Bloggers and #ad (Naming bloggers means a ban!)

retro:electro

purplecow1977 wrote: »

What women are there 'predominantly to be ogled and admired'?????

I admit, there can be a double standard at times.

However, it's widely accepted that women are paid less than men but there can be many reasons for this.

The girls holding score cards at boxing matches are predominantly there to be looked at. There is literally no other purpose for them being there, they could have the score up on an automated machine. I know a girl who used to do this and she loved it. No harm in it if that's what you want to do.

silvervixen84

Whether or not you like the Mail, the article will bring this topic to a wider, different audience to Boards. The non-compliant influencers might get their act together and be more transparent going forward.

Hopeful2016

I'll just add that individual's tax affairs are indeed private.... until someone finds themselves on the tax defaulters list and ends up in the paper :pac:

retro:electro

Onthemitch I notice on your snapchat you say the Mail piece was nasty about bloggers, can I ask you why you think it's nasty?

Hopeful2016

anna080 wrote: »

Onthemitch I notice on your snapchat you say the Mail piece was nasty about bloggers, can I ask you why you think it's nasty?

I didn't really think it was being nasty to be honest. I hope we're not back to the "jealous haters" line. That won't wash with the Revenue if they go looking for information.

Jen44

Who is the teacher blogger guys?

confeetti

She has shared a link to this thread on her facebook page.

Can I ask, how can we not name people here, but her followers can slag us off on her own facebook page using our user names, one calls a boards member a nutcase....

retro:electro

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

I didn't really think it was being nasty to be honest. I hope we're not back to the "jealous haters" line. That won't wash with the Revenue if they go looking for information.

Agreed It wasn't nasty at all, and all bloggers featured were contacted for their side of the story. Not liking the editor would make me want to clarify my side even more, as you can have more control over the story being published and what people are reading.

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

Agreed It wasn't nasty at all, and all bloggers featured were contacted for their side of the story. Not liking the editor would make me want to clarify my side even more, as you can have more control over the story being published and what people are reading.

I think if someone had gone to the trouble of creating a new twitter account to talk to me I'd be making myself unavailable for contact as well.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

I think if someone had gone to the trouble of creating a new twitter account to talk to me I'd be making myself unavailable for contact as well.

Didn't realise they created a new Twitter account! Ya that's weird. Still doesn't make it a nasty article though

heretogetreal

heyjude88 wrote: »

Here's the article.
Surprised at some of the names who wouldn't comment.

The game is up for her.

Suddenly she'll have to declare everything is an ad n her SC watchers will realise it's all just ads & profoundly boring videos.

Surely her 'fans' will then go back to washing their own dishes instead of watching ads sprinkled with videos of someone else doing their dishes?

Crazy how much time people are willing to completely waste watching her SC every day!

Terri26

I think some people are being very harsh about the teacher blogger. I find her very genuine and likeable. On numerous occasions over the last few years she has recommended products to me that would be no benefit to her. Eg once I messaged explaining my friend's colouring what would she recommend. She replied very quickly which was decent of her. Don't know what I was thinking sending her a message and was embarrassed I did so as she doesn't actually know me. I think she'd be very delighted if she got paid gig so would have no problem #ad in it and would probably be delighted getting the chance to do so.
The blogger who (openly) posts here has also replied to a query I had regarding use of social media which was very nice of her and again did not benefit her in any way.
Edit *paid not laid!

Meangadh

Yeah I think the way some people are speaking about the teacher blogger is awful- she's entitled to spend her money on whatever she likes, and saying that you're conscious of having no wages coming in doesn't mean your whinging or complaining about it. Anything that she gets paid for or gets for free is declared, as far as I can see, and I think it's an absolute shame that one of the decent bloggers who actually bothers to write regular blog posts feels that she can't be on Snapchat anymore due to constant questioning and doubt.

As regards not responding to the journalist for a quote for that article- if I had been harassed via multiple twitter accounts, I wouldn't be providing fodder for the article either.

