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

Babyspice13

anna080 wrote: »

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.

Agree 100%

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

I get free things (albeit limited enough) in my work. I've had free skincare, free makeup from some brands etc etc, I don't have to blog about them because I'm not a blog but it's been given to me in a "hey, try these out and see what you think" way.

Personally it's the fact that people aren't disclosing it's free is the problem. You're advertising it to other people to buy it, when you haven't bought it yourself, so is the review going to be impartial?

I'd have no problem with someone saying "got sent this mascara a few months ago, it's amazing. Def going to purchase this again" or "tried this Dior mascara. I loved it but I'm not sure I'd actually spend that money on it as it's giving the same effect as one half the price".

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

A lot of them seem to be plugging Kildare Village this week with no mention of #ad. I say this because I've seen a few of them use the #unwraphappy while showing off some of the jewellery etc there, you wouldn't do that unless told by the establishment.

anna080 wrote: »

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.

So some of the 4 bloggers you follow were at Kildare Village. Why are you still following them then if you believe Kildare Village paid them or they didn't declare #ad for something you deem to be one?

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

So some of the 4 bloggers you follow were at Kildare Village. Why are you still following them then if you believe Kildare Village paid them or they didn't declare #ad for something you deem to be one?

Because I like them? Seriously what aren't you getting here?

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Because I like them? Seriously what aren't you getting here?

So, just to clarify (because honestly I'm still a bit confused):

- You will NEVER STEP FOOT in a Meagher's Pharmacy because they give free items to bloggers who don't hashtag those free items ad (even though they're not obliged to)

but

- You will continue to follow bloggers who didn't hashtag ad on a day out they had in Kildare Village where (you suspect but are not sure) they were given a voucher?

Doesn't that seem a little contradictory to you?

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

Because I like them? Seriously what aren't you getting here?

Because you are completely contradicting yourself.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

So, just to clarify (because honestly I'm still a bit confused):

- You will NEVER STEP FOOT in a Meagher's Pharmacy because they give free items to bloggers who don't hashtag those free items ad (even though they're not obliged to)

but

- You will continue to follow bloggers who didn't hashtag ad on a day out they had in Kildare Village where (you suspect but are not sure) they were given a voucher?

Doesn't that seem a little contradictory to you?

No. I will never set foot in there because they can't offer me anything any other less publicised pharmacy can't offer me, seriously I've just stated this a few posts ago did you even read it?

And also, if the Kildare village thing continues in the same vain then I'll be unfollowing them shortly too.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Because you are completely contradicting yourself.

How??

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

To be fair, for the past few months there's been a complete over saturation on social media about meaghers pharmacy, it's rammed down your throat on every bloggers channel. Is it a big deal if a company occasionally pays (yes vouchers are payment) influencers to come in and show off their stock? It would be different if twice a week 10 bloggers were walking around showing you what's in superdry this week, what's going on in the Nike outlet and if coach have moved a bag display. It'd get boring and tiresome having one place shoved at you all the time.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

No. I will never set foot in there because they can't offer me anything any other less publicised pharmacy can't offer me, seriously I've just stated this a few posts ago did you even read it?

Yes, I read it – but honestly? It read like an excuse you were making because you realised your first point didn't make any sense. (When, in responding to heyjude, you were all, YOU GO GIRL I'M NEVER SHOPPING IN MEAGHER'S COS THEY WORK WITH THOSE BLOGGERS I LOVE/HATE!)

Anyway, this has taken up way too much of my time, and yours – imagine the books we could've been reading!

The take-home points for me?

You think something is an ad when it's not an ad, and will never accept that you are wrong. And bloggers should be DAMN GRATEFUL that people are reading their blogs or following them on social media, and should hashtag #ad on every single thing they ever do. And if that ever happens, you'll probably give out that "it's all just one big ad these days", later on in this very thread.

I can't wait!

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

No. I will never set foot in there because they can't offer me anything any other less publicised pharmacy can't offer me, seriously I've just stated this a few posts ago did you even read it?

