Bloggers and #ad (Naming bloggers means a ban!)

idunno78

I was looking at snapchat. Yesterday a blogger was advertising a product and had #ad in the first two snaps of it. Not sure did she say she was collaborating with them, snaps are gone now. But today a different blogger has the same product up and does not mention an ad just that she loves it...

I assume if one was paid the other was paid?

Babyspice13

I am completely confused about this #ad situation.

Example: One blogger is doing up a bedroom at the moment. Got 'gifted' some supplies for the room from a particular brand and will in turn write a blog post about it and post photos of the completed room.

She did come on before she started to say it wasn't an ad as she wasn't been paid to do it.

I know it's not cash but as far as I see, this is payment in kind (the use of a good or service as payment instead of cash)

Am I wrong?

idunno78

I think money has to exchange hands for it to be an ad. She is being honest by saying that they have given her the stuff in exchange for a review. I think that's fair enough! More honest then some other bloggers (I don't know who your on about).

If you think about it she is kinda saying it but just not using the #ad or #spon really.. If that makes sence?

retro:electro

I don't but the whole "money hasn't exchanged hands so this is not an ad" malarkey. It's still an advertisement for the company. You are still taking their stuff for free and showing it to an audience that would otherwise probably not see the product. That is promotion and advertising, the monetary exchange is a subsidiary of the endorsement; but the advertising of the product comes from you speaking about it to an audience on social media and making them aware of its existence.

Like I could stand in my local supermarket promoting their latest line of products, but I'm not getting paid for it.. But surely the fact that I'm standing there and showing the product to people who otherwise may not have seen it still counts as advertising? The money exchange is just a technicality really.

idunno78

I definately think they should be more open about how they acquire they stuff they show. If they get it them selves fair enough, but if they recieve from the company they should say that but not have to say #spon but say #bloggermail or something maybe? Also they shouldn't be allowed say something is good unless they have tried it!!

dudara

The rules are clear - if cash has changed hands, then it must be declared.

Now, in my opinion, that doesn't go far enough. Any kind of "gift" is compensation in kind as far as I'm concerned. But right now, that kind of post doesn't need #ad, #spon etc

linpoo

dudara wrote: »

The rules are clear - if cash has changed hands, then it must be declared.

Now, in my opinion, that doesn't go far enough. Any kind of "gift" is compensation in kind as far as I'm concerned. But right now, that kind of post doesn't need #ad, #spon etc

I'm sick of all these bloggers. All they do is get posted things for free to show off. Couldn't trust their opinions on a product now.

Any opinions on these fashion factories?

retro:electro

I've been noticing lately a lot of bloggers seem to be going into Dealz and snapping around the store. They don't actually seem to be buying anything themselves, it's more "ooh look at this, look at that", so it's clearly an ad.

meeeeh

I don't think free samples will be put into 'ad' category. It would basically mean that especially high end magazines would hardly have any content that won't be classified as advertising.

It depends what reviews you want. Cheap rubbish is easy to buy but for example it would be hardly fair to expect someone to review face creams that are 100 Euro plus a pop. Especially when traditional media doesn't need to disclose them as free samples. But in the end you get what you pay for. If you follow someone for free don't expect too much.

Guardian which is probably one of the best free media websites clocked 69 million losses in 2015. And speaking about Guardian, I often check their fashion pages and very often they feature same brands. It might be author's bias
but the range of brands is fairly limited. Anyway way more complicated subject and something that is abused a lot but if you make it too restrictive you can also significantly limit the content. While I don't give a damn about bloggers I still want fashion magazines to feature high fashion and free samples is for me something I am willing to tolerate.

I think problem bloggers have is that to become successful they need a girl next door image. When they become successful the girl next door image is gone. The truth is that they never were girl next door, they are cheap advertising vessels. The line between content and advertising in fashion and beauty was blurred way before bloggers emerged.

idunno78

anna080 wrote: »

I've been noticing lately a lot of bloggers seem to be going into Dealz and snapping around the store. They don't actually seem to be buying anything themselves, it's more "ooh look at this, look at that", so it's clearly an ad.

