Bloggers and Brands 3

[CookingUpAStormTonight]

New thread I hope.

Today Kristie McDermott (Irish Beauty Editor/blogger thingy/ general hilarious person) is doing her Instastories all about"things we hate on Instagram". She gets hundreds of submissions and screenshots them and puts them on her stories and it's amazing and I urge you all to join in.

She did "hastags we hate" the other day. It was brilliant. #ihavethisthingabouttiles being easily the worst one submitted for me. Jesus.

I'm going to sound like a broken record, as I've said it before and will repeat it now, going after the personal, bloggers and their following alike, taints the general discussion about transparency on here and gains it deserving criticism. They tend to come in waves, it usually just takes one blogger 'yelp review' to set them off. Suggesting critics of this of not reading this thread if they don't like it, is hypocritical when bloggers are so heavily criticised for the same retort.

The line of personal/professional is innately blurry with bloggers as the lack of transparency often means we don't really know where that line resides. For me discussing someone's child as a bit boring because they're featured a lot is crossing the line but the general discussion of the use of children for promotional purposes and content, isn't.

However, this is an open forum that's relatively unmoderated and doesn't speak as one voice. We will all see what is and isn't fair play to discuss, differently. I've reported personal attack posts in the past (though none on these threads IIRC) where medical professionals were made out to be charlatans alongside choice word bloggers, etc. MNHQ never felt compelled to remove those as they apparently didn't overstep TG, so in that sense, it's the limitation of the MN forum and I accept that if I don't like that, I'm free to leave.

On a more positive note, I have to say that I've been amazed at how much impact these threads have had. I'm really encouraged to see it as hopefully that attitude will trickle down amongst other bloggers. I see an important role in that for the bloggers in explaining to their following why transparency is important to them, not just saying the words. Demonstrating how it benefits their followers, them as a business as well as evening out the blogger field by not allowing brands to play them out against each other financially.

It would be nice to see people not questioning those who disclose by clearly marking things as ads for being sellouts, but rather a side-eye is given to the ones that tag nothing but seem to have been receiving the same swag and pushing the same campaigns. It's an easier conclusion to draw when 9 in 10 disclose properly rather than 1 in 10. The ones resistant to change are the bloggers ultimately doing the most harm to the blogger profession and equally, followers shouldn't need a course in SM marketing to understand when and when they're not being sold to.

Suggesting critics of this of not reading this thread if they don't like it, is hypocritical when bloggers are so heavily criticised for the same retort

That wasn't really what I was saying. I think we're on the same page, but sarcasm obviously needs spelling out when you can't hear the tone of what's on the page.

I'm completely for anyone who wants to come and air their views and I think a public IG page that's being monetised should be the same (so long as it's not bullying, trolling or personal).

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you specifically Pavlova, it was more a general comment as we've had that happen on here before where the tone could not be mistaken for sarcasm.

I’ve been following all three threads which make interesting reading and confirmed I’m not alone in my feelings on the the issue of blogger and transparency.

Came across this interesting article from the New Statesman, although it explores the impact of blogger hauls on teens and children, I’m sure there’s some similar impacts on adults.

www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2018/02/knots-my-stomach-how-youtube-consumerism-affects-children-and-teens

I try not to stray into the personal, because I do think it detracts from the overall message. I guess you can liken it to, say, giving end of year feedback to someone at work. Would I tell them I didn't like the way he talked, I thought his children were ugly and I didn't like his hairstyle? No, I wouldn't. But I may well tell him I thought he was rude and I didn't like the way he talked to me as if I was stupid. Probably not in those exact words, but I doubt he would tell me that my "naivety sickened him" either - he would tone it down. The internet definitely brings out a more raw and direct way of expressing yourself, which isn't nice to be on either end of, I get that.

I actually think Anna Hart would be a great person to come onto this thread and give us her thoughts from the perspective of someone who is trying to act an agent for influencers. It would be really interesting to hear her point of view and it may even change my views on some areas, who knows?

Anna Hart just said on instagram that mumsnet have invited her in so maybe we will hear from her which would be interesting. I like her a lot, the only thing I don't like is she just said something along the lines of 'you think you can say things about me behind your username and I can't see who you are...but actually I can because mumsnet have asked me to come in'.

I'm assuming she was just caught up in the moment of having a rant rather than intending to be a bit threatening but it was the first time she's made me go

Thanks for the link to the article @hollycatberry. Supports everything we have been saying on this thread.

Does she need to be invited? She can just log in and join the chat like Kat and Clemmie have done 😳

I've not seen where she's been invited in, but perhaps it's linked to the fact she tagged MN in her insta story that said this thread made her cry.

I'm not into the personal comments, either. It's shitty and devalues these discussions; which I think we can all agree have been surprisingly powerful.

Well I have said on here that Anna is rude and I stand by that. I said on Instagram that I thought she was rude about Mumsnet (my IG is in my own name so no hiding) - she told me I was was wrong and didn’t know what I was talking about (in quite a rude way) and blocked me (I have to say that I had also complemented her on several things so tge message was clear that only unyielding adoration was allowed). She monetises her IG so in my opinion it is a business- I was a customer (literally I was about to buy a dress she’d linked to) - she treats her customers shockingly which imo shows she has a poor understanding of the blogger/ follower relationship.

As I’ve said many times on here (sorry have name changed) I love CLTS, DMBL40, ED, MOD - they listen to people’s opinions and understand that we don’t all think the same. Anna seems unwilling to have any conversation with people and just shouts over them telling them they’re wrong and stupid. I am really not over invested but I was hurt by her actions- I was trying to be constructive and she acted like a bully- maybe I was over sensitive as I had a lot of personal stuff going on but that was the impression she gave and it has really tainted my view.

