Thoughts on algorithm licensing, continued.

Dec 19

I have spent a lot of time thinking about the Rachel Sennott episode of Good Hang I mentioned in the last post. The idea of "renting" someone’s digital eyes is stuck in my head. If we move past the novelty of it, we start to see how this could actually work as a business model. It is the jump from just watching a creator to using their digital perspective as a legitimate tool.

Algorithm Licensing: A Deeper Look at the Logistics

If we really want to treat a personal algorithm like a piece of property, we have to look at the practical side. Who is doing it? Who wins? And what makes it dangerous?

Is This Actually Happening Yet?

We are not quite at the point where you can pay for a "Rachel Sennott" filter on your TikTok app. However, we are getting close.

Right now, brands use something called "Whitelisting" or "Creator Licensing." This is where an influencer gives a brand back-end access to their account to run ads. It is mostly used for marketing, but it gives brands a peek at the data behind the scenes.

There are also AI firms trying to "reverse engineer" the trend cycle. They don’t own the influencer's feed, but they use bots to try and mimic what a person like Rachel might be seeing. It is basically a pair of digital binoculars. The actual "handing over the keys" to a feed hasn't happened yet, but the demand is clearly there.

Who Stands to Gain the Most?

The brands that would jump at this are the ones that live or die by the "vibe shift."

Fashion and Beauty: These industries move faster than a traditional research report can keep up with. A brand like Zara needs to see what is bubbling up on a stylist's feed today, not what was cool three weeks ago.
Entertainment: Imagine a movie studio "subscribing" to the feeds of a few hundred film nerds. They would see exactly which memes or clips are actually sticking before a movie even hits theaters.
Food and Beverage: If a drink company can see what the "wellness" community is obsessed with in real time, they can pivot their marketing before the competition even knows there is a new trend.

Does This Help Startups or Hurt Them?

This is where it gets interesting. This could be a huge win for small companies.

In the past, you needed a massive budget for focus groups and fancy consultants to understand what people wanted. If a startup could pay a few hundred dollars a month to "rent" the perspective of a few key trendsetters, they would have a massive shortcut. It levels the playing field for anyone trying to figure out what is cool.

The danger is if big corporations start "buying up" algorithms. If a company like Nike signs an exclusive deal to be the only one allowed to see a top athlete's feed, the little guys get locked out again. Information is still the ultimate currency.

What are the Risks?

This isn't exactly a clean or simple process. There are some major red flags.

Privacy is the big one. Even if an influencer says yes, their feed is full of other people’s faces and comments. Does a brand have the right to scrape data from everyone that happens to pop up on that feed? It is a legal mess waiting to happen.

The "Observer Effect" is also real. If you know a group of corporate executives is watching your TikTok feed, you are going to use the app differently. You might stop clicking on the weird, niche stuff that actually makes your algorithm valuable. The second you try to make a feed "professional," you kill the magic that made it worth buying in the first place.

Security is the final hurdle. Giving a company access to your digital life is a massive risk. One hack or bad connection and your entire career could be gone.

Final Thoughts

Algorithm licensing turns "good taste" into a measurable asset. It suggests that how you see the world is just as valuable as what you create for it. We are moving into a world where your filter bubble isn't just an echo chamber. It is a product.

Emma Briscoe