I saw two going in but at the time both used the #ad. And said they were asked to go in and given a certain amount to spend on BBQ stuff. One went back during week and didn't say #ad so I'm assuming it was on her own backing, as the same one would definately say if it was paid for or anything like that! maybe she was just going in having a look!?

mahamageehad

This is the U.S. FTC guidelines for endorsements and they clearly state that getting a product or something of value also needs to be disclosed, not just cash sponsorships. The Kardashians and some other celebs have been in trouble with them for misleading posts in recent times. I know that that's for the US, and it's guidelines rather than rules, but I'd like to see something like that brought in in Ireland too.

SB_Part2

mahamageehad wrote: »

This is the U.S. FTC guidelines for endorsements and they clearly state that getting a product or something of value also needs to be disclosed, not just cash sponsorships. The Kardashians and some other celebs have been in trouble with them for misleading posts in recent times. I know that that's for the US, and it's guidelines rather than rules, but I'd like to see something like that brought in in Ireland too.

The problem with bringing something like that into Ireland is that we don't have a body to enforce it.

heyjude88

If I see another post on those new make up brushes being sent out I make crack up! I seen 5 today. Not one of them said AD. I know they are not technically getting paid (maybe they are?) but they are getting a very high costing product for free. No doubt they will all be sold on depop soon enough.

mahamageehad

SB_Part2 wrote: »

The problem with bringing something like that into Ireland is that we don't have a body to enforce it.

That is true. It'd be a great move for a few of these bloggers to band together and create a standard though. It puts honestly and integrity behind the brand. My company works with a prominent YouTuber (not in the beauty/lifestyle arena) and making clear that sponsored posts are sponsored (be it for money or good) is part of her terms.

idunno78

I wonder would it affect their following if they had to say everything they got was an ad?!! Would really stir things up I reckon with regards to 'reviews' they do, perhaps holidays and hotels stays they have, and God know what else! Doubt they would be to willing to admit to it all and maybe brands would agree?

Although I think that maybe his time next year blogging(beauty) won't be as big as it is now! As in the whole influence part.

Sunny Dayz

Getting physically paid to promote a product, service or brand is one thing. That's clear cut.
But getting sent free products, getting a complimentary treatment, stay in a hotel, meal out, holiday, etc is more difficult to monitor, price and regulate. While bloggers may say, oh I'm under no obligation to blog, tweet, snap, insta etc about it; going by the media posts, imo they do go out of their way to gush about it.


Is it me or have the posts about being invited to salons for treatments stopped? (I have unfollowed a lot of bloggers on social media so I'm not sure if it's still a "thing")

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't see the big deal as long as people are being honest. I do not have a blog, but have been given (very rarely may I add) products to try out. It was more of "here you go, see how you get on with these". At no point have I ever felt obliged to tell it any other way than as was. For example, the primark version of glamglow felt like Vaseline on my face and I never used it after that one time.

I have done a review on it, and stated a) I didn't buy it and b) my opinion on it. With every brand there's hits and misses, (look at Mac, unreal lipsticks, **** foundation) so a bad review isn't nessessarily a reflection on the entire brand, so I don't understand why people are sceptical to trust a review where no money has changed hands. If they're the type of blogger to give everything a rave review, then they're not a good blogger so follow someone who is.

Just because your given something doesn't mean you have to like it

idunno78

I think people are skeptical because sometimes the product is given a brilliant review and never seen or heard about again! Sometimes I'm pretty sure they haven't even used the thing to know what it's like!!

SpillingTheTea

To be honest, I do think that it's hard to really navigate through the honest reviews and the paid to promote reviews without #ad. I think when I see that a blogger is putting that in his/her review or title, it already makes me feel at ease because if they are willing to be upfront about it, then they are more willing to be upfront about the product in question.

BTW, in my opinion, regardless of whether a blogger is paid for the product or it is given as benefit in kind, I still see it as paid to promote, because, if they were not given the product, would they have bought it? therefore it's free. I am also not opposed to bloggers getting things for free, just as long as it's stated and they are being upfront.

IRE60

I've no real interest in this particular area (huge interest the media). Saw this and thought it was interesting as to the parting of opinions and people here might be interested.

Love the expression "faux intimacy" to describe their work!

http://www.campaignlive.co.uk/article/vogue-blogger-backlash-underlines-disconnect-media-owners-influencers/1411073

meeeeh

I think that was such a coordinated effort that it was more likely part of Vogue self promotion. It might be also a hello to brands who participate to let them know their activity won't be applauded.

