For several weeks now, Albania has been witnessing a broad public debate over a new law aimed at the formalization and taxation of influencers and digital content creators on social media. A market that has so far operated partly in informality is now facing state demands for regulation, income declaration, and legal accountability, just like any other economic activity.
Influencer marketing is no longer a small or occasional phenomenon. It has evolved into a full-fledged industry, involving contracts, brand collaborations, payments, and measurable influence on consumer decision-making. This is precisely why the state is now seeking to treat this activity as a profession rather than a hobby.
“Influencing Is a Profession, Not a Hobby”
According to Keisli Alia, an influencer and legal professional, the new law represents a necessary step toward market equality:
“Influencing is a profession, not a hobby, and it should be treated as such. As an influencer, but also as someone who has worked in this industry honestly for years—with contracts, declarations, and professional responsibility—I see the new taxation law as a necessary step toward formalization and fairness in the market.”
She emphasizes that influencing today is a real economic activity and cannot remain outside the fiscal system. However, the main issue, according to her, lies not in the law itself, but in how it is implemented.
“It is not fair to treat everyone the same, without distinguishing between those who have been contributing, declaring income, and building value for years, and those who are still in the early stages or operating informally.”
According to Alia, if the law is accompanied by clear criteria, realistic thresholds, and proper information, it can increase transparency, professionalism, and market credibility, creating healthier conditions for the long-term development of the influencer marketing industry in Albania.
Market Regulation, but with Clear Distinctions
A more critical perspective comes from Gerti Boshnjaku, an entrepreneur with over 20 years of experience in communication and marketing, who breaks the law down into several layers and raises fundamental questions about its practical logic.
According to him, market regulation is necessary—but not in a uniform manner.
“I divide this law into three main points. The first is market regulation, which in principle is correct. The second is that there are different types of influencers, and this is not being taken into account.”
Boshnjaku notes that major influencers—those who effectively operate like companies—are already formalized and collaborate with brands that require invoices and proper contracts.
“Those who are ‘big’ are already required by the companies they work with to be registered. They issue invoices, have contracts, and have long been part of the system. That is not where the problem lies.”
According to him, the focus of the law appears to fall more heavily on those who are just starting out or who practice influencing as a secondary source of income.
“Many people do this as a side hustle. They do not rely solely on influencer marketing for their livelihood. And that raises the question: why was this law introduced now, and with this approach?”
Boshnjaku describes the current approach as more restrictive than supportive, arguing that the state should encourage honest work and creativity rather than intimidate it.
“The state should be happy that people are doing honest work, creating value and income transparently—not immediately resort to pressure and penalties.”
He also stresses the lack of a clear infrastructure that would make the formalization process simple and understandable.
“What is needed is the creation of a self-declaration structure and an infrastructure that makes this process realistically applicable.”
At the core of the debate, Boshnjaku raises what he considers the key question:
“The main question every influencer asks is: what does the state give me in return for what it asks from me?”
Between the Law and Market Reality
The debate surrounding the influencer law clearly shows that the formalization of new industries cannot be approached with the same logic used for traditional sectors. While the law aims to increase transparency and fiscal equality, its implementation will determine whether it fosters growth or creates fear and new forms of informality.
If accompanied by clear criteria, realistic thresholds, and proper communication, the law could help clean up the market and raise professional standards. Otherwise, it risks penalizing small creators and discouraging an industry that is still in its formative phase.
The law is only the beginning. The real challenge lies in finding the balance between control and support, obligation and cooperation.
0 comments