Instamums in the Telegraph

[caperberries]

Is there a new thread about this?

Particularly not articulately...

The main reason FOD has done the Renault ad now is because he has a contract to. See the article I posted earlier in this thread. He has to do a family post every month. So it was probably time for that to be done, and the timing is v awkward obviously so that's why Clemmie looks awkward I'd think.

Spring Bored phew, thanks. I'm glad I'm not going mad. I think he's behaving really strangely.

I understand the fear of getting the threads closed, but MNHQ haven't batted an eyelid of pages and pages of the discussion of the same couple of people today. If people are worried that because of mod, fod can't be discussed, I think that is disappointing.

His ads will have to comply with his contract so it will look removed from what’s going on
He probably has to engage a certain amount on them too

That makes sense Sugarbunker. The car as a kitchen table experiment

Misterpostman - see my post above yours. He has to do a monthly ad featuring the family. Might not have to be all the family but definitely at least one of them.

Yes Sugarbunker crossed posts I think, you are right.

x posts
Yes indeed - dining table car!
That's one of the snags of committing to long-term and rolling paid partnerships - the ad has to happen at certain times, no matter what is going on in your life.
Then again, i'm cynical. Maybe the Telegraph article which mentioned the contract and experiment with Renault was really part of the ad. After all it came out a day or two before this next Renault instalment from For

SugarBunker the ramifications of the whole media response being a giant advertisement for mod and fod is too much for my tiny mind.

Tiny minds think alike......

@misterpostman it's not really anything to me if threads do get pulled, but it seems to then get interpreted in different ways. Which would be frustrating. I maybe reading more into it (as she seemed so awkward) but if it was me I'd be pissed off at the lack of online support from my OH seeing as he's a prolific instagrammer. Add into that then clearly having a difference of opinion on appropriate photo sharing and things must be being reconsidered. That said he's replied tonight to loads of comments and several times said 'she's just taking a break' so I have a funny feeling it will just be business as usual very soon and all the fans will be over the moon and normal instaland will resume.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/metro.co.uk/2018/05/24/queen-instagram-mum-deletes-her-account-after-being-told-shes-exploiting-her-kids-7575009/amp/

It's all down to one mumsnetter in this article.

Just joining this thread, I don’t want to cause any drama but a general wondering (I might be missing a point) but what is different to people allowing their children to be actors, actresses, appear in adverts on television and in magazines etc to people doing this on social media? Television, soap operas, adverts ALL have children in them sometimes appearing in disturbing scenes raising awareness subjects. Is there a difference to this and people posting images of their children just doing everyday activities on social media? As I said this really is just me wondering how it’s different as I don’t see any discrimination against children being put into the public eye in this way?

Boredand Tired I'm not sure it will ever be 'business as usual' for any of these accounts again, unless they block and delete with enormous speed and efficiency. People are just not having it anymore. I wonder if these threads will ever end.

Those children are earning their own money, working for themselves (although some may get pushed of course). It's their contract, not the parents

That was to lovegenerateslove

@Lovegenerateslove I think the difference is that they’re not signed up to an external agency who looks out for their interests, contracts & financial affairs. There’s no one neutral with instagram children to make sure their best interests are prioritised

BoredandTired just that one pesky mumsnetter

There are also a lot of rules and regulations about how much and how often children can work

Using your kids to flog stuff on Instagram is regulated

Love ditto sadandtired1 and there are very strict rules around use of child actors/models.

Sorry crossed posts again.

@misterpostman lol. Sadly I think it will. FoD has gained another 1000 followers, but it will be interesting to see. The threads will never end because social media is evolving and developing all the time and new issues will arise.
I disagree that it's like children with agents used in ads/films etc, it's unmoderated so very different and these parents completely expose where they live, full names and locations, often schools. If I see a child on tv I don't know it's Martha Brickstock from a small village on the outskirts of such and such who's garden over looks the duck pond and goes to such and such primary/secondary school.

Yes I was about to add, there are strict guidelines and regulations around children’s work & how their income is protected if they are a child actor or model

My friend recently did some film work with her newborn twins. I think they were allowed to work for one hour a day each or something - which is why films and TV like twins! Two for one :) Money went into their account. They had a driver for the film sets, friend took family member for help and the children were paid, not her.

Different kettle of fish!

But I get why you asked , fair question :)

TireSwing I just watched FOD's stories. They are about his children. 100%