Bloggers mentioning/promoting products

Toastytoes

Puggly wrote: »

I'm fairly annoyed, my friend used to run online shop,she sent a few pieces to the make up fairy last year for free to get promotion. MUF is wearing the outfit today and has it up on depop for double the price. I've told my friend and she's quite upset about it but as she closed the shop she said she can't do anything about it.

Sorry to hear she went out of business, I feel that she was playing with fire tho to an extent when sending free items to Joanne. Joanne is well known for non transparency has stated that she never wears something twice so it doesn't surprise me that she has sold it on. She has also been found to be selling items above cost on Depop a number of times before so she has form for that. It's a kind of shady game Joanne is playing in this regard (I'm not sure of the tax implications of selling on free items but I feel there could be some) but by sending her these items in the hope of free publicity then these companies are are playing the game with her. Or at least facilitating her. I guess as no money changed hands, Joanne had no obligation to do anything in return. it's probably a safer bet to get in to a paid arrangement if you are likely to feel upset at the kind of thing that has gone on in this case.

To be clear, I don't agree with Joanne's behaviour, I do think it's unethical to be making money off free items on Depop but at the same time she's known for it so brands should be more discerning about who they send stuff to if it bothers them.

Again, I'm genuinely sorry to hear your friend's business didn't work out. I hope she is back on her feet etc. and happy in what's she's doing now.

heretogetreal

I have to say I really don't see the issue with people selling their own property on Depop?

If the brand paid her in cash to share the outfit I can see people's issue with her making money twice (not an issue for me though... we all gotta hustle)

She was sent the outfit, shared it to promote the brand & then the items were her's to do as she pleases.... I really don't see why this is such a big deal?

She had done the work & wasn't going to wear the items again so why not Depop them?

She can't pay her rent with a floral two-piece.

Edit: I'm not even a fan of that blogger, she's way too tacky for my taste but I'm confused about this issue with her!

heyjude88

heretogetreal wrote: »

I have to say I really don't see the issue with people selling their own property on Depop?

If the brand paid her in cash to share the outfit I can see people's issue with her making money twice (not an issue for me though... we all gotta hustle)

She was sent the outfit, shared it to promote the brand & then the items were her's to do as she pleases.... I really don't see why this is such a big deal?

She had done the work & wasn't going to wear the items again so why not Depop them?

She can't pay her rent with a floral two-piece.

Edit: I'm not even a fan of that blogger, she's way too tacky for my taste but I'm confused about this issue with her!

She was sent the outfit a year ago. The business has since gone out of business. I think the problem here is that she didnt even mention who supplied her the outfit. Like, if she had worn it and tagged the company a year ago it wouldn't be as big of an issue. But they weren't given the "promotion", she received the goods and didn't give them the credit. All take take take. As it was a year ago, she prob had it stuffed at the back of a cupboard and couldn't even remember where it came from. But, again thats not the point. She comes across as greedy and once again, ungrateful.

MuffinTop86

I see the point about Depop, but if you get something for nothing give it out for nothing. If more charities received good quality clothes they'd be getting loads of footfall (and more miney for the doggies!)
If you're prepared to snap youraelf going to the post office and on a stairmaster, I've no doubt there'd be a snap of leaving in a bag of clothes to a shop, she can't be that badly in need of a few quid.

Cria

ratmouse wrote: »

To be honest,in my opinion, she is far far worse than those two.Her attitude and lack of transparency is a disgrace.

She is very bad not one bit transparent.. imo your either a blogger who pushes and promotes everything and anything or your a blogger who's moving up the ladder to business woman and have a credible reputation you can't be both.

Your either going to ruin your reputation by non transparency and flogging all your freebies on depop or your going to make people take you seriously with complete disclosure and being honest.

Cria

MuffinTop86 wrote: »

I see the point about Depop, but if you get something for nothing give it out for nothing. If more charities received good quality clothes they'd be getting loads of footfall (and more miney for the doggies!)
If you're prepared to snap youraelf going to the post office and on a stairmaster, I've no doubt there'd be a snap of leaving in a bag of clothes to a shop, she can't be that badly in need of a few quid.