And also, if the Kildare village thing continues in the same vain then I'll be unfollowing them shortly too.

So you're never setting foot in Meagher's has nothing to do with the bloggers dinner the other night?

scarbouro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

This thread has got incredibly bitchy again.

It's funny how the thread has only escalated and become bitchy since you joined in... How ironic!

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

So you're never setting foot in Meagher's has nothing to do with the bloggers dinner the other night?

I don't know what dinner you're on about tbh

biko

Posts with names snipped

Sunny Dayz

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

Sorry I'm going back to a point that was made last night. I think this point by meeeeh highlights to me how blogging in a sense has lost its way. Blogging (be it beauty, fashion, baking, a sport, etc etc) was born out of people having a passion for something, eg someone who loves make up, and wanted to get their thoughts down on paper (in a sense) and share them and get a discussion going. I know myself (and I'm not a blogger) I regularly frequent the beauty reviews thread on boards to read other reviews and to post myself, and these are about products which I have paid out of my wages for and where I just want to share my opinion good or bad on them.

Bloggers do not have a duty to inform the public or their readers of products, they should be blogging because they have a passion or an interest in something that they would like to share. I think once blogging moves into a "job" it loses it's spark and credibility. Bloggers (IMO) seem to be under pressure to constantly find new content and just post about products for the sake of it, it's all about the number of followers and how much stuff is sent through your door and how many events you are invited to.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

Yes, I read it – but honestly? It read like an excuse you were making because you realised your first point didn't make any sense. (When, in responding to heyjude, you were all, YOU GO GIRL I'M NEVER SHOPPING IN MEAGHER'S COS THEY WORK WITH THOSE BLOGGERS I LOVE/HATE!)

Anyway, this has taken up way too much of my time, and yours – imagine the books we could've been reading!

The take-home points for me?

You think something is an ad when it's not an ad, and will never accept that you are wrong. And bloggers should be DAMN GRATEFUL that people are reading their blogs or following them on social media, and should hashtag #ad on every single thing they ever do. And if that ever happens, you'll probably give out that "it's all just one big ad these days", later on in this very thread.

I can't wait!

Lol that gave me a good laugh. Hysterical much? If that's what you've taken away from this conversation then off with you.

biko

Put the Gucci handbags down please

meeeeh

LexieOnRale wrote: »

I get free things (albeit limited enough) in my work. I've had free skincare, free makeup from some brands etc etc, I don't have to blog about them because I'm not a blog but it's been given to me in a "hey, try these out and see what you think" way.

I actually kind of agree with the sentiment in the rest of the post but I have the question about this bit. If free samples are payment as Anna claims they are and should therefore be disclosed as an ad, do you declare free samples you get to the revenue as icome (into the business I presume). And if you don't have to disclose that to anyone as a payment, why should others who get free samples?

On aside I am very aware that the whole free sample, gifts and similar stuff is very questionable area. Bloggers are actually small fry in comparison relationship between medical professionals and pharmaceuticals or public representatives and lobbyists, advertising and media... But the law should be the same for everyone. You don't get to say it's ok for traditional media because everyone knows it's product placement. Actually no not everyone knows that editorial content can be influenced by free samples or other advertising arrangements. But in the same way we would get to know or try a lot less stuff if free samples were not allowed.

Btw revenue does not consider vouchers a payment (at least not up to be taking the piss level). If you receive Christmas bonus in cash you will be taxed on it, you won't be taxed on vouchers up to 500 euro. So no vouchers are not the same as a payment.

groovyg

I don't understand why are bloggers getting such a hard time here about transparency. I follow a few different sports people/tv presenters on twitter and they are always thanking companies for products and none of their posts are #ad. Any well known tv presenters/ actresses on twitter/instagram generally always thank brands and boutiques for clothes etc or if they post a picture of themselves somebody will respond with oh love your top wheres that from, love your shoes where are they from and they come back with the details. None of the posts are #Ad but I assume that they were sent the products to plug and are essentially advertising the brand/product/shop/

retro:electro

Maybe "ad" is the wrong word I'm using. Free samples and vouchers should be #brandpromotion because that's what it is. I get its not an "ad" in the ASAI sense, but it's promotion, and thus should be declared as such.