And to be fair to a lot of bloggers, the whole legal area for them is SO grey at the moment. If you're not enjoying someone's snaps/social media or if you think they're not playing by the rules, stop following them. If their numbers fall enough, they'll have to do something to address it. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who continue to watch/follow people they seem to despise. Vote with your unfollow buttons.

Cria

dudara wrote: »

It could well be done for a free brunch. In order to continue to receive invites, press releases, samples etc, bloggers have to to keep themselves in the forefront of the PR agencies. I'm not condoning it in any way (in fact, I get very tired of repetitive tweets from the same group of people), but I can believe it.

There are a couple of scenarios I can think of... and only one scenario is covered under current guidelines.

(1) Blogger is paid directly (i.e. cash changes hands) for blog post or social media content
This is the case that this covered by guidelines, and must be clearly labelled #ad or #spon. Any case where money has changed hands and is not labelled is in clear violation.

(2) Blogger does not receive financial payment but has agreed to produce social media or blog content in return for goods/services.
This is not covered by the guidelines. For me, it's a grey area as the blogger has received "payment in kind" for producing content and I believe it should be labelled clearly. I don't accept any offers of this kind ever, as I have always wanted to keep my blog free of commercial influence.

(3) Blogger simply receives products / services with no expectation of content in return
In this scenario, the blogger is free to do as they choose. However, it's also a potential minefield. Do too much of this and you look like you're promoting. This is the only scenario I will engage in, and even then I'm very conscious of how much content I produce. I want the audience to be clear that I received the item/service for free and I don't want to overwhelm them with it.

There's a lot more information here.

It takes away from people like you who are actual food bloggers. High profile social influencers just putting up snaps for free food. Where as you will do an informed write up for your followers which is appreciated.

There is a link that the ASAI put up it includes social influencers receiving benefit in kind with no expectation it looks like disclosure may be required by the competition and consumer protection commission under the consumer protection act 2007

Hopeful2016

I don't follow many bloggers on Facebook book, I usually stick to Snapchat or Instagram for that kinda thing and keep Facebook for real life friends. I do follow Journalist/writer blogger on Facebook and she often posts links to her blogs posts which very often I will find interesting. After reading the comments under her post this evening about the Mail article I think I'm going to unfollow her on that platform. Not because of her posts but the "discussion" that goes on in the comments. It's like there isn't an objective thought between them and they seem to have no grasp that blogging is essentially a business with rules and laws and tax to be paid. It's not really just lovely girls showing us the lovely things the nice PR people sent them for free. And showing them to us because they are our friend or they want to do it "for us".

Are people really that clueless?!

confeetti

its the younger generation that I feel sorry for. Growing up with all this shoved down their throats, thinking it's gospel.

Galwaygirl55

As far as I am aware the ASAI does not have any power to hold bloggers to account for their actions. HOWEVER, Revenue are a whole other ball game to be dealing with. Use of Cars, free TV's, Beds & so on could all go under the Benefit in Kind banner. As has been stated on the thread a persons dealings with Revenue are private but if I was a blogger I would be making sure I had covered all bases with an experienced accountant. Revenue zone in on certain sectors every year & it will only be a matter of time before they look at the blogger side of things given the figures involved.

retro:electro

The comments under that Facebook post are actually depressing. Sorry but some of those posters are just plain stupid.

MuffinTop86

^^^agreed. The usual "begrudgers" argument springs up as usual, as if there's no other explanation.
Personally I'd throw out the bed and nearly every stick of mirrored/marbled/grey/rose gold furniture for being offensive to people with eyesight.

Hopeful2016

anna080 wrote: »

The comments under that Facebook post are actually depressing. Sorry but some of those people are just plain stupid.

You'd kinda feel despair for them. How do they function in society?! The thing is she is not the type of blogger I would have thought would appeal to that type of follower. Her blog isn't full of mindless tripe, there is a good mix of social issues and current affairs etc. to keep that type away I would have imagined. I guess not, judging by the Facebook posse.

Cria

About time there was investigations we are so behind on enforcing regulations.

