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

IRE60

LexieOnRale wrote: »

.
"oh but a voucher doesn't pay the bills".

Like a sugar daddy doesn't pay the rent - just saves you buying the essentials in life

retro:electro

Wish bloggers would stop acting like they're doing us favours by producing content.

onthemitch

LexieOnRale wrote: »

.
No but actually working a real job is great for paying rent and every day expenses. This isn't your followers fault. In fact, a lot of these "influencers" are able to give up their actual paid jobs to do this full time so there's obviously money in it, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with "oh but a voucher doesn't pay the bills". You still benefit from trying to flog their wares to everyone else

This is really confusing to me. Yes, commercial collaborations help to pay the rent. I admit they are ads and flag them as such.

No, vouchers and freebies do not help to pay the rent. The ASAI - the only people who have dedicated guidelines specifically for this new "real job" of blogger / social influencer - have been really sketchy about whether or not vouchers and freebies need to be disclosed. (For my part, I pretty much always say when something is free, but I do not hashtag it ad, because it's not an ad.)

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Wish bloggers would stop acting like they're doing us favours by producing content.

I wish people would stop consuming free content and getting annoyed that they - by reading blogs and following influencers - have essentially helped to create those people's careers. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

To use an analogy; if I set up a lemonade stand handing out free lemonade, and you come by and take one, should you not say thanks? Can I not say you're welcome? Am I not doing you a favour by giving you something for free, which you are then choosing to consume?

wolfmoon87

anna080 wrote: »

Agree the jeans blogger is very sneaky with it with the casual look through the make up bag, there's always a sponsored product in there lurking. And the brush cleaner thing yesterday was definetly a sponsored post but it didn't contain #ad.

I wasn't sure at the time whether it was an ad or not, but today another blogger has a stylepro demo on her snapchat - all snaps marked #ad.
Turns me off the jeans blogger that she isn't declaring the ads on snapchat.>_<

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

onthemitch wrote: »

This is really confusing to me. Yes, commercial collaborations help to pay the rent. I admit they are ads and flag them as such.

No, vouchers and freebies do not help to pay the rent. The ASAI - the only people who have dedicated guidelines specifically for this new "real job" of blogger / social influencer - have been really sketchy about whether or not vouchers and freebies need to be disclosed. (For my part, I pretty much always say when something is free, but I do not hashtag it ad, because it's not an ad.)

So who's problem is that then? Not your followers. You're given the vouchers to encourage others to spend money with this business, not because you're all special snowflakes who deserve treats from businesses. You're a billboard for that company. You are representing that company, whether you're "paid" or not. If you're not happy with how they're paying you send it back and don't post about it?

onthemitch

LexieOnRale wrote: »

So who's problem is that then? Not your followers. You're given the vouchers to encourage others to spend money with this business, not because you're all special snowflakes who deserve treats from businesses. You're a billboard for that company. You are representing that company, whether you're "paid" or not. If you're not happy with how they're paying you send it back and don't post about it?

Er, I wasn't complaining about it - I was simply saying that posting about a voucher or a freebie isn't an ad and doesn't need to be declared as such. Sorry if you thought I was having a go at you, that wasn't it at all!

Someone else posted giving out that KV snaps weren't hashtagged ad and I was just explaining that they don't have to be - that's all 😊

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

onthemitch wrote: »

I wish people would stop consuming free content and getting annoyed that they - by reading blogs and following influencers - have essentially helped to create those people's careers. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

To use an analogy; if I set up a lemonade stand handing out free lemonade, and you come by and take one, should you not say thanks? Can I not say you're welcome? Am I not doing you a favour by giving you something for free, which you are then choosing to consume?

You're not posting anything that 50 other bloggers aren't posting about to be quite honest. Thereh's nothing exactly insightful about what a trainer has suggested you eat for your breakfast or by mentioning a gym or a trainer or a car company 10 times. Until Renault or fiat or Ford or peugout are going to give me a free car I couldn't give a hoot what everyone else is driving.