My personal opinion is that influencers are cheap and they reach to people who are not your traditional Vogue reader. I wonder how much do advertising revenues suffer in print magazines but something is undeniable. There is no comparison in quality and in this I agree with Vogue.

IRE60

meeeeh wrote: »

I think that was such a coordinated effort that it was more likely part of Vogue self promotion. It might be also a hello to brands who participate to let them know their activity won't be applauded.

My personal opinion is that influencers are cheap and they reach to people who are not your traditional Vogue reader. I wonder how much do advertising revenues suffer in print magazines but something is undeniable. There is no comparison in quality and in this I agree with Vogue.

All very valid. Not sure I'd subscribe to the conspiracy theory that Vogue set it up!

I think referring them as "influencers" in the first place, as a generic term for anyone who prostitutes a brand online in return for 40 pieces, is in a way giving them far too much cachet to start with.

Its like some people at conferences referring to themselves (mainly in their own self penned bio's) as 'experts' - while some are - many are not!

From the Advertisers Association in the UK - by 2017 traditional Magazine advertising will have fallen 15% from where it was in 2015 and only replaced fractionally by a move to their digital platforms.

For every £4 they drop in print they will (forecast) pick up £1 in digital.

Sunny Dayz

I was pleasantly surprised to see the following wording on <snip> website:


"Please note, <snip> may receive commission on sales via the links above."


Nice to see someone actually disclosing that fact. I'm sure many people out there didn't know that when bloggers link clothes on their website/blog that the blogger receives a small percentage if you click the link and buy the item. It's also why some blggers won't tell you where an item is from but rather "try" to appear helpful saying "all linked for you hun xoxo"


I don't mind these links and payments if I genuinely like the blogger and the item of clothing/beauty/whatever.

IRE60

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

I was pleasantly surprised to see the following wording on <snip> website:


"Please note, <snip> may receive commission on sales via the links above."


Nice to see someone actually disclosing that fact. I'm sure many people out there didn't know that when bloggers link clothes on their website/blog that the blogger receives a small percentage if you click the link and buy the item. It's also why some blggers won't tell you where an item is from but rather "try" to appear helpful saying "all linked for you hun xoxo"


I don't mind these links and payments if I genuinely like the blogger and the item of clothing/beauty/whatever.

Hover over any of the pics and you an see (bottom left of your browser) the link - all the photos route through rstyle.me - an affiliate scheme.

So the line at the end "Please note, <snip> may receive commission on sales via the links above" should be a little less disingenuous and phrased in the first person as opposed to the third!

"Please note, <snip> I may receive commission on sales via the links above"

heyjude88

I was very disheartened the other day when all the charity posts started coming up. Fabulous cause and it was great to see everyone posting the details. However one blogger, a mammy herself, went into detail and said she was offered payment to post about it. She openly said she refused payment and was happy to talk about it and put up the donation details. She really promoted it and got behind the donations with her followers. To find out a charity was offering payment to these bloggers to ask people to donate is actually very sad. Now, I've no idea if any bloggers did take payment, just the one blogger was very open and said she was but refused. Seeing all the other bloggers post the info put a sour taste in my mouth. They could have easily been paid. Some bloggers spoke about it at length others just posted one picture of the info.

meeeeh

IRE60 wrote: »

"Please note, <snip> I may receive commission on sales via the links above"

I would be pretty positive <snip> is not running the whole thing by herself, neither are most others who do it as proper business. Naming her is a lot less ambiguous than saying 'I' because I could mean her assistant. Neither you want to skip 'may' because you could actually claim that something was paid for although it wasn't.

Sunny Dayz

meeeeh wrote: »

I would be pretty positive <snip> is not running the whole thing by herself, neither are most others who do it as proper business. Naming her is a lot less ambiguous than saying 'I' because I could mean her assistant.

Yes <snip> has an assistant, she sometimes shows her on snapchat, insta etc. Lovely stylish girl herself.

IRE60

meeeeh, I understand the point that it might be ghost written but the whole site 'lends itself' to believe that its as close to a personal blog as can be.

At the top of that page the 'author' - just beside the date of the article - is <snip>' - so forgive me for being cynical but the whole site/article could only be described as being a 'personal' one.

It still doesn't take away from the fact that every one of the pics in that article was routed through an affiliate programme - therefore the word 'may' is redundant and disingenuous.

