Instamum drama 2

[BanKittenHeels]

A continuation of the discussion regarding the MOD news and ethics surrounding Instagram “influencers”.

And it blows my mind that anyone who raises concerns, about the safety of children who have their childhood pushed to millions for profit, is called a troll.

I work in a role where we are hot on safeguarding, if someone told me they sold images of their children for profit (which less face it, is what “influencers” do, I would feel compelled to report them.

Who gets the money?

FOD is nothing without the curly haired twins. So does GUSTO have an arrangement where they say they ££ is for your children?

FOD is a bit of a twat, but with the kids he is a hapless, funny twat. They give him the zany context. Without them he’s just an annoying twat.

The gram is so unregulated and wild....there is nothing to protect or compensate the kids. It’s up to the family. I find that really iffy.

Yes who knows who gets the money - and I’m sure they would say it is a “family matter”. In reality the children of the influencers are supporting the family through their work and there needs to be some kind of regulation.

The thought of an image of my children being auctioned off to the highest bidderadvertisers and then being published to over a million people makes me feel queasy.

Completely agree - the whole ethos of social media influencers involving kids, certainly to this degree, baffles me. If I stood outside my very young child's house or school selling photos of them in their PJ's and had written their names and fun stories about them on the back I imagine the social workers would have speeding tickets issued for getting there so fast, yet because it's on Insta it's fine??

I can't get excited tbh about an instagrammer using the back of their child's head or a random foot etc once in a while, it's not really giving much away or exploiting them, but this is something different, this is virtually sharing their whole lives to anyone that can find an (extremely prolific) account.

Hmmm. IG is a photo sharing platform, though. The idea is that these photos and stories would be posted anyway, which is why some (less savvy people, admittedly) are only just realising that, actually, these grids are in fact advertising, and are more contrived than the spontaneous photos/videos they appear to be.
But still, its a photo-sharing app. And most people do post family photos without the financial gain, on IG.

But still, its a photo-sharing app. And most people do post family photos without the financial gain, on IG.

And I think this is something we as a society need to talk about, almost separate from the advertising aspect of the conversation.

Is it ethical to share images of intimate moments of your child’s life with strangers online? To share their school details, to clumsily give away their address or photos of them on the potty?

I think more and more people have set their accounts to private though and don't make it easily searchable by using copious amounts of hashtags like dadlife and instadad - hashtags which I guess would make it easier to find pictures of kids. I think as most people realise instagram is a darker place than they first thought, they are taking more control over what they post and who they show it to. FOD seems to do the opposite.

But it's a photo sharing app, not a privacy sharing app. Not a kids names and address and school and hobbies and routines sharing app.

Sharing a couple of photos of your nameless child, where only someone who knows you well would know your street name, with maybe 300 people who bother to find you is a completely different game to FOD using his kids at least weekly to sell stuff to 1 million people. It being ok to share photos on Instagram doesn't mean all photos need to be shared and doesn't let anyone off being careful who they're shared to.

No I do agree, OP. But using a photo platform is quite different to say, standing outside a school flogging actual photos of kids in their PJs.

@BanKittenHeels

This is getting forgotten in this entire furore. Why were people so hot on MOD and FOD to start with? Because of safeguarding concerns.

Without outing too much, I live very close to one of the instamums involved. I've seen her and DH around. I've seen her kids around. I know where she lives as she checks in the location and her house is very distinctive with big windows showing off that very feature wall she showcased on her insta. It is absolutely and utterly crazy.

Point I made earlier about celebs being far more protected because of their status/money still stands and they are still vulnerable to stalkers and obsessive fans. The fact that insta parents are putting their life out there in that way without protection afforded to those with serious celebrity (and often similar follower numbers) is extremely myopic.

This needs needs to be regulated as soon as humanely possible to safeguard these children.

@BanKittenHeels You are absolutely right. I look back at all those moments with my children with such fondness now they’re older. Imagine sharing those moments with a million random strangers. Very few famous people share every detail of their children’s lives. It’s just the most bizarre thing to do and it must be hugely damaging.