SB_Part2

scarbouro wrote: »

It's funny how the thread has only escalated and become bitchy since you joined in... How ironic!

Funny since I've been on this thread from the start.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

meeeeh wrote: »

I actually kind of agree with the sentiment in the rest of the post but I have the question about this bit. If free samples are payment as Anna claims they are and should therefore be disclosed as an ad, do you declare free samples you get to the revenue as icome (into the business I presume). And if you don't have to disclose that to anyone as a payment, why should others who get free samples?

On aside I am very aware that the whole free sample, gifts and similar stuff is very questionable area. Bloggers are actually small fry in comparison relationship between medical professionals and pharmaceuticals or public representatives and lobbyists, advertising and media... But the law should be the same for everyone. You don't get to say it's ok for traditional media because everyone knows it's product placement. Actually no not everyone knows that editorial content can be influenced by free samples or other advertising arrangements. But in the same way we would get to know or try a lot less stuff if free samples were not allowed.

Btw revenue does not consider vouchers a payment (at least not up to be taking the piss level). If you receive Christmas bonus in cash you will be taxed on it, you won't be taxed on vouchers up to 500 euro. So no vouchers are not the same as a payment.

It's disclosed for what it is. M2k beaute sent me a product to try. It retails at X however I got it for free. Here's what I thought of it.
Big difference to "omg you guys I'm taking a break from my Russian volumes so decided to use this to strengthen my own natural lashes, it's amazing"

IRE60

LexieOnRale wrote: »

It's disclosed for what it is. M2k beaute sent me a product to try. It retails at X however I got it for free. Here's what I thought of it.
Big difference to "omg you guys I'm taking a break from my Russian volumes so decided to use this to strengthen my own natural lashes, it's amazing"

Or naming your first born Ford Fiesta!

Ed: I actually wouldn't put it past some of them!

Hopeful2016

Why do some people have such an issue with others expecting or wanting transparency around sponsored content or reviews of gifted items. If bloggers have nothing to hide then where is the issue with stating something was received as a pr sample. I could understand if it was the case that sponsored posts were being adequately disclosed by the vast majority but the it's very clear that they are not. There is no one here on his thread tearing apart a blogger's personal appearance or their family or anything like that. It's purely how transparent their channel/blog/social media is. What is the issue with highlighting where someone is clearly flouting the rules?

As for Meaghers, there is such a thing as over exposure. It's not unique to Meaghers, you see it with tv presenters presenting every gig going and then they disappear (a certain Connemara lady springs to mind), songs on radio that get overplayed until you can't stand to hear them again amongst other things. It has been a relentless full on assault by Meaghers on social media, every week without fail it'll be rammed down your throat if you follow Irish bloggers. The one time I actually logged on the Meaghers website with a view to buying something I found their website next to useless, it was slow to the point of not being able to complete the transaction. Where is the point in making such an effort to build awareness of your brand and then have such a poor website?! Or are they only targeting people in their locality who can shop instore? Building an online retail presence with a poor website is putting the horse before the cart.

Hopeful2016

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

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.

onthemitch - I'd really be interested to hear your views on my points raised above. I appreciate that you are one of the ones who endeavour to be transparent. You have voiced your opinion on the gifting issue here before but I'd like to hear if you feel a one-off PR sample is in the same category as a regular arrangement between parties or the long term use of a high value item such as a car for free. Is that really the same as getting a lipstick from Penneys and should there be any tax implications for those receiving such services?

I imagine that VW is making a tax deduction for the cost of the car it is providing to you, probably under the heading of advertising expenses, yet it's not considered an advertisement by the recipient of the car.

meeeeh

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

Why do some people have such an issue with others expecting or wanting transparency around sponsored content or reviews of gifted items. If bloggers have nothing to hide then where is the issue with stating something was received as a pr sample. I could understand if it was the case that sponsored posts were being adequately disclosed by the vast majority but the it's very clear that they are not. There is no one here on his thread tearing apart a blogger's personal appearance or their family or anything like that. It's purely how transparent their channel/blog/social media is. What is the issue with highlighting where someone is clearly flouting the rules?