I think the smart bloggers are establishing themselves as a brand, with products or clothing ranges etc as they realise this cash cow won't milk forever

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

I wish people would stop consuming free content and getting annoyed that they - by reading blogs and following influencers - have essentially helped to create those people's careers. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

To use an analogy; if I set up a lemonade stand handing out free lemonade, and you come by and take one, should you not say thanks? Can I not say you're welcome? Am I not doing you a favour by giving you something for free, which you are then choosing to consume?

If you have 100 other identical stands all lined up beside you selling the same exact lemonade then I think you should be the grateful one and be damn happy with the custom/support you're getting.
A little more transparency is all the audience want and there's nothing wrong with that.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

If you have 100 other identical stands all lined up beside you selling the same exact lemonade then I think you should be the grateful one and be damn happy with the custom you're getting.
A little more transparency is all the audience want and there's nothing wrong with that.

No - what we were talking about is that bloggers / influencers didn't use the ad hashtag for a post that did not require the use of said hashtag.

And I know the lemonade thing is a shoddy analogy, but it's not "custom" if you're not paying. You're not a customer if there's no transaction; you're essentially a fan or follower, and if you're really unhappy with the lack of transparency or the fact that all bloggers are exactly the same, why are you even still following them?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

A fan! I love that.

"Oh my god I'm such a fan of Sally bloggs. I can't get enough of how many times she goes to the gym, and I'm obsessed with the fact she wears pink on Wednesdays. One time she punched me in the face, it was awesome"

Wexy86

onthemitch wrote: »

No, vouchers and freebies do not help to pay the rent.

it may not pay the rent but if VW sponsor me a car, preen do my hair for free or the Conrad and Monart give me a night in their hotel I have a lot more disposable income to help pay my rent as these are all luxuries most of us pay for.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

No - what we were talking about is that bloggers / influencers didn't use the ad hashtag for a post that did not require the use of said hashtag.

And I know the lemonade thing is a shoddy analogy, but it's not "custom" if you're not paying. You're not a customer if there's no transaction; you're essentially a fan or follower, and if you're really unhappy with the lack of transparency or the fact that all bloggers are exactly the same, why are you even still following them?

Eh, even if the lemonade was free, I'm still a customer.
And the old "if you don't like it then why are you following them" line. Tbh I've unfollowed most on snapchat, because that's where it mostly occurs. But I'm still following a few on Instagram and for the most part I like them, they just have issues around non-disclosure of freebies. And let's face it, ye all do the same thing. That's hardly a revelation.

onthemitch

Wexy86 wrote: »

it may not pay the rent but if VW sponsor me a car, preen do my hair for free or the Conrad and Monart give me a night in their hotel I have a lot more disposable income to help pay my rent as these are all luxuries most of us pay for.

100% agree with you – those are massive perks, they're amazing to get and I wouldn't argue against that for a second. BUT my point was: they don't have to be hashtagged ad, and they're not payment. That's it.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

What part of that is not an ad?

onthemitch

LexieOnRale wrote: »

What part of that is not an ad?

The part where no one's being paid. What's so difficult to understand about this?

If I own a cosmetics company and I send a hamper to the beauty editor of [insert Irish magazine name here] and they then include that in a list of "10 face creams that will definitely make your skin better", is THAT an ad?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

onthemitch wrote: »

The part where no one's being paid. What's so difficult to understand about this?

If I own a cosmetics company and I send a hamper to the beauty editor of [insert Irish magazine name here] and they then include that in a list of "10 face creams that will definitely make your skin better", is THAT an ad?

Yes because it's advertising a product to a bunch of people who wouldn't otherwise see it.

retro:electro

You're promoting a product that I may be otherwise unaware of. That's advertising.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

I wish people would stop consuming free content and getting annoyed that they - by reading blogs and following influencers - have essentially helped to create those people's careers. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

To use an analogy; if I set up a lemonade stand handing out free lemonade, and you come by and take one, should you not say thanks? Can I not say you're welcome? Am I not doing you a favour by giving you something for free, which you are then choosing to consume?

