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

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 10:11PM

hearmehearye wrote: »

Oh the psoriasis thing! I had forgotten about that but she's not wrong. It's the same reason our cystic fibrosis rate per capita is so high, it's because we are all inbreds! (Small gene pool / same thing).

I quite like her. She's very forthcoming with # ad

It's the way she said it. Very ignorant and flippant.

Hopeful2016 · 08-01-2017 10:12PM

loulou87 wrote: »

Just read the mail article. Hopefully it will make irish bloggers cop on.
No memtion of the fitness 'fairy's' car when she calls herself a 'Renault ambassador' and has done for over a year!

This would lead me to believe that Fairy blogger is being paid by the car company and is not just getting use of a free car and therefore it's a recognised commercial arrangement and taxed as so. I don't know where that leaves her with the #ad regards the car though, I'm just speculating that maybe her arrangement also involves payment and is different to the other blogger with car arrangement.

onthemitch · 08-01-2017 10:29PM

I declined to comment because my dealings with revenue are private and I am under no obligation to discuss them here or with a journalist and [snipped]

As for the ring girls / men, I explained that argument ages ago in a video and I'm sorry if you don't understand the nuance but in a nutshell: women are paid less and treated worse than men because society values their looks above all else. You can't say the same vice versa. Also: admiring an athlete for his looks is not the same as hiring someone as a glorified blow up doll.

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 10:44PM

onthemitch wrote: »

I declined to comment because (a) my dealings with revenue are private and I am under no obligation to discuss them here or with a journalist and [snipped]

As for the ring girls / men, I explained that argument ages ago in a video and I'm sorry if you don't understand the nuance but in a nutshell: women are paid less and treated worse than men because society values their looks above all else. You can't say the same vice versa. Also: admiring an athlete for his looks is not the same as hiring someone as a glorified blow up doll.

So it's okay to ogle and admire the looks of a man who is there acting in his profession and in no way looking to be ogled and admired or have his appearance commented on but it's not okay to comment on the looks of the women who are there predominantly to be ogled and admired. Don't get it.

onthemitch · 08-01-2017 10:47PM

anna080 wrote: »

So it's okay to ogle and admire the looks of a man who is there acting in his profession and in no way looking to be ogled and admired or have his appearance commented on but it's not okay to comment on the looks of the women who are there predominantly to be ogled and admired. Don't get it.

It's not that it's "okay" or not okay; that's a matter of opinion. You clearly think it's not okay; I clearly think it is.

My point is, once more: admiring a good looking person is one thing. Hiring women to walk around, barely dressed, at a family event, holding score cards, is another. One of these things is based on sexism. One of these things is based on being human, and having eyes.

TBH we could go around in circles all day about this! It's just that one of them is sexist, and one of them is just slightly objectifying, and maybe neither of them is okay – and that's fine! We can agree to disagree

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 08-01-2017 10:48PM

As long as the women aren't forced into it who cares?

purplecow1977 · 08-01-2017 10:49PM

anna080 wrote: »

So it's okay to ogle and admire the looks of a man who is there acting in his profession and in no way looking to be ogled and admired or have his appearance commented on but it's not okay to comment on the looks of the women who are there predominantly to be ogled and admired. Don't get it.

What women are there 'predominantly to be ogled and admired'?????

I admit, there can be a double standard at times.

However, it's widely accepted that women are paid less than men but there can be many reasons for this.

onthemitch · 08-01-2017 10:51PM

purplecow1977 wrote: »

What women are there 'predominantly to be ogled and admired'?????

I admit, there can be a double standard at times.

However, it's widely accepted that women are paid less than men but there can be many reasons for this.

This is in reference to ring girls – who are, without a doubt, there to be ogled and admired. (This is a bizarre six-months-ago story when I was at an amateur MMA fight – with families and kids in the audience – and they'd hired two ring girls to be at the match, basically, which I gave out about, and then stupidly remarked upon how hot one of the male fighters was!)

confeetti · 08-01-2017 10:53PM

Can we keep this to #ad please.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 08-01-2017 10:53PM

Right, I'll be back when the threads no longer the Journalist Blogger show.

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 10:55PM

purplecow1977 wrote: »

What women are there 'predominantly to be ogled and admired'?????

