Bloggers mentioning/promoting products

qxtasybe1nwfh2 · 03-02-2017 12:47PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I'm still confused over the whole SJ and Universal sending her to LA not being an ad. Like I watched her snaps and when she came back to her room, a Universal bag was left on her bed with the days itinerary, a Fifty Shade's jumper and the soundtrack.

She got this trip for free. Her brand is not connected to the music or film industry (not that I'm aware) so surely this trip was an ad for the film and not some company perk.
It still irks me that she said 'teamed up with universal', when clearly that means that Universal got something in return for the trip (advert!) and it's not marked as an ad anywhere.

EDIT: This isn't a jealousy thing. Like fair play who wouldn't say yes to a trip to LA, but the lack of transparency is shocking

It doesn't have to be #ad as no money changed hands. I would imagine the flights, hotel etc were paid for and maybe vouchers included but no cash, no #ad or #spon. Both parties benefit here and IMO it is an Ad but by the rules, the hash tag is not required.

I do agree that there should be more rules in regards to this as a free trip to LA obviously for promotion for the movie is obviously an AD. Way different than being sent random things through the door.

I think if there is an agreement there, if I send you this or if you get a free trip etc in exchange for X amount of social media coverage and there is no cash, it should still be an #AD but this is not the rules at the moment.

SpillingTheTea · 03-02-2017 01:07PM

That's where I do think it falls under BIK. She's getting goods/services as 'gratuity' but first class flights to LA, a hotel stay that usually holds bloggers/influencers (same hotel that put up the finalists of the Nyx awards in 2015) free movie swag, exclusive entry to a cast pre-party and tickets to a premiere.

This is above and beyond getting sent a free lipstick in the post. I mean they obviously are hoping she shows it on her social media so of course there's going to be an exchange.

This stuff infuriates me to no end because how can we gauge what's real and what's not?

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 01:11PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

That's where I do think it falls under BIK. She's getting goods/services as 'gratuity' but first class flights to LA, a hotel stay that usually holds bloggers/influencers (same hotel that put up the finalists of the Nyx awards in 2015) free movie swag, exclusive entry to a cast pre-party and tickets to a premiere.

This is above and beyond getting sent a free lipstick in the post. I mean they obviously are hoping she shows it on her social media so of course there's going to be an exchange.

This stuff infuriates me to no end because how can we gauge what's real and what's not?

Her and Fairy genuinely do appear to be the worst offenders for this in my opinion. And in her case, not only is she getting all this for free, so is her other half (who apparently she can't even go to the local hairdressers for fresh extensions without him).

SpillingTheTea · 03-02-2017 01:14PM

ratmouse wrote: »

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

That's where I do think it falls under BIK. She's getting goods/services as 'gratuity' but first class flights to LA, a hotel stay that usually holds bloggers/influencers (same hotel that put up the finalists of the Nyx awards in 2015) free movie swag, exclusive entry to a cast pre-party and tickets to a premiere.

This is above and beyond getting sent a free lipstick in the post. I mean they obviously are hoping she shows it on her social media so of course there's going to be an exchange.

This stuff infuriates me to no end because how can we gauge what's real and what's not?

Her and Fairy genuinely do appear to be the worst offenders for this in my opinion. And in her case, not only is she getting all this for free, so is her other half (who apparently she can't even go to the local hairdressers for fresh extensions without him).

I definitely think there should be more stricter guidelines endorsed cause it's tarring the good bloggers with the bad brush

Toastytoes · 03-02-2017 01:18PM

Mekekka wrote: »

Lorraine Haigney wrote an article in the last few days about affiliate links http://johnitsonlymakeup.ie/blogger-affiliate-deals-cost-readers/

Those videos that she refers to by Just Here For The Tea are very interesting. This one explains why it's very difficult to trust recommendations from bloggers who use affiliate links especially in the likes of favourites videos and shows potential commissions made on some items using reward style. You'd have to at least consider there is an alternative motive for including certain items.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5tVHWTVVJAM

I'd recommend skipping to the part on Zoella and Nikki Tutorials, it's an eye opener.

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 01:20PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I definitely think there should be more stricter guidelines endorsed cause it's tarring the good bloggers with the bad brush

It's definitely time now to start reporting (starting with the bigger named bloggers) them to revenue in addition to the ASAI.

Sunny Dayz · 03-02-2017 01:28PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I'm still confused over the whole SJ and Universal sending her to LA not being an ad. Like I watched her snaps and when she came back to her room, a Universal bag was left on her bed with the days itinerary, a Fifty Shade's jumper and the soundtrack.