I have a problem with double standards. Just because in case of social media people think someone that could be their friend and not a journalist is telling them what lipstick to buy there is still no requirement to disclose free samples as there isn't one for traditional media. If you don't like it unfollow or contact the blogger or campaign to change the law but don't whinge every time someone doesn't stick ad on when they get a voucher or a free sample. They don't have to says the law.

I never heard of pharmacy everyone is complaining about because I don't feel the need to follow sponsored content that irritates me (very often in conjunction with bad spelling and addressing followers darlings, girls or something even more annoying). Frankly this thread actually feels like some constantly picking on a scab just to see if it will bleed. And before anyone suggests to stop posting in it, eh no, I enjoy arguing.

Hopeful2016

meeeeh wrote: »

I have a problem with double standards. Just because in case of social media people think someone that could be their friend and not a journalist is telling them what lipstick to buy there is still no requirement to disclose free samples as there isn't one for traditional media. If you don't like it unfollow or contact the blogger or campaign to change the law but don't whinge every time someone doesn't stick ad on when they get a voucher or a free sample. They don't have to says the law.

I never heard of pharmacy everyone is complaining about because I don't feel the need to follow sponsored content that irritates me (very often in conjunction with bad spelling and addressing followers darlings, girls or something even more annoying). Frankly this thread actually feels like some constantly picking on a scab just to see if it will bleed. And before anyone suggests to stop posting in it, eh no, I enjoy arguing.

Where is your argument for people not disclosing paid endorsements or are you just picking and choosing which points to address and then acting like all anyone ever complains about is vouchers? Expecting paid promotions to be disclosed is perfectly reasonable. Personally I don't think I've ever complained about bloggers receiving vouchers, open to correction but point me to the post if so. I have regularly said I have no issue with pr items such as lipstick. So when quoting and addressing a poster directly, please try to stick to the facts and not be making accusations which are totally false. There is plenty whinging on this thread from posters in support of bloggers too such as yourself.

I don't follow any of Meaghers social media accounts, so I certainly don't follow them on purpose just to complain about them. It's gets tiresome to see one particular business, that you don't actively follow, infiltrating your feed many times a week. I follow accounts that do have content that interests me but unfortunately often mixed in with that will be ads for the like of Meaghers. Often undisclosed. There is no way to screen for this content in advance and no way to avoid it in a story other than tap through.

retro:electro

Also I don't live in Dublin so I don't shop in Meaghers, but I just had a look at their Facebook page and they have a lot of unsatisfactory reviews regarding online orders; missing items, delay with delivery, etc. So another reason I wouldn't shop there.
But my first point still stands; I wouldn't shop there because they don't need my custom. They're doing grand. But the pharmacy next door which offers much the same in stock may actually be struggling and not have the money to facilitate bloggers in plugging the store. Thus, I would shop there instead. It's not that unusual or unique.

retro:electro

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

onthemitch - I'd really be interested to hear your views on my points raised above. I appreciate that you are one of the ones who endeavour to be transparent. You have voiced your opinion on the gifting issue here before but I'd like to hear if you feel a one-off PR sample is in the same category as a regular arrangement between parties or the long term use of a high value item such as a car for free. Is that really the same as getting a lipstick from Penneys and should there be any tax implications for those receiving such services?

I imagine that VW is making a tax deduction for the cost of the car it is providing to you, probably under the heading of advertising expenses, yet it's not considered an advertisement by the recipient of the car.