I admit, there can be a double standard at times.

However, it's widely accepted that women are paid less than men but there can be many reasons for this.

The girls holding score cards at boxing matches are predominantly there to be looked at. There is literally no other purpose for them being there, they could have the score up on an automated machine. I know a girl who used to do this and she loved it. No harm in it if that's what you want to do.

silvervixen84 · 08-01-2017 11:04PM

Whether or not you like the Mail, the article will bring this topic to a wider, different audience to Boards. The non-compliant influencers might get their act together and be more transparent going forward.

Hopeful2016 · 08-01-2017 11:19PM

I'll just add that individual's tax affairs are indeed private.... until someone finds themselves on the tax defaulters list and ends up in the paper :pac:

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 11:23PM

Onthemitch I notice on your snapchat you say the Mail piece was nasty about bloggers, can I ask you why you think it's nasty?

Hopeful2016 · 08-01-2017 11:29PM

anna080 wrote: »

Onthemitch I notice on your snapchat you say the Mail piece was nasty about bloggers, can I ask you why you think it's nasty?

I didn't really think it was being nasty to be honest. I hope we're not back to the "jealous haters" line. That won't wash with the Revenue if they go looking for information.

Jen44 · 08-01-2017 11:31PM

Who is the teacher blogger guys?

confeetti · 08-01-2017 11:32PM

She has shared a link to this thread on her facebook page.

Can I ask, how can we not name people here, but her followers can slag us off on her own facebook page using our user names, one calls a boards member a nutcase....

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 11:33PM

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

I didn't really think it was being nasty to be honest. I hope we're not back to the "jealous haters" line. That won't wash with the Revenue if they go looking for information.

Agreed It wasn't nasty at all, and all bloggers featured were contacted for their side of the story. Not liking the editor would make me want to clarify my side even more, as you can have more control over the story being published and what people are reading.

SB_Part2 · 08-01-2017 11:38PM

anna080 wrote: »

Agreed It wasn't nasty at all, and all bloggers featured were contacted for their side of the story. Not liking the editor would make me want to clarify my side even more, as you can have more control over the story being published and what people are reading.

I think if someone had gone to the trouble of creating a new twitter account to talk to me I'd be making myself unavailable for contact as well.

retro:electro · 08-01-2017 11:40PM

SB_Part2 wrote: »

I think if someone had gone to the trouble of creating a new twitter account to talk to me I'd be making myself unavailable for contact as well.

Didn't realise they created a new Twitter account! Ya that's weird. Still doesn't make it a nasty article though

heretogetreal · 08-01-2017 11:45PM

heyjude88 wrote: »

Here's the article.
Surprised at some of the names who wouldn't comment.

The game is up for her.

Suddenly she'll have to declare everything is an ad n her SC watchers will realise it's all just ads & profoundly boring videos.

Surely her 'fans' will then go back to washing their own dishes instead of watching ads sprinkled with videos of someone else doing their dishes?

Crazy how much time people are willing to completely waste watching her SC every day!

Terri26 · 08-01-2017 11:56PM

I think some people are being very harsh about the teacher blogger. I find her very genuine and likeable. On numerous occasions over the last few years she has recommended products to me that would be no benefit to her. Eg once I messaged explaining my friend's colouring what would she recommend. She replied very quickly which was decent of her. Don't know what I was thinking sending her a message and was embarrassed I did so as she doesn't actually know me. I think she'd be very delighted if she got paid gig so would have no problem #ad in it and would probably be delighted getting the chance to do so.
The blogger who (openly) posts here has also replied to a query I had regarding use of social media which was very nice of her and again did not benefit her in any way.
Edit *paid not laid!

Meangadh · 09-01-2017 12:14AM

Yeah I think the way some people are speaking about the teacher blogger is awful- she's entitled to spend her money on whatever she likes, and saying that you're conscious of having no wages coming in doesn't mean your whinging or complaining about it. Anything that she gets paid for or gets for free is declared, as far as I can see, and I think it's an absolute shame that one of the decent bloggers who actually bothers to write regular blog posts feels that she can't be on Snapchat anymore due to constant questioning and doubt.

As regards not responding to the journalist for a quote for that article- if I had been harassed via multiple twitter accounts, I wouldn't be providing fodder for the article either.