Exactly where is her snaps of donating the depop money to charity it's not like she doesn't snap everything else she does.

RoisinClare6

Very unfair that the boutique wasn't mentioned, if it was known she was going to keep the outfit could she not have kept the boutiques name for future reference? Or there must have been some sort of tag on it atleast

Also cannot see the top as open before? The pattern on it is perfect...that could be just me though!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Maybe the outfit didn't fit her last year? She's absolutely tiny in her pic wearing it on depop, she works out incredibly hard and she could have been a little bugger this time last year.

It was bad form to do that esp when the boutique has now closed. She didn't seem to recognise that lady who mentioned where it was from either, she seemed a bit defensive.

I can't help but feel a little sorry for joanne, I know she doesn't help herself in situations like these but I don't think things run off her like water off a ducks back like it does with the other bloggers.

A_smurf

My comment was deleted surprise surprise but as I don't follow her on instagram I wasn't blocked. Sadly this type of non-disclosure by the MUF is just going to keep happening as she doesn't seem to see anything wrong by it. It's a real shame.

RhubarbCrumble

LexieOnRale wrote: »

she could have been a little bugger this time last year.

I'm guessing predictive text gone awry there, but she seems to be a little bugger at the moment
Certainly bugging a lot of people it would seem.

IrishinOz

MuffinTop86 wrote: »

I see the point about Depop, but if you get something for nothing give it out for nothing. If more charities received good quality clothes they'd be getting loads of footfall (and more miney for the doggies!)
If you're prepared to snap youraelf going to the post office and on a stairmaster, I've no doubt there'd be a snap of leaving in a bag of clothes to a shop, she can't be that badly in need of a few quid.

Ha ha too true about the pic at the charity shop 😂

livedadream

I think a lot of the bloggers who arnt being transparent have forgotten they are using a public media... people from asai and revenue and other parties that are involved in regulation etc can see and follow them and have friends and kids that follow them.
The days of them getting away with not being transparent are going to be over very quickly... formula gate and now all this nonsense with Joanne goes to show, their on the defensive... what are they going to do? Block everyone? You can't block the revenue lads they'll come a knocking with that lovely brown envelope with a harp on it asking for reciepts (including for 'charity donations' contracts, agreements, expenses etc and if you can't produce well game over.

Abbieco

I have followed this thread for a while but never posted before until now but this carry on with Joanne has really annoyed me. I really have an issue with her selling stuff she got for free on Depop. She said in her response to that girl on Facebook that she is selling her stuff on Depop like any other girl would, except she is not any other girl! She got that outfit for free and sold it on at a profit. Any normal girl selling things on Depop PAID for the item first. If you pay €50 for an item and sell it for €25 then you haven't actually made any money, you're still down the balance of the €50 you originally paid i.e. €25. When you sell something on which you originally paid zero €0 for €50 then you have actually made 100% profit of €50! She is making money from things she never paid for and that imo is wrong! This is also potentially tax free income for her unless she declares it. If I could get a load of stuff for free and sell it on at 100% profit I too could afford designer handbags. Also the whole "I give proceeds to charity" line - this is very vague. Does she give ALL proceeds to charity? Or a %? Why not just donate the item to charity in the first place rather than going to trouble of selling on Depop? I'm sure Oxfam or Vincent de Paul would be delighted to have her donations. I really think this line was trotted out to take the bad look off things. Of course she's entitled to sell her stuff on Depop, but I think it's really distasteful to sell stuff you got for free, particularly when the business that gave it to you is gone out of business.

Cria

LexieOnRale wrote: »

Maybe the outfit didn't fit her last year? She's absolutely tiny in her pic wearing it on depop, she works out incredibly hard and she could have been a little bugger this time last year.

It was bad form to do that esp when the boutique has now closed. She didn't seem to recognise that lady who mentioned where it was from either, she seemed a bit defensive.

I can't help but feel a little sorry for joanne, I know she doesn't help herself in situations like these but I don't think things run off her like water off a ducks back like it does with the other bloggers.

It still doesn't stop her doing things that will make people question her integrity especially how she's not one bit transparent.