She was too busy nipping at my posts (who didn't even mention her) to reply to your posts (which actually did involve her)
Made me laugh.

idunno78

It's not complaining about getting free samples or not declaring vouchers as #ad. It's not decalaring thing that's should be #ad as #ad! One blogger will and the other won't! Chances are both are paid for it though. Or getting a free/PR sample and making out you paid for it yourself. That's wrong I think. I couldn't give a hoot about them receiving free samples because even if I don't trust some of their feeling on said product at least il get to see colour and whatever else! It's rare these days a beauty blogger will mention something after the days it's opened and shown on snapchat! They usually don't even get a blog post!!!

Kirstiemcd

Full disclosure: I am an ex magazine editor, journalist and former blogger and have worked within publishing both on and offline for over 10 years so have lots of experience with the mechanics you're all talking about.

The crucial thing to know about PR is that it is the other side of the coin from marketing and advertising. PR seeks to get free advertising by way of editorial mentions for clients in media (print or digital). A brand goes to a PR company, pays them a fee and says, please get us loads of coverage in x, y and z. The company has assets they can use - like products or press trips or parties etc - and the PR uses those to leverage coverage. But usually, they do not pay the media outlet for it because their job is to secure free coverage and keep all the fee for themselves. Because that's the nature of their business. The media outlet gets something to write or talk about, like a new palette launch etc - at their discretion (I'll come back to this) and the PR counts up all their lovely coverage and reports back to the client. Job done.

This relationship has existed for many, many years and predates blogging.

Marketing, on the other hand, is about payment. Marketing and advertising teams have budget to spend on campaigns/advertorials/co-hosted events etc and print/digital ads, and this is really important to note and know. There is an exchange of services with POs and invoices and money paid for services rendered. This needs to be declared on content, and in the print media it would generally be, as per ASAI rules. I can't speak for everyone, obviously.

These relationships have existed for many, many years and predate blogging. And the lines are now blurring with PRs starting to pay bloggers for quick returns, too.

To come back to PR samples: no one is obliged to cover samples they're sent. End of. I am routinely sent many things every day which I look at, rarely show on social - journomail! - because I find that vulgar, and if I think something is a fit for what I am writing about, or if it sparks an idea, or if I like it, it might get used in a feature or spread. But I don't feel the requirement to flatter a brand just because they have sent me something. Because that's what THEY want (I'm contrary) and I have to consider what my reader wants - she is far more important than worrying whether a PR will send me another parcel. And honestly, you get over freebies pretty quick if your main motivation is actually just wanting to do a good job.

I think possibly the reason the mainstream media doesn't come under the same scrutiny as bloggers/snapchatters do is that the print media has more of a series of checks and balances in place. You've got experienced people in offices training juniors about how these relationships ought to work, how PRs' should be bloody lucky the stuff they're peddling is featured and how there is no onus to feature anything that comes in, at any point - unless of course, it was specifically requested for say, a gift guide shoot or specific skincare feature etc.

We are not, and never should be, playing into the hands of PR people. It clearly pisses readers off who then see content creators as shills, and that's understandable. PR people are really useful - they can be sources for all sorts of helpful stuff like images, stories, interviews etc - and you naturally build relationships with them, but to be professional and do your job properly, you need to be in control of your own content.

The monkey shouldn't be able to grind the organ and that's what seems to be happening, and I think it might, in a lot of cases, be an issue of inexperience, lack of knowledge, people who possibly don't realise it's okay to say no, it's okay to not snap everything, not everything is a fit for them - and that having integrity is just so much more important.

onthemitch

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

onthemitch - I'd really be interested to hear your views on my points raised above. I appreciate that you are one of the ones who endeavour to be transparent. You have voiced your opinion on the gifting issue here before but I'd like to hear if you feel a one-off PR sample is in the same category as a regular arrangement between parties or the long term use of a high value item such as a car for free. Is that really the same as getting a lipstick from Penneys and should there be any tax implications for those receiving such services?

I imagine that VW is making a tax deduction for the cost of the car it is providing to you, probably under the heading of advertising expenses, yet it's not considered an advertisement by the recipient of the car.

I didn't actually address this for a number of reasons: firstly, because I sometimes get to a point where I'm like, URGH, I'm the only one here on the "blogger" side (if you get me) and it feels like I'm being attacked / targeted when ultimately I DO disclose all freebies and sponsored content (I just know that I don't HAVE to, so it's a goodwill gesture if that makes sense, and something that I know my followers want).

