At a time when social media influencers can shape public opinion with a single post, the Karnataka government’s decision to rope them in to promote its policies has sparked a wave of concern. According to the Karnataka Digital Advertising Guidelines 2024, the aim is to harness the power of influencers to reach a wider audience. Activists and lawyers, however, fear this strategy could blur the line between public service and political propaganda. By enlisting influencers — who are often seen by social media users as trusted voices — the government risks turning them into subtle vehicles for political messaging.
Forbes defines an influencer as someone capable of significantly impacting others' purchasing decisions due to their authority, knowledge, or strong connection with their audience. Influencers are frequently seen as trendsetters and often command large followings on social media platforms.
Under the Karnataka Digital Advertising Guidelines 2024, the Department of Information and Public Relations (DIPR) has opened up government advertising opportunities to a wide range of digital media entities and social media influencers, who can approach the government to register for the programme. Platforms such as YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and even fintech apps like Paytm and PhonePe are included.
In theory, the Karnataka Digital Advertising Guidelines 2024 offer the government a powerful tool to engage millions across digital platforms. Influencers, acting as brand ambassadors, can promote government schemes through sponsored posts, guest blogs, content collaborations, event promotions, and more. With the influencers’ ability to shape narratives through themed campaigns, shoutouts, reviews, and hashtag takeovers, what the government has envisioned is a far-reaching digital engagement strategy.
However, the devil lies in the details — or the lack thereof. The guidelines, issued on August 22, fail to clearly define what constitutes an “advertisement,” nor do they contain a mechanism for overall oversight or regulation.
The absence of a proper definition for “advertisement” can open avenues for politicians to misuse government funds, said Bengaluru-based advocate Rahul Machaiah.
“These guidelines will lead to a proliferation of government ads which may seem like innocuous communication, but indirectly shape personality cults. It will blur the lines between government and political parties or leaders. There should be a definition so that the policy isn’t misused for personal PR and image-building of politicians,” he said.
Machaiah referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in the Common Cause vs Union of India case, which cautioned against using government ads for personal or political gain. He pointed out that the Karnataka government has not adopted the recommendations from the Supreme Court-appointed committee, whose guidelines emphasise that ads should be related to government responsibilities, presented objectively without promoting political interests, and comply with legal and financial regulations.
“The Supreme Court relied on the Madhava Menon Committee report, which suggested an independent Ombudsman for regulating government ads. Although the SC did not accept this, it is high time we have such an ombudsman to regulate the content of government advertisements and expenditure. Otherwise, the government which enjoys huge economic power will ensure that the digital space which is akin to a ‘marketplace of ideas’ gets distorted and flooded with favourable content,” Rahul said.
The state’s new digital advertisement guidelines only say that digital advertising is any advertising content — text, image, audio, video, audio-visual creative, photographs, etc — that is disseminated through digital platforms or digital devices connected to the internet. The format of these digital ads include long and short videos, banners, pop-ups, audio, images, and others.
In the case of advertisements placed by private entities — which are covered by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), a self-regulatory body — the public can file complaints against objectionable television ads that violate Sections 6 and 7 of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995. But the state’s guidelines for digital advertising do not mention any such mechanism for digital advertising or influencers.
The guidelines applicable to government print and television advertisements come under the Karnataka Jaahiratu Neeti (Karnataka Advertising Policy) 2013, which defines an advertisement as “all forms of briefed classified advertisements and attractive advertisements of the government.” DIPR Commissioner Hemant M Nimbalkar told TNM that these digital ad guidelines were also an extension of the existing Jaahiratu Neeti.
Besides, the state government has currently appointed two Congress party office-bearers, Ramesh Babu and Ramachandrappa, to oversee the Information Department’s Media Advertising Review Committee. This has not gone down well with the Opposition Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).
Speaking to TNM, Commissioner Nimbalkar said that the DIPR’s decision to engage influencers is strategically aimed at broadening outreach. “We want to reach people and raise awareness about the government’s initiatives through a medium they are accustomed to. The younger generation gravitates towards watching reels and following influencers; what better way to connect with them than through the platforms they already engage with on social media?” he asked.