The bloggers mentioned in that article are carrying on like nothing happened apart from the blogger who got the free car.

What are the bloggers going to do now especially the one with a wedding coming up it was going to be sponsored by a large amount of companies.

I love the teacher blogger she is helpful and honest she may advertise but she also will give a negative review. She also snaps about bargains.

retro:electro

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

You'd kinda feel despair for them. How do they function in society?! The thing is she is not the type of blogger I would have thought would appeal to that type of follower. Her blog isn't full of mindless tripe, there is a good mix of social issues and current affairs etc. to keep that type away I would have imagined. I guess not, judging by the Facebook posse.

Ya I know what you mean. For some reason I had given her following more credit, and thought they had the capacity for critical thought. Apprently not. Clearly they are the same spoon fed mind numbing herd whose default response is "haters and jealous, have ye nothing better to do", without actually analysing what's being said and maybe contributing to the discussion in a constructive way.

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

Ya I know what you mean. For some reason I had given her following more credit, and thought they had the capacity for critical thought. Apprently not. Clearly they are the same spoon fed mind numbing herd whose default response is "haters and jealous, have ye nothing better to do", without actually analysing what's being said and maybe contributing to the discussion in a constructive way.

I think the 'have you nothing better to do' stems from people complaining about her (not the other bloggers) because she's always disclosed everything.

Jen44

can someone pm me who the teacher and the journalist bloggers are?

meeeeh

This thread is fun.

However I wish to ad that as someone who normally rolls her eyes at someone who bloggs about feminism (why not social issues) it is still beyond me how any woman still thinks banner girls at different fight events or motor sport events are not mind numbingly ridiculous, outdated and stupid (even my partner watching it rolls his eyes). If among all things women find criticism of this objectionable I really despair for younger generations. Then I guess we can go back to fluttering our eyelashes and be a decoration and men can do the important bits.

Sorry for going of topic but even if you dislike a blogger (and I am not a fan) stop selling yourself short. I think as women, actually as human beings, we are worth more than to be a decoration on the side of the ring.

SB_Part2

BIK only applies to employees and since none of the bloggers are employees of the companies it doesn't apply here.

panda100

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

I do follow Journalist/writer blogger on Facebook and she often posts links to her blogs posts which very often I will find interesting. After reading the comments under her post this evening about the Mail article I think I'm going to unfollow her on that platform. Not because of her posts but the "discussion" that goes on in the comments.

Just don't read the comments I don't get why you would unfollow someone because you don't like the comments their followers makes. Surely, the blogger themselves has no control over what their followers comment on?

To be honest the whole ad thing and whether someone is being paid or not doesn't really bother me that much. It's just another form of advertising really that unfortunately saturates all our lives.

mrsdewinter

meeeeh wrote: »

This thread is fun.

However I wish to ad that as someone who normally rolls her eyes at someone who bloggs about feminism (why not social issues) it is still beyond me how any woman still thinks banner girls at different fight events or motor sport events are not mind numbingly ridiculous, outdated and stupid (even my partner watching it rolls his eyes). If among all things women find criticism of this objectionable I really despair for younger generations. Then I guess we can go back to fluttering our eyelashes and be a decoration and men can do the important bits.

Sorry for going of topic but even if you dislike a blogger (and I am not a fan) stop selling yourself short. I think as women, actually as human beings, we are worth more than to be a decoration on the side of the ring.

Yes, and the journalist blogger is pretty clear that it's not the banner girls who are to blame, it's society at large for allowing us to this is acceptable. To the posters who take umbrage on behalf of their friends who had a great time altogether when they worked as banner girls: it's not a moral judgment on your friends - it's about the social conditions that facilitate a situation whereby a woman, by virtue of having physical characteristics randomly allocated by birth & genetics, becomes a mobile signpost.

However, I'm a bit cross that as a non-Facebook friend of the same journalist blogger, I can't access the discussion on Facebook. Not cool.

SB_Part2

mrsdewinter wrote: »

However, I'm a bit cross that as a non-Facebook friend of the same journalist blogger, I can't access the discussion on Facebook. Not cool.