And to be fair to a lot of bloggers, the whole legal area for them is SO grey at the moment. If you're not enjoying someone's snaps/social media or if you think they're not playing by the rules, stop following them. If their numbers fall enough, they'll have to do something to address it. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who continue to watch/follow people they seem to despise. Vote with your unfollow buttons.

Cria · 09-01-2017 12:21AM

dudara wrote: »

It could well be done for a free brunch. In order to continue to receive invites, press releases, samples etc, bloggers have to to keep themselves in the forefront of the PR agencies. I'm not condoning it in any way (in fact, I get very tired of repetitive tweets from the same group of people), but I can believe it.

There are a couple of scenarios I can think of... and only one scenario is covered under current guidelines.

(1) Blogger is paid directly (i.e. cash changes hands) for blog post or social media content
This is the case that this covered by guidelines, and must be clearly labelled #ad or #spon. Any case where money has changed hands and is not labelled is in clear violation.

(2) Blogger does not receive financial payment but has agreed to produce social media or blog content in return for goods/services.
This is not covered by the guidelines. For me, it's a grey area as the blogger has received "payment in kind" for producing content and I believe it should be labelled clearly. I don't accept any offers of this kind ever, as I have always wanted to keep my blog free of commercial influence.

(3) Blogger simply receives products / services with no expectation of content in return
In this scenario, the blogger is free to do as they choose. However, it's also a potential minefield. Do too much of this and you look like you're promoting. This is the only scenario I will engage in, and even then I'm very conscious of how much content I produce. I want the audience to be clear that I received the item/service for free and I don't want to overwhelm them with it.

There's a lot more information here.

It takes away from people like you who are actual food bloggers. High profile social influencers just putting up snaps for free food. Where as you will do an informed write up for your followers which is appreciated.

There is a link that the ASAI put up it includes social influencers receiving benefit in kind with no expectation it looks like disclosure may be required by the competition and consumer protection commission under the consumer protection act 2007

Hopeful2016 · 09-01-2017 01:02AM

I don't follow many bloggers on Facebook book, I usually stick to Snapchat or Instagram for that kinda thing and keep Facebook for real life friends. I do follow Journalist/writer blogger on Facebook and she often posts links to her blogs posts which very often I will find interesting. After reading the comments under her post this evening about the Mail article I think I'm going to unfollow her on that platform. Not because of her posts but the "discussion" that goes on in the comments. It's like there isn't an objective thought between them and they seem to have no grasp that blogging is essentially a business with rules and laws and tax to be paid. It's not really just lovely girls showing us the lovely things the nice PR people sent them for free. And showing them to us because they are our friend or they want to do it "for us".

Are people really that clueless?!

confeetti · 09-01-2017 01:23AM

its the younger generation that I feel sorry for. Growing up with all this shoved down their throats, thinking it's gospel.

Galwaygirl55 · 09-01-2017 01:39AM

As far as I am aware the ASAI does not have any power to hold bloggers to account for their actions. HOWEVER, Revenue are a whole other ball game to be dealing with. Use of Cars, free TV's, Beds & so on could all go under the Benefit in Kind banner. As has been stated on the thread a persons dealings with Revenue are private but if I was a blogger I would be making sure I had covered all bases with an experienced accountant. Revenue zone in on certain sectors every year & it will only be a matter of time before they look at the blogger side of things given the figures involved.

retro:electro · 09-01-2017 02:08AM

The comments under that Facebook post are actually depressing. Sorry but some of those posters are just plain stupid.

MuffinTop86 · 09-01-2017 02:15AM

^^^agreed. The usual "begrudgers" argument springs up as usual, as if there's no other explanation.
Personally I'd throw out the bed and nearly every stick of mirrored/marbled/grey/rose gold furniture for being offensive to people with eyesight.

Hopeful2016 · 09-01-2017 02:22AM

anna080 wrote: »

The comments under that Facebook post are actually depressing. Sorry but some of those people are just plain stupid.

You'd kinda feel despair for them. How do they function in society?! The thing is she is not the type of blogger I would have thought would appeal to that type of follower. Her blog isn't full of mindless tripe, there is a good mix of social issues and current affairs etc. to keep that type away I would have imagined. I guess not, judging by the Facebook posse.

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

Comments