You are absolutely right Apple. The most famous people in the world, angelina jolie for example, would she put pics on the internet of her kids on the potty or in their cots? Of course not, because she’s much more savvy than that, aside from likely a load more reasons

On a different note, did anyone see Erica Davies's stories about affiliate links? She mentioned a couple of things that made me , firstly that affiliate links generate 3% commission and also that the swipe up affiliate cookie links only last for 10 minutes - I find this pretty dubious knowing that affiliate cookies can last for much longer periods. M&S say their cookie window is 7 days so surely if a swipe up takes you to the M&S website the cookie lasts that long? They also say their commission rate is 5% so I am struggling to understand where Erica got her figures for her stories from. From what I can see, &Other stories pay 9% and Very pay up to 9% as well. I've seen 7% quoted elsewhere as the average affiliate rate, not sure where 3% comes from?

Does anyone know?

I don't know what the average aff link % is but I also think it depends what programme the bloggers are signed up too, eg rewardstyle & I know that as soon as you click on another aff link from a different website it wipes out the previous ones even if you then end up buying something from a store you had clicked on previously.
I don't have a problem with aff links when a blogger has wrote a post, researched relevant product etc. I hate it though when they are used in the style of Mrs Hinch, multiple links to random tat in order to just make money.

We are all very worried about grammers and bloggers like the ods targeting us, but really what about the YouTube ing our children are watching with no #ad , multiple affiliates etc etc? All of this is concerning and why is there no massive push for SM wide regulation and age approval?

I think ALL social media needs regulating but my kids don’t have the ability to make any purchases themselves so what’s the point of an aff link on a YouTube video they watch?

I agree re random tat that Mrs Hinch links to, the links she posts are just to drive traffic to eBay so she gets a cut on whatever people buy there. It’s a volume thing.

Aff links are advertising though, and lazy at that. Really annoyed by bloggers trying to justify why they aren’t. I find them grabby.

I agree & forget to mention that in the occasions I don't mind them, they are stated clearly & transparently.

I think it does all need to be regulated and certainly with far greater penalties than the ASA currently have. I think it was last year that they named and shamed a few big name bloggers who weren’t doing what they were supposed to do but all the while the rest of the social media influencers seemed to carry on regardless.

Most affiliate codes go through an agency rather than going directly through an individual company. For most part with something like Skimlinks, on their blogs, there is software running that means they don’t even need to search for the code - the link automatically becomes an affiliate link. But to post it onto their social streams they do need to create the link, so they are very well aware that it is an affiliate link. Quite why then, they think that they don’t need to declare it is beyond me.

I know that for some of the larger affiliate agencies, those cookies stay active for 30 days and they receive a percentage on anything you buy from that site in those 30 days unless you clear your cookies or enter the site via another affiliate link in the meantime.

For the most part I have no issue with affiliate links, especially on something that someone has taken time to research and create. I have major issues when affiliate and advertising are not signposted.

I can't find anything that backs up Erica's claim that the swipe up aff link only works for 10 minutes? They get so defensive over the links don't they? "only a tiny amount of commission" "newspapers don't disclose" . Just own it!

Erica referred to a oneroofsocial article which I then read and which is the biggest load of pretentious bollocks ever but if the author thinks they can do a better job than the current ASA council (as they appear to) then maybe they should apply for a job - I hear there is a vacancy going.

www.oneroofsocial.com/articles/affiliates

Clemmie, Instagrammers and the "MoD scandal " discussed on Woman's Hour today. BBC Radio 4.

All sounded a bit embarrassing......
As the advertising spokesperson pointed out ... they are all businesses.

Oh it was on Woman’s Hour? 😮
I’ll be listening to that on my commute tomorrow.

You and Yours actually. Heard them trailing it and then had to take a call so didn't listen to it but will do tomorrow. The fact it is consumer rights programme is very telling actually

You and Yours

That’s really interesting.

I’m going try to listen to that as well. About time influencer marketing hit mainstream consumer programmes.

Please tell me Clemmie Telford isn’t advertising prescription medicines? I can’t work out what the Ad is for - anti depressants??