But, back the the brass: she does declare and interest and you'd have to credit her with that. There are plenty of them out there taking and not saying anything.

biko

Names removed as experience shows that once bloggers have been named suddenly discussion gets very personal and offtopic.

retro:electro

More to the point, why are Childline offering to pay bloggers for a mention when they are obviously strapped for cash? Where is that money coming from? Any blogger who accepted money for their mention while asking the public for a donation is a hypocrite.

IRE60

anna080 wrote: »

More to the point, why are *****offering to pay bloggers for a mention when they are obviously strapped for cash? Where is that money coming from? Any blogger who accepted money for their mention while asking the public for a donation is a hypocrite.

Any links to that?

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

More to the point, why are Childline offering to pay bloggers for a mention when they are obviously strapped for cash? Where is that money coming from? Any blogger who accepted money for their mention while asking the public for a donation is a hypocrite.

Because they want to get as many donations as possible. It is reasonable to expect they will get some return from bloggers advertising it. On a separate note should also those charity workers who are annoying people to sign up for direct debits not be paid? It would be hypocritical ofthem to take the money if we use the reasoning above.

Sunny Dayz

It is disappointing that some bloggers will only take part in something for charity if they are going to get paid for it, instead of sharing a post or mentioning a charity for the sheer goodwill of it. I had a quick look on fb, sure enough one blogger (whom I no longer follow) came straight to the top of the search, IMO she would promote anything for payment.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Because they want to get as many donations as possible. It is reasonable to expect they will get some return from bloggers advertising it. On a separate note should also those charity workers who are annoying people to sign up for direct debits not be paid? It would be hypocritical ofthem to take the money if we use the reasoning above.

That's clearly different, they're employed by the charity of course they should be paid. Paying a blogger for a quick mention on social media about how broke the charity is and could the public donate just doesn't sit well with me.

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

That's clearly different, they're employed by the charity of course they should be paid. Paying a blogger for a quick mention on social media about how broke the charity is and could the public donate just doesn't sit well with me.

Firstly you don't know if they were paid and secondly you think some people should do stuff for free. I have no love for bloggers but some work goes into building up the brand to reach enough people to make it viable for advertising. Should that work be valued at zero? I always find it amusing how vocal people are about how others should be charitable.

That being said if anyone was paid they should clearly mark entry as ad.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Firstly you don't know if they were paid and secondly you think some people should do stuff for free. I have no love for bloggers but some work goes into building up the brand to reach enough people to make it viable for advertising. Should that work be valued at zero?

That being said if anyone was paid they should clearly mark entry as ad.

I don't know if they were paid no, that's why I'm saying *if* anyone took money then they are a hypocrite.
When did I say they should do things for free? Can you show me?
Yes work goes into their brand, and some of them have become very profitable and successful. Which is why accepting payment from a struggling charity for a quick mention on snapchat is disgusting.

qxtasybe1nwfh2

I seen today two very similar posts about a promotion in boots for baby's and mamas. One blogger, who just had a baby, hashtagged Ad, the other blogger, who is due very soon, had no hashtags.

I had noticed before she never hashtags Ad, when others do. Just wonder how much are ads and what posts are not. Not fair when money is changing hands. It's bad enough that they don't have to disclose when they are sent something. I think it's shady to try hide an Ad and changes my opinion of the blogger.

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

I don't know if they were paid no, that's why I'm saying *if* anyone took money then they are a hypocrite.
When did I say they should do things for free? Can you show me?
Yes work goes into their brand, and some of them have become very profitable and successful. Which is why accepting payment from a struggling charity for a quick mention on snapchat is disgusting.

Actually there is no "if" in your posts on the subject.

Struggling charities have ways of making money. They will pick the ones that they think will be most effective. Should they use only advertising that is free or should they use one that will bring them more money.

I am firmly of the opinion it's completely personal decision how much and what someone wants to give to charity and to which charity. What I want is those who were paid for promotion to disclose that with making it clear it is an add. But bloggers have just as much a right to choose which charity to support or not as you or I do. And just because you take money of a charity it doesn't make you bad person. It's business, charities don't run ob good wishes.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Actually there is no "if" in your posts on the subject.