On the tax front, I don't know enough about the ins and outs of tax to know if the use of a car in exchange for social media posting is something that one should declare to Revenue. If it was, couldn't one work around it (for example) by billing the car company for the content you're producing for them, and having them bill you for use of the car, and then just write it off that way? I don't know.

Ultimately, though, are individuals obliged to disclose their tax concerns to the public? In other words: I have an accountant who does all of my taxes. I meet him about once a month to go through everything and talk about what is and isn't taxable (have just discovered that Depop takings should be declared, which has horrified me and I won't be Depopping anything any more!) and am fully transparent with him. I'm confident that I'm on the right side of the Rev, and anything more than that, I don't think I should have to get into with anonymous strangers on boards.ie.

I hope that makes sense and doesn't sound super defensive – I just feel like tax is a totally separate issue to transparency around advertising, and when we talk about disclosure we're not talking about disclosing earnings to Revenue, we're talking about disclosing collaborations for the purposes of NOT misleading followers. So they're two separate issues; one is for public consumption, one is not.

meeeeh

Hopeful2016 wrote: »

Where is your argument for people not disclosing paid endorsements or are you just picking and choosing which points to address and then acting like all anyone ever complains about is vouchers? Expecting paid promotions to be disclosed is perfectly reasonable. Personally I don't think I've ever complained about bloggers receiving vouchers, open to correction but point me to the post if so. I have regularly said I have no issue with pr items such as lipstick. So when quoting and addressing a poster directly, please try to stick to the facts and not be making accusations which are totally false. There is plenty whinging on this thread from posters in support of bloggers too such as yourself.

You were mentioning gifted items not I. I am not going to argue about someone not hashtagging ad although they were paid for it. They should bre reported. And btw the only 'blogger' I actually read more often than three times is Paul Krugman. I find the whole area fascinating from the advertising point of view but I am not a customer.

onthemitch

But sorry, to clarify a few points I may have missed:

– Yes, I think Preen would continue to do my hair for me if I stopped posting about them explicitly on social media. I get about five messages per week asking where I get my hair done, so I send a good bit of business their way.

– I don't really look at it as a commercial arrangement, more as a barter system. If I provide social media services for someone in exchange for them providing me with a service... is that wrong? Does everyone need to know about it? What if I was a wedding singer, and they were a painter / decorator? Who cares what skills we're swapping?

– I don't post about 90% of the freebies I get. I'm contrary, like Kirstie; it bothers me when brands send gifts with "please tweet using this hashtag" because, p*ss off; a lot of what I get sent is crap; I post about things I like, whether I've paid for them myself or been sent them or just seen them in a shop and can't afford to buy them yet.

retro:electro

Bs they would still do your hair if you didn't post about them. I send a lot of my friends to my hairdresser and I don't get my hair done for free. There is clearly an arrangement there, whether you will acknowledge it or not.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Bs they would still do your hair if you didn't post about them. I send a lot of my friends to my hairdresser and I don't get my hair done for free. There is clearly an arrangement there, whether you will acknowledge it or not.

Unless I'm mistaken, the question was: do I believe they would. The answer is yes. You clearly disagree. It's a hypothetical, so neither of us will ever know! We'll have to agree to disagree

fi314

I feel that this thread has become a bit negative. Someone has done this..someone other person has done that. It doesn't seem constructive.
Might be more productive to focus energies on lobbing the ASAI to clarify their guidelines. The lines are very blurred but I think they could be open to clarifying. If I remember correctly  they did a public consultation on another issue last year....

