Influencing the Influencers - Disclosure in Social Media (Vol 3)

[FrustratedFrugal]

Continuing the threads that discuss blogging and Instagram

Vol 2

Vol 1

1. Disclosure. I see that you elaborate on some possible consultancies: what would be helpful I think is to know who your clients are and what kind of work you've done for them. I'm guessing that often this will be covered by NDAs - where this is the case, do you think there's any scope to influence brands to allow a little more openness in the interests of building trust for your audiences? I am pretty sure that Superdrug won’t mind if I say one consultancy session I did with them was identifying who the B woman is. When you build a brand I think it helps to have a ‘face’ in your head so that you can start to feel the human aspect of the brand and so it doesn’t just become more bottles of stuff. So we talked about where they thought ‘B’ might go on holiday, what does she drink, what does she eat, where does she shop – that kind of thing to build a human around the range. I did a session with the Estee Lauder group about speaking to older women – about not focussing so hard on looking younger and being more pro-ageing. Smaller brands and PR agencies tend to ask me how to work well with bloggers – my answer is (mostly) to find the right blogger for your brand and establish a relationship that you can both work with in the right way. Now that agencies exist however, bigger brands just hand the entire relationship over to the agency so consultancies are less.

1. Negative reviews: what's your take on this? Do you agree with other bloggers who've suggested the best approach is to 'just not give them page space'? Or do you share your thoughts on products you're not so happy with? I do negative reviews – I’m perfectly happy to do it if I think a product falls short of expectation. Usually though I try to take into account any redeeming features (maybe it’s just not for my age range or might suit other skin types or tones) but if there are none, so be it. I will say so.

1. How could consumers encourage bloggers and brands to be more rigorous about disclosure and ethics? Your efforts to date seem to suggest that the ASA aren't particularly interested, so maybe this is something that needs to come from the bottom up. If so, what could we be doing differently in order to make this change more likely? This is such a good question. I think it is by being discerning – all blogs are built by their readers and less readers can often be a good guide to the author that their content needs looking at. Basically, vote with your feet.

3. What's your take on when the need for disclosure runs out? For myself, I would love it if when a brand, retailer, company, whatever, is mentioned on a blog, there was a link or hover box outlining any commercial relationships that the blogger has had with that brand/retailer/company, and when that relationship was. Maybe running out after five years or something. At my level of blogging, I’ve never come across disclosure running out. It doesn’t run out as far as I know – if you’ve disclosed, you’ve disclosed. If you follow a particular blog regularly then you’ll probably be aware of past commercial activity, but I can see for new viewers or chance viewers it may not be as clear.

4. Agents (spotted this in another comment). Currently I do have an agent who I have never used for anything! Ever. Prior to that I have had one independent agent for about 18 months.. I can handle any ‘negotiations’ myself, but if you have an agent, they can act as an intermediary if there are any problems. That has yet to happen.

5. Sponsored Posts: For me usually what happens is a brand asks my fee, I tell them, and they either pay it or don’t pay it. The only other way it works for me is a brand might say this is what we have, what can do? If it’s not something I can do anything with, it doesn’t go any further. I try and stick to sponsored posts that are information driven (such as my recent Treatwell sponsored post – the brand want to spread the word that they are no longer Wahanda and I have the right audience for that; I downloaded the app, checked the booking facilities, consumer reviews and everything else I could think of) OR are products that I genuinely like OR are new discoveries that I think are worth sharing (or a mix of both like my recent Fresh sponsored post). Recent turndowns include a supplement (and I LOVE a supplement) that I felt was far too expensive for consumers to buy and there was the equivalent already out there for a great deal less (that would be a proper disservice to BBB readers) and a jewellery brand that asked me to talk about love and tie it into jewellery shudders. When I take a sponsored post, I usually boost it on Facebook (at my expense) for a couple of days.

6. Gifts: It’s part of PR outreach to often send flowers or similar (dressing gowns.. so many dressing gowns) to accompany a product. It is rare for an individual to receive ‘presents’ as such that are not received by everyone else. I’m looking at a rucksack and beach towel now (so many beach towels) and have no intention of covering the product. Towels and dressing gowns are no incentive to favour a brand or a product. I rarely post about or even declare these because they really aren’t any incentive – I might use them to illustrate a post (I have an inflatable pink flamingo waiting to do exactly that). This also applies to journalists. I was recently gifted a pair of boots (never before nor since) and thanked the brand publicly on Instagram. It was a genuine gift for writing I’d done for them for nothing, not a brand promo or a bribe. The writing was already done well before the boots arrived.

