a way that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. Thus, the de-influencing movement has been grounded in the growing awareness of the multiple dangers posed by excessive consumption of goods, products, and services—overconsumption having negative effects on natural resources, which are diminishing exponentially and ultimately generating major imbalances in both the environment and society.

1. Introduction

Today, the characteristics of consumer behavior and purchasing decisions have become particularly complex and are strongly shaped by the messages conveyed by social media influencers [1], who are regarded as a type of “independent third-party endorser who shapes audience attitudes through blogs, tweets, and the use of other social media” [2]. A large portion of social media influencers represent a component of the influencer marketing ecosystem—a vast market projected to reach a global value of 32.55 billion dollars in 2025 [3]. Alongside these types of influencers, who are paid by major globally recognized brands to promote goods, products, or services on social media platforms, a new trend has emerged over the past three years: the “de-influencing” movement, which aims to discourage overconsumption—due to its harmful effects on the environment—while emphasizing the importance of adopting sustainable consumption practices. Through their content, de-influencers advocate for the mindful use of the planet’s resources and for the consumption of goods and services in a way that meets present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own. In other words, de-influencers position themselves in opposition to traditional social media influencers, who are dominated by the commercial logic of the market, and instead discourage certain purchases while promoting alternatives considered to be more sustainable and environmentally friendly [4]. De-influencing has two precursor movements: de-marketing, which had an indirect influence, and the anti-haul movement, which had a direct influence. While de-marketing represents a marketing tool used by organizations to reduce or control consumption by discouraging consumers from purchasing [5], the anti-haul phenomenon was grounded in a form of critical communication coming from content creators, who used the algorithmic visibility mechanisms of video-sharing platforms such as YouTube to disseminate anti-consumption messages [6].

Even though it is difficult to pinpoint an exact date of emergence, the first visible manifestations of de-influencing are placed in January 2023, when a new trend that appeared on TikTok gained massive popularity in an extremely short period of time [7]. At that time, the initial TikTok videos discouraged the purchase of products considered “popular” among consumers. De-influencing was predominantly observed in the beauty and fashion sectors, later expanding to other domains.

Since then, de-influencing has evolved into a genuine global movement in response to the dominance of influencer marketing, while simultaneously gaining widespread traction across social media platforms—particularly on TikTok [8]. According to data from September 2025, the number of TikTok posts containing the hashtag #deinfluencing is approximately 93,900, while around 6338 posts appear under #deinfluencer, many of which are also grouped under #deinfluencing [9].

The spread of the de-influencing movement on TikTok has enjoyed unexpected success also because content creators relied on discursive practices that are easily accessible to the public: very short videos that immediately capture attention and deliver concise, impactful messages that prompt deep reflection on the importance of conscious and sustainable consumption choices, with highly engaging and tension-filled content that quickly draws viewers in [10]. In other words, TikTok is undeniably a social media platform conducive to the viralization of brief and provocative messages, to a much greater extent than a video-sharing platform such as YouTube [11]. Additionally, the emergence of de-influencing can also be explained through the oversaturation of influencer marketing, compounded by the decline in influencers’ credibility due to the increasing prevalence of sponsored content with an overtly commercial character, which leads audiences to perceive such influencers as inauthentic once they become embedded in market-driven logics [12].

At the outset, the videos shared on TikTok by the exponents of the new movement conveyed ideas grounded in transparency and authenticity, representing, among other things, a form of resistance against the recommendations of traditional social-media influencers who already enjoyed high popularity [7]. Moreover, de-influencers seek to communicate messages that encourage the reduction in consumption, promoting responsible consumer behaviors and, implicitly, sustainable lifestyles [13].

Based on these considerations, it can be argued that the phenomenon of de-influencing is grounded in the growing awareness of the multiple dangers associated with excessive consumption of goods, products, and services. Overconsumption has many negative effects on natural resources, which are diminishing exponentially, ultimately generating major imbalances in both the environment and the social sphere [14]. Moreover, overconsumption is a particularly complex phenomenon upon which the concept of sustainable consumption has been built—a distinct form of long-term, purpose-driven consumer behavior [15], grounded in the recognition of the lasting effects that individual consumption practices generate on society and the environment [16]. Thus, de-influencers have come to play an increasingly important role in defending responsible consumption habits and highlighting the impact of overconsumption on shaping consumer behavior [13]. This has also been reflected in the intense public debate sparked in the media since the emergence of the phenomenon [17,18,19]. De-influencing has been described as a critical reaction to overconsumption, consumerist culture, and the aggressive marketing widely displayed by traditional social media influencers. At the same time, such articles [17,18,19] have emphasized that de-influencing can be categorized among the new strategies of consumer influence, initially seeking to establish itself as a form of consumer education—by inviting audiences to engage in deeper reflection before making purchases—as well as a mechanism to discourage the acquisition of products considered unnecessary, overpriced, or ethically problematic. In practice, de-influencers aim to encourage the reduction in compulsive buying, guiding consumers toward alternatives to products promoted through covert advertising, or even toward purchasing second-hand goods.