India, in particular, has become a global hub for influencers. The country boasts the world’s largest YouTube subscriber base, with 462 million active users on the platform. India is home to approximately 2.5 to 3.5 million content creators, of whom around 1,50,000 monetise their content. The influencer marketing industry in India is thriving, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30%. According to influencer marketing firm Kofluence, the number of creators who can monetise their content is expected to grow by 15-20% in the coming years.
The allure of influencer advertising lies in its ability to bypass traditional marketing channels and forge direct connections with specific demographics. Social media personalities who boast millions of followers wield considerable sway — particularly over younger audiences.
Elaborating on the process for engaging digital media entities, the Commissioner said, “The department will provide a brief to these entities, and the content should be created based on that guidance. We don’t actively approach advertisers or influencers; instead, they can come to us. Our empanelment will be based on established eligibility criteria.”
After empanelment, influencers must submit their content drafts to the DIPR for review. The department will assess whether the content aligns with the provided brief before it can be published.
He added that the influencers must also disclose when their content is sponsored or part of a paid collaboration with the government. The guidelines, however, don't explicitly state this.
The criteria for social media influencers have been categorised into three tiers based on the number of followers they have: nano (1 lakh to 5 lakh followers), micro (5 lakh to 10 lakh followers), and macro (above 10 lakh followers) influencers.
However, while this criteria mirrors the policy for placing ads in newspapers and television channels on the basis of circulation and viewership, this logic can backfire when applied to influencers, according to Bengaluru-based advocate Vinay Sreenivasa.
“Right-wing influencers typically have larger audiences, which contradicts the idea of balance,” he said, adding that Rajasthan’s Congress government introduced something similar before the assembly elections in 2023, followed by Uttar Pradesh in 2024 which has a BJP government. “It makes you wonder — what’s really different? Ultimately, this comes down to the health of our democracy, and many political parties fall short in safeguarding it.” Vinay said.
Bengaluru-based activist and journalist Shivasundar also pointed out the dangers of relying on an influencer’s follower count. “If follower count is the only criterion, it could lead to a biassed selection process favouring certain ideologies, particularly right-wing influencers.”
A research paper titled Influencer collaboration on YouTube: Changing political outreach in the 2024 Indian elections noted that the BJP “clearly has a massive advantage over other parties” with some social media influencers, “but the spread of influencers in various languages is broad, and these influencers are mostly relevant for national level politics, for the kinds of politicians who have a broad, cross-regional profile.” It also stated that several digital influencers had conducted more interviews with national politicians during the period of the study than most political journalists.
Commissioner Nimbalkar, however, said that follower count is not the sole criterion for selecting influencers. According to him, the DIPR will also examine the type of content that influencers have been publishing. “For example, if the government wants to promote a health scheme for women, we would look to enrol a gynaecologist who has been actively creating social media content to raise awareness on women’s health issues.”
“Our focus is on the IEC (Information, Education, and Communication) method, which aims to use influencers not just for their reach but for their subject expertise and ability to communicate meaningful, targeted messages,” the Commissioner added.
Activists have expressed concerns about this policy for several reasons — including the lack of supervision compared to traditional media, the potential blurring of lines between advertising and independent content, and the substantial impact influencers can have on public perception and opinion.
Vinay Sreenivasa pointed out that while government ads in newspapers are subject to regulations and laws, there’s no such framework for influencers. “Social media influencers paid by the government are likely to reflect the state’s positions in their content. The power of influencers is growing — some have millions of followers — and if they start promoting problematic content, it can have a huge impact,” he said.
He further argued that influencers need accountability mechanisms similar to media bodies like the News Broadcasters and Digital Association. “It’s unwise for any government, state or union, to work with influencers without clear guidelines.”
Vinay also raised concerns about the possibility that the government can misuse influencers to control the narrative. “The current state government sees the strong influence of right-wing voices on social media and wants to counterbalance it by controlling the narrative. But this raises serious democratic concerns. What does it mean for democracy when everyone is trying to shape public opinion? These questions aren’t being discussed enough in our society.”