It's on her public page. You don't need to be a friend to contribute.

retro:electro

mrsdewinter wrote: »

Yes, and the journalist blogger is pretty clear that it's not the banner girls who are to blame, it's society at large for allowing us to this is acceptable. To the posters who take umbrage on behalf of their friends who had a great time altogether when they worked as banner girls: it's not a moral judgment on your friends - it's about the social conditions that facilitate a situation whereby a woman, by virtue of having physical characteristics randomly allocated by birth & genetics, becomes a mobile signpost.

However, I'm a bit cross that as a non-Facebook friend of the same journalist blogger, I can't access the discussion on Facebook. Not cool.

This is the same person who employs and female cleaner to clean her home while she sits in another room looking at her cleaning. No joke this scenario has happened. I'm not saying she doesn't have a point to her arguments, it just strikes me how hypocritical and ignorant she can be.

Anyway, I digress.

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

This is the same person who employs and female cleaner to clean her home while she sits in another room looking at her cleaning. No joke this scenario has happened. I'm not saying she doesn't have a point to her arguments, it just strikes me how hypocritical and ignorant she can be.

Anyway, I digress.

What difference does the sex of her cleaner make? And what's wrong with getting a cleaner while you're in the house?

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

What difference does the sex of her cleaner make? And what's wrong with getting a cleaner while you're in the house?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "we live in a society that treats women worse than men", and have a woman come in and clean your home while you literally sit there and snapchat that she's cleaning your home for you while you're there doing nothing? Personally my moral compass would tell me that's not cool.

LizT

anna080 wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "we live in a society that treats women worse than men", and have a woman come in and clean your home while you literally sit there and snapchat that she's cleaning your home for you while you're there doing nothing? Personally my moral compass would tell me that's not cool.

She's employing someone and paying her for a service. Plenty of people have cleaners, I don't see the issue?

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "we live in a society that treats women worse than men", and have a woman come in and clean your home while you literally sit there and snapchat that she's cleaning your home for you while you're there doing nothing? Personally my moral compass would tell me that's not cool.

So, would you be ok if it was a male cleaner?

And so what if she has a cleaner come in while she's on snapchat. That is her job. I work from home sometimes and have a cleaner come in as well. The odd time I'd browse FB or Boards while I'm working so should I stop that and get up and help the cleaner?

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "we live in a society that treats women worse than men", and have a woman come in and clean your home while you literally sit there and snapchat that she's cleaning your home for you while you're there doing nothing? Personally my moral compass would tell me that's not cool.

What are you on about?

Cleaner is valuable, needed and beneficial profession. It's employing/hiring people for their skills and not so that they can be ogled.

SB_Part2

meeeeh wrote: »

What are you on about?

Cleaner is valuable, needed and beneficial profession. It's employing/hiring people for their skills and not so that they can be ogled.

I think Anna thinks she hires her so she can watch her.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

I think Anna thinks she hires her so she can watch her.

Erm, no? And if I remember correctly she was pulled up on it on snapchat, and she herself said she feels guilty about it. I think she blamed society or something or other.

Dolbert

anna080 wrote: »

Do you not see the hypocrisy in saying "we live in a society that treats women worse than men", and have a woman come in and clean your home while you literally sit there and snapchat that she's cleaning your home for you while you're there doing nothing? Personally my moral compass would tell me that's not cool.

Are you actually serious? First of all, working from home is not "doing nothing", and even if she was doing nothing, who cares? Hiring a cleaner who happens to be female is sexist now? I think some of you would blame bloggers for the rain on your picnic tbh.

Hopeful2016

panda100 wrote: »

Just don't read the comments I don't get why you would unfollow someone because you don't like the comments their followers makes. Surely, the blogger themselves has no control over what their followers comment.

I specifically said unfollow her on Facebook, not unfollow her on everything. The reason being is that by following her on FB my newsfeed gets littered with the kind of brain dead, uniformed, nonsense that is typical of the comments under her posts. I can't deal with looking at that ****e on my Facebook page. For one, the poor grammar, lack of punctuation and text speak offends my eyes and is difficult to read. Another thing she usually uses Facebook to promote her blog posts and tell us when there is a new one up. She does this on Snapchat anyway so I wouldn't be missing this update if I didn't follow her on FB.

