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

ThreeFourFive I can’t figure out the instamum either.

40notfrumpy (38K followers) appears to be continuing to ignore the rules around gifts, freebies, events and brand affiliation.

Promoting a constant stream of freebies while pretending to an be ordinary woman "just like us". It's disingenuous.

Here's a question for you all, as I honestly don't know the answer to this one.

Yesterday DMBL40 put a post on Instagram where she talked about what she'd been doing that day.

In it she mentioned having been at a lunch with a skincare brand, and at a dinner with a fragrance brand. Both brands had their "@...." clicky-links in her post.

It looks like all her outfit was bought. Kat is always very clear about labelling stuff like that. So no #ad disclosure needed for that - great.

But, as the mentions of the 2 brands were there, complete with Instagram tags, should there have been an #ad in the post somewhere? I mean, otherwise, why mention (& tag) the brands at all? It was literally only a mention and a tag, so does it count? Do the CMA guidelines give any guidance on things like that?

I only follow DMBL40 and CLts. The difference in approach is staggering and fascinating- DMBL has a highly professional approach with regular updates of content with a distinctive style and I can understand why she’s valuable to brands as a result. CLTS on the other hand can’t write and chooses not to for the most part and her style is mainly jeans / jumper yet the brands still chase her and take her to chewton glen or wherever - does she have amazing follower activity because she’s so pretty? Or do brands find that the gifts etc are more believable as purchases when they’re in the hands of someone who can clearly afford them? It’s very much “free to those who can afford / expensive to those who can’t “.

I was thinking about this all last night. I feel pretty clear on stuff you’re being paid to flog and gifts but @schoney ‘s question is interesting.

If I was an author (I’m not) and I’m on a book tour posting pics of myself about the country and tagging my publisher am I advertising? I assume not as there’s no specific product.

But if I include pics of my book then it would be #ad.

Or if I’m in a local band and post my next gig listings is that #ad? I assume, yes?

That’s interesting because a lot of authors I follow get sent proofs of other writer’s work which gets tagged and promoted. So should that be ad? I know we are discussing specific influencers here, but it does really throw up some questions in general too.

I've been thinking about this whole issue a lot too and have a question.

Regarding bloggers v. traditional print media, general consensus seems to be that it's always clear in magazines what is paid/ sponsored content, but I think the lines are sometimes blurred.

You see a full-page ad in a magazine, that's clearly paid. Sometimes there is a page of editorial content paid for by a brand, marked "Advertorial" or similar at the top. Fine. But what about the general magazine editorial, not marked as an ad or sponsored? All fashion mags have photo shoots featuring different designers, or a "Our pick of the week" feature (presumably with aff links in the online version). How is this different to DMBL40 doing a post about "My top picks this week"?

Magazines are dependent on big advertisers as well as subscribers, so should their relationships with brands also be more transparent? After all they are, like bloggers, an authoritative and aspirational voice recommending products to us.

For example, should Grazia be annotating their "Pick of the week" feature like this?

1. River Island top, £35 (RI is one of our biggest advertisers)
2. Chanel lipstick, £30 (Chanel have just signed up for 6 months' ads)
3. Topshop dress, £50 (Topshop invited all our staff to a glitzy party last week)

I assume that at a magazine publishing house, gifting is taken more seriously and has to be recorded for tax reasons, or that clothes borrowed for a shoot are actually borrowed and sent back? But I wonder if commercial interests have an influence on which items are chosen as featured pieces?

Sorry for the ramble! Been following the conversation with interest and wondering about this issue.

I had wondered about this in relation to Pixiwoo/s. They have a large following and their own make up brush brand that they obviously feature a lot but as it’s their own company do they need to say #ad? They are posting on their own accounts not the brand but I’m not sure where the line is drawn?

@MontanaSkies totally agree!! Every product is in a magazine due to a 'relationship' yet readers are led to believe it's the 'best face cream or neck cream etc...'

I work in the industry and even readers choice and seals of approvals are given to great clients. I bought some Prai neck cream the other day who probably paid in some form for their Good Housekeeping approval.

I have often wondered this too, to the extent that I asked The Pool if their links were affiliate - apparently some were, some weren't so very vague! My continuing issue with the influencers is the deception element. I don't believe a magazine is anything other than that but these influencers trade on the pretence that they are one of us, that we need to buy into their lifestyles to be part of the "in group". And they continue to deceive, even as they are exposed. Disdain upon disdain for the shameless deceit.

It's about context, surely? Also, the advertising transparency rules do apply to magazines too. Whether they apply them properly is another question, but instagram is so much more about product placement in a way that magazines aren't. Now of course there is starting to be a lot of crossover too (Real Homes is basically all instagrammers now so hardly worth buying any more as I have seen all the homes a million times before so they are not inspirational as they used to be). Living Etc and Ideal Home started trying to introduce affiliate links into their magazines too. A bad experiment I think they may have dropped now.

I agree about the press stuff. Sali Hughes is apparently on some (paid?) dermalogica trip at the moment with CH. If SH reviews a dermalogica product at some point in her guardian column she isn't going to have to disclose that is she? But if CH mentions a dermalogica product on insta it is an #ad.

No offence to journalists/the guardian but I don't magically think SH is any less biased nor consumers any less influenced because her opinion is in print.

It’s pretty obvious magazines review samples and get press releases go on press trips most people will know that.