I think you're entitled to your opinion ladylazarus I think the only really personal comments I've seen on this thread recently relate to Esther Coren (?) and her drinking habits and even then, if she herself has spoken about them, surely it's out there for others to talk about.

I've said previously that I wasn't MOD's biggest fan (unfollowed after the Miele thing) but I actually admire how she's taken on board this thread, changed her approach to ads and I liked her response to cerealgate, so I'm going to refollow her.

Maybe Anna can come on here and change our minds too? If you've got something to sell, you need customers. You don't alienate them by telling them that you know best and we're just too stupid to get it.

@Ladylazarus. Anna H blocked me too following a very reasonable Message I sent her. Something to do with not being on the same wavelength, can’t remember exactly. Was really strange, seemed to go into a rant without reason.

Anyway, no loss, her Instagram is just one long - quick this will sell out, swipe up now - all links to affiliates to generate income.

I thought MOD was great when she came on here I’ve also said that my opinion of her went right up - I thought she came across really well and I admire her for that.

Anna made me feel shitty - I wasn’t special enough to be in her gang, I was stupid, I was annoying- it was true Mean Girls stuff - I wanted to ask her if that was her intention but she blocked me so I will have to assume it was her intention.

I feel I should point out my last post wasn't a personal attack on Anna Hart, rather I was trying to clumsily point out that Anna's 'work' isn't clear - her product appears to be herself. So any criticism directed at her will inherently feel personal.

However, I've just had another look at her Instagram feed and in mid February some posts were tagged #ad and the penny dropped: her Instagram account isn't just photos of her wearing her own clothes, outfit of the day style. Most of the clothing she is wearing must be undisclosed gifts and THAT is her 'work'. I don't recall ever seeing the #ad hashtag back when I followed her so this must be a newish development.

And it comes right back to point of this thread: being transparent and disclosing product placement is important. It flags the purpose and intent of your posts to your audience. I still find her feed and stories fairly boring, but I can see it isn't quite as self indulgent as it is indeed work advertising products.

Maybe MNHQ have invited her in for a chat as they did with Mother Pukka?

I realise this ^ makes me look like a tragic saddo but I was trying to be really honest about the effect she had on me

Or maybe Anna's feed is all affiliate links as DillyDilly has said? As well as product placement?

Who knows? It's all rather shady, isn't it?

Hi there. I've been reading these threads with interest and something hit me on Super Savers last night. They were saying how people are paid to give five star reviews on Amazon and I wondered if some of the super-fans are actually paid to gush about influencers. I mean, there is no one in the world really so dumb as not to have thought about eating cereal with their kids in the morning - have they never watched ads before? They have to have been paid for that, surely.

I mean, there is no one in the world really so dumb as not to have thought about eating cereal with their kids in the morning

Some people need all the help they can get apparently.

Tbh, I don't think they are paid, I just think they want attention from what they perceive as 'the popular girl' (that's not a dig, by the way. A lot of the bloggers have these 'super fans'). Their comments kind of scream 'please notice me!'. Maybe they think they'll end up being friends with the influencers and get invited to a Boden party or something.

I'm pretty sure her feed is majority affiliate links. I've said before on this thread that she sends out repeated undisclosed affiliate links on twitter. The ASA guidance on this is clear that links need to be disclosed as #ads, so I would love to hear her explanation of why she doesn't disclose this in her posts. Those 'must have, sell out Gianni pants' links on her twitter feed go via rstyle.me to Net A Porter. You only find out after you click on the link and only if you look very hard at the routing the link goes through. That's dishonest, imo.

Honestly, I'd love to hear all the superfans were really Russian bots but I think the sad reality is that those are the most genuine thing about this phenomenon. The article holly linked -much thanks btw- displays that quite well, the YTer mentioned preaching against beauty gurus found herself a ready-made audience quite easily, but it exploits the same structure and hierarchy of the very thing she criticises. There seems to be a genuine desire to have some sort of 'authority' tell people what to do so long as it confirms feelings they've previously struggled to express properly for themselves. Hero-worship soon follows. That connection is what makes the blogger-follower relationship of interest but also ripe for exploitation.

For all the condemnation of AH's condescending tone, at least you can't accuse her of not being honest in that regard. She's not manipulating the power structure and pretending it isn't anything but what it is. I'm sure many other bloggers feel similar about their own following and express themselves quite differently behind closed doors but happily play your bestest friend when it suits them.

Lady, that still sounds shit what happened to you.

This happened 3 years ago:-

www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/27/youtube-makeup-video-max-factor-ad-ruth-crilly

We don't seem to have moved on much?! Or maybe the rules have changed?

I think we all need to be aware of the consequences of our contributions to this feed. If whatever we've said is enough to alert MN to asking Anna to go and see them then there must be a reason and they must value her opinion.

Anna if you see this please know that it isn't personal but your tone seems to be mistaken at time. I'm not of the opinion that you need to conform to our opinions as you are clearly doing very well and perhaps some of us aren't the people you want following you. I wouldn't join MN to comment on this, you don't need to jump when we say so!

Leaving this thread and suggest a new, positively curious one is created.

She was very rude to a friend of mine on a discussion RE transparency. And I’ve read numerous rude replies to others! So ok, my unlikable comment was too much, I’m just not a fan because of how she responds to people. The last thing I would want to do is make someone cry though, so I apologise.