As Bainotti points out [7], alongside content creators aligned with the #deinfluencing trend—who demonstrate genuine resistance to the influencer industry and to TikTok itself by rejecting an idealized lifestyle rooted in excessive consumerism and closely tied to the display of social status, success, and prestige—other categories of de-influencers can also be identified. These individuals distinguish themselves either by promoting inexpensive alternatives to goods, products, or services perceived as “more authentic” and more trustworthy than fashionable brands, or by seeking to increase their personal visibility and build a personal brand through the creation of viral content that exploits consumers’ vulnerabilities related to purchasing decisions. Precisely for this reason, the question arises as to what extent some adherents of the de-influencing movement truly believe in the values they promote and genuinely intend to offer sustainable consumption recommendations—abandoning, in turn, the pursuit of monetization and the desire to gain notoriety by capitalizing on this very trend. Moreover, there is an inherent paradox in the fact that such de-influencers use TikTok themselves, while simultaneously criticizing the social media platform for enabling traditional influencers to rapidly generate profit and personal benefits through the promotion of brands associated with overconsumption.

In an attempt to examine the social media impact of de-influencing on audiences, Elhajjar & Itani [20] highlighted that the development of this phenomenon aims to encourage consumers to:

• make conscious, rational, and well-informed choices based on their real needs, without negatively affecting future generations;
• become aware of the harmful impact of excessive purchases and overconsumption in the medium and long term;
• reduce overall consumption and, in some cases, embrace minimalism as a lifestyle;
• consider sustainable alternatives to the products and services they used to purchase regularly;
• limit the materialistic aspects inherent to influencer marketing and decrease impulsive consumption;
• save money by giving up unnecessary goods, products, and services;
• raise awareness about overpriced trends.

It can be easily observed that the de-influencing movement represents a form of cause-oriented influencing, as it spreads ideas aimed at raising awareness of the social tensions generated by environmental and societal issues, thereby promoting social and ecological responsibility [21]. Moreover, the severe environmental degradation witnessed in recent decades and, consequently, the climate crisis are considered key catalytic factors behind the emergence of de-influencing [20]. In contrast to traditional influence, which promotes consumption through social media, the de-influence movement emphasizes the importance of shaping a pattern of responsible consumption. The transformation of consumer behaviors and attitudes should therefore be directed toward sustainability and well-being, thereby contributing to genuine social and individual change. In this way, de-influencing moves beyond the simplistic notion of forming consumption patterns, habits, and preferences grounded almost exclusively in the prestige and notoriety of certain brands. Furthermore, TikTok is considered to serve these ideals in an apparently paradoxical manner, as its technical functioning mechanisms provide the very means for de-influencers’ messages to truly resonate with consumers—promoting ethical, sustainable consumption practices that support the improvement of both individual and collective well-being [21].

Due to its visibility on social media platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, de-influencing has primarily captured the attention of Generation Z and Millennials. It is perceived as a movement rejecting consumer culture by spreading messages that encourage the reduction in unnecessary or less essential spending—expenses that can easily be avoided without affecting daily life [22].

Young people from these new generations have been particularly drawn to the de-influencing trend, largely in response to the global crises of the past decade—economic recessions, armed conflicts, the COVID-19 pandemic, the rise in so-called eco-anxiety [23,24]—and within a broader context in which they experience consumer guilt, that is, a sense of dissonance between their awareness of the world’s problems and the persistent pressure to consume [19].

In fact, de-influencing also represents a response from consumers themselves—one that can be interpreted as a critique of the perceived lack of authenticity in traditional influencer marketing. From this perspective, the de-influencing movement can also be understood as a developmental stage in the evolution of influencer marketing, serving as a strong wake-up call for brands, which are now compelled to adopt greater honesty and transparency when designing their promotional strategies through influencers. As Plazibat & Marunica [22] explain, when people get involved with the #deinfluencing movement, it helps them pause and think more carefully about what they buy and why, making them more aware of their choices as consumers. Consequently, major brands are being forced to reinvent their digital marketing strategies in closer alignment with the growing ethical and social responsibility expectations expressed by consumers.

Against this backdrop, the concept of sustainable marketing has gained prominence—a specific form of marketing that involves aligning a brand’s promoted values with ecological ones. Through transparent, authentic, and responsible eco-friendly practices, this approach seeks to strengthen the loyalty of environmentally conscious consumers toward brands while contributing to the reduction in resource consumption and the construction of a sustainable future [25,26].