7. Trips: I have only ever been on one trip as a blogger that I’d call a ‘jolly’ although as a journalist I was offered plenty. You’re expected to work hard if a brand has paid money for you to be there and be available at all times. Just because it’s happening in Rome or Paris doesn’t mean it’s not work. I go on very few trips because it’s generally a brand immersion that doesn’t leave you many options when it comes to posting. I also don’t feel comfortable about looking ‘showy’.

8. Botempt I was quite amazed to read in your comment that the ASA does not see the necessity of disclosing that money has changed hands if there is no creative input (I'm assuming this means a detailed brief with points that must be mentioned in order to receive payment) by the brand/agency. I know.. me too. I don’t know what to say to you about this other than those are the facts as they stand. And yes, you’d need some kind of documentary evidence. You also maybe need to look with a side-eye at the brands who quite happily go ahead with paid for posts knowing that it won’t be openly declared.

1. I'm also curious about the roles of agents, you've mentioned that you've had an agent in the past who was by your description more of a business facilitator who mainly acted if there were financial/contractual disputes on your behalf. Agencies like Gleam appear to be facilitating far more than this, functioning like a hybrid of PR and talent management, earning their keep from both parties by designing strategies and campaigns that incentivise sales across several platforms where we see the same product over and over again (please correct me if this is an inaccurate assessment). What has their influence been on how the blogging industry functions and operates now? Are they actively educating bloggers on how to handle ASA guidelines and possibly how to circumvent them? Is the lack of disclosure and transparency something that is preferred by brands or the agencies, or is it a combination of both? : I believe that some agencies are more reliable than others and do actively educate on the subject. Their influence is huge but it’s not in fact, the bigger agencies, it’s the smaller ‘social media agencies’ that tend to disregard rules. It’s not in the interest of any large agency to have a roster of bloggers/vloggers that flout the rules but with the hundreds of smaller agencies – their practices are questionable on occasion. The larger agencies have more of a financial influence on the blogging ‘market’ which in fact works in the favour of those not with an agency because fee expectation is higher across the board. The downside for us is that agency bloggers often only promote from within which makes commercial sense but it has meant a loss of the sense of community in the blogosphere and put a competitive bar in place that didn’t exist prior to agencies. It’s often those not affiliated with an agency and don’t have anyone overseeing they adhere that are the ones not complying. Questionable posts are also present on Instagram where certain brands, bloggers and journalists in every genre you care to mention buy followers and likes. And thank you for the suggestion re SH ITB.

9. Re Iamnina: One of my concerns with this poster is that she said she was able to tell at a glance (I think) what was an undeclared post and cited my site as a place that she was able to see them. That’s entirely untrue. She is correct that bloggers are watched like hawks by agencies, brands and stats aggregators and that threads like this one play a part in them being able to understand the mood of the moment, but I have genuinely never heard of a MN thread being an activity game changer for any brand at all. What brands generally want, is a large, provable number of views on any activity they’re producing. When you get to the really big brands, numbers are all that it’s about – relevant audience? Don’t care. It’s why you can often see unsuitable products sent to big numbers bloggers (such as anti-ageing to a 20 year old) Provable stats is what impresses the budget holders. Agencies provide an intermediary role in this but it’s my understanding that it falls to the blogger in the end to decide what is the right product to take or the right brand to work with. It’s usual for brands to decide who to work with on a) numbers (real or imagined, b) prettiness (real or filtered), c) age (real or pretend), d) authority (real or pretend) so you have to again look at the marketing plans of beauty brands to see why who gets what and maybe that helps you to partially see how we are where we are.

10. Everyone sent the same products: Nobody likes this any more than you do – PR and marketing now consider bloggers part of their ‘strategy’. Usually, long lead press gets the products first, short lead second and bloggers third and we have little or no control over that. Personally, I fight against being expected to be part of a crowd (why I feature Korean brands or US brands quite often) and will ask to get something different from the range or ahead of time – anything really to make it a little bit different. But, we are ‘expected’ by brands to join the masses and to adhere to their time structure. Sometimes I do, if it’s a brand that I know my readers love, and sometimes I don’t join in at all. Not every reader reads other blogs so I can’t obliterate all of it otherwise I’d have an empty site and be short changing those who want to keep up with beauty news from one source. As it is, there are glaring holes in my roster of brands that I talk about and after being told by one brand; ‘you don’t get to choose what you write about, you write about what we send you’ I did indeed exercise my choice and never worked with them again. We are also under pressure from brands to ‘prove we can sell’ (not to mention the affiliate agencies who send daily emails urging us to promote brands) and again, those brands who have said that to me directly have been removed from the roster. I don’t know what more I can do. Any advertising on my site is sourced directly by me – I don’t have an agency supplying my ads but I do work on an affiliate basis where relevant.

