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

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.

IRE60

not bothered wrote: »

It certainly won't be coming from the charity anyway....

I don't know either way and it a point that was missing in shanna83 reply (and thanks again for that).

I can't understand how you'd be so adamant that the budget it's not coming from the charity - who had a t/o of €5,863,221 in 2015 and a surplus of 400k odd.

So the answer to this lies in the PR company.

onthemitch

IRE60 wrote: »

I don't know either way and it a point that was missing in shanna83 reply (and thanks again for that).

I can't understand how you'd be so adamant that the budget it's not coming from the charity - who had a t/o of €5,863,221 in 2015 and a surplus of 400k odd.

So the answer to this lies in the PR company.

I can shed a little light on this; I was one of the bloggers involved in this social media activity. I was approached to post about the initiative on social media, and paid a fee for same – which I disclosed using #ad.

The budget for this activity came directly from Nestle (I asked the PR company involved), not from Childline – so it's not that bloggers were taking money from charity.

I get that some people still won't agree with it being a paid promotion, which is totally fine obviously! But I just wanted to clarify where the money was coming from.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

I can shed a little light on this; I was one of the bloggers involved in this social media activity. I was approached to post about the initiative on social media, and paid a fee for same – which I disclosed using #ad.

The budget for this activity came directly from Nestle (I asked the PR company involved), not from Childline – so it's not that bloggers were taking money from charity.

I get that some people still won't agree with it being a paid promotion, which is totally fine obviously! But I just wanted to clarify where the money was coming from.

It's totally up to you what to do with your fee, but would you not think maybe in this instance of asking Nestle to donate your fee to the cause that you're asking others to donate to?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

anna080 wrote: »

It's totally up to you what to do with your fee, but would you not think maybe in this instance of asking Nestle to donate your fee to the cause that you're asking others to donate to?

No no Anna, THE FOLLOWERS donate. The bloggers take.

meeeeh

So who here donated to the Childline? And no I didn't (I don't want to create an impression I did).

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

So who here donated to the Childline? And no I didn't (I don't want to create an impression I did).

Why are you asking that?

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

Why are you asking that?

Because you are telling others to donate. You wouldn't have different standards for others than for yourself?

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Because you are telling others to donate. You wouldn't have different standards for pthers than for yourself?

You're completely missing the point. As per.

meeeeh

I understand it perfectly. It's easy to tell others how to donate their earned money, not so easy when it's yours.

And if a blogger puts up something as an ad it's no different to an ad in newspaper and should be treated as such. Those who didn't disclose it was an ad should be reported.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

I understand it perfectly. It's easy to tell others how to donate their earned money, not so easy when it's yours.

How have they earned it? By telling me to part with mine?
I donate to charity regularly. This isn't a tit for tat about who gives what. But since you're so interested in what I would do with my money in that instance, I would donate whatever fee was offered to me to the struggling charity that I was asking my followers to donate to. It's just distasteful to do otherwise IMO.