She's able to give as good as she gets in a passive aggressive way look at that blogger who reviewed her brushes and was literally made to feel guilty and remove the review that's not normal business practice not everyone is going to like your product you need to take it on the chin.

Maybe if she became more transparent and honest she wouldn't get as much criticism, she should refer to rosemary macabe for some tips.

IMO make up fairy, just Jordan, faces by grace and Suzanne Jackson are just going to continue to lose their followers and the companies who they promote for if they continue with the non transparency constant promoting lazy content like baby snaps and food snaps constant selfies and gym pics

What they lose the likes of rosemary macabe and Rosie con will gain because they are more honest and are not generating as much controversy with their shady behaviour.

Mekekka

@livedadream I pm'd you

Cria

Abbieco wrote: »

I have followed this thread for a while but never posted before until now but this carry on with Joanne has really annoyed me. I really have an issue with her selling stuff she got for free on Depop. She said in her response to that girl on Facebook that she is selling her stuff on Depop like any other girl would, except she is not any other girl! She got that outfit for free and sold it on at a profit. Any normal girl selling things on Depop PAID for the item first. If you pay €50 for an item and sell it for €25 then you haven't actually made any money, you're still down the balance of the €50 you originally paid i.e. €25. When you sell something on which you originally paid zero €0 for €50 then you have actually made 100% profit of €50! She is making money from things she never paid for and that imo is wrong! This is also potentially tax free income for her unless she declares it. If I could get a load of stuff for free and sell it on at 100% profit I too could afford designer handbags. Also the whole "I give proceeds to charity" line - this is very vague. Does she give ALL proceeds to charity? Or a %? Why not just donate the item to charity in the first place rather than going to trouble of selling on Depop? I'm sure Oxfam or Vincent de Paul would be delighted to have her donations. I really think this line was trotted out to take the bad look off things. Of course she's entitled to sell her stuff on Depop, but I think it's really distasteful to sell stuff you got for free, particularly when the business that gave it to you is gone out of business.

What's even more distasteful is selling the item you got free for double its original price and it's also been worn.
She has done that a number of times.
I'm sure revenue would be very interested in Joanne.
I wonder should she be paying tax on the Renault she received for free that she promotes on all her platforms.

lmarieloos

Has anyone seen the article today published in the Independent re transparency and bloggers? Very interesting read with interviews with The Beautiful Truth, Laurasviews and Sarah Hanrahan. I can't post the link here but its in the business section of the website.

Mekekka

http://m.independent.ie/business/small-business/your-stories/irish-bloggers-reveal-why-you-should-be-wary-of-your-favourite-influencers-and-their-honest-posts-35473434.html

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I don't find RMC to be something other bloggers should aspire to. She intentionally stirs the pot, then cries victim and the way she carries on on her blog when people aren't telling her how wonderful she is is hardly professional. I'd find her constant attention seeking as bad if not worse than bloggers lack of transparency. I'm done with the majority of them. Complete doses.

I do enjoy lovely girly bits content though

scarbouro

I think other blogger's need to heed The Beautiful Truths advice in that article!!

"The day you think you’re better than your readers is the day you should be should give up".

‘If you have time to add a Snapchat filter, you have time to include #ad’

ratmouse

scarbouro wrote: »

I think other blogger's need to heed The Beautiful Truths advice in that article!!

"The day you think you’re better than your readers is the day you should be should give up".

‘If you have time to add a Snapchat filter, you have time to include #ad’

100% spot on

retro:electro

Abbieco wrote: »

I have followed this thread for a while but never posted before until now but this carry on with Joanne has really annoyed me. I really have an issue with her selling stuff she got for free on Depop. She said in her response to that girl on Facebook that she is selling her stuff on Depop like any other girl would, except she is not any other girl! She got that outfit for free and sold it on at a profit. Any normal girl selling things on Depop PAID for the item first. If you pay €50 for an item and sell it for €25 then you haven't actually made any money, you're still down the balance of the €50 you originally paid i.e. €25. When you sell something on which you originally paid zero €0 for €50 then you have actually made 100% profit of €50! She is making money from things she never paid for and that imo is wrong! This is also potentially tax free income for her unless she declares it. If I could get a load of stuff for free and sell it on at 100% profit I too could afford designer handbags. Also the whole "I give proceeds to charity" line - this is very vague. Does she give ALL proceeds to charity? Or a %? Why not just donate the item to charity in the first place rather than going to trouble of selling on Depop? I'm sure Oxfam or Vincent de Paul would be delighted to have her donations. I really think this line was trotted out to take the bad look off things. Of course she's entitled to sell her stuff on Depop, but I think it's really distasteful to sell stuff you got for free, particularly when the business that gave it to you is gone out of business.

