SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Sayı: 90

Understanding Influencer Marketing in Terms of Weber’s Typologies of Authority: Social Media Influencer as the Ideal-Legitimate-Authority

Weber’in Otorite Tipolojileri Bakımından Etkileyici Pazarlamayı Anlamlandırmak: İdeal-Meşru-Otorite Olarak Sosyal Medya Etkileyicisi

Mehmet Ali Paylan(BİLECİK ŞEYH EDEBALİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ, OSMANELİ MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0002-6739-2649
Pages
239–257
Publication Date
2026-07-29
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The proposed matrix and item pool offer both theoretical and practical contributions to the SME literature while establishing a theoretical foundation for future empirical validation studies.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:While source credibility and parasocial interaction models—which have been extensively studied in the literature on social media influencer (SME) marketing, both theoretically and practically—are conceptually insufficient for explaining the SME’s position of authority in the eyes of consumers, the existing literature largely reduces authority to the charismatic type and does not discuss Weber’s other authority typologies (legal and traditional) in the context of SMEs.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to construct a theoretical framework that conceptualizes SMEs as “ideal-legitimate authority” by synthesizing Weber’s authority typologies and the legitimacy factors (pragmatic, ethical, cognitive) identified by Suchman, and to propose a scale item pool based on this framework.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The proposed matrix and item pool offer both theoretical and practical contributions to the SME literature while establishing a theoretical foundation for future empirical validation studies.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:SME pazarlaması · Otorite tipolojileri · Meşruiyet

Abstract

While source credibility and parasocial interaction models—which have been extensively studied in the literature on social media influencer (SME) marketing, both theoretically and practically—are conceptually insufficient for explaining the SME’s position of authority in the eyes of consumers, the existing literature largely reduces authority to the charismatic type and does not discuss Weber’s other authority typologies (legal and traditional) in the context of SMEs. The aim of this study is to construct a theoretical framework that conceptualizes SMEs as “ideal-legitimate authority” by synthesizing Weber’s authority typologies and the legitimacy factors (pragmatic, ethical, cognitive) identified by Suchman, and to propose a scale item pool based on this framework. In this study, conducted using a conceptual analysis method, the synthesis of Weber’s authority typology with the framework of legitimacy factors was first performed; subsequently, the “SME as Ideal-Legitimate-Authority” (IMOI) matrix was derived from this synthesis, and finally, based on the literature, a sample indicator set demonstrating the operationalizability of the conceptual framework for the cells of the matrix was proposed. The proposed matrix and item pool offer both theoretical and practical contributions to the SME literature while establishing a theoretical foundation for future empirical validation studies.

Özet

Sosyal medya etkileyicisi (SME) pazarlaması literatüründe teorik ve uygulamalı olarak ağırlıkla çalışılan kaynak güvenilirliği ve para-sosyal etkileşim modelleri, SME'nin tüketici nezdindeki otorite konumunu açıklamakta kavramsal olarak yetersiz olmakla beraber mevcut literatür otoriteyi büyük oranda karizmatik tipe indirgemekte ve Weber'in diğer otorite tipolojilerini (yasal ve geleneksel) SME bağlamında tartışmamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Weber'in otorite tipolojilerini ve Suchman’ın belirttiği meşruiyet faktörlerini (pragmatik, etik, bilişsel) sentezleyerek SME'yi "ideal-meşru-otorite" olarak kavramsallaştıran bir teorik çerçeve inşa etmekte ve bu çerçeveye dayalı bir ölçek madde havuzu önermektir. Kavramsal analiz yöntemiyle yürütülen çalışmada, ilk olarak Weber'in otorite tipolojisi ile meşruiyet faktörlerine ilişkin çerçevenin sentezi gerçekleştirilmiş, ardından bu sentezden "İdeal-Meşru-Otorite olarak SME" (İMOI) matrisi türetilmiş ve son olarak literatürden hareketle matrisin hücreleri için kavramsal çerçevenin operasyonelleştirilebilirliğini gösteren örnek gösterge seti önerilmiştir. Önerilen matris ve madde havuzu, SME literatürüne hem kuramsal hem pratik katkılar sunarken, gelecek ampirik doğrulama çalışmaları için kuramsal bir temel oluşturmaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Paylan, M. A. (2026). Understanding Influencer Marketing in Terms of Weber’s Typologies of Authority: Social Media Influencer as the Ideal-Legitimate-Authority. Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı: 90, 239–257. https://doi.org/10.51290/dpusbe.1941708

