Bloggers and brands

[homebythesea]

I love blogs, YouTube, Instagram etc but sometimes do wonder what's in it for the brands especially regarding blogger events.

Straight up reviews of things they get sent I totally get- they try things on/ use a face cream, wax lyrical about how great the thing is, people click through and buy said item. Straightforward advertising. No problem with that at all.

But when a blogger is invited to a dinner, or night away at a hotel, or a movie premiere by a brand I just don't get what is worth the expense? From the blogger perspective they get a night out and a goodie bag and maybe even paid to attend. But what does the brand get in return? A brief tag on an Instagram pic, some photos of beautiful place settings at dinner......but not necessarily sales?? These events must cost thousands to put on.

Hopefully someone with some knowledge about these things will enlighten us!

The disclosure policy of NDAL is actually pretty good.

Jane of midlife fashion always says a small commission is made if a purchase through an Affiliate link is made but I've always wondered really how small (or big) that is

NDAL was definitely coat tailing. I used to read her blog but her style is nothing like mine and she did always come across as a business not a blogger.

The ASA don’t really “police” even conventional advertising - they set out guidelines which advertisers are expected to follow, and then investigate complaints and take action if the public think an ad has breached the codes. Advertising agencies effectively pay for the ASA, so mainly they follow the guidelines and obey any sanctions if they break them. It would be impossible to monitor blogs given how many there are and new ones popping up all the time. I assume you can complain in the same way - webform or email - if you are unhappy with a blog’s promotion. (Although I wonder if it is the brand you’d actually be complaining about, as you would make a complaint about eg ASDA, not Channel 4?)

This is the recent FTC press release following the crackdown on a lot of celebrities and big influencers advertising on social media. Admittedly USA based but still a very interesting read.

www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose

A few things stand out particularly that #sp and "Thanks [Brand]" don't really cut it, burying #ad in the middle of 20 other hashtags doesn't really cut it and a gift of a free product is considered a "material connection" between brand and blogger and that connection should be clearly disclosed.

Also interesting that the rules apply to both the brand and the blogger/influencer.

That is really interesting fiveoclock. I think the difference between conventional ads/the ASA and brands and bloggers is that with ATL advertising there is pretty much always a middle man in the advertising agency, which is likely to be mindful of the ASA’s codes. Bloggers essentially act as agency and media type, writing their own copy and hosting it.

Yes, Jane (BBB) mentioned putting in a complaint with the ASA where it was very obvious another blogger failed to disclose what was obviously an ad but the complaint was rejected as they basically needed evidence that one would only be privy to if part of the contract negotiations between blogger and brand. The ASA only considers something an ad if a brand has a final say/creative input on the content. If a blogger is paid for space but left complete creative control it isn't an ad IIRC. If the ASA does hand out a fine, it's only ever the brand that gets in trouble.

The US counterpart indeed has more teeth and do pursue SM disclosure a lot more, but by my estimation, it's not even the tip of an iceberg that they're addressing.

Completely agree and I think this is where some of them are out of their depth. They don't come from a journalistic or advertising background so they have to learn as they go from others who are already doing it. It's a lot of people not following the rules setting a bad example to others. It's interesting that some of those who are currently being held in high regard come from a traditional media background. Coincidence....I don't think so.

I think the attitude has been "well that's how so-and-so does it and they seem pretty successful so I'll just copy what they do" without really stopping to consider whether so-and-so is doing it properly. I think that's why the ones who are attempting to raise the bar and are taking feedback and comments on board and changing the way they work stand out admirably. Hopefully it's just going to take a few who are high profile to change things.

After mulling it over I think it is the brands that should be held to account more so than the bloggers - which would be like a game of whack-a-mole to try to address. As I said earlier in the thread, IMO the brands are using the bloggers as a cheap, easy route to consumers. The brands know the rules about transparency with regards to advertising, but by exploiting these new channels they know they can circumvent rules that otherwise apply. Most of the blogs are really just muddling through.

If the FTC/ASA becomes aware that Brand X, for example, is raking in a load of sales from blogs that are not disclosing the affiliate marketing in a transparent way, or are not disclosing paid partnerships etc, they should take action against Brand X. The brands would be incentivised to make sure that their affiliate programmes or agencies only trade through blogs that disclose in line with FTC/ASA rules and the affiliate programmes and agencies would be incentivised to ensure that blogs can only sign up if they promise to use appropriate disclosures.

I'm just catching up. This thread has been such an interesting and timely read for me. Nearly 900 posts of a type - please just tell us it's a gift /you've been paid etc.

Bloggers appearing, an education on Gleam, a change what I can now see on my SM content, a (now public) row which does not reflect well at all on the person who took it public and I agree with Poppy on previous comments.

There's a closed blogger FB group (who knew) - is anyone there sharing the links re:payments and everything else mentioned towards the end of this thread.

I had no idea about affiliate links, 30 day cookies etc. It actually gets worse and worse. I just wanted to know - 'no I didn't buy it myself it was a gift'.

I thought being flogged candles and Aloe Vera on my FB feed was annoying and manipulative. Turns out Insta is worse.

Zara and Cos feature in loads of blogs and Instagram feeds. The bloggers mentioned on this thread are very mainstream and popular with the “mum” demographic (mass generalisation of MN readership there) but there are all sorts of fashion accounts to be found run by women (and men or even both) with all kinds of backgrounds and persepectives. Just sayin’ really, this is a very narrow wedge of the market being discussed here.

I still think that, unfortunately, this issue is being glossed over somewhat by the bloggers.

Saying that it’s implicit that a mini-break is gifted because you’ve written you’re a ‘guest’ is quite clearly disingenuous. Similarly, writing the letter ‘g’ is not enough.

You have to be explicit. If something is a gift, just say it’s a bloody gift.