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

Unless I'm mistaken, the question was: do I believe they would. The answer is yes. You clearly disagree. It's a hypothetical, so neither of us will ever know! We'll have to agree to disagree

My answer was clearly hypothetical also. Also when people message you on snapchat and ask where you get your hair done and you tell them the business, that's still using social media to promote the business. What if you never replied to those messages and didn't send any business their way? Would the arrangement continue?

hearmehearye

Yesterday evening a prolific blogger and snapper had a blog post up from a particular accessory brand. Later on, she snapped about more products from that brand with no #ad. I (instilled with a little help from vino!) snapped her and enquired, and got a message back saying "the post today was spon, but not those snaps). I just found that a wee bit strange. Anyway!

fed_u

Thanks to kirstiemcd for what I can say has been a very insightful post - I know other posters have said they blog and it's interesting to get diff perspectives but as onthemitch said it does sometimes feel she is the only one defending her corner so to speak! The gifting issue certainly has blurred lines but I don't think we can really lay all the blame at bloggers and have to point the finger more at the ASAI as until they clarify the rules it won't change! there are those that we know will plug anything to keep the crap coming through the door in the hopes of making themselves more appealing to potential brands..

Onthemitch could you give an idea of how much you get that doesn't feature and if these brands or PR co's have then stopped sending you stuff?

retro:electro

I notice in the UK, with YouTube videos, if they video is sponsored it will always say AD, and if they product has been sent to them it will contain an asterisk in the description box below the video so the reader never feels duped and always is in the know.

onthemitch

fed_u wrote: »

Thanks to kirstiemcd for what I can say has been a very insightful post - I know other posters have said they blog and it's interesting to get diff perspectives but as onthemitch said it does sometimes feel she is the only one defending her corner so to speak! The gifting issue certainly has blurred lines but I don't think we can really lay all the blame at bloggers and have to point the finger more at the ASAI as until they clarify the rules it won't change! there are those that we know will plug anything to keep the crap coming through the door in the hopes of making themselves more appealing to potential brands..

Onthemitch could you give an idea of how much you get that doesn't feature and if these brands or PR co's have then stopped sending you stuff?

Like, do you want to know exactly what products? Like I said, around 80-90% of what I get sent, I don't feature. I don't really do "bloggermail" unless it's something incredibly interesting or innovative. If I really like a product (today I got sent a pair of runners, for example) I'll wear them and post about them then, or in an outfit for blog post pictures.

As to whether or not PRs continue to send things, some do and some don't. But to be honest, I'd rather they paid attention to what I feature and what I don't, and then tailor their drops to that. I mean, I guess people who feature everything get sent everything (because they know they'll feature it!) – but if I was a PR sending things to me, I'd probably try to go, well I know she likes X or Y, and generally doesn't talk about A or B, so I'll send things according to what I know!

That make sense?

idunno78

anna080 wrote: »

My answer was clearly hypothetical also. Also when people message you on snapchat and ask where you get your hair done and you tell them the business, that's still using social media to promote the business. What if you never replied to those messages and didn't send any business their way? Would the arrangement continue?

While I agree with some of what you said in other posts I think it's a bit silly to compare answering somebody asking where you get your hair done in a private message to an ad or promoting the business! it's not!

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

My answer was clearly hypothetical also. Also when people message you on snapchat and ask where you get your hair done and you tell them the business, that's still using social media to promote the business. What if you never replied to those messages and didn't send any business their way? Would the arrangement continue?

Ah Anna come on. People ask me on snapchat where I get my hair done all the time. I tell them. Not because I get it for free but because people are always looking for hairdresser recommendations. Just because I replied to them on snapchat doesn't mean I'm using social media to promote a business.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

Ah Anna come on. People ask me on snapchat where I get my hair done all the time. I tell them. Not because I get it for free but because people are always looking for hairdresser recommendations. Just because I replied to them on snapchat doesn't mean I'm using social media to promote a business.

But she's saying because of those messages she would continue to get her hair done for free. So clearly it is promotion.
All I'm wondering is if that stopped, would the free service still continue.

fed_u

onthemitch wrote: »

Like, do you want to know exactly what products? Like I said, around 80-90% of what I get sent, I don't feature. I don't really do "bloggermail" unless it's something incredibly interesting or innovative. If I really like a product (today I got sent a pair of runners, for example) I'll wear them and post about them then, or in an outfit for blog post pictures.