She got this trip for free. Her brand is not connected to the music or film industry (not that I'm aware) so surely this trip was an ad for the film and not some company perk.
It still irks me that she said 'teamed up with universal', when clearly that means that Universal got something in return for the trip (advert!) and it's not marked as an ad anywhere.

EDIT: This isn't a jealousy thing. Like fair play who wouldn't say yes to a trip to LA, but the lack of transparency is shocking

You don't get all the above treatment in exchange for the hope of a few mentions of social media! I agree, there is a lack of transparency there. I would hazard a guess there are specifics involved, eg x no of snaps, insta, fb, a blog post, etc. It's not a case that Universal just flew her out there hoping she would provide them with some coverage, I would imagine she was given details of exactly what they wanted from her, to make it worth the expense. Also, I note this is for the US premiere, the US are normally a few months ahead of Ireland for releases, the fuss of her trip would have died down by the time the film is released over here. Would it not have been more cost effective for Universal to send her to the Irish or UK premiere so create the hype when it's released in this part of the world?

I'm sure none of us would say no to the all-expenses paid trip ourselves but I would begrudge having to take (probably unpaid) time off work and out of my busy schedule.

frogstar · 03-02-2017 02:03PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

That's where I do think it falls under BIK. She's getting goods/services as 'gratuity' but first class flights to LA, a hotel stay that usually holds bloggers/influencers (same hotel that put up the finalists of the Nyx awards in 2015) free movie swag, exclusive entry to a cast pre-party and tickets to a premiere.

This is above and beyond getting sent a free lipstick in the post. I mean they obviously are hoping she shows it on her social media so of course there's going to be an exchange.

This stuff infuriates me to no end because how can we gauge what's real and what's not?

On this. I work in Finance and attend one or two functions a month. These are either in Dublin or London. To attend, my company pays for my flights hotel and any reasonable expenses. The functions include dinner drinks and sometimes goody bags. Basically I am not left out of pocket as this is a work event. I am not required to declare this as it is a part of my job. Notwithstanding the #ad point I doubt you could call the trip to the premiere as BIK as it technically is work at the end of the Day.

While yes from the outsider looking in it looks like a very nice perk indeed but I would classify this as work. Her accountant will be responsible for ensuring that everything that needs to be declared is declared (of courseSJ will ultimately be held accountable if it is incorrectly filed)

My motto is everything is an ad unless explicitly stated otherwise. While yes people should disclose it is buyer beware but I do understand how younger folks are heavily influenced

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 02:41PM

frogstar wrote: »

On this. I work in Finance and attend one or two functions a month. These are either in Dublin or London. To attend, my company pays for my flights hotel and any reasonable expenses. The functions include dinner drinks and sometimes goody bags. Basically I am not left out of pocket as this is a work event. I am not required to declare this as it is a part of my job. Notwithstanding the #ad point I doubt you could call the trip to the premiere as BIK as it technically is work at the end of the Day.

While yes from the outsider looking in it looks like a very nice perk indeed but I would classify this as work. Her accountant will be responsible for ensuring that everything that needs to be declared is declared (of courseSJ will ultimately be held accountable if it is incorrectly filed)

My motto is everything is an ad unless explicitly stated otherwise. While yes people should disclose it is buyer beware but I do understand how younger folks are heavily influenced

That's interesting that you say that her trip is technically work. She has #worktrip unerring one of her LA instagram posts. I don't see personally how this is work trip in her case and I think all of sudden putting in #worktrip is her clever attempt to cover all bases in terms of what should and shouldn't be declared. Fairy is clever this way too .I don't necessarily think SSu is as clever as Fairy but she must have either a good accountant who helps her with all this or else himself is the brains behind the operation.

blairbear · 03-02-2017 02:41PM

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

You don't get all the above treatment in exchange for the hope of a few mentions of social media! I agree, there is a lack of transparency there. I would hazard a guess there are specifics involved, eg x no of snaps, insta, fb, a blog post, etc. It's not a case that Universal just flew her out there hoping she would provide them with some coverage, I would imagine she was given details of exactly what they wanted from her, to make it worth the expense. Also, I note this is for the US premiere, the US are normally a few months ahead of Ireland for releases, the fuss of her trip would have died down by the time the film is released over here. Would it not have been more cost effective for Universal to send her to the Irish or UK premiere so create the hype when it's released in this part of the world?

I'm sure none of us would say no to the all-expenses paid trip ourselves but I would begrudge having to take (probably unpaid) time off work and out of my busy schedule.

It's being released next Friday here. It's been years since Irish releases lagged behind the US.