I’m from a traditional journalistic background in newspapers. I’d be rightly hauled over the coals if I did any of this stuff in my paper. If it’s an advertorial, you’ll see the word ADVERTORIAL in a prominent position. If it’s a press trip, you’ll see it specifically stated that the trip was courtesy of blah blah. (And actually, I don’t go on press trips myself, or accept gifts, because I have my integrity intact and don’t want to be compromise by being too close to any contact)

If someone sends a proper journalist something and it’s shit, we are absolutely going to say it’s shit.

When was the last time a blogger said something was shit? Kat used to be all about how Zara clothes are stylish but fall to bits, how M&S had some hidden gems but the website was shocking etc. Not any more. And I’ll repeat what I’ve said twice already on this thread, if you’re not able or willing to give good, honest reviews of stuff that relates to your specialist subject then the whole premise of your blog is compromised. It’s a house of cards and it won’t be long before the general public at large start seeing through the sham.

This thread has become so interesting! Here's a question, what's Instagrams take on it all? Surely they have some responsibility for the way content posted on their platform is managed. Can anyone find anything?

I found this www.oneroofsocial.com/single-post/An-Update-On-Instagram that looks like an interview with app. It's very interesting to see how an agency depicts the changes to laws and updates. It doesn't answer everything but there is another piece I found from porthjess that outlines Advertising guidelines that's quite eye opening

I've got no problem with the links where they get a proportion. They encouraged me to buy it so why shouldn't they get a cut. Just like an estate agent selling a house or a travel agent selling a holiday.

If an estate agent showed me round a house and I decided I wasn't keen, then put a tracking device on my car and I then went on to buy a house in the same part of town, I'd be less inclined to give them the commission though.

One roof social is run by a prolific blogger Anna Eleri Hart! I'm never sure what she's bought and what's a freebie to be honest.

She also always looks slightly pissed off with life which is why I like her.

JaniceBattersby - you ask whether bloggers ever slag anything off - actually, one of the things I most like about Kat/DMBL40 is the honest changing room posts she does - zips that won't close, weird sleeves, poor sizing, jeans that make your arse look huge, and so on. And SusieSoSo is very hot on quality (print not matching up on seams etc) and not afraid to comment about it.

No negs on collaborations, though....

This is something I find disingenuous, when a blogger/instagrammer says they don't do negative reviews because they only feature products they know followers will like and only accept gifts their followers will like, so no need for anything negative.

As an avid Insta fan, I have been watching and reading this thread with interest. I follow a number of bloggers - mainly in the ‘instamum’ camp rather than fashion admittedly - and use them a lot for inspiration on what to buy, what products/clothes may work for me/DC. Very, very rarely do I see things declared as gifts, so I’m feeling a little cross with myself that I could be so naive

Someone upthread mentioned YouTube and that is indeed a whole different ball game. So much plugging of products, very very little clarification that’s it’s an ad/sponsored video and so on.

My eyes have been opened.

Off the back of this thread, I did a little experiment with my students today - I’m a lecturer in marketing, so the students are fairly media savvy - and asked them if they would be able to spot an affiliate link. Some of them actually had no idea what they were, despite regularly reading blogs, watching vlogs etc, which shows how poorly they’re disclosed. (I should say it wasn’t something we had covered in teaching!) So, I showed them on the whiteboard how an innocent looking link to an ASOS jumper went via a network, and then explained about the time-bound cookie it would place on my laptop. Some of the female students in particular said they often bought products they’d seen on blogs, especially makeup, and were quite shocked. These are women in their late teens/early 20s, so a prime audience for a lot of bloggers.

I think it's also important to be aware there's more to cookies than simply facilitating a sale between affiliate linker and company. They store information and track our browsing behaviour on the retail site. This data is used further engineer better sales strategies and there's always the loom and doom of the prospect of dynamic pricing, as seen in the airline industry most notably, being used with that knowledge. And lest not forget that annoying habit of every subsequent ad featuring all those things you looked at whilst you browse elsewhere. I'm personally not all that keen to hand over more information to be targetted more aggressively, especially in non-commercial spaces on the internet. Ask me to fill in a questionnaire, perfectly fine but tracking cookies border on an invasion of privacy in my book.

Some measures have been taken by the EU, hence the need to accept cookies on a site when you first visit it, but I do find it a bit troubling that it's something I have to actively opt out of with an add-on like Ghostery, and for mobile would also need to use their browser, thankfully I never make mobile purchases unless through an app which is directly with a retailer (and why they all want us to buy through there). And even Ghostery has its downsides, it's free but it's free because certain sites will pay them to automatically be whitelisted by all accounts.

I generally have no issues with the use of affiliate links for turnover if they're clearly marked, it leaves me the choice to use them or not.

botemp we’ve done quite a lot on targeted behavioural advertising in class (or “when you find yourself stalked by that Topshop dress” as I call it) and most of the students knew it went on, and what it was, just not how it worked. They were genuinely clueless about affiliate links, but now know the “hover over it before you click” trick.

It's interesting how quickly we get used to those things, I remember people genuinely being in a panic the first time they were haunted by a Topshop dress all over the internet and were convinced their computer must be hacked (something we once cared a shit tonne more about as your computer actually died from such attacks in the old days).

I'm no tech expert but the 'hover before you click' is by no means foolproof, with simple code links can easily be cloaked to appear to be something they're not. Even on MN, where all links, even those placed by posters, are affiliate links as Skimlinks automatically converts them to an affiliate link and overrides anyone posting their own affiliate links but you only see that once you've clicked, not when hovering.

I think that's a really interesting point about the brands being the real culprits here - and the agencies too. It doesn't let bloggers who don't disclose off the hook but they're the little people in this game and they're disposable. It's the brands and the likes of Gleam that are really raking it in.