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Aldrich, H. E., & Fiol, C. M. (1994). Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation. The Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 645–670. doi: 10.2307/258740
  2. Arı, E. S. (2021). Süper akıllı toplum: Toplum 5.0. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 23(1), 455-479. doi: 10.16953/deusosbil.808359
  3. Barari, M., Eisend, M., ve Jain, S. P. (2025). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of social media influencers: Mechanisms and moderation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 54(1), 28-48. doi: 10.1007/s11747-025-01107-3
  4. Barile, S., Bassano, C., Piciocchi, P., Saviano, M., ve Spohrer, J. (2021). Empowering value co-creation in the digital age. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 39(6), 1130-1143. doi: 10.1108/jbim-12-2019-0553
  5. Bars, M. E. (2020). Max Weber’in otorite tanımı çerçevesinde Türk destan kahramanları: Oğuz Kağan örneği. Karadeniz Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(22), 251-266. doi: 10.38155/ksbd.695416
  6. Beiser, F. C. (2009). Normativity in neo‐kantianism: Its rise and fall. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17(1), 9-27. doi: 10.1080/09672550802610941
  7. Bitektine, A. (2011). Toward a theory of social judgments of organizations: The case of legitimacy, reputation, and status. Academy of Management Review, 36(1), 151-179.
  8. Breves, P., ve Liebers, N. (2024). The impact of following duration on the perception of influencers and their persuasive effectiveness explained by parasocial relationship stages. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 46(1), 1-18. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2024.2320186
  9. Bora Semiz B., ve Paylan, M. A. (2023). A study on the mediating effect of brand trust between perceived legitimacy of influencers and attitude toward brand: evidence from Turkey. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(9), 2181-2197. doi: 10.1108/apjml-08-2022-0702
  10. Cheng, Y., Hung-Baesecke, C. J., ve Chen, Y.-R. R. (2024). Social media influencer effects on CSR communication: The role of influencer leadership in opinion and taste. International Journal of Business Communication, 61(2), 336-359. doi: 10.1177/23294884211035112
  11. Chisnall, M. (2025). Social media and the carnival that never ends. Distinktion: Journal of Social Theory, 1-18. doi: 10.1080/1600910x.2025.2505449
  12. Cocker, H., ve Cronin, J. (2017). Charismatic authority and the youtuber. Marketing Theory, 17(4), 455-472. doi:10.1177/1470593117692022
  13. Čop, N. G., Culiberg, B., ve Komen, I. F. (2023). Exploring social media influencers’ moral dilemmas through role theory. Journal of Marketing Management, 40(1-2), 1-22. doi:10.1080/0267257x.2023.2241468
  14. Esgin, A. (2013). Otoritenin sosyolojisi: Otoriteye itaatin ya da otorite bağımlılığının sosyolojik anlamları. Sosyologca, 3(5), 90-112.
  15. Eşki, H. (2010). Bugünü anlamak için Max Weber’i yeniden okumak. ZKÜ Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 6(11), 187-198.
  16. Farivar, S., Wang, F., ve Yuan, Y. (2021). Opinion leadership vs. para-social relationship: Key factors in influencer marketing. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 59, 102371. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102371
  17. Febrian, H. (2024). Visualizing authority: Rise of the religious influencers on the instagram. Social Media + Society, 10(4), 1-19. doi:10.1177/20563051241286850
  18. Gane, N. (2024). Capitalism is capitalism, not technofeudalism. Journal of Classical Sociology, 25(4), 353-368. doi: 10.1177/1468795x241269293
  19. Gedik, Y. (2020). A rising trend in social media: A conceptual assessment on influencer marketing. Pamukkale Üniversitesi İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(2), 362-385. doi: 10.47097/piar.825325
  20. Gilbert, J. (2024). Techno-feudalism or platform capitalism? Conceptualising the digital society. European Journal of Social Theory, 27(4), 561-578. doi:10.1177/13684310241276474
  21. Haggart, B. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, S. Zuboff (2018). Journal of Digital Media & Policy, 10(2), 229-243. doi:10.1386/jdmp.10.2.229_5
  22. Han, J., ve Balabanis, G. (2024). Meta-analysis of social media influencer impact: Key antecedents and theoretical foundations. Psychology & Marketing, 41(2), 394-426. doi:10.1002/mar.21927
  23. Herzog, M. (2025). The new ideologies of eurocentrism: Neo-feudalism, techno-feudalism and irrational myths of the present. International Critical Thought, 15(3), 404-418. doi:10.1080/21598282.2025.2556993
  24. Hudders, L., De Jans, S., ve De Veirman, M. (2021). The commercialization of social media stars: a literature review and conceptual framework on the strategic use of social media influencers. International Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 327–375. doi:10.1080/02650487.2020.1836925
  25. Influencer Marketing Hub. (2026). Influencer marketing benchmark report 2026. Influencer Marketing Hub. Retrieved from https://influencermarketinghub.com/influencer-marketing-benchmark-report/
  26. Joshi, Y., Lim, W. M., Jagani, K., ve Kumar, S. (2023). Social media influencer marketing: foundations, trends, and ways forward. Electronic Commerce Research, 25(2), 1199-1253. doi: 10.1007/s10660-023-09719-z
  27. Kantola, A. (2009). The rise of charismatic authority styles in corporate capitalism. Journal of Power, 2(3), 423-440. doi:10.1080/17540290903345898