As we have highlighted so far, de-influencing can be framed as an emerging social and digital phenomenon that, through the messages it disseminates, promotes the ideals of sustainable consumption. Much of the content found in videos labeled as de-influencing refers to conscious choices oriented toward environmental protection, while also advocating for the careful use of consumer goods with the aim of improving quality of life. By discouraging impulsive purchases and strongly criticizing excessive consumption, it can be argued that de-influencers also play a key role in the widespread adoption of responsible consumption behaviors, aligning themselves with the characteristic elements of sustainable consumption promoted in the specialized literature dedicated to this topic [16,27]. Moreover, de-influencing can be regarded as a movement that contributes to the operationalization of certain principles of minimalism as a sustainable lifestyle, playing a significant role in the adoption of sustainable consumption practices that stand in contrast to excessive consumerism [28] and to the microtrend phenomenon, characterized by the high volatility of TikTok trends—cycles of rapid emergence and disappearance of consumer preferences—which contributes to overconsumption [29].

2. Precursor Movements of the De-Influencing Trend

For a proper understanding of the dynamics of consumer behavior in the digital era, the analysis of the de-influencing phenomenon can be associated with several previously developed theories. In this regard, we may refer to the Theory of Planned Behavior [30], which emphasizes that behavioral intentions are strongly determined by attitudes, subjective norms, and the perceived degree of behavioral control. When correlated with the characteristics of de-influencing, it can be argued that certain messages transmitted by social media de-influencers have the capacity to alter attitudes toward consumption, enhancing consumers’ sense of control over their own purchasing decisions. Moreover, the concept of mindful consumption [31] is closely connected to de-influencing concept, as this form of conscious consumerism is defined by an attitude of care—both toward oneself and toward the community and nature. At the same time, the analysis of de-influencing can also be conducted through the lens of other theories and concepts, such as ethical consumption [32], which asserts that consumption habits should be guided by moral values, concerns for the environment, and other various social considerations. Another relevant perspective is offered by the theory of consumer culture [33], which views consumption not merely as an economic activity but as a highly complex cultural process through which individuals express their social identity and sense of belonging.

Without intending to expand the discussion on the theoretical and conceptual antecedents under which de-influencing can be situated, we will next present two precursors of the phenomenon: de-marketing, as an indirect influence, and the anti-haul movement, as a direct influence.

2.1. De-Marketing

The roots of de-influencing can be indirectly traced to the concept of de-marketing, introduced by Kotler & Levi [34]. In their now-classic article, the two authors defined de-marketing as a subcomponent of marketing concerned with discouraging customers in general—or certain classes of customers in particular—either temporarily or on a long-term basis [34], p. 75.

In other words, marketing can be viewed not only as a tool for stimulating demand but also as a useful mechanism employed by organizations to reduce, discourage, or even control demand in the short term, especially in situations involving temporary shortages, excessive (and chronic) popularity of certain goods, products, or services, or the targeting of undesirable consumer segments.

Thus, de-marketing constitutes a form of consumer-oriented marketing focused on managing demand in a balanced and mutually acceptable way for both organizations and consumers, with an emphasis on consumer accountability and the redirection of consumption behaviors toward more sustainable practices [35].

Based on these considerations, a clear line of convergence can be observed between de-marketing and de-influencing, as both concepts essentially address the discouragement of overconsumption and the promotion of responsible consumer behavior, while contributing to the shaping of a new paradigm within which sustainable consumption can be framed.

However, in the case of de-influencing—a bottom-up phenomenon—the participatory nature of de-marketing becomes much more evident, as it represents a movement generated by a community of digital users who share messages rooted in personal experiences that quickly become viral on social media platforms. This occurs as a firm response to the pressure exerted by consumer culture and the market’s saturation with sponsored recommendations.

On the other hand, while de-marketing involves strategies applied by organizations to reduce demand for certain categories of products, de-influencing primarily entails content creators challenging “hyped” products. The major risk, however, lies in the potential transformation of the de-influencing movement into re-influencing—through the act of recommending that people avoid purchasing one product only to consider buying another (which, ultimately, still constitutes an encouragement of consumption).

2.2. Anti-Haul Movement

Approximately a decade before the emergence of de-influencing, another movement known as anti-haul gained popularity on YouTube. Beginning in 2015, content creators started producing videos in which they showcased products they explicitly stated they did not intend to purchase, thereby inviting viewers to adopt a more selective approach to consumption and conveying critical messages regarding the overconsumption that characterized certain market sectors, such as beauty and fashion [6].

Moreover, anti-consumption content proved to be more impactful among the general public compared to pro-consumption content distributed by influencers, achieving higher engagement rates (likes, dislikes, and comments) from audiences exposed to it [36].

