To be annoyed by the ongoing lack of transparency - Instagram again (Title edited by MNHQ)

[checkedcloth]

The previous thread ended. Anyone else keen to continue to discuss?

Today RVK loves (she of almost monthly holidays and comp’ed home stuff) declared a paid partnership with Fat Face. All good.

Someone comments ‘You are terrible, you’ve made me order the dress and loads of other stuff’. RVK replies ‘oops sorry smiley face’

I had the disingenuous ‘Oops sorry about that’. She’s a paid influencer, it’s her job to make you buy things.

Just own what you are, stop pretending clogging stuff on instagram is some of public service

meanwhile mrs meldrum has just released a YouTube vid where she gives advise on travelling with kids...(as she's an expert...) she is incapable of saying the word holiday without saying neilson infront of it....it's unbelievable....not taged as advert. the only positive thing is that she wasn't using a sick child for the promotion....this time

I agree there need to be proper regulations. But I also agree about unfollowing- I unfollowed mother pukka and Mrs Meldrum as they m were just not my thing.

Wipsglitter I completely agree about unfollowing if they're not your cup of tea, but discussing poor advertising transparency or ethics of using kids shouldn't be silenced.

Stilldazed That's who I meant. Always an (action packed) Neilson holiday. Hell I collapse on sun lounger for two weeks - "tennis anyone"
"No, feck off"

Wearelocal - the OP said all is good and they have declared that it's a paid for holiday, but they're still not happy.
What exactly are they supposed to do in that scenario? Seems people really aren't going to be happy whatever they do.
It's not poor advertising transparency if they've declared it really, is it....

undisclosed advertising, but also and more importantly, using non cosenting children that are taken out of school to advertise holidays...this needs to be addressed and regulated!! the only reason to silence that arguement is because people/organizations (possibly mumsnet?) are making money off the back of using videos of non consenting children to sell products on the internet.

CadyHeron I'm sorry I don't know what you're talking about. I didn't respond to anything you said. I don't follow the meldrums.

mrs meldrums case (taking a child out of school 3 times in the last 2 months to advertise holidays) should be reported to the local authority. if a child from a disadvataged background had that sort of attendence record it would be flagged.

Stilldazed. I think that is going too far.

@CadyHeron the OP said all is good and they have declared that it's a paid for holiday

The OP started the thread by talking about the RVK/Fat Face paid promotion and said it was adequately disclosed - all good. Someone else then brought up The Meldrums latest Youtube video. So who are you referring to when you say "the have declared that it's a paid for holiday". You're conflating 2 threads of discussion here.

These threads always start off with one or two slightly valid points and then always turn into nasty bitchfests about specific instagrammers.

Wearelocal - happy to do so, do you know how go about it?

Cady lives to mix it up. Wouldn’t be the same without her here though

MrsMeldrum has been asked to take over a Neilson Holidays instagram feed for the day.

Maybe they asked her to do it when she was paying her final balance off for this trip

Checkedcloth. I think you can report your thread title to MNHQ and request the change. I've seen them changed before.

HeyDolly I agree that may have happened with the ODs previously, but I haven't seen any evidence of that on recent threads. Have you?

Well, we’re only on page 2 and there’s already been digs about RVK & Mrs Meldrum.

It’s possible to make valid points without bringing specific instagrammers into it and getting catty.

I'm confused by this, is the issue that annoys people that you follow someone for say a shared interest but then they start getting paid to promote certain things ??

HeyDolly it's also possible to be critical of people without calling them misogynistic words like 'catty' and 'bitchy'.

I think to a certain extent we do need to give examples and include names. No one has said anything bad but if you put yourself and your family in the public domain, especially when you talk about how it is their viewers that allow them to live their lifestyle, then you should have an expectation to be discussed.

i'm sorry if people think my post was a step too far but,as you can tell, i feel very strongly about the use of children in internet advertising.

Every time an Instamum says "this isn't an advert, it was a gift" I unfollow. Every time. I highly recommend it

I personally can't get het up about it. A bunch of rich kids get get taken in too many holidays? The Instagram posts don't always follow rules that themselves aren't crystal clear? As for the kids not consenting, by the time they are old enough to care they won't be on the blog/gram anymore. I can't say I see as some egregious abuse of children and their privacy. Sometimes I think they overshare parts of their kids lives but then I don't agree with lots of parenting choices other people make. I don't want to parenting regulated that far. The kids should have a right to have the content wiped if they don't like it when they become adults. But honesty by then will anyone still be reading those blogs? I think it's a nonissue for most.

SailonSea I actually agree with you for the most part. I don't think children should be shown in a compromising way - ill, crying, having a tantrum etc. (That goes for all SM sharing, public or not), but as for wiping content- how? It exists forever.

HeyDolly, completely agree with when you say the threads always start off with one or two valid points.
As you say, they always descend into bitchfests and overinvested gossip. It's evident when you do have a dissenting opinion on a question asked that they really don't want discussion at all.
Some on the thread do really want to discuss points raised,and there's some good posters. Some do just want the bitching though which is a shame as it detracts from some important points such as child privacy/ads.

I agree that sometimes these threads can get too much with the naming of names, I stepped back when it started to feel like overkill with MOD. However, I do think that sometimes in the interests of furthering the discussion, referencing specific accounts is necessary. But there's a fine line between referencing people for the purposes of discussing the topic and turning it into personal attacks. I think influencers who put their lives on the internet for commercial gain should expect to be discussed and critiqued and if they think otherwise, they're being very naive. In the same way we're always told to "just unfollow" if we don't like what they post, if they don't like being discussed, they can just stop posting.