As to whether or not PRs continue to send things, some do and some don't. But to be honest, I'd rather they paid attention to what I feature and what I don't, and then tailor their drops to that. I mean, I guess people who feature everything get sent everything (because they know they'll feature it!) – but if I was a PR sending things to me, I'd probably try to go, well I know she likes X or Y, and generally doesn't talk about A or B, so I'll send things according to what I know!

That make sense?

Thanks - just saw you had said a lot of what your sent doesn't make the cut! No not looking for specific brands or anything but more just outa curiosity to see if they've stopped sending stuff then!!

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

But she's saying because of those messages she would continue to get her hair done for free. So clearly it is promotion.

No, she said was asking if she didn't promote them would she still get her hair for free and she said yes. So clearly it's not a promotion.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

No, she said was asking if she didn't promote them would she still get her hair for free and she said yes. So clearly it's not a promotion.

Well every time she leaves the salon she says they do her hair for free in exchange for social media promotion so to me the deal seems pretty clear cut.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Well every time she leaves the salon she says they do her hair for free in exchange for social media promotion so to me the deal seems pretty clear cut.

So hang on a second – what IS the issue? You say you want people to be clear and transparent when they get a freebie, which I am. But you seem, simultaneously, to be annoyed that I get my hair cut for free and post about it in exchange... or are you annoyed that I am so dumb that I somehow think they'd continue to offer me free haircuts if I didn't post about them?

Like: what is this exchange even about?

Kirstiemcd

fed_u wrote: »

Thanks to kirstiemcd for what I can say has been a very insightful post - I know other posters have said they blog and it's interesting to get diff perspectives but as onthemitch said it does sometimes feel she is the only one defending her corner so to speak! The gifting issue certainly has blurred lines but I don't think we can really lay all the blame at bloggers and have to point the finger more at the ASAI as until they clarify the rules it won't change! there are those that we know will plug anything to keep the crap coming through the door in the hopes of making themselves more appealing to potential brands..

Onthemitch could you give an idea of how much you get that doesn't feature and if these brands or PR co's have then stopped sending you stuff?

How would you like things to change though? As far as I can tell, though I could well be wrong, the ASAI is basing its requirements off many years of how the PR and print relationship has worked and that's why there's no requirement to declare when something has been received as a sample. Obviously, and I always did this as a blogger as the media form is so different and reviews-based, it's good form to say, we got this for consideration, because people are not stupid - and why wouldn't you? It's not a secret, and it baffles me when bloggers don't do it.

No money changes hands in this relationship, everyone knows (or should know) that it's all for consideration, and it facilitates the creation of new content which is the lifeblood of a magazine or newspaper. Lifestyle media in particular relies on PR information for a good portion of its content. And PR goes far, far beyond fashion and beauty.

We receive press releases about all manner of things - news about technology, pharma, food, science developments, consumer electrics, interiors, pets, health stories, survey results from brands which might spark a story, supermarket pitches, beauty and fashion releases, travel, yawnsome stuff you instantly delete, tonnes of different things.

Some come just as an email, some come as a drop into the office with a product, some come with a bribe-esque 'press gift' like cupcakes which I find hackneyed and boring in the extreme and don't work on me at all, sometimes you're invited to try a service (facial, new restaurant menu etc but I hardly ever do these because I value my spare time) so you can realistically write about it. Sometimes you get a voucher or discount code so you can pick up something you'd actually like - which is a far better use of PR resources to be honest than sending out 150 of the same ****e things no one likes.

In something like a magazine, none of this is remotely a big deal - it gets a paragraph in a roundup of a pile of other things selected by a particular editor in a feature and a load other things that weren't any way near as good get left out.

Plus, those sort of features, in any decent magazine, only make up a small portion of content in terms of news, food, travel and beauty. Features, fashion shoots, the meat of the mag, generally won't be using PR content at all. That will have been created as a result of the editor in consultation with her eds and contribs coming up with ideas and commissioning them.