Whether it's an ad or not, I think it's very astute of the studio to fly her out. The movie's target audience is women in (roughly) the 18-35 bracket. A far, far greater number of them will follow Suzanne on social media than will read, say, The Irish Times. Suzanne is guaranteed to give great coverage even if there was no deal in place; she's at a fabulous premiere a few feet away from Jamie Dornan! In Hollywood! Who wouldn't rave about that?! (I would be delighted tbh.)

Far wiser than flying out a sage movie critic.

sashafierce · 03-02-2017 02:49PM

This post has been deleted.

SB_Part2 · 03-02-2017 02:50PM

Why has everyone got such a problem with SJ's other half? If she wants to bring him that's her choice. I don't see how it's relevant to thread.

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 02:55PM

blairbear wrote: »

It's being released next Friday here. It's been years since Irish releases lagged behind the US.

Whether it's an ad or not, I think it's very astute of the studio to fly her out. The movie's target audience is women in (roughly) the 18-35 bracket. A far, far greater number of them will follow Suzanne on social media than will read, say, The Irish Times. Suzanne is guaranteed to give great coverage even if there was no deal in place; she's at a fabulous premiere a few feet away from Jamie Dornan! In Hollywood! Who wouldn't rave about that?! (I would be delighted tbh.)

Far wiser than flying out a sage movie critic.

I reckon the film will see high numbers of attendees without her ever having set foot in LA. The first film and the books have already ensured that I reckon. I certainly wouldn't agree that she will give "great coverage". She will post a few photos accompanied by some emojis. She doesn't exactly "write" very well and when she does, it's a few.lines and nearly always concludes with "so there you have it". Not her biggest fan, but someone like Rosemary would have been a better choice by Universal as she has a similar age target audience and wider and she has the capabilities of providing coverage both in written and photographic form. And she probably would have declared if the trip was sponsored or not.

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 03:01PM

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Why has everyone got such a problem with SJ's other half? If she wants to bring him that's her choice. I don't see how it's relevant to thread.

Not much of a "girl boss" if you can't even go get a blow dry without your other half having to drive you up the road and be there with you. Of course she can bring him wherever she wants. As long as both are declaring what may need to be declared to the various authorities where appropriate, then yeah, she can do what she wants. Don't see many other bloggers with their man in toe for EVERY single thing they do.

sashafierce · 03-02-2017 03:08PM

This post has been deleted.

Sunny Dayz · 03-02-2017 03:09PM

blairbear wrote: »

It's being released next Friday here. It's been years since Irish releases lagged behind the US.

Shows you how often I go to the cinema so! And how often I get to watch a grown up movie!!

Sunny Dayz · 03-02-2017 03:13PM

ratmouse wrote: »

That's interesting that you say that her trip is technically work. She has #worktrip unerring one of her LA instagram posts. I don't see personally how this is work trip in her case and I think all of sudden putting in #worktrip is her clever attempt to cover all bases in terms of what should and shouldn't be declared. Fairy is clever this way too .I don't necessarily think SSu is as clever as Fairy but she must have either a good accountant who helps her with all this or else himself is the brains behind the operation.

AFAIK Sue operates through a company. So it could be possible that her company gets paid for the promotional work and Sue and himself go to USA as employees of the company... Sorted! :P

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 03:18PM

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

AFAIK Sue operates through a company. So it could be possible that her company gets paid for the promotional work and Sue and himself go to USA as employees of the company... Sorted! :P

That could be a way around it alright! Who is the company director though? Is it her? I thought someone said on here before that her Dad's name might be involved some way.

SB_Part2 · 03-02-2017 03:19PM

ratmouse wrote: »

Not much of a "girl boss" if you can't even go get a blow dry without your other half having to drive you up the road and be there with you. Of course she can bring him wherever she wants. As long as both are declaring what may need to be declared to the various authorities where appropriate, then yeah, she can do what she wants. Don't see many other bloggers with their man in toe for EVERY single thing they do.

Probably because they don't work for them and have other jobs.

He is a director of her clothing line.

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Sosu-Clothing-Limited-559779

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 03:29PM

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Probably because they don't work for them and have other jobs.

He is a director of her clothing line.

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Sosu-Clothing-Limited-559779

That still doesn't explain why he has to drive her everywhere. Also, that clothing company is surely only in existence a while, and yet prior to that he was in toe with her for everything she does, big, small, exciting,boring. Plus it says on his bio that he's a personal trainer so surely he has this work to be attending? If he's a company director, wonder should he be declaring things also then?

