Instagrammers and Influencers

[scotx]

New thread to follow on from this one

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/style_and_beauty/3462129-Can-we-chat-about-fashion-Instagrammers-influencers?msgid=84590932

Rose Thomas of The Londoner is appalling for not disclosing affiliate marketing, plus refusing to answer questions about where items are from. You’ll find all the details on her blog folks (along with an affiliate link!).

I've even seen some of them screenshot a DM they've had from a follower on Instagram asking where something is from and rather than just responding to that 1 follower privately (10 seconds to say "it's from xyz"), they use it as an opportunity to share a link with everyone. I think that shows you how they think....no opportunity is too small. It comes back to them showing a shocking lack of respect for their followers.

I’ve given up with Little Spree. I think the blog post explaining her interpretation of the rules was patronising, unnecessarily complicated and deliberately confusing. She (mistakenly) doesn’t believe gifted items require to be marked as #Ad - but at least said she would mark them as gifted going forward. But she has since posted a number of posts on Instagram with And Other Stories clothes tagged but she hasn’t bothered to mark these as gifted, despite previously saying she has an ongoing partnership with the brand.

Which demonstrates how disingenuous their bleating about the ‘measly 6%’ affiliate commission really is!

It makes me sad that centuries old professions like press journalism are being phased out due to influencers and their grubby profiting ways and fleeting bought opinions.

@OrnamentalDiamond Which demonstrates how disingenuous their bleating about the ‘measly 6%’ affiliate commission really is!

"I may make a tiny commission"...yeah right!

I think influencers fall into a couple of camps: the ones who treat it as a profession such as Erica Davies; the ones who are patronising and contemptuous of their followers, such as Little Spree and WearsMyMoney; and the ones desperate to portray an affluent lifestyle, such as Emily Johnston and Rose Thomas.

I’m here to see how these influencing careers all pan out.

To expand on my last post:

The more professional ones are working with the CMA guidelines as they see this as a long term career.

The patronising ones see influencing as a side hustle and believe the guidelines don’t really apply to them.

The last lot can’t disclose it is all advertising as their whole schtick depends upon them wafting between fabulous events and holidays never in the same outfit.

Emily Johnston definitely needs to be called out. Everything is 'sponsored' no hint of an #AD anywhere.

At least it is being talked about more and more Instagram: beware of bad influencers…

www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/feb/03/instagram-beware-bad-influencers-product-twitter-snapchat-fyre-kendall-jenner-bella-hadid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

Wearetwinset have adopted the rules fully, which is great to see. The brands they get gifts and discounts from is illuminating

Wearetwinset probably need to disclose that LikeToKnowIt is all affiliate links. I’m truly shocked that Wardrobe Icons is now disclosing this - although it isn’t noted at the beginning of the caption. Laura and Petro’s personal Instagram pages just need to catch up now.

That makes sense @OrnamentalDiamond. Although it must be more profitable for the mid level ones 20-50k than we think. I seem to recall one, think it was Style Mum, giving up her real job to influence full time - maybe they want to be in the professional camp.

Most of the last group were probably quite affluent at the start and had real jobs of sort. It certainly would have helped them at the beginning to have the money to show off (which is what a lot of Insta is..). Maybe this is why so many of the influencers are so samey - cut from the same cloth so to speak.

I like WearsMyMoney’s blog & Insta so I hope she isn’t going to be twatty & contemptuous about the guidelines. She’s mates with Little Spree I think - don’t let LS’s bad attitude rub off on you if you’re reading

Why are theannaedit and Lily Pebbles limiting comments on all their posts?

Anna Hart also says she’s got an article coming out in the FT about ASA and how everyone’s got it wrong about AD gifted 🙊. Can’t wait to read that 🤣

I’ve never heard of wearetwinset before. Wow! That is a lot of gifts and discounts and monthly vouchers.

One day nothing disclosed and the next all of that and no negative comments. People actually thanking them for their transparency. I would be pissed at the previous cover-up if I had been following them.

Is Anna Hart the one who stated that MNHQ were going to give her the contact details/addresses of the MN-ers who were criticising her or something batshit like that?

The ASA has clearly shown it has no real power. It’s the CMA influencers need to be paying attention to. Their guidelines are a crystal clear interpretation of complying with the relevant legislation. And they can impose sanctions. Anna Hart has always known best, though.

Yes, Anna cried on stories and said she had a meeting with MN to collect the personal details of everyone who had hurt her feelings.

Clever set of stories from Erica Davies tonight, no links, no shopping just lots of styling pics with good explanations of why she chose them and why the combinations work etc. Setting herself aside with knowledge.

wouldyoulikeabagwiththat - so limiting comments & closing down conversation regarding transparency continues on Instagram.

This is why I am so glad the conversation has been allowed to continue on here.

The influencers have been in a panic all week that the game is up and people won't be as interested. When challenged their defence is 'close down all conversation'.

Anna Hart also says she’s got an article coming out in the FT about ASA and how everyone’s got it wrong about AD gifted

Whoa...so she's saying everyone is getting it wrong and a gift is still just a gift with no need for AD. Tells everyone to go to the ASA and read the rules. Well I'm pretty sure when I follow the ASA flowchart regarding gifts, I get to a bit that says:

It’s likely to be considered ‘sponsored’ content rather than an ‘ad’ under the CAP Code, so not for the ASA.

But CMA rules apply here – you must make sure content is clearly identifiable as being paid-for. For example, by using the label advertisement feature or advertisement promotion.

OK you could argue that is says "for example" implying that there may be other suitable ways to disclose paid for content but when they're suggesting that "advertisement feature" or "advertisement promotion" would be acceptable labels, how on earth can she then say that they're all doing it wrong by unnecessarily labelling gifts as AD. So I understand it's not an AD as per ASA but it is required for CMA. It's like she's just completing missing that bit. Or am I missing something?

It’s an Anna Hart interpretation. You aren’t missing anything, scotx.

I eagerly await the article, which I am sure would have gone through a rigorous editorial process.