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

It's not that I don't care for consumer rules, I understand they are important. I'm just saying that I, personally, don't care if influencers say if they got something for free or not. TBH I always presume they're peddling something anyway! Obviously a lot of people feel very strongly about it though. I'm just not one of them. I'm not suggesting they back peddle on the legislation or anything.

I for one, am surprised at the amount of free stuff. Looking back I should have been less naive. I’m looking at Lisa Dawson’s recent post where she says the flooring, carpet, light and paint for her hallway were all gifted so that room makeover cost her pretty much nothing! It explains how she can afford to do her rooms up every year! Also makes me feel a bit sick! Not with jealousy by the way

That hall light is worth nearly three grand. I looked it up once (easily influenced). I’ve an idea for how she can make her captions more snappy though, how about swapping “This post includes product from previous brand partnerships” with.......AD? Just a suggestion

Good point!!
3 grand? Wow

@wouldyoulikeabagwiththat like pulling teeth! So obvious doing it under duress - it’s obvious the lot was gifted so just come out and own it.

Did anyone read Midlife Chic’s latest blog post where she references all this? I commented on her Instagram post where she spoke about it, and in today’s blog she says she lost a lot of followers as a result.

I am amused by posts this week claiming they are not sure how to tag because of the “new rules”.

The bedroom light (which I also looked up, being a lover of lovely lighting) was £1250 too. That was a collaboration with the brand too I do believe.

Bloody hell. Everything in that house is both really expensive and totally free to her!

Midlife Chic seema really smart, a very thoughtful post. Thanks for the recommendation 👍🏼

LD must be rubbing her hands together with glee!

Quite telling @Judystilldreamsofhorses that she reckons the people that unfollowed were other Instagrammers. The comments under that post absolutely reiterate almost everything people have complained about here. The influencers may not like it but so many people, not just on this forum, are surprised and feel misled by the extent of the gifting and the shocking lack of transparency.

I’ve lurked on this thread and the previous one, but I was just wondering if anyone watched Caroline Hiron’s vlog today, which addresses many of the new guidelines? She makes some really interesting points about how this impacts people like her, and the creation of a distinction between journalists and bloggers. I think the guidelines are necessary (although also unnecessarily complex in some cases), but I thought her take was a thoughtful new perspective.

I have followed Mid Life Chic since her very first blogs and have always found her very professional and transparent. I think it helps that she is from a genuine fashion professional background.

The influencers doing the most whining remind me of the 'cool' girls at school suddenly finding out that everyone else doesn't actually want to be like them, and infact think the cool girls are a bit of a joke.

I watched CH's blog too. I think her point that if #ad is used as often as it should be under the new rules it becomes very hard to tell the difference between (1) a lipstick that has been sent to her for free and (2) a lipstick that has been sent to her for free and the brand as paid her ££££ to talk about.

She acknowledges that it's easy to dismiss gifts as a benefit in kind when it's just a lipstick but different when it's a trip to the Maldives. Obviously how you legislate that is difficult.

I really do feel that it's unfair the same rules don't apply to the print media. I raised that on the last thread and no one else seemed to share that view!

If CH believes there needs to be a distinction for her followers over the different circumstances of her freebie lipsticks then there is nothing preventing her making that distinction. The legislation covers that already.

Print media is already subject to more regulation than influencers. There is an interesting thread on twitter from @malestylist (currently his pinned tweet) about this.

I know Emma hill aleways bangs on about gets being taxable and returning those she doesn't want but the vast majority of Instagrammers don't do this and I don't think HMRC are looking closely enough or have the manpower to cover Insta. Most of them get giddy over a gifted box of out of date granola. The unboxing of any gift is absolutely gross and is an instant unfollow from me.

I have noticed that more followers are complaining. Lots of Instagrammers have gone back on posts and corrected their tags. One even said she's been reported to the asa for a 'simple mistake'.