11. Finally.. and hoping I haven’t just posted the longest comment in MN history, some of you will know that for the past few years I have produced beauty boxes with Latest In Beauty and this is a commercial activity although I feel that they are exceptionally fairly priced for the contents. I also had a make up range two years ago with Marks & Spencer, again commercial, and I have a palette coming up with another brand in which I will take a profit share. There is no secret to any of this but please don’t imagine I’m buying a Rolls Royce with the profits! The brands you see in the boxes are brands that I am genuinely proud to work with and in most cases have worked with them for years and years, both as a journalist (20 years) and a blogger (8 years). I have paid for work coming up with House of Fraser, Olay and Clinique amongst others, just so there are no surprises. My blog will always have a clearly marked commercial aspect. I am proud of what I do and the way in which I do it. Thank you for your direct questions and the opportunity to address them - I hope you feel in some way clearer.

Cizzbot:

SH has tweeted she has her own 'stall' on SHB linking to her page about this discussion. This makes me 😧😐

I'm not sure if you misread or are just unfamiliar with the term, but Sali simply tweeted: "There's a lot of finger pointing about journalist/blogger disclosure currently. So I have set out my stall here:" and linked to the existing statement on her site. She's set out her stall: ie, she's explained her position. There is no new information there, or instigation of playground fighting, it's simply a link to Sunday's piece, tweeted again as new people may be coming to this late.

floisme (et al) I can totally understand frustration at a writer who doesn't provide negative reviews. But perhaps the key here is the word 'writer' as opposed to 'reviewer'. Take wine writers, who'll generally pick out wines they'd recommend from the myriad possibilities, rather than devote time and valuable column inches to warning readers off fizzy piss, without anyone suggesting this compromises their legitimacy or trustworthiness. Sali chooses to focus on products that have impressed her from amongst thousands she's sent. To "not listen to any of Hughes' recommendations" implies that her positive comments are not to be trusted because, what, she writes and is positive about everything she receives? This is palpably untrue, as the mountains of products she doesn't comment about positively attest. She's quite scathing about whole categories of product - bust gels, anti-cellulite creams - but simply doesn't have the time (or in the Guardian, the space) to write about stuff she doesn't like at the expense of stuff she does.

I appreciated sali's post a lot and I really, really appreciate JaneBBB1 coming on here. (Can you ever imagine the Londoner doing that?! )

Jane you're brilliant, you're one of the first bloggers I read and still read several years later and also inspired me to start blogging. Keep doing what you're doing! xx

Perfunctory,
Thank you for that. I completely misinterpreted 'stall'. I read it a different way so I apologise to SH. 🙊oops and blush.

perfunctory The thing is, bad reviews are one of the things that first drew me to blogs when magazines became too scared of saying 'boo' to their advertisers.

I too only have a limited amount of time and I prefer to spend that time reading people who have strong opinions and who aren't afraid to voice them, even if it means being controversial.

It's non negotiable for me. If they won't write them, that's up to them. But I won't be reading them.

I never read wine writers but they sound crashingly dull.

Jane pleased you've come back. I've not read your post yet but I will.

Thanks for the response Jane, it's highly informative and you rightfully deserve to feel pride and achievement for what you've built. Saying that, I do consider you a bit of a unicorn now.

If that's the way the ASA rules are in regards to disclosure when money, services, favours, or marketable goods are clearly exchanged for page space on that basis I frankly can't trust any professionally operating blog (unicorns excluded) and I have to assume the majority, if not all of it, is paid content and written as such. You'd have to be a complete idiot to write anything but a glowing review or feature if you want to stay afloat if that's the financial model. As a reader it's not worth scrutinising every individual post across several different blogs and mediums to piece together which brands actively discourage or encourage disclosure, it would pretty much be a full time job. The number of blogs I followed was already dwindling but will now probably come down to near nothing and there are many that I actively won't consult anymore when researching a possible purchase.

I am curious now though, since non disclosing of funds in exchange for page space (provided there is no creative input where only the involved parties have privy as to whether procedure is being followed) is not considered advertising and therefore permissible, what are the supposed infractions by the 'chief offenders' according to other bloggers? Or is it simply that those who have received the same brief and declared it as an ad correctly spot 'identical' posts with other bloggers that are non-disclosed?

