Continuing the discussion around instagram influencers and ethics

[bawbles]

Continued from old thread

Also agree re alcohol bores. Anything gin related or wine o clock heavy on their feed is normally a signal to unfollow.

The point that the podcast made was that it was a woman’s account that was targeted, as opposed to her (male) partner’s. However, I’m surprised by this stance as it was response by MoD to the comments made; it was indignant. FoD on the other hand doesn’t seem to rise to comments and criticism, thus allowing the storm to pass.
I also don’t believe for one minute they don’t check their follower numbers.

I know it's probably been discussed before but once their kids are in primary school and you no longer use nappies and wipes, high chairs and ball pits, deal with naps and toddler tantrums where does your account "go"? What do they focus on after that? The big followings seem to come out of very young kids (thinking FOD for one here) but what happens after that?

Yes, interesting that the podcast viewed criticism of MoD as misogyny ..... presumably by other women, who represent her audience. This odd rush to shut down any dissent is the oil on which the Insta wheels turn. I agree with the previous poster - it holds the same fascination for me as Trump. We do indeed live in a strange world right now where populism reigns and debate is forbidden.

Should just add for clarity that, no, I am not comparing anyone on Insta to Trump.........

Excellent transparency yet again from ED.

That’s excellent from ED, agreed. I feel like it gives the impression she wants to go beyond the rather feeble and potentially misleading current regulations, and actually hold her account to a higher standard. I’m still following her, despite the fact that’s there’s more sponsored stuff than on a lot of the accounts I follow (smaller craft and interiors accounts) because she’s like a beacon of good practice!

Wouldn’t you rather be Erica rather than one trying justify why something is “spon” or “press trip” or “aff” or not required to be disclosed because of blah blah blah reasons, rather than just.... #ad. Keep it simple and it looks much more transparent and credible.

Completely agree @Chirpiebirdie

I recall Laura Fantacci years ago indignant that someone had asked if something was given to her, if she’d been asked to promote it or she’d bought it. She was indignant and responded along the lines of ‘its rude to ask about my earnings, I don’t ask your salary’ and completely missed the point that they weren’t asking the amounts merely if it was a genuine recommendation or she’d had some compensation to plug them.

She’d suddenly started plugging J crew and Boden non stop and never did clarify if it was sponsored/paid work or even gifts.

Wardrobe Icons is a brilliant wheeze really. You don’t even have to buy any of the clothes yourself, just use stock images of a bunch of high end fashion items, write some text saying how much you love it and how essential a £185 white shirt is, funnel everything through affiliate links to net a porter and matches and sit back and watch the £££ roll in when people click through. They don’t even pretend to be impartial and “only feature things they really love!” in their affiliate disclosure. I wish I’d thought of it.

Influencers - be more Erica!

Mrs m appears to have been trolled so is 'stepping back'

In Mrs M defence, it must be really hard to read those things. I once seen comment calling all her kids ugly, makes you think how sad and vile people are. I really love her updates so I'm hoping she doesn't stop.

I think some of the personal comments she mentioned that have been made are awful. But surely they're so nasty and ridiculous you just report and block? She's mentioned recently she's going to focus on her own channel a bit more too so I wondered if she's going to show less of the kids.

There was another thread on here about YouTubers and people being fed up with them, which mentioned thst there are websites out there devoted to bashing YouTubers. There is an active thread on one about the meldrums , funnily enough shoddy disclosure is mentioned a lot.

Perhaps she is reassessing things after the bizarre tactic of promoting a holiday by featuring her sick children.

@SpongeBobGrannyPants I agree, but maybe after a while it still gets to you? I know for a fact I'd be the same. Wouldn't matter how much I blocked it would still affect me!

What I don’t like is the limping of any criticism in with trolling. There are clearly some nasty people who troll and insult children’s looks, and then there are genuine queries and criticism over disclosure or, because you have some undisclosed deal with a holiday company, exposing a hotel to children’s germs. (I don’t really blame them for the plane on the way back as can’t imagine you’d get your money back for changing flights - but found it hard to be sympathetic about the difficulties of holiday and journey give how many holidays they’ve had this year).

It feels similar to MOD - there’s nastiness there, but they retreat claiming it’s all that, when in fact it feels similar to the backlash that MOD was getting re: holidays and ads when she chose to ‘step back’.

I agree scipio. I must admit I get annoyed when the comments on here get too personal/bitchy as on the whole I think these threads stick to fairly reasonable discussion (albeit critical) but those personal comments are the ones that are picked out by the instagrammers and the important bits of discussion are then suitably ignored.

The ASA have got back to me concerning the Neilson holiday. The holiday was ‘gifted’. As there was no requirement to write or post anything (!!!! - I’m sure the holidays will keep coming if you don’t say nice things!!!!) it doesn’t contravene their flabby and not fit for purpose guidelines (not their words, obviously!).

When I made the complaint I stated that even if it didn’t contravene their guidelines, I (and probably others) do consider this kind of thing an advertisement in the spirit if not the letter of the law and they might want to consider simplifying guidelines rather than encouraging influencers to split semantic hairs.

I think it was still extremely shady not to mention the ‘gifted’ element. And I will certainly never use that company if they wish to give away holidays to large groups of people who could afford it themselves and who then rush around infecting others with viruses in the, apparently unrequited, rush to post positive content. Although that type of holiday is a bit dull for my tastes, I have down the occasional AI resort thing in the past with a young child for the sake of convenience.

Wow that's interesting! I don't understand why not just put that as a disclaimer? They know people are interested in how they can do so many holidays and "buy" so much stuff. Rather then do a woe is me post about how everyone is a troll for questioning things just be bloody honest! Really disappointed...I feel a bit daft as I was giving them the benefit of the doubt because it was such a large group, I thought they had paid for this one and maybe got the last one at a discount. Oh well, it has backfired for neilson for me anyway...was seriously considering it for next year. Definitely not now!!

Yes I thought since they were with so many others maybe they had paid themselves.

unrequired was autocorrected to unrequited above.

How on earth can you say there is no requirement to post or write anything when there was a takeover of the main Neilson IG account? How much more obvious can an advert be than the influencer being on a paid-for holiday doing a joint promotion with the holiday company on the brand's page?

I had a similar experience with ASA where a response to a complaint I had made was clearly complete bullshit, and which lead me to conclude that either the influencer had misled ASA (even more unethical than a dodgy ad in the first place, imo), or ASA were happy to try to fob me off, or perhaps both. Either way, I have been left feeling that ASA aren't acting in consumers' best interests at all and my confidence in the regulator is even more diminished than it was. The influencer has smartened up their practices since the report so I'm a bit, meh, but still pretty hacked off with ASA.

Gosh, yes, Chirpie, I’d forgotten about the IG takeover. I agree about the ASA. I’ve had one complaint upheld but frankly to allow this level of publicising and not call it advertising is quite shocking!

To be fair I think I made the complaint before the takeover, so it’s possible they only looked at the post I cited and not the whole account (though still rather feeble if they did that).

@scipio if you feel that strongly about it, then contact them again with proof from the IG takeover?

I’ll be honest I just hit unfollow in times like this, but do understand that doesn’t help with the whole transparency issue.