Bloggers mentioning/promoting products

If Marissa #ad as she's a brand ambassador. Why does make up fairy and grace not do that when they mention miss fit skinny tea ?.

Does make up fairy and Rosie connelly #ad when they show snaps of their Renault cars?.

Cria wrote: »

I watched jj snaps too and basically she tripped herself up saying I'm not going to line the pockets of brands, and yet she claims she did the whole moores jewellers ad for free or for no discount on her ring , no commission of some sort ? Or future discount ? .
How does she expect anyone to believe that When last week she told a 'hater' that she deserved her bag because she works so hard . It makes no sense.
So she will just #ad when she gets paid ?, her whole Snapchat is one big ad.
when a brand is mentioned bloggers should be very clear as far as I'm concerned.
If they direct you to clothes on their blog they should say that they get money jj makes out like she's linked all these clothes on her blog as a favour to her followers.

If they mention they were sent an item even just #freebie or #affiliate.

Did I read these freebies are taxable ?

More reports to the asai and revenue need to be made.

Yes freebies are taxable. I wonder how many paid tax on all those lipsticks from smashbox that they were all promoting, I think the box was valued at between €1500-2000. How can a company send out loads of those lipstick boxes and it not be #ad

Puggly wrote: »

Yes freebies are taxable. I wonder how many paid tax on all those lipsticks from smashbox that they were all promoting, I think the box was valued at between €1500-2000. How can a company send out loads of those lipstick boxes and it not be #ad

Fully agree. I did a tot last year (for 4 days) on the stuff Rosie showed with no #ad. They came to over €850 and that didn't include the constant plugging of the carpet company that fitted the new carpets in her house. Nor did it include the new hair extensions she got the same week.

Now how can that not be classed as an ad? The items were not used to review in her blog. Another time she showed 8 pairs of Freddy jeans that had just been sent to her. They're worth over €100 each.

If I had my clothes paid for, my holidays paid for, meals out paid for, hair paid for, makeup paid for car paid for etc etc, I too could afford spend over €1000 on a new handbag.

These 'bloggers' are not just been sent the odd lipstick or foundation to try out. This is big money we're talking about and IMO should be classed as an ad.

Puggly wrote: »

Yes freebies are taxable. I wonder how many paid tax on all those lipsticks from smashbox that they were all promoting, I think the box was valued at between €1500-2000. How can a company send out loads of those lipstick boxes and it not be #ad

Yes I wonder and the endless hairtools make up,perfume, cars, baby items, and meat ect. That they are sent for free.

Revenue really needs to take note of this check Instagram check blogs and snap
They're all endless ads.
I went onto jj's instagram today the amount of promoting is unreal hair tongs worth €100 is the latest not one # to be seen.

Babyspice13 wrote: »

Fully agree. I did a tot last year (for 4 days) on the stuff Rosie showed with no #ad. They came to over €850 and that didn't include the constant plugging of the carpet company that fitted the new carpets in her house. Nor did it include the new hair extensions she got the same week.

Now how can that not be classed as an ad? The items were not used to review in her blog. Another time she showed 8 pairs of Freddy jeans that had just been sent to her. They're worth over €100 each.

If I had my clothes paid for, my holidays paid for, meals out paid for, hair paid for, makeup paid for car paid for etc etc, I too could afford spend over €1000 on a new handbag.

These 'bloggers' are not just been sent the odd lipstick or foundation to try out. This is big money we're talking about and IMO should be classed as an ad.

That's awful promoting that amount of products to that value with zero transparency. I followed her for about a year last year and she was promoting constantly, at one stage a hamper of chocolate and tayto crisps.
She was plugging creams she only opened that day saying she just tried it and it was amazing.
That's why I deleted her too much promoting and baby snaps.

dolly16 wrote: »

Sorry if this has been answered before but if a blogger is not being paid for something but is getting it for free then should that be #ad ? i would have thought yes but going by JJ's mentality she doesn't need to #ad anything that's been sent for free/gifted? I actually unfollowed her last night. I for 1 second don't think she did the moores video unless there was something in it for her, but 'if' she got that ring for free and then thinks it shouldn't be #ad seems wrong to me. That and it totally defeats the purpose of the meaning of the eternity ring, no sentimental value at all.

It's not a requirement to #ad if it's free.
Most followers who realise the wool is being pulled over their eyes would like to see some kind of disclosure.
Morally they should and for the sake of revenue by the looks of the rules .
Unfortunately sentimentality goes out the window for a freebie some bloggers even get free engagements rings in return for exposure.. or free cakes for their babies christening if they snap the cake and name. Nothing is sacred.