Jane thank you so much for your in depth response. I've read all the comments on here and the other two sections. I was already getting despondent with what I perceived to be growing dishonesty in beauty blogging as money pots grew exponentially.

I won't be looking or following any more bloggers.
Although without the said blogs I wouldn't know about acid toning and serums.
Before the money started pouring in it was fun. Once people started selling out it killed the essence.
It's a shame that good bloggers are going to suffer because bad ones spread distrust throughout.

Dear Jane, thank you for your detailed replies. I appreciate that you took the time to answer difficult questions and are helping us to understand how the system works.

I've been following this thread and just want to pop my head above the parapet to say thanks to Jane for posting. Absolutely fascinating.

Also perfunctory and before anyone sets the dogs on me, I am not implying anything about anyone. However this situation has arisen because of a breakdown in trust. My position is that if a blogger is prepared to give both negative and positive reviews, then that would help to regain my trust. It's up to them.

I also read (at least I used to read) blogs for entertainment and a mix of good and bad reviews is just far more interesting.

I don't buy the 'lack of space' argument - the internet is vast.

Thank you for your post Jane. I really appreciate it and also the fact that you haven't been flouncy or chippy or accused us all of being anti-sisterhood bitches!

Wow Jane thanks for that incredibly thorough post! I do find it really heartening that you are prepared to talk to us thoughtfully and openly about these issues.

You've really put your finger on a couple of things in your response. The length of disclosure - I wasn't very clear in my question I think - I meant exactly what you said about how long you need to declare a prior relationship with a brand. For example, if I google your reviews on B products, I find one from January 2012 where you are incredibly upfront that you're going to be consulting for Superdrug, but then another from 2014 where you mention that the products were samples from brands/agencies but not your previous consultancy work. So if I were a longtime follower of your blog I'd know, but if I were a new reader I wouldn't. That's exactly what I meant - how much work should the reader have to do to identify prior relationships, and how long should the blogger have to keep mentioning them in new reviews of the same product/brand?

On the 'what can we do' issue - as I said upthread, I'm assuming that the consumer power of suspicious, relatively media-literate sticklers like us is as naught to the impressionable teenage girls who are the primary target for many bloggers/instagrammers (although not, I think, you!). As PP's have mentioned, they deserve better protection from unscrupulous practices. What can we do to encourage change in the parts of the sector that aren't aimed at us and that we don't tend to read anyway? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks again for all this, I've added you to my blogroll now and will actually be checking out the B range at Superdrug which, until now, I'd kind of bypassed. So a good result for me on many levels!

Floisme Well, I did say the space issue applied only to The Guardian, in which SH has a suffocatingly limited wordcount.

I understand your argument about the entertainment value of a mix of positive and negative reviews and that's fair enough - we'll have to agree to disagree on the trust issue.

(Oh, and I don't read wine writers either - my general principle on wine is that if it's less than a fiver or more than a tenner, I put it back on the shelf.)

Jane, you've got yourself a new reader. Thank you for taking the time to address this mess, it speaks volumes about your integrity.

Take note CH and SH.

Great post from Jane but I have to say why would she be chippy when she wasn't targeted or accused on the previous threads? But she admits she does sponsored posts, consults for brands and receives free product which are some of the things that Sali and Caroline were accused of and torn apart for on previous threads?
I work in the industry and can categorically say Sali, Caroline and Jane are three of the most honest women in the industry, I've tried to get all three to feature clients of mine in the past only to be turned down because they don't believe in the brands. And when they have featured a client/product of mine they have never ever asked for payment in return. Of course they are going to be paid to consult for brands from time to time but in my experience this doesn't mean those brands get featured on their blog as payment (however hard we as PR's might try 😁)
How else would bloggers pay their bills if they didn't consult or do the occasional sponsored post? I agree if everything they post is paid for then it goes against everything that bloggers stood for when they started, honest advice (not swayed by advertisers) but the odd sponsored post and consulting jobs are totally acceptable in my eyes and as I have said it doesn't mean that brand gets featured on their blog in return for the consulting job.
When you work in the industry it seems obvious that bloggers get free product to review as it's the same with journalists, how is it any different? It is still an independent review as they don't feature every product that is sent to them just because it is free. They get sent so many products to test and choose which make the grain, suit their audience and which they recommend and it's only those products make it onto the blog.
I want to point out that the previous threads totally got out of hand, it was really uncomfortable reading and SH and CH were targeted because of two self proclaimed 'industry insiders' questioning their ethics and giving their opinions on their business dealings. Has anyone stopped to think that these two 'industry insiders' could be anyone, they could be competitive bloggers trying to take those at the top down, questioning their ethics? So many mumsnet followers were writing that they were unfollowing SH and CH and would never trust them again, why? Because two anonymous people gave their opinion on their ethics on mumsnet?! Talk about being given a fair trial. You don't believe everything you read in the press so why on earth do people take everything people say on here as gospel?
It was really sad to watch two people be torn down like that, especially when I know personally from having dealt with them both in the past, who hard they work, how honest and full of integrity they are. Come on ladies we are smarter than that.
I think this discussion has foundations that are totally relevant and it is a conversation that needed to happen but no one should be accused until concrete evidence is in hand. It's ironic that the two most trustworthy and honest bloggers out there were the two who were targeted.