Also can I just reiterate how incredibly annoying this analogy is. Jesus you're acting like you're making a martyr of yourself for the benefit of your followers. You're not; you're doing it for yourself and for the benefits it gives you. If you were actually doing it for your followers then you would consistently disclose freebies, ads etc, because that's what viewers want. (I mean you in the general sense, not you literally) Don't act like you're providing a public service or something for the benefit of your fans. I mean please that's just cringe.

retro:electro

Also, bloggers are more than capable of declaring when something is not an ad, in fact they seem almost delighted to announce that and almost pat themselves on the back for it. This leads me to believe they know they are being shady when they don't disclose #ad.

meeeeh

So how many here complained about Irish Times (or another publication) peddling make up without being mentioned the reviewer got free samples?

IRE60

onthemitch wrote: »

The part where no one's being paid. What's so difficult to understand about this?

If I own a cosmetics company and I send a hamper to the beauty editor of [insert Irish magazine name here] and they then include that in a list of "10 face creams that will definitely make your skin better", is THAT an ad?

You don't need a sugardaddy - you have pondlife pr agencies

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

So how many here complained about Irish Times (or another publication) peddling make up without being mentioned the reviewer got free samples?

That's different. Everybody knows that products you see in magazines and newspapers are product placements and ads. There doesn't have to be a disclosure there because it's obvious. Bloggers aren't always advertisers. Sometimes they a)go out and buy things with their own cash (becoming more rare) b)sometimes they get sent stuff to show on social media, and c) other times they get paid to show stuff on social media. This is where the lines blur, because how are we to know whether or not a product falls under category a, b or c. We don't unless they tell us.

meeeeh

<No names!>

frogstar

anna080 wrote: »

That's different. Everybody knows that products you see in magazines and newspapers are product placements and ads. There doesn't have to be a disclosure there because it's obvious. Bloggers aren't always advertisers. Sometimes they a)go out and buy things with their own cash (becoming more rare) b)sometimes they get sent stuff to show on social media, and c) other times they get paid to show stuff on social media. This is where the lines blur, because how are we to know whether or not a product falls under category a, b or c. We don't unless they tell us.

To be honest, that really is the way blogging has gone. I find it less blurred now as I assume EVERYTHING is sponsored in some way unless otherwise stated. I think it's less obvious with the lesser known bloggers but the ones referred to in this thread i genuinely think everything is an ad

I actually deleted Snapchat two weeks ago (so glad I did with all the crap being plugged) but it has made me realise how little "content" bloggers put out outside Snapchat. I still haveInstagram and Facebook but following this thread i have to guess who is being referred to as nothing really is being posted outside Snapchat What value do companies get with a few throwaway seconds on Snapchat

A blogger will never make me buy a car they promote (and that def is payment in kind). My finances will. Some sponsorships I'll never understand .

retro:electro

<snip>

meeeeh

Personal blog is no different and that's why they don't have to put #ad in case of gifted items. Because if they applied the rule to social media, traditional media too would have to mark a lot more stuff as advertising and not editorial content. And yes as much as I saw of it Expose especially is one big ad.

That being said who is prepared to spend all theor own money to buy items so that they can review them for free. And so that their readers get free advice on what to wate and not waste money. I said ir before until you are prepared to pay for content don't expect impartial stuff. (And even then often not) It's basic maths, nobody will live on fresh air to offer free content.

Hopeful2016

onthemitch wrote: »

The part where no one's being paid. What's so difficult to understand about this?

If I own a cosmetics company and I send a hamper to the beauty editor of [insert Irish magazine name here] and they then include that in a list of "10 face creams that will definitely make your skin better", is THAT an ad?

I'd accept a random product coming through the letterbox is not an ad but I fail to understand how a regular arrangement between a blogger and a business whereby the business provides free services (e.g. hair dressing services from Preen) and blogger gives them a regular social media mention is not an ad. No money may change hands but it's clear there is an benefit in kind to both parties and if you were a PAYE worker working for Preen that would be taxable.

I believe bloggers when they say there is no obligation to give the company a mention but I'd be very curious to know how many bloggers actually think the freebies would continue if the mentions stopped. How many would risk it?

Do you genuinely believe that Preen would continue to do your hair for free if you stopped giving them shout outs on your social media? Can you hand-on-heart say that you don't think there is any commercial element to the current arrangement?

Back in the day some people used to get payment from their employer in kind, maybe getting services or goods as part of their package as the non cash element wasn't taxed. Revenue wasn't long catching up with that and I believe that eventually they'll catch up with this payment in kind situation too.