@wouldyoulikeabagwiththat I just took a look at that Twitter thread and ended up on this article

www.linkedin.com/pulse/fundamentals-cmas-guidelines-influencers-why-so-many-people-speller/

This really stood out to me:

Any relationship a brand has with an influencer essentially negates the objectivity of the influencer and, as such, any content produced about that brand by the influencer is promotional, is (therefore) an advert, and should be disclosed as such.

Read that again - Any relationship a brand has with an influencer essentially negates the objectivity of the influencer

That’s right, it’s about objectivity. Nik Speller’s article should be read by all influencers.

Also, CH saying that eulogising about Trinny’s eye cream can’t be an ad because it’s not out yet 🤦🏼‍♀️

There was a good comment under the CH video on YouTube basically saying a "press sample" shouldn't be a full sized product. Or in the case of the Hourglass box she showed earlier in the vid 3 full samples! When I get samples from brands as a paying customer they're sachets or tiny vials not luxury gift boxes. Maybe "press gift" is more appropriate!

@scotx thanks so much for sharing that article. It’s excellent and as wouldyoulikeabagwiththat says, should be read by all influencers.

What I find very interesting and would I had not considered up to now is that ASA, CMA are just guidelines. Guidelines on how to interpret the LAW which in this respect is not new (having been in place since 2008).

Yes, some may be tagging and declaring now (but let’s be honest not a lot) but all of their historic posts are also subject to the same consumer protection LAWS.

Wonder who is going to made an example of first for flagrant breaches of the law?

Great article. The dissatisfaction from followers is building. I'm sure Insta is going to go the way of Facebook which is no longer popular. I noticed one Insta mummy on a paid trip to California this week. One #ad in the bottom right corner where it can't be seen for most of the weeks postings. I think most of them are skating on very very thin ice.

It's all such a house of cards, all it would take is people unfollowing for them to lose everything they have. Yes their tolerance and respect for followers is zero.

Mario looks keen to test the CMA's resolve. It is more likely to be a reality sleb with over a million followers than a fashion blogger with 100k.

I think that there is a clear difference between products that have a short shelf life like make up and a new kitchen.
Reviewing make up which has been given to someone is different to getting a new lamp.
I agree that they are all ads though.
Perishables should been given some more leeway. I see Caroline Hirons more as a paid journalist with bias rather than a sales woman.

This is how HMRC defines a sample ‘A specimen of a product which is intended to promote the sales of that product and which allows the characteristics and qualities of that product to be assessed without resulting in final consumption, other than where final consumption is inherent in such promotional transactions.’

Obviously with cosmetics, once you have opened it to assess it, for hygiene reasons you can't send it back, so most of what CH receives probably meets this definition of a sample rather than a gift. Hard to argue a sofa could be sample though, as I saw one influencer try to do

I haven't read CH's post, but Jane from British Beauty Blogger has written a very thoughtful post about all this and it is worth reading. (Love her!) Essentially she couldn't do her job without the free samples that she is sent. Her blog is mainly about showcasing and reviewing new releases. I have always found her very open and transparent and she also offers her readers a choice between affiliate and non-affiliate links. I have not seen anyone else do that. She also mentions that the rewards from affiliate links is not as much as people think and she gives an example of earning (sorry can't remember exact figure) £100 for £6k worth of sales. I actually think the brands also have a lot to answer for and their practices should be reviewed.

Ultimately, it always comes back to that transparency for me, if you state all products I get are sent to me to review for free everyone knows where you stand. The reader can then make up their own mind if they trust the reviews or not.

I think things become more murky when Influnecers (that term needs to die!) dabble in a bit of everything. A lot of them cover interiors, beauty, fashion, general lifestyle and therefore I think it is important that they clear what has been gifted and what hasn't. There clearly is a difference between being sent a lipstick and the brand hoping it will get a mention or review to someone swanning off to the Maldives for a paid for holiday.