Great post! Stick around!

Cria

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I don't find RMC to be something other bloggers should aspire to. She intentionally stirs the pot, then cries victim and the way she carries on on her blog when people aren't telling her how wonderful she is is hardly professional. I'd find her constant attention seeking as bad if not worse than bloggers lack of transparency. I'm done with the majority of them. Complete doses.

I do enjoy lovely girly bits content though

I like her because she's relatable she not trying to build an image that's not her only showing the amazing side of her life doctoring her photos ect .
IMO she responds to any criticism she gets even getting involved in these threads other bloggers act like they haven't read them.
Stirring the pot is what makes me like her more she's not trying to please all of the people all of the time by pretending she's always happy and nothing bothers her.

I followed lovely girlie bits right from the start when she just had the blog and YouTube she was my favourite until the pushing products with no transparency creeped in and then selling tickets for people to have a lunch with her and her friends I felt like she just wanted to cash in.
One day she snapped product after product on Snapchat no transparency and I messaged her her response wasn't very nice she was actually quite rude.

Cria

scarbouro wrote: »

I think other blogger's need to heed The Beautiful Truths advice in that article!!

"The day you think you’re better than your readers is the day you should be should give up".

‘If you have time to add a Snapchat filter, you have time to include #ad’

Exactly!

LizT

MUF must be reading this thread because she just put up a snap of donation bags

witchgirl26

I've been reading this thread with interest from the start. I don't follow many Irish bloggers because I just didn't get into them but I do follow a couple of the UK based ones. I know the rules over there are more strict in terms of #ad etc but one thing I've noticed is that when they do an ad/sponsored post or video it doesn't feel like pushing a product and is more organic in that way. Maybe it's the fact that they have a strong management company behind them advising on how to approach these things. For example - one blogger was showing the Artis brushes last year and was gifted the full set. Did a video with ad in the title so was known but was quite honest about how they felt to use and whether they were worth investing in etc.

I also noticed that none of them (that I follow) sell on or do giveaways of the freebies but rather comment on how they give them to family and friends who they know will enjoy them. Personally that's what I'd do so I relate better to it than.

That article today is really good and actually nice to read as I follow 2 of them already so nice to know their feelings on the whole aspect of it.

livedadream

ive made my report anyway, the only way people can help is by reporting it, i screenshoted the messages she sent me saying the guidelines didnt apply because the company was out of business and the clothes were sent 3 years ago.
also the pics of her nails with the affiliate discount link. do the ASAI have a facebook?

Cria

MuffinTop86 wrote: »

I see the point about Depop, but if you get something for nothing give it out for nothing. If more charities received good quality clothes they'd be getting loads of footfall (and more miney for the doggies!)
If you're prepared to snap youraelf going to the post office and on a stairmaster, I've no doubt there'd be a snap of leaving in a bag of clothes to a shop, she can't be that badly in need of a few quid.

Oh she read your comment she has put her very first snap up of donation bags .

Now If she would only read the rest of the comments regarding her lack of transparency and trying to hide behind the ambassador title to avoid transparency she is being exposed Day by day as someone who is one of the worst offenders and who only allows flattery comments on her platform.

I would have hoped as she's older than most of the bloggers out there that her behaviour wouldn't be as bad as the younger ones but it really is.

Mekekka

LizT wrote: »

MUF must be reading this thread because she just put up a snap of donation bags

According to her yesterday she doesn't read boards and these threads start up out of thin air without factual basis..

ratmouse

LizT wrote: »

MUF must be reading this thread because she just put up a snap of donation bags

God, how suss is that?