I enjoy the element of discussion that there can be on Facebook but "they have nothing better to do" is the standard of the critical thinking and analysis you can expect in the comments there and honestly it's not worth your time responding that kind of comment imo. So following her there adds nothing positive for me but leads to my newsfeed being full of that kind of ****e, which I'd rather not even bother seeing.

Does that explain it for you?

Galwaygirl55

SB_Part2 wrote: »

BIK only applies to employees and since none of the bloggers are employees of the companies it doesn't apply here.

BIK does apply to the self employed. My husband is self employed & at the moment is debating if he should get a commercial jeep but the accountant has advised him to consider the BIK implications before he does.

Dolbert

panda100 wrote: »

Just don't read the comments I don't get why you would unfollow someone because you don't like the comments their followers makes. Surely, the blogger themselves has no control over what their followers comment on?

I think some people are a little bit stung by what they read about this boards thread in the Facebook comments "I know you are but what am I?"

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I personally wouldn't mind what people are writing in the Facebook comments, I don't follow her on Facebook, don't find her interesting and wouldn't be interested in her resorting to her echo chamber on Facebook, it's completely her prerogative to do that, but I think this weekend has shown a completely different side to her. If she needs her followers validation, there's nothing wrong with her doing that.

retro:electro

Dolbert wrote: »

Are you actually serious? First of all, working from home is not "doing nothing", and even if she was doing nothing, who cares? Hiring a cleaner who happens to be female is sexist now? I think some of you would blame bloggers for the rain on your picnic tbh.

I think it's a peculiar kind of feminism that decries the objectification of score girls but which trips over the woman scrubbing your floors on the way out the door. Or are you saying sexism only exists when the woman is being objectified?
Anyway, that is my opinion.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

I think Anna thinks she hires her so she can watch her.

Sexism isn't only about female objectification, you know.

Hopeful2016

Dolbert wrote: »

I think some people are a little bit stung by what they read about this boards thread in the Facebook comments "I know you are but what am I?"

I'm certainly not. I don't discuss topics of interest to me with people who only respond with the likes of "they're only jealous", "they just want freebies too" and "they have nothing better to do". I quite frankly didn't see any references made to this thread which "stung" me, why would they?

TBH your posts make you sound like someone who would post that nonsense on Facebook, is that where you've come from?

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

Sexism isn't only about female objectification, you know.

So again, would you be ok if she hired a male cleaner?

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

So again, would you be ok if she hired a male cleaner?

You're completely missing the point.

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

You're completely missing the point.

No, Anna. I don't think I am. You are the one here that has an issue with her working from home and getting a female cleaner.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with getting a cleaner and the cleaners gender has nothing to do with it either.

Dolbert

anna080 wrote: »

I think it's a peculiar kind of feminism that decries the objectification of score girls but which trips over the woman scrubbing your floors on the way out the door. Or are you saying sexism only exists when the woman is being objectified?
Anyway, that is my opinion.

I'm still thoroughly confused by this. Do you have a problem with people hiring cleaners in general? Or just female cleaners? Or just female cleaners if they're self-employed? You're not making any sense.

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

TBH your posts make you sound like someone who would post that nonsense on Facebook, is that where you've come from?

I didn't comment on it on Facebook at all, but feel free to consider me one of those haters if it makes you feel any better hun xoxo

Hopeful2016

Dolbert wrote: »

I didn't comment on it on Facebook at all, but feel free to consider me one of those haters if it makes you feel any better hun xoxo

Hun xoxo, I don't consider anyone a "hater" or have never referred to anyone as one, that's normally the retort of the Facebook crowd and the bloggers themselves. TBH, from your posts, I'd put you in one of those two categories, that's how you come across.

Cant wait to see what wonderful debate you bring to this thread, you've started on such a promising foot....