De-Influencing: What It Means for Brands When Creators Tell Followers Not to Buy

Short answer: telling people not to buy is still a brand moment you have to deal with

De-influencing is content where a creator actively discourages followers from buying a specific product — or encourages consuming less in general — the opposite of the classic "buy this" recommendation. The trend emerged in January 2023 on TikTok under the hashtag #deinfluencing, as a reaction against overconsumption and against the related "TikTok made me buy it" content format. For a brand, it's both a risk (your own launch can get publicly picked apart) and an opportunity (an honest, critical recommendation tends to build more trust than yet another polished endorsement). What matters for you as a brand: the rules on ad disclosure and comparative advertising apply exactly as much to a "don't buy this" message as to a "buy this" one.

This is Make Influence's experience and practical guidance, not legal advice. Where the article references specific rules (ad disclosure, comparative advertising), they're sourced from the corresponding Academy articles that cover the legal basis in depth.

What is de-influencing?

De-influencing is a named content genre that, per multiple independent media outlets, emerged in January 2023 on TikTok under the hashtag #deinfluencing — a visible reaction against both overconsumption in general and the related "TikTok made me buy it" trend, which encouraged impulse purchases of products seen in viral videos. A de-influencer typically tells their audience to save the money, use what they already own, or choose a cheaper alternative instead of a hyped, viral product. The trend has since evolved toward a broader "underconsumption core" movement with the same underlying idea: buy less, not more. We treat the trend's own origin and spread as media-reported, not something Make Influence has itself measured or verified.

Three forms of de-influencing — and why each matters differently to a brand

The deciding factor for a brand isn't whether the message is positive or negative — it's whether there's a paid or otherwise commercial relationship behind it.

Ad disclosure applies whether the message is "buy this" or "don't buy this"

The disclosure duty depends on whether there's a commercial relationship between brand and creator — not on whether the message reads as positive or negative. A paid recommendation to skip a product is just as much an ad as a paid recommendation to choose it. See influencer marketing disclosure rules in Denmark and the EU for the full rundown of the disclosure duty and when it's triggered.

If a competitor is named or recognisable

This raises an original but often-overlooked point: a de-influencing video that names or clearly hints at a competitor's product to discourage followers from buying it is exactly the situation markedsføringsloven § 21 on comparative advertising regulates — regardless of the message being negative rather than positive. The eight conditions in § 21(2) (objective, verifiable, must not discredit) apply just as much to a critical comparison as to one that praises your own product as better. A de-influencing video claiming "X is worse than Y" with no documentation is exactly as exposed to being unlawful comparative advertising as an undocumented positive superlative claim. See when does an influencer's comparison video count as comparative advertising in Denmark? for the eight conditions and a real court case on the documentation requirement.

If the criticism is about sustainability or overconsumption

Much of de-influencing content's language is about overconsumption and environmental impact ("you don't need another one," "this doesn't last very long"). If you flip that and want to use similar language in your own sponsored content — for example, to position your product as the durable, sustainable choice — the same documentation requirements apply as for any other sustainability claim. See greenwashing and sustainability claims in influencer marketing under Danish law for what's needed before a claim like "lasts longer" or "more sustainable than the alternative" can be used.

Does a negative claim need documentation just like a positive one?

Yes, in practice. A creator's claim that "this product doesn't work" or "this is a waste of money" is still a factual claim about the product's characteristics — not just a matter of taste — if it's presented as a general, objective assessment rather than a personal experience. The same logic that applies to a positive testimonial applies in reverse to a negative one: a claim that reads as a fact needs to be documentable. See using influencer content as a testimonial for the documentation requirement for a specific claim, whether positive or negative.

Decision framework: how should a brand respond to de-influencing of its own product?

IF the criticism is factually wrong, and it's part of your own paid content (e.g. a sponsored comparison that unintentionally overstates a competitor's weakness) → correct it following the same process as any other factual error in sponsored content. See correcting a factual error in sponsored content.

IF the criticism is organic (unpaid) and genuine or well-founded → use it as product feedback, and avoid downplaying or ignoring it publicly — a visible, honest response from the brand rarely does as much damage as silence.

IF you want to proactively use the same honest, understated tone in your own content → consider working with a broader mix of creators who give a genuinely honest, nuanced picture of the product, rather than exclusively polished content. See influencer seeding vs paid collaborations for a model that's already built around unscripted, authentic response.

IF the organic criticism escalates into a broader public situation rather than isolated critical comments → this is no longer just a de-influencing question, it's a crisis-communication situation. See what to do when an influencer collaboration turns into a PR crisis for that framework.

Hypothetical example: why the response matters more than the criticism itself

The example below is invented, for illustration only — it isn't a real Make Influence customer case, and it deliberately contains no figures, because there's no reliable, public method for measuring a de-influencing video's actual effect on sales. A creator organically posts that a brand's face cream "isn't worth the money" and recommends a cheaper alternative instead. The brand has two choices: ignore it and hope it blows over, or respond openly — for example by inviting the creator or another independent voice to test the product again under clear terms, or by publicly acknowledging the part of the criticism that's fair. The second path asks more of the brand in the moment, but doesn't leave the impression that the criticism was brushed aside.

Common mistakes

• Assuming organic de-influencing is something you can't do anything about. You can't remove it, but you can respond openly instead of ignoring it.
• Assuming a "don't buy this" message can never be an ad. If there's a payment or agreement behind it, the disclosure duty applies exactly the same way.
• Letting a creator make an unqualified, negative claim about a named competitor with no documentation. It's just as exposed to being unlawful comparative advertising as an undocumented positive superlative.
• Treating one critical video as representative of how the product is generally perceived. Respond to the substance of the criticism, not just the fact that it exists.

Make Influence's perspective

In our experience, de-influencing isn't inherently a threat to a brand — it's a signal that audience trust has shifted toward honesty over polish. The brands that do best in that shift aren't the ones trying to shut the criticism down, but the ones who build more honest, balanced content into their own strategy as a matter of course — including when that means a sponsored recommendation sometimes comes with a caveat.

FAQ

If a creator is paid to recommend a competitor's product over yours, do they still need to disclose it as an ad?

Yes, always. The disclosure duty depends on the commercial relationship, not on whether the message is positive toward you, negative toward a competitor, or both at once.

Can we ask a creator to make "de-influencing" content about our own product to seem more honest?

Yes, but only if the criticism is genuine — a staged, fake self-criticism risks being seen through and damaging trust more than it builds it. The content still has to be disclosed as an ad.

Is de-influencing the same thing as a bad review?

Not quite. A bad review is typically about one product. De-influencing is broader and often tied to a general attitude toward consumption — but once it targets a specific product, the same documentation and disclosure rules apply as to any other critical claim.

Can de-influencing content affect us even if we've never used influencer marketing for the product?

Yes. Organic de-influencing requires no relationship with you at all — it's an independent creator reacting to your product or marketing, regardless of how it's distributed.

What if a de-influencing video contains a directly false claim about our product?

If it's organic, unpaid content, you have no legal right to demand a correction the way you would for your own sponsored content — but you can respond publicly with accurate facts. If the claim is part of your own paid content about a competitor, the ordinary process for correcting a factual error applies.