I can understand why CH and SH found the last thread uncomfortable, and I appreciate SH's detailed response. However... it's not shocking that readers are questioning blogs and associated social media in general, SH and CH themselves posted IG posts themselves calling out other unnamed bloggers (presumably) for unmarked IG posts. So as a reader, it's just confusing.

Yes I'm not questioning that as there are some bloggers and journalists who are paid to post on Instagram without tagging #spon or #ad and also bloggers who won't feature product unless they are paid so it is an issue but this is a small number or journalists and bloggers and not those who were accused in the previous threads. So it is an issue and I agree stricter guidelines should be in place with regards to everyone having to admit when something was sponsored etc you only have to look at a Kardashian Instagram to wonder how on earth they get away with all of their advertising with no #ad or #spon to be seen 😳

I know what you're saying, but as a reader, it makes me think maybe it's easier to just avoid blogs at this point just because there's this inner dialogue wondering how authentic the review is, and it's distracting from something that was fun and interesting before.

It's not the end of the world, just a shame that a pleasurable distraction has turned a bit sour. From a reader's perspective I guess it's made me feel stupid and gullible, and then chastened for questioning it even though bloggers themselves are alluding to it. It's all a bit

Thank you Jane. Haley at LBQ has also commented on the thread: www.londonbeautyqueen.com/2016/03/trust-me-im-beauty-blogger.html

Jessie - the difference for me is that bloggers did not originally get free products/paid for doing reviews - they were just girls/women in their bedrooms.

However, now they are the same as buying a magazine but with even less regulation it seems.

So for me, I used to think bloggers were just mentioning things they genuinely liked and bought. So when I read things about consultancy and see some bloggers who don't disclose well it just makes you distrustful.

I have nothing against SH or CH personally - I just view blogs as another form of advertising. But not everyone as was evidenced on these threads was aware of that.

And also many bloggers/vloggers were very cagey for a long time that blogging was their job. They liked to portray the fact it was a hobby and not something they were reliant upon to pay their bills.

I am happy to click on affiliate links and for bloggers to get revenue that way. I don't look at sponsored posts generally though - that's just my choic.

Bloggers can ultimately do whatever they want but those like the ones who have posted on here who listen to criticism/questions and react are surely going to have more longevity. It seems career limiting to me to be aggressive with readers and call them all bitchy etc.

And not all of us blindly believed iamnina - god I don't believe 75% of what I read on here I mean Jessie you could be a trucker called Roy for all I know taking a break on the M6.

😂 exactly. Traffic is terrible but I'm munching on my Yorkie reading The Sun so it's all good. Disclaimer I was not paid by Yorkie or The Sun to mention them in this post 😁 love Roy

You're right, Jessie the previous threads did get out of hand. That is why we left and started a new thread.

We are trying to continue the conversation but in a more thoughtful way. The fact that this seems so difficult only convinces me that this is about something more than lipstick - or even acid toners. But then I'm an awkward bugger.

Is there anything in this new thread that you object to?

Thank you Jane. I've got another one if you can bear it. You mention a recent sponsored post for Fresh and today you've got a review of the Fresh rose product, which isn't sponsored. How do you manage the balance between writing about a brand in a sponsored context and then later in a non paid 'look at this nice new thing' context? Obviously you can't never cover a brand again after doing sponsored activity with them, but do you have a cooling off period or make no promises to them about future coverage and then just carry on as normal? Does it ever get a bit sticky expectations wise?

Agree with everything Mrs CB said ^^