SB_Part2

This thread has got incredibly bitchy again.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Personal blog is no different and that's why they don't have to put #ad in case of gifted items. Because if they applied the rule to social media, traditional media too would have to mark a lot more stuff as advertising and not editorial content. And yes as much as I saw of it Expose especially is one big ad.

That being said who is prepared to spend all theor own money to buy items so that they can review them for free. And so that their readers get free advice on what to wate and not waste money. I said ir before until you are prepared to pay for content don't expect impartial stuff. (And even then often not) It's basic maths, nobody will live on fresh air to offer free content.

I think you're missing my whole point. I'm not expecting bloggers to not get paid by brands, fire away, hell get paid by all the brands for all I care. Just disclose it to your readers that you're either being paid to promote or got a voucher/freebie. What's so hard about that?

ratmouse

SB_Part2 wrote: »

This thread has got incredibly bitchy again.

Seems like a good old debate from both sides to me .Don't see why the bitchy element needs a reference.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

This thread has got incredibly bitchy again.

How?!?!?

Hopeful2016

I see the Meaghers staff party is on tonight, or have they just decided to invite a load of random bloggers out for dinner for no reason whatsoever.... I'll be looking out for #ad the next time I see bloggers-in-attendance plugging Meaghers. A few of the non hashtagging usual suspects are there and one who couldn't make it.

ratmouse

anna080 wrote: »

I think you're missing my whole point. I'm not expecting bloggers to not get paid by brands, fire away, hell get paid by all the brands for all I care. Just disclose it to your readers that you're either being paid to promote or got a voucher/freebie. What's so hard about that?

I'm hoping it'so only a matter of time before practicable laws are established regarding this line of "work/business". Other professions and businesses are subject to comply with laws regarding earnings, audits where necessary,etc why shouldn't bloggers?

meeeeh

anna080 wrote: »

How?!?!?

Telling someone all they do is looking for a suggar daddy or something similar? I found it incredibly offensive but ignored it because it wasn't aimed at me. I certainly wouldn't want to have people who are saying things like that around me.

Anyway the complaints lately were about vouchers and vouchers are similar to free samples so do not need to be disclosed as ad. If we all just expect paid for content being discussed as advertising then I don't know what the complaining on the last four pages was about.

retro:electro

meeeeh wrote: »

Telling someone all they do is looking for a suggar daddy or something similar? I found it incredibly offensive but ignored it because it wasn't aimed at me. I certainly wouldn't want to have people who are saying things like that around me.

Anyway the complaints lately were about vouchers and vouchers are similar to free samples so do not need to be disclosed as ad. If we all just expect paid for content being discussed as advertising then I don't know what the complaining on the last four pages was about.

I don't think that that's what the comment was saying, but anyway one dud comment doesn't make it a bitchy thread.

idunno78

anna080 wrote: »

That's different. Everybody knows that products you see in magazines and newspapers are product placements and ads. There doesn't have to be a disclosure there because it's obvious.

Call me stupid but I really didn't think stuff in magazines was product placements or ads unless they had advert or similar on top of page! Always thought the top 10 or whatever was genuine. Haven't bought magizine in years but when I did I just assumed they had tested them and that was the best!!

I didn't think thread was bitchy. But maybe just think about what you post first because this is a good thread (I think) where has been great and kept to the rules would hate to see another closed!!

heyjude88

One blogger has mentioned three times this week about wanting to go to Monart. I seen one blogger who went for free (fully disclosed it was free). Wonder how long it takes the other blogger to be offered a freebie!

I honestly find all this product placement and non-disclosing is having the opposite effect on me, and I would stay clear of all the products, hotels etc being promoted. They are tainted in my eyes. Probably silly of me, but had my eyes on some of the jewellery that featured heavily last week, and now I certainly will not be purchasing it! I just find it all really cringey at the moment, from free car rides across Europe, the savoy hotel being highlighted a few times, to wedding magazines showcasing the editors business at every opportunity. And then to get snapchatters coming on saying the only show products they truly believe in, and then spending the next 5 days showcasing 5 different pairs of freebie jeans.

