Alitzah Stinson regularly posts on social media about her life. Her Instagram page is dotted with morning routines, coffee runs and daily doings with her family.
On June 25, Stinson, the CEO of Ivory Paper Co. and a content creator based in Columbus, Ohio, posted a video that gained more traction than she had anticipated.
In it, Stinson recounted receiving an email offering her a collaboration opportunity with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Stinson was confused about why she received the email because she had left the faith.
Stinson said she harbored no ill will toward the church, noting she has multiple relatives who remain devout members, but stated matter-of-factly that she was “no longer LDS.”
To Stinson, the church was asking her to forgo her personal beliefs and fabricate a testimony of the Book of Mormon, the faith’s signature scripture, in exchange for a “brand deal.”
Was the global church of 17.5 million members — with a sophisticated and expansive public relations apparatus — really trying to hire individuals to provide faith-promoting content?
Well, yes, sort of.
What the church pays for
The church does indeed pay content creators — as do, say, publications that hire freelancers or businesses that contract for their social media.
Derek Westra, director of reputation management for the faith, explained that the church has worked for many years with marketing and advertising agencies on outreach campaigns such as Light the World and the 2014 film “Meet the Mormons.”
To determine whom they hire, Westra and his team vet individuals and content creators to ensure they remain Latter-day Saints and that they produce material that aligns with the faith’s values. After completing that process, the church enlists marketing agencies to bring on content creators as hired talent.
But the team’s typical procedures derailed, according to Westra, when a newly hired digital marketing agency began contacting individuals with any church association.
“Had it gone through the proper process,” Westra said. “[Stinson] wouldn’t have been contacted.”
Stinson made a subsequent video in which she said a church representative reached out to her and explained that she should never have received that inquiry.
The church pays influencers to produce user-generated content, Westra said, whether words, images or videos. The material goes on church channels, not the creator’s personal page. It’s no different, he added, from paying a professional in any given field.
“We’ve always hired creators,” Westra said. “We’ve hired painters, and we’ve hired musicians, and we’ve hired craftsmen. We’ve hired people who are experts in their field to create something of value for us to use.”
And while these individuals are paid, he explained, this practice doesn’t fall under what is known as a brand deal. They are paid for the content they provide exclusively for the church, Westra said, and are treated more as contractors than endorsers.
As for paying people to post their testimonies, Westra said, the church does not do that, noting that it would violate church policy.
Other influencers speak out
In her initial video, Stinson called it deceitful for the church to pay influencers to promote the faith. A number of Latter-day Saint content creators took issue with that assertion, however, viewing it as appropriate to hire people for their time and talent.
David Snell, host of the “Keystone” podcast, said the church sent him a collaboration proposal as well.
“I was confused,” he said. “I had received the same email that [Stinson] received and came away with a very different impression of what they were going for.”
Snell said his understanding was that this campaign would be used to help bolster the church’s proselytizing. Such videos, which then become the property of the church, often include information about how viewers can contact Latter-day Saint missionaries.
When social media posts are published, Westra explained, the church tags internal accounts like @tabchoir or @justserve, even if content creators are featured. Creators are not tagged directly, though their first names may occasionally be used for context, he added. If a creator’s artwork is shown, that is attributed.
Some influencers have asked why the church couldn’t just hire rank-and-file members to create this content, instead of paying those with large online followings.
Snell suggested the church simply turned to those with the proven skills to do the work.
“They were looking for content from people who have experience making videos,” Snell said. “... If you want new artwork for your buildings, you go to an artist. If you want content for your social media channels, you go to content creators.”
Snell argued that because of the time creators spend crafting these videos, they should be compensated.
“It was them paying creators to put in time and effort, scripting, filming and editing,” Snell said. “And this is all they were doing for these user-generated content videos. They were commissioning videos from content creators.”
He also was unsure just how many influencers would sign on anyway, especially since the payout would be minimal. According to Snell, this marketing company was offering a mere $300 to $400 a video.
Either way, Snell said, the church pays content creators for their work, not their witness.
Note to readers • Dylan Eubank is a Report for America corps member covering faith in Utah County for The Salt Lake Tribune. Your donation to match our RFA grant helps keep him writing stories.