SB_Part2 · 03-02-2017 03:33PM

ratmouse wrote: »

That still doesn't explain why he has to drive her everywhere. Also, that clothing company is surely only in existence a while, and yet prior to that he was in toe with her for everything she does, big, small, exciting,boring. Plus it says on his bio that he's a personal trainer so surely he has this work to be attending? If he's a company director, wonder should he be declaring things also then?

No. I'm a company director and I don't have to declare anything.

Have you ever thought about the idea that maybe she doesn't know how to drive? Or that he enjoy's going places with her? I really don't see the issue here with him going places with her.

livedadream · 03-02-2017 03:36PM

ratmouse wrote: »

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Probably because they don't work for them and have other jobs.

He is a director of her clothing line.

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Sosu-Clothing-Limited-559779

That still doesn't explain why he has to drive her everywhere. Also, that clothing company is surely only in existence a while, and yet prior to that he was in toe with her for everything she does, big, small, exciting,boring. Plus it says on his bio that he's a personal trainer so surely he has this work to be attending? If he's a company director, wonder should he be declaring things also then?

because hes her dad and maybe they like spending time with each other?
maybe she doesnt know how or cant drive?
to be fair this thread started with the best of intentions but its literally become a place for people to question everything and anything to do with bloggers lives now. its a bit far across the line to question why someones husband spends time with them or their dad.

and company directors dont have to declare things like that.

biko · 03-02-2017 03:41PM

Please stop speculating and discussing business models/hired relatives etc.
Keep it on topic - bloggers mention products

Cria · 03-02-2017 03:55PM

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

That's where I do think it falls under BIK. She's getting goods/services as 'gratuity' but first class flights to LA, a hotel stay that usually holds bloggers/influencers (same hotel that put up the finalists of the Nyx awards in 2015) free movie swag, exclusive entry to a cast pre-party and tickets to a premiere.

This is above and beyond getting sent a free lipstick in the post. I mean they obviously are hoping she shows it on her social media so of course there's going to be an exchange.

This stuff infuriates me to no end because how can we gauge what's real and what's not?

I'd say she will be reported to revenue .. how is she getting away with this carry on

SB_Part2 · 03-02-2017 03:57PM

My take from the attachment is that Sue is well up to date with her revenue bill. Seems like she knows what she's doing.

Cria · 03-02-2017 04:06PM

ratmouse wrote: »

That still doesn't explain why he has to drive her everywhere. Also, that clothing company is surely only in existence a while, and yet prior to that he was in toe with her for everything she does, big, small, exciting,boring. Plus it says on his bio that he's a personal trainer so surely he has this work to be attending? If he's a company director, wonder should he be declaring things also then?

He gave up work to do everything for her . Seems strange to me he wouldn't want his own bit of independence away from her. Technically she's his boss.

ratmouse · 03-02-2017 04:16PM

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Probably because they don't work for them and have other jobs.

He is a director of her clothing line.

http://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Sosu-Clothing-Limited-559779

SB_Part2 wrote: »

My take from the attachment is that Sue is well up to date with her revenue bill. Seems like she knows what she's doing.

All.depends on what is declared and what could be cleverly hidden.

biko · 03-02-2017 04:18PM

Seems my warning was not heeded. I will close thread for a day so it doesn't get ignored again and everyone has time to read it.

Reopened, please stay on topic folks.

Wexy86 · 04-02-2017 01:37PM

I see Eimear Varian Barry and James Kavanagh(and others I don't recognise) are working with an agency called the collaborations agency, EVB tagged same on insta. be great to see if JK declares ads now he has an agency behind him.
I am a big fan of EVB and find her very transparent - the content and ads she does seem to work with her brand so hopefully teaming up with a collaboration agency won't be #ad all over the place.

westernlass · 04-02-2017 06:32PM

Wexy86 wrote: »

I see Eimear Varian Barry and James Kavanagh(and others I don't recognise) are working with an agency called the collaborations agency, EVB tagged same on insta. be great to see if JK declares ads now he has an agency behind him.
I am a big fan of EVB and find her very transparent - the content and ads she does seem to work with her brand so hopefully teaming up with a collaboration agency won't be #ad all over the place.

She already has an agency in the U.K. So it'll be no different. She's with models one who are worldwide known. Big achievement to get on their books.

Hunters communications are the collaborations agency under a new name. It'll make no difference to the individual bloggers. Agencies help manage contracts and fit but the delivery of actual content and use of #ad or not is down to the actual blogger. I know brands who require it tend to be the type who use agencies so that may be a natural coincidence.

Bloggers mentioning/promoting products

Comments