Its all one big ugly ad. Can't wait till all the gift guide stuff is over!

retro:electro

Agreed. I can guarantee you I will never set foot inside Meagher's pharmacy.

Dolbert

SB_Part2 wrote: »

This thread has got incredibly bitchy again.

The same few posters with serious bees in their bonnets about bloggers, yet inexplicably still follow them.

SB_Part2

Dolbert wrote: »

The same few posters with serious bees in their bonnets about bloggers, yet inexplicably still follow them.

Agreed. It's really only 2 or 3 posters who are consistently posting on this thread giving 'updates' about the bloggers they claim to hate.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Agreed. I can guarantee you I will never set foot inside Meagher's pharmacy.

Well, if you're excluding all brands who pay money to court influencers, then your list of allowed brands is really short – I presume you won't set foot in Penneys, Topshop, Arnotts, Brown Thomas, Oasis, Warehouse, Dunnes etc either? And that also means Asos, Boohoo, Pretty Little Thing and Missguided are out... I guess you must just make all your own clothes, and concoct beauty products from the contents of your kitchen? (But be careful there, too, because Lidl and Aldi have been known to work with influencers too...)

Question: if a brand paid to take out a two-page ad in The Irish Times Saturday magazine, would that make you think, gosh, I'll never set foot in that shop again? If not, why not? What's the difference?

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Agreed. It's really only 2 or 3 posters who are consistently posting on this thread giving 'updates' about the bloggers they claim to hate.

I don't hate anyone? I actually like the bloggers I follow, they just have issues around transparency. Why is that hard to understand? I'd inderstand your point if I was here slagging them off, like oh state of her hair, did ya see what she had on her etc.. But I'm not.

fitzytour

Dolbert wrote: »

The same few posters with serious bees in their bonnets about bloggers, yet inexplicably still follow them.

Totally agree! Its constantly the same two or three posters giving out about bloggers, if its that much of a source of frustration that you constantly have to come on Boards, then maybe unfollow all those that are causing you such frustration on EVERY social media platform!!!

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

anna080 wrote: »

I don't hate anyone? I actually like the bloggers I follow, they just have issues around transparency. Why is that hard to understand? I'd inderstand your point if I was here slagging them off, like oh state of her hair, did ya see what she had on her etc.. But I'm not.

You're just a jealous hater Anna.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

Well, if you're excluding all brands who pay money to court influencers, then your list of allowed brands is really short – I presume you won't set foot in Penneys, Topshop, Arnotts, Brown Thomas, Oasis, Warehouse, Dunnes etc either? And that also means Asos, Boohoo, Pretty Little Thing and Missguided are out... I guess you must just make all your own clothes, and concoct beauty products from the contents of your kitchen? (But be careful there, too, because Lidl and Aldi have been known to work with influencers too...)

Question: if a brand paid to take out a two-page ad in The Irish Times Saturday magazine, would that make you think, gosh, I'll never set foot in that shop again? If not, why not? What's the difference?

I really don't understand why you have such a defensive tone. You'd swear I was referring to yourself personally, which I'm not.
To answer your question, I don't shop in missguided boohoo etc because I dislike the style of clothing. And penneys I'm not a huge fan of for ethical reasons. Tbh I'm not a huge shopper, but when I do I shop for clothes that I need, and not because some blogger happened to be flogging something from there.
Also, there's a huge difference in using affiliate links (which I don't really have a problem with) and the blatent over saturation of a certain pharmacy. The reason I wouldn't shop there is because it doesn't offer me anything that any other bog standard pharmacy couldn't give me, so I'd prefer to support another Irish business that doesn't court as much publicity and get as much hype, that answer your question?

Also, I notice you've only quoted me in your reply, and not the post above me which also stated the same thing. You seem hell bent of picking my posts apart. Odd.

retro:electro

fitzytour wrote: »

Totally agree! Its constantly the same two or three posters giving out about bloggers, if its that much of a source of frustration that you constantly have to come on Boards, then maybe unfollow all those that are causing you such frustration on EVERY social media platform!!!