“What worries me is the inconsistency — an influencer can say one thing today and something entirely different tomorrow, affecting public opinion. Influencers hold significant sway over people, so it’s crucial for governments, including the Karnataka government, to clarify their approach. At the same time, influencers themselves need to reflect on their role and responsibilities. And as social media users, we also need to ask: Do we want influencers to operate without any accountability or guidelines?”
The presence of influencers in government campaigns also compromises the authenticity of public opinion, Shivasundar said. “I have a fundamental issue with ‘influencing’ in this context. People should be informed, not influenced. The government’s role should be to educate citizens about available programs, allowing them to make independent decisions. Using influencers would turn this into a marketing exercise rather than a public service,” he said.
Besides, the government already has the option to advertise on various platforms, and it could also find inspiration in the Bengaluru police’s approach. As the first police force to establish a social media presence, they have quite effectively been raising awareness and sharing important updates such as traffic restrictions via the internet. With 1.4 million followers on Twitter, 3,60,000 on Instagram, and 7,37,000 on Facebook, they engage with a broad audience through relatable content like reels, photos, and memes. Their social media team is responsive, often engaging with users regarding law and order issues, showcasing a proactive commitment to community interaction.
Activists have also raised concerns about the lack of transparency, especially with regard to the links between revenue and content. “With newspapers or TV channels, at least we can track their revenue and taxes. But how do we know what influencers are earning or where their money is coming from? Someone like Beer Biceps, for example—how much does he make, and from what sources? There’s a lack of transparency,” Vinay said.
The weight of this concern has already been evident in the way the Union government has gone about employing influencers. In July 2023, Congress MP Manish Tewari asked a question in the Lok Sabha about the Union government’s use of social media influencers. He asked for a list of empanelled influencers who were given ads by the Union government. However, the Minister for Information and Broadcasting Anurag Thakur did not provide details of influencers and only mentioned that four agencies had been empanelled. This means that the public has no idea which individuals are disseminating information or viewpoints pushed by the Union government.
It is to be noted that the digital ad guidelines in Karnataka state that the pricing structure for influencer campaigns will be as per the prices specified by the Directorate of Advertising and Visual Publicity (DAVP). So, following the DAVP’s rate guidelines for similar categories, independent pricing can be determined on a case-by-case basis in instances where prices are dynamic.
The Karnataka government’s venture into digital advertising is part of a broader shift in politics, both domestically and globally, towards the use of influencer marketing.
In 2023, Union Minister Piyush Goyal had met with YouTubers in Delhi as part of a government outreach effort. Influencers were contacted via email and social media, flown to the national capital, and provided with accommodation for the meeting.
The then Congress-led Rajasthan government had also adopted a similar model, categorising social media influencers based on follower counts and tying payments to reach and engagement metrics. For example, Rajasthan verifies that an influencer's post reaches at least 5% of their followers before payments are released. The content must also adhere to strict guidelines, prohibiting anything deemed “indecent, obscene, or anti-national.”
The Aam Aadmi Party in Punjab also came up with the ‘Punjab Influencer Empowerment Policy, 2023. “Along with positive outreach, it also aims to contribute to the collective fight against fake and manipulated news,” the official statement read.
Recently, the Uttar Pradesh government announced a similar social media policy but with even stricter regulations. Influencers in UP are divided into four categories based on their follower counts, with specific payment limits set for each platform: On platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, and Instagram, monthly payments range from Rs 2 lakh to Rs 5 lakh. On YouTube, the payment limits for videos, shorts, and podcasts can go as high as Rs 8 lakh.
Uttar Pradesh has also introduced strict regulations governing the content of influencers' posts. The state authorities can withhold payments if content is found to “showcase the government’s schemes in an incorrect manner or with ill intent,” or if it “hurts the sentiments of different sections of society.” Additionally, the policy mandates legal action against influencers or digital platforms that post content deemed “anti-national, anti-social, or derogatory.”