Through the lens of its messages, which relied on a negative rhetoric directed against overconsumption, the anti-haul movement can undoubtedly be regarded as a direct precursor to de-influencing. Thus, beginning in 2023, de-influencing and anti-haul became two powerful, coexisting movements on social media, in which content creators questioned or discouraged consumers from purchasing widely promoted goods, products, or services, or from following market-imposed trends [8].

However, since the anti-haul movement gained broad exposure on YouTube—a platform characterized by longer video formats—the type of discourse advanced by its proponents tended to be more argumentative when compared to the short-form videos shared under the de-influencing label on TikTok, a platform that primarily hosts brief, fast-paced content.

In this sense, the role of a traditional social media influencer is no longer confined to that of a promoter of consumption, as it once was, but can be extended to a more reflective critique of purchasing habits, reaching audiences that are more sensitive and receptive to critical messages about consumption. Within such a context, an influencer aligned with the de-influencing movement advocates against unnecessary purchases and positions themselves in direct opposition to the traditional social media influencer, whose primary aim remains to persuade consumers to buy goods, products, or services [8].

Thus, it becomes evident that the logic of social media platforms can be reconfigured toward a discourse that challenges consumerist culture. Both the anti-haul and de-influencing movements can therefore be regarded as distinct forms of influence and public education, aimed at fostering the adoption of responsible and sustainable consumption patterns.

3. Conclusions

As highlighted throughout this entry paper, de-influencing has emerged as an influential trend that first appeared in January 2023 as a strong reactive movement against the traditional marketing messages propagated by influencers—messages primarily focused on promoting materialistic, short-term values that tend to overlook the exorbitant financial and ecological costs of overconsumption [20]. Initially, de-influencing was most visible in sectors such as beauty and fashion; however, it has since expanded rapidly across various other domains, targeting a wide range of product categories and evolving into a movement that also challenges certain e-commerce platforms alleged to directly or indirectly encourage overconsumption [8].

Against this backdrop, de-influencing has evolved into a genuine and rapidly expanding international phenomenon, as hashtags such as #deinfluencer and #deinfluencing have gained undeniable popularity—engaging millions of individuals and generating hundreds of millions of views. Undoubtedly, we are witnessing a gradual shift in consumers’ perspectives toward traditional influencers. Moreover, de-influencers are playing an increasingly significant role in shaping long-term consumer behavior by bringing to the forefront key themes such as sustainability, conscious consumption, transparency, and authenticity in marketing. Collectively, these elements contribute to reshaping the relationships consumers establish with brands [37].

Furthermore, the de-influencing phenomenon can be viewed as a natural response to the culture of “micro-trends” and the excessive pressure exerted by influencers who promote various goods, products, or services in exchange for sponsorships [17]. This trend—centered on the criticism of overpriced products and services—has emerged amid growing tension between monetization and authenticity, resonating strongly with Generation Z, a cohort deeply connected to social media and increasingly in search of sustainable alternatives.

Major brands have been increasingly criticized for benefiting substantially from sponsored reviews provided by influencers, which are often perceived as biased and driven solely by the commercial logic of the marketplace. This dynamic has led to a decline in consumer trust toward the goods, products, and services they once purchased regularly [17,18].

In such a context, it can be argued that the de-influencing phenomenon holds tremendous potential to foster greater transparency and accountability within marketing, promotion, purchasing, and consumption processes. De-influencers have increasingly come to be perceived as more honest and credible voices compared to traditional social media influencers, who are often suspected of being overly driven by monetization.

However, at the same time, it cannot be overlooked that there is a risk of de-influencing evolving into a disguised form of influencing. Furthermore, critical debates have emerged positioning de-influencing among so-called “mirage” trends—movements that are quickly absorbed and commodified by the commercial logic of platforms such as TikTok and Instagram.

It remains to be seen whether the de-influencing phenomenon truly possesses the power to substantially and positively reshape consumer behavior patterns in the long term. Moreover, future research should address the internal contradictions inherent to de-influencing—to what extent can it be considered an antidote to overconsumption, or is it merely another marketing strategy with limited impact on reducing it?

Further empirical approaches to studying de-influencing could explore how traditional social media influencers align themselves with this new trend, potentially transforming into promoters of sustainable lifestyles and responsible consumption. Additionally, research efforts could focus on analyzing the types of social media messages that foster perceptions of credibility and authenticity among consumers, as well as how such messages are constructed to counteract online discourses promoting excessive consumption.

At the same time, another emerging area of great interest concerns the role that artificial intelligence plays—or could play—in de-influencing, particularly given the rise in virtual influencers employed by well-known brands. This development raises critical questions about authenticity, ethics, and the potential impact of these new forms of communication on the shaping of consumer behavior.

In conclusion, it can be stated that, at present, the de-influencing phenomenon nonetheless provides a space for critical and serious reflection on excessive consumerism.