Take your own advice so and unfollow the thread.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

I really don't understand why you have such a defensive tone. You'd swear I was referring to yourself personally, which I'm not.
To answer your question, I don't shop in missguided boohoo etc because I dislike the style of clothing. And penneys I'm not a huge fan of for ethical reasons. Tbh I'm not a huge shopper, but when I do I shop for clothes that I need, and not because some blogger happened to be flogging something from there.
Also, there's a huge difference in using affiliate links (which I don't really have a problem with) and the blatent over saturation of a certain pharmacy. The reason I wouldn't shop there is because it doesn't offer me anything that any other bog standard pharmacy couldn't give me, so I'd prefer to support another Irish business that doesn't court as much publicity and get as much hype, that answer your question?

Also, I notice you've only quoted me in your reply, and not the post above me which also stated the same thing. You seem hell bent of picking my posts apart. Odd.

It was easier to quote yours because you made one point – I wasn't going to get into the other points that heyjude meant as one particular person referred to is a friend of mine, so it felt like any response from me would be biased!

But hang on now: a second ago you basically said that you would never set foot in Meaghers SPECIFICALLY because of how it courts bloggers.

But you're saying you don't shop in Penneys for ethical reasons, or on Missguided / Boohoo because you don't like their clothes. Why isn't their courting of bloggers also problematic to you? They all send free items to bloggers, take them to events, spend money bringing them away for weekends or to lunches and dinners...

Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself? Either you're so incredibly principled about how brands are going OTT with bloggers, and that puts you off those brands, OR that's not really your issue.

I just think that a lot of issues people (not just you) have with bloggers come down to the fact that they're p*ssed off that these people they don't like all that much are getting loads of free things. "Why should I be paying for this when she gets it for free?"

You can all go on and on about transparency, but even when bloggers ARE transparent and say things are free, or sponsored, you then state that "well that's put me right off that brand". So the blogger can't win – you're never happy, no matter what a blogger does.

One of your earlier points was about Penneys, "it's one big ad" and Kildare Village, "shouldn't that be marked ad". My whole point – and the thing we keep going round and round in circles about – is that, according to the ASAI's guidelines, there is no need to mark something as #ad if the blogger isn't being paid money to promote it. End of.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

It was easier to quote yours because you made one point – I wasn't going to get into the other points that heyjude meant as one particular person referred to is a friend of mine, so it felt like any response from me would be biased!

But hang on now: a second ago you basically said that you would never set foot in Meaghers SPECIFICALLY because of how it courts bloggers.

But you're saying you don't shop in Penneys for ethical reasons, or on Missguided / Boohoo because you don't like their clothes. Why isn't their courting of bloggers also problematic to you? They all send free items to bloggers, take them to events, spend money bringing them away for weekends or to lunches and dinners...

Don't you see how you're contradicting yourself? Either you're so incredibly principled about how brands are going OTT with bloggers, and that puts you off those brands, OR that's not really your issue.

I just think that a lot of issues people (not just you) have with bloggers come down to the fact that they're p*ssed off that these people they don't like all that much are getting loads of free things. "Why should I be paying for this when she gets it for free?"

You can all go on and on about transparency, but even when bloggers ARE transparent and say things are free, or sponsored, you then state that "well that's put me right off that brand". So the blogger can't win – you're never happy, no matter what a blogger does.

One of your earlier points was about Penneys, "it's one big ad" and Kildare Village, "shouldn't that be marked ad". My whole point – and the thing we keep going round and round in circles about – is that, according to the ASAI's guidelines, there is no need to mark something as #ad if the blogger isn't being paid money to promote it. End of.

None of the bloggers I follow (which is a select few) have ever been sent free stuff from missguided and boohoo. You seem to think I'm following every single blogger going? I'm not. I follow about 4, and those four are local to me (bar one) but don't collaborate with those brands you've mentioned above. When have I stated that transparency puts me off a brand?? If it's to do with Meaghers then bloggers are anything but transparent with that pharmacy.
Any my whole point is that if you are not paying for it yourself then it should be marked as an ad, because it is an ad, end of.

fitzytour

anna080 wrote: »

Take your own advice so and unfollow the thread.

I've deleted snapchat and instagram as so many bloggers were grating on me with their BS so yes Anna, I have followed my own advice!!