IMO regardless of whether jj was paid or not for that video it needs to be reported as it's a professional ad that is getting huge exposure across many platforms is that following the asai rules.

ratmouse wrote: »

Sue is always posting positive statements about Red Velvet hair salon and #goldfever hair extensions every time she has fresh extensions applied. Nothing to say she hasn't paid for them herself but the positive plugging every time looks strongly like a review for free extensions in my opinion. No #ad anywhere to be seen of that is the case. Those extensions are extremely expensive too.

Why is this not considered an ad you received a costly treatment for free for promotion it's absolutely an ad.

If she had to pay would she promote them .. no.

If she didn't promote would she receive
Free treatments.. no.

I've just noticed that Sinead's curvy style has been hacked and I haven't been seeing her story for the last few days because she has a new snapchat handle. I have to say I'm not going to bother re-following her. When she first started out I loved her but then the plugging of workshops started and it really put me off and lately it's just a constant barrage of getting hair, nails, make up and facials in different salons. There is no way that a person could be paying for all of these treatments every single week. It's such a pity that it changed so much because I really loved her style and how she actually went shopping and bought clothes and stuff herself but now it's just package after package of freebies from companies with absolutely no sign of #ad

If a blogger asks for brand to gift then stuff and says they will feature in big posts should that then be as ad? Have seen this before but it was never saw what was sent and what was bought.

Seeing as we are talking about affiliate links do the ASAI deal with those I can't remember? Does anyone know?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

I'm sorry, by how is Love Lauren funding all these constant trips abroad??? She spends so little time in Ireland I wouldn't be surprised if she didn't even have a permanent address here.
They have to be sponsored. As far as I'm aware her only income is blogging and I don't see how that would fund 2-3 city breaks around Europe a month unless she was getting it for free.

I actually don't think Lauren is by any means the worst offender in the blogging world. She nearly always uses #ad #sp or #spon for all posts whether it's for Penneys, Proper Corn or a stay at the Gibson. Regarding her regular trips away, I'm not sure. But her trips, if suspected of being paid.or sponsored, rise no more suspicion than Sue's trips or as she likes to say #suetravels. In my opinion, lots of her trips look sponsored and /or paid for but never a mention of it. I think Love Lauren is one of the more transparent bloggers, maybe not everyone's cuppa tea, but has been declaring ada and sponsored items for a long time before this thread even got going.

In addition to Sue and her hair extensions, should also mention that Fairy positively promotes Easilocks hair extensions too and never any mention of an ad or sponsored post, unless maybe she pays herself. I'm not convinced she pays herself or gets them for free without committing to a positive review afterwards, in my opinion. I notices that she did an instagram post 6 weeks ago after getting fresh easilocks extensions. One follower left a comment stating that she herself got easilocks because of Fairy's instagram and that she loves them. Fairy replied back to this follower stating that she was delighted and then she tagged @easilockshair. Why would she tag easilocks if there was nothing in it for her at all? Seemed suss to me.

ratmouse wrote: »

In addition to Sue and her hair extensions, should also mention that Fairy positively promotes Easilocks hair extensions too and never any mention of an ad or sponsored post, unless maybe she pays herself. I'm not convinced she pays herself or gets them for free without committing to a positive review afterwards, in my opinion. I notices that she did an instagram post 6 weeks ago after getting fresh easilocks extensions. One follower left a comment stating that she herself got easilocks because of Fairy's instagram and that she loves them. Fairy replied back to this follower stating that she was delighted and then she tagged @easilockshair. Why would she tag easilocks if there was nothing in it for her at all? Seemed suss to me.

Make up fairy in her words is a business woman so there's no way she's doing it for free. By tagging that girl it's showing easilockshair that she is generating business for them.
Same with jj doing a big snap on them
Hairtools and then putting up a post in Instagram under the loophole people have been asking me what I use on my hair it's this hairtool . So shady, the fact she promotes the hairdresser she gets her hair curled in constantly makes me think she doesn't use that hairtool too often.
And today she put up one snap showing a shelf full of shampoo from Kevin Murphy on sale in the salon surely this is an ad.
I wonder why the likes of snapchat don't capitalise on these companies that use there platform to promote their products at the fraction of the cost a real ad would.
I can't believe they don't look for some sort of payment.
They'd make a fortune from what the Irish bloggers promote alone.

wolfmoon87 wrote: »

Yeah I was scrolling through Joanne Larby's blog posts yesterday to see which ones are ads. She has a blog post up on Easilocks that is declared an ad.
However she never puts #ad on snapchat when she mentions them.

Her and easilocks should be reported for that.