Struggling charities have ways of making money. They will pick the ones that they think will be most effective. Should they use only advertising that is free or should they use one that will bring them more money.

I am firmly of the opinion it's completely personal decision how much and what someone wants to give to charity and to which charity. What I want is those who were paid for promotion to disclose that with making it clear it is an add. But bloggers have just as much a right to choose which charity to support or not as you or I do. And just because you take money of a charity it doesn't make you bad person. It's business, charities don't run ob good wishes.

My post was purely hypothetical, I thought that much was clear when I said "any blogger who accepted money" and not "that blogger who accepted money". As a donater to said charity, I would not be happy *if* my donation was going to pay a blogger to post about said charity on social media. Especially one that highlights how strapped for cash they are. Seems odd.

Also, you have failed to show me where I apparently said bloggers should work for free.

heyjude88

IRE60 wrote: »

Any links to that?

It was all on a snapchatters snap story yesterday!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

If I thought -for a second- a blogger was taking actual money from a charity as vital as childline, for a mention on their snapchat, I'd be so disgusted that they'd be unfollowed on all platforms immediately. Nobody is expecting them to work for free, but surely if they don't believe in a charity enough to mention they need funding (one 10 second snap) then they should tell the charity no sorry I have a charity I support and not actually take their money.

heyjude88

I had seen bloggers at the childline brekkie and they had been posting up information about it. Then seen the snapchat of the mammy who said she was offered payment but turned it down. As the day went on some snapchatters gave a good few snaps to the cause. But one or two, literally just put up one snap with the text on it saying donate now etc.

It would annoy me to find out that those snapchatters took payment. Sure look at children in need and comic relief etc, those tv presenters spend a night of their time for FREE.

I've great respect for the snapchatter who came out and said she was offered payment but refused.

meeeeh

heyjude88 wrote: »

I've great respect for the snapchatter who came out and said she was offered payment but refused.

Or they all did it for free and only one advertised how charitable she is. Perception is a funny thing.

heyjude88

meeeeh wrote: »

Or they all did it for free and only one advertised how charitable she is. Perception is a funny thing.

Nope if you would have seen her snaps she stated that she knows people didn't put #ad, and she said she was annoyed as she knows people were paid for it. Like I said I don't know who was or wasn't paid. So I'll stick to my views as I witnessed what was being said .....

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Or they all did it for free and only one advertised how charitable she is. Perception is a funny thing.

Have you even seen the snaps that people are referring to? It's clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.

meeeeh

No I didn't. I have better things to do. I said often enough I don't follow them. I find the stuff a bit too vapid plus I hate the school yard nastiness around the whole thing.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

No I didn't. I have better things to do. I said often enough I don't follow them. I find the stuff a bit too vapid plus I hate the school yard nastiness around the whole thing.

Lol.
Better things to do but clearly have enough time to come on here defending people you know nothing of on a topic you admittedly know nothing about.

IRE60

Its a very murky area - open to serious abuse. If the Childline angle is correct I think there are a few bodies at fault a) accepting money for it b) accepting and not stating such c) the numpty in Childline who ok'd that.

Again; is there a link to any of that as opposed to saying it was on snapchat?

heyjude88

IRE60 wrote: »

Its a very murky area - open to serious abuse. If the Childline angle is correct I think there are a few bodies at fault a) accepting money for it b) accepting and not stating such c) the numpty in Childline who ok'd that.

Again; is there a link to any of that as opposed to saying it was on snapchat?

I've no idea sorry. She spoke about it openly and honestly. She is a mum of 3 who lives in the country. She says herself she doesnt go to blogging events, she does it as she enjoys it.

If you find her on social media (she has snapchat, twitter, facebook and a blog) she may be able to clarify perhaps. But I know what I seen and heard, and i'm telling the truth.

not bothered

I'm just reading through this, albeit a few days late. I've seen a few bloggers talk about this on snapchat and instagram, and what hasn't been mentioned here, is that this charitable initiative is quite clearly supported by Cheerios cereal.

Now, I'm no expert on this kind of thing, but would the budget to pay these bloggers not be coming from Cheerios pocket/budget, whatever? The same pot of money that I would assume was allocated at the start of the campaign to pay for advertising, marketing etc? It certainly won't be coming from the charity anyway....

SB_Part2

I think most peoples issue is that bloggers were getting paid and not disclosing.