Brands love closing the gap and were glad that followers trust and see influencers as friends. This new transparency adjusts this so the consumer knows at least they are being sold to.

I suppose it's because with magazines and print media there is a better distinction between the work accounts and the private accounts. Or at least there ought to be.

So if Good Housewife features a product then the consumer knows it's a press sample. However if Janet Housewife-Journo features something in her private account then it ought to be marked as AD, of Gift or whatever.

I think.

montana Instagram and other online platforms have really blurred the lines between what in traditional media is advertising (paid for, guaranteed media space) and what is PR (no direct payment, no guarantee of coverage, and no guarantee that any coverage will be positive).

In a magazine like Grazia, the clothes featured in editorials will be press samples (PR), and in theory the magazine could say that they were rubbish - but there has always been a clear link between advertising spend and coverage in terms of keeping advertisers happy. It's unlikely Grazia are going to say the new Lancome perfume smells like cat wee if Lancome are one of their biggest advertisers. No advertising essentially means no magazine. In a print magazine, there are no affiliate links to generate revenue, and the cover price is sweeties when you think of all the personnel involved in pulling it together.

I would personally still class "gifted" items, or jollies, as PR to a large extent (I know this is not in keeping with the ASA rules), in that there is usually no contractual obligation for the blogger to post, or to post a positive message. I personally believe there are a LOT of gifted items that never see the light of day - them's the breaks. In an advert there will be key messages that need to be conveyed, and direction from the brand in terms of number of posts and when, plus usually brand signoff before whatever it is can go live (eg, four posts in eight days, must contain brand name and pack shot, copy to be approved).

Thanks judy (Love that song, btw!) yes, that's what I was getting at and you've put it more succinctly. It's the difference between clearly paid-for advertising and PR.

I've always known that bloggers/IGers probably got lots of freebies and perks from brands, in the same way magazine staff do - but then IG kind of replaced glossy mags for me - I stopped buying them around the same time I started following blogs. So I don't really feel deceived, though the scale of it has been an eye-opener.

I'm in favour of more transparency, though I can kind of understand why some IGers feel a bit hard done by and as if they're being held to higher scrutiny than magazines when it comes to the murky world of PR.

Thanks for your post Judy, it's really interesting. I totally struggle with the distinction that is being drawn between influencers and the press. Especially when there has been no discussion of the issue or explanation from the ASA/CMA.

"There has always been a clear link between advertising spend and coverage on terms of keeping advertisers happy" Wouldn't it be equally fair to say there has always been a clear link between gifting and coverage on Instagram?

Similarly "No advertising essentially means no magazine. In a print magazine, there are no affiliate links to generate revenue, and the cover price is sweeties". But surely no gifting/ads on Instagram means the same thing. For influencers there is no cover price at all so advertising is even more essential surely?

I just think saying that well that's the way it's always been for the press and people should know the media is all an ad is a bit of a cop out. Lots of people know pretty much everything on Instagram is an ad, but influencers are still (quite rightly) being told it needs to be made explicit.

I definitely think instagram has blurred the lines in all kind of ways. I guess in terms of being obliged to post positive messages, the instagrammer is more likely to feel this pressure than a magazine writer. Their whole livelihood depends on the brands continuing to work with them so the obligation to provide coverage (and positive coverage at that) must be more meaningful than for a magazine editor. I think instagrammers are being held to more scrutiny now because they have stretched the boundaries way beyond what magazines ever did.

PC no they don’t given the reaction to ‘staggering number of freebies’

Why wouldn’t you welcome this transparent?

And if they do know it what harm is it to say it?

Good for the consumer, ok maybe influencers feel irritated but hey ho

Sorry Marsha I don't quite follow - they don't what?

My point isn't really that influencers should be less transparent than the new rules require them to be, more that magazines etc should also be held to a higher standard.

I kind of feel that the regulators are giving the press a free pass because of tradition/long standing practice and focusing on influencers because it's a newer industry (possibly with less lobbying power).

Do know it is all sales, no harm in saying Ad

But since you’re not arguing for less transparency for influencers we’re in agreement anyway

I think the traditional press should also be subject to more scrutiny because they seem to be adopting similar tactics for advertising that we complain about with influencers such using undisclosed affiliate links and biased "reviews" driven by financial incentives (advertising budgets). I guess "Janet" is more likely to complain about influencers though because there is that feeling of being personally deceived by them which you don't get with a magazine so much. That's the flip side of the influencers building rapport and emotional connections with their followers.

The whole point of influencing for brands is (or was) to look as little like an ad as possible and for followers to trust the influencer as much as possible - personally like a friend. That’s why they go for ever smaller following numbers as this trust wears off with some big accounts

I still think this closeness doesn’t exist to the same extent with magazines

Interesting point with magazines though is that after following Sali Hughes on Instagram (and unfollowing again) is that I now don’t read her columns. In fact, especially in beauty, I very rarely bother reading because I feel beauty editors are far from impartial.

I think the main difference with fashion magazines and home magazines is that is mostly aspirational. It’s for ideas not necessarily for copying. Instagram influencers are selling their life to you. In that the respect they are saying you could/ should buy these things and live like me too. It’s more personal and therefore more powerful to motivate you into buying.

This is why it’s important that influencers are more honest, but I do agree that magazines (and the people who work for them) are going to have to start negotiating the rules carefully themselves.