Continuing the discussion around instagram influencers and ethics

[bawbles]

Continued from old thread

It's eyes and interest on your product, isn't it? Doesn't have to be about things available to buy.

But if your product is only things to buy, which this is, then not actually seeing any of the product isn't that helpful, surely? I couldn't tell you if it was a homeware line she'd collaborated on, a kids range, an adults range, underwear, perfume, makeup, all of which Next sell. I'm assuming this is one part of a larger media campaign around her collaboration, so maybe they don't need or expect lots of exposure from it.

Just seems a bit pointless to tell us you're going to the event, post about who else from the gram is there and how pretty your place setting is and then not actually show us any of the content that you saw there.

Ah, fuck it, I'm massively overthinking it.

Fluffy it's the same in terms of wanting to keep your profile high. I can't imagine the horror of losing a child, but I can imagine that those blogging about it utilise it as a sort of therapy. If they stay relevant and have a decent profile, they may feel like their loss isn't in vain?

I hope to never be in that position and don't want to patronise anyone in that position by saying how they feel, that is just my take on it.

Accidentallyveganuk have 125k followers and no ads/sponsors

Wanderlust.crew is a travelling family, 39k followers, no ads

Accidentallyveganuk have 125k followers and no ads/sponsors

That seems to be a secondary account of @thevegankind which is a vegan subscription box so surely monetary gain to be had there?

So they do exist :)

Do secondary accounts not count? I mean, I’m look at it as an account with 125k followers, no ads, pretty impressive. But I suppose if they link to the subscription boxes it’s not the same. Hmm.

Yes I think if there's a link to another account in the bio which is a commercial business, it's not just existing to promote veganism.

The Wanderlust family, if you click through to their blog, there are ads popping up all over the site, a link to "work with us" (presumably not for free). They're monetized.

Sorry @PeppaP, I'm not jumping on your personally here, I appreciate the links and I like checking them out. But it's interesting how we look at Instagram accounts, don't see ads and assume they're not monetized. But in actual fact, the IG account is just part of a larger business which is monetized.

@beansandsausage I've ended up following a lot of those accounts and I didn't mean they wouldn't want to keep their profile high and I'm hugely respectful of how loss is dealt with and I don't know how they cope, I just mean I think if they went away for a week or were quiet they wouldn't get unfollowed and I think people think of them and look for them. I may be wrong I just feel differently about those accounts.
I genuinely think on the whole the vast majority of accounts who would be posting for traffic and to keep bumped up would be the ones with personal gain or businesses.

And I want saying there weren't large accounts that didn't monetise, I follow quite a few, but I don't think they post continually to keep popular in the promotions. May be just the ones I follow though.

It’s ok @scotx it’s hard to find non monetised accounts, especially if they appear to have no ads on IG but link elsewhere. I’m sure I’ve seen some, will have another look tomorrow because it is v interesting. Hopefully someone else will have found some too by then. Its a sorry state of things if we can’t find any.

I've ended up following a lot of those accounts and I didn't mean they wouldn't want to keep their profile high and I'm hugely respectful of how loss is dealt with and I don't know how they cope, I just mean I think if they went away for a week or were quiet they wouldn't get unfollowed

they wouldn't get unfollowed as such, but their reach would dip as they weren't out there posting and their stats would suffer.

.they wouldn't get unfollowed as such, but their reach would dip as they weren't out there posting and their stats would suffer.

Yes, I know what you're saying I just completely disagree with you.

Yes, I know what you're saying I just completely disagree with you

Fair enough, disagree all you like, but it's true.

Yes I know it's 'true' I disagree with your argument that accounts that are not monetised feel the need to keep posting on social media for stats. I'm not disputing stats are affected. Much like your other arguments (the whole vegan and religion being the same as monetising children) the accounts I follow that aren't monetised do not appear to behave in this way so I disagree with your point.

I disagree with your argument that accounts that are not monetised feel the need to keep posting on social media for stats.

I'm not saying you are disputing that stats are affected.Can you seriously not see that there are other reasons out there that doesn't mean it's all about the money? Another poster has just pointed out that it's not always about monetising but still want to keep their feed relevant and "out there" for awareness" for whatever reason. Charity etc. Stopping posting would dip that and make the reach less.

The sly not sly bitching in various instamum stories is pretty funny. Just message each other ffs you’re not 13.

In one, seemingly innocent, post MoD manages to name check not one, not two but three holiday operators, presumably lining up her next freebies. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook example of how Instagram works - a perfect circle of drip, drip advertising fuelled by the never ending materialism of the individuals riding this current wave of greed and self promotion. It is a bubble that surely must burst - so invidious, dishonest and scheming.

eebymum I’ve noticed an uptick in that too. Ultimate Girl Gang keeps making comments along those lines but frankly apart from one comment c. 6 month ago about eyeshadow she only really gets praise on here for her disclosure and her DGAF attitude. Same for most of the new-guard instamums. Hypocritical really, to bitchily call MN bitchy in this instance but hey. “You do you”. Whatever.

@cadyheron I'm not saying I disagree with other posters and their comments, I'm saying I disagree with a lot of points you've made. And I think the accounts that are concerned with keeping a high profile that are not monetised are a tiny minority. How many charities do you follow on Instagram? It's not really the best platform for charities. This thread is about influencers and the large majority of influencers are in the business of influencing either for personal gain or for a business.
I would also comment that a charity is actually usually also looking for sponsorship or money ultimately, whilst raising awareness because there are still costs involved. So sorry but I disagree with your points still and if you are seriously going to keep questioning that I'm just going to stop responding.

To be fair, it was someone on these threads who said UGG looks like an ex-stripper. Not that’s she’s bitter about it and mentions it every 5 minutes or anything. Mentioning anything positive said on here doesn’t perpetuate the bitchy mumsnet ideal.

I had to unfollow UGG as the constant drinking and twerking bugged me, how she wears her eyeshadow and chooses to dress is her own business. I'd only followed her because MOD promoted her....

What is UGG’s thing? I can’t work it out from her page.

And I think the accounts that are concerned with keeping a high profile that are not monetised are a tiny minority.*

How many charities do you follow on Instagram? It's not really the best platform for charities
You're right, it's not but it is a valid reason as someone said. Plus there's lots of blogs and instagrams out there that don't monetise.
They'd be classed as influencers too as they'll have lots of followers, but don't monetise it.
You might want to poo poo and disbelieve it, but it's true.