  28. Kim, D. Y., Park, M., ve Kim, H. (2022). An influencer like me: Examining the impact of the social status of influencers. Journal of Marketing Communications, 29(7), 654-675. doi:10.1080/13527266.2022.2066153
  29. Kristensen, N. N., ve From, U. (2015). From ivory tower to cross-media personas: The heterogeneous cultural critic in the media. Journalism Practice, 9(6), 853–871. doi:10.1080/17512786.2015.1051370
  30. Langley, P., ve Leyshon, A. (2017). Platform capitalism: The intermediation and capitalisation of digital economic circulation. Finance and Society, 3(1), 11-31. doi:10.2218/finsoc.v3i1.1936
  31. Mertek, S. (2024). Dijitalleşme ve demokrasinin krizi. Muhafazakâr Düşünce Dergisi, 20 (67- Dijital Çağda Siyaset), 38-58. https://izlik.org/JA26EB76YP
  32. O’Neil, M. (2014). Hacking Weber: legitimacy, critique, and trust in peer production. Information, Communication & Society, 17(7), 872-888. doi: 10.1080/1369118x.2013.850525
  33. Özdemir, G. (2014). Weberyan anlamda Türklerde otorite ve meşruiyet ilişkisi (15. yüzyıl Osmanlı dönemine kadar). Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi, 9(2), 69-90. doi:10.17550/aid.72794
  34. Pan, M., Blut, M., Ghiassaleh, A., ve Lee, Z. W. Y. (2024). Influencer marketing effectiveness: A meta-analytic review. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 53(1), 52-78. doi:10.1007/s11747-024-01052-7
  35. Paylan, M.A., ve Bora Semiz, B. (2025, Ekim). Weberyan düşünce ekseninde sosyal medya etkileyici pazarlamasını anlamlandırmak: İdeal-meşru-otorite olarak influencer, 28. Ulusal Pazarlama Kongresi’nde sunulan bildiri, Fethiye, içinde (ss. 587-595). Özgür Yayınları. doi:10.58830/ozgur.pub988
  36. Randrianasolo, A. A., ve Arnold, M. J. (2020). Consumer legitimacy: Conceptualization and measurement scales. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 37(4), 385-397. doi: 10.1108/jcm-03-2019-3124
  37. Rodríguez‐Vidal, J., Gonzalo, J., Plaza, L., ve Sánchez, H. A. (2019). Automatic detection of influencers in social networks: Authority versus domain signals. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 70(7), 675-684. doi:10.1002/asi.24156
  38. Seyfosadat, S. F., ve Ravanmehr, R. (2023). Systematic literature review on identifying influencers in social networks. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56, 567-660. doi: 10.1007/s10462-023-10515-2
  39. Spörl-Wang, K., Krause, F., ve Henkel, S. (2024). Predictors of social media influencer marketing effectiveness: A comprehensive literature review and meta-analysis. Journal of Business Research, 186, 114991. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114991
  40. Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institutional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 571-610. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331
  41. Taghizade, E., ve Ahmadov, E. (2025). Techno feudalism and the new global power struggle: echoes of a digital cold war. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(2), 1144-1170. doi: 10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020093
  42. Thomas, V. L., ve Fowler, K. (2023). Examining the outcomes of influencer activism. Journal of Business Research, 154, 113336. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113336
  43. Tost, L. P. (2011). An integrative model of legitimacy judgments. Academy of Management Review, 36(4), 686-710.
  44. Törnberg, P. (2023). How platforms govern: Social regulation in digital capitalism. Big Data & Society, 10(1), 1-13. doi: 10.1177/20539517231153808
  45. Turunen, J., Werther, S., ve Al-Saqaf, W. (2022). Performing control in the Swedish Twitter sphere or: How a 1920s’ Russian linguist helps us understand dynamics of digital authority. Frontiers in Political Science, 4, 1-18. doi: 10.3389/fpos.2022.946985
  46. Uphoff, N. (1989). Distinguishing power, authority & legitimacy: Taking Max Weber at his word by using resources-exchange analysis. Polity, 22(2), 295-322.
  47. Uzdu, H. (2016). Max Weber’in otorite tipolojileri bağlamında “Son İmparator”, “Gandi” ve “Lincoln” fimlerine sosyolojik bir bakış denemesi. Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 67-87. doi: 10.18026/cbusos.36767
  48. Vrontis, D., Makrides, A., Christofi, M., ve Thrassou, A. (2021). Social media influencer marketing: A systematic review, integrative framework and future research agenda. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 617-644. doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12647
  49. Vu, V. C., Wang, S., Keating, B., ve Chen, E. Y. I. (2024). Increasing social media stickiness through parasocial interaction and influencer source credibility. Australasian Marketing Journal, 33(4), 352-370. doi: 10.1177/14413582241306130
  50. Weber, M. (2006). Sosyoloji Yazıları, (çev: T. Parla). İstanbul: İletişim yayınları.
  51. Weber, M. (2024). Bürokrasi ve Otorite (çev: H. Bahadır AKIN). Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
  52. Zeybekoğlu, S., ve Alkan, Y. S. (2021). Max Weber’in bürokrasi modeli: Bir yeniden okuma denemesi. Mehmet Akif Ersoy Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 8(2), 651-681. doi: 10.30798/makuiibf.790081
  53. Zhang, J., Xu, D., ve Chen, L. (2024). Enhancing supportive intention through perceived legitimacy: Social media influencer leadership and charismatic legitimization in CSR communication. Public Relations Review, 50(5), 102511. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102511