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

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

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?

I'm not annoyed about anything. Just asking you to clarify if you didn't post about them on social media would you still get the service for free, you said you would. I said grand but you usually say that the service is stipulated by you posting on social media, so it seems odd that you are now saying you would continue to get it for free even if you withdrew your part of the deal. That's it.

SB_Part2

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not annoyed about anything. Just asking you to clarify if you didn't post about them on social media would you still get the service for free, you said you would. I said grand but you usually say that the service is stipulated by you posting on social media, so it seems odd that you are now saying you would continue to get it for free even if you withdrew your part of the deal. That's it.

You seem to be constantly trying to catch her out on something.

retro:electro

SB_Part2 wrote: »

You seem to be constantly trying to catch her out on something.

Nope. Just getting clarification is all.

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Nope. Just getting clarification is all.

How exactly can you get clarification on my thoughts? I told you: I think that, if I stopped posting publicly about my haircuts (honestly this conversation is ridiculously), I would continue to get free services because of the amount of people I refer via private messages.

You then said that you didn't think I would.

What more do you want me to clarify for you?

onthemitch

Kirstiemcd wrote: »

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.

The hope (I gather) is that the ASAI would somehow create a law that requires all bloggers, social media influencers and journalists to declare when something is a free sample. Which is patently ridiculous, because the ASAI is absolutely incapable of going after people when they very clearly and obviously flout their "an ad must be declared" guideline, and basically magazines would run out of space for editorial if they had to declare every single thing that was received.

Kirstiemcd

well, we'll be waiting as they don't have any legal powers as it is, RN...

idunno78

I guarantee you 90% of the bloggers we are on about all get there hair and extensions for free in exchange for a mention but onthemitch is the only one to admit she gets it for free for a mention in return! so I don't know why you are nagging her about it and haven't once mentioned the 'top' blogger for instance who changes her hair weekly almost has extension in and out like she is changing her top! Never once mentions it's for free or anything. (I highly doubt she pays out €300 quid a month to get new ones put in).

idunno78

All I'd like to see from ASAI them making sure bloggers understand the use of #ad and make sure they use it properally across all their social medias! Maybe use of #bloggermail or say they were sent it, not make out like they bought it! That's it!

retro:electro

idunno78 wrote: »

I guarantee you 90% of the bloggers we are on about all get there hair and extensions for free in exchange for a mention but onthemitch is the only one to admit she gets it for free for a mention in return! so I don't know why you are nagging her about it and haven't once mentioned the 'top' blogger for instance who changes her hair weekly almost has extension in and out like she is changing her top! Never once mentions it's for free or anything. (I highly doubt she pays out €300 quid a month to get new ones put in).

I don't follow the top blogger so I'm not aware of that. And I'm not nagging anyone about anything. All I was saying is it's odd that someone who quite clearly asserts that her hair is done free conditional to social media promotion would continue to get their hair done for free should she withdraw her part of the deal. That is all. That is my sole point and tbh I am so bored of this topic.

meeeeh

Kirstiemcd wrote: »

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.

I love comprehensive and interesting posts like yours because the shine the light on how much more complex is the relationship between pr/advertising and traditional/social media.

Anyway what I was always curios about is how often is there pressure to put clothes from a brand that heavily advertises in magazine into fashion shoot? You don't need to reply if it's an akward issue, it's just me being nosey.

retro:electro

idunno78 wrote: »

All I'd like to see from ASAI them making sure bloggers understand the use of #ad and make sure they use it properally across all their social medias! Maybe use of #bloggermail or say they were sent it, not make out like they bought it! That's it!

I agree with this. Or #freebie

Lunaarli

onthemitch wrote: »

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.

Pretty sure you should be paying BIK Tax for the car.. http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/bik.html

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

onthemitch wrote: »

How exactly can you get clarification on my thoughts? I told you: I think that, if I stopped posting publicly about my haircuts (honestly this conversation is ridiculously), I would continue to get free services because of the amount of people I refer via private messages.

You then said that you didn't think I would.

What more do you want me to clarify for you?

From another points of view, as manager of a salon, we have cut off a few bloggers who came for free treatments and didn't snap as per agreement and the next time they asked to come back we "didn't have any available appointments".

Kirstiemcd

All the ASAI can do is issue guidelines and warnings. It has no powers of enforcement.

A few years ago, it was absolutely standard for bloggers to declare that they'd been sent products for consideration, not sure when that stopped. Now, I think the resolution you want to see has been muddied by a few different, competing things:

A) some bloggers have no idea what constitutes an ad and mistakenly hashtag a press sample as an ad because they're a bit new or not sure
SOME of them are actually being paid to promote a new product and some are not - this makes sense depending on their follower numbers and engagement rate
C) Some actually use ad erroneously to make it seem they're working with brands when they're not, because they think it'll attract other brands to work with them
D) lots DGAF and refuse to declare commercial content because they simply don't have to

retro:electro

LexieOnRale wrote: »

From another points of view, as manager of a salon, we have cut off a few bloggers who came for free treatments and didn't snap as per agreement and the next time they asked to come back we "didn't have any available appointments".

I'd be mortified to keep doing that.

retro:electro

Kirstiemcd wrote: »

All the ASAI can do is issue guidelines and warnings. It has no powers of enforcement.

A few years ago, it was absolutely standard for bloggers to declare that they'd been sent products for consideration, not sure when that stopped. Now, I think the resolution you want to see has been muddied by a few different, competing things:

A) some bloggers have no idea what constitutes an ad and mistakenly hashtag a press sample as an ad because they're a bit new or not sure
SOME of them are actually being paid to promote a new product and some are not - this makes sense depending on their follower numbers and engagement rate
C) Some actually use ad erroneously to make it seem they're working with brands when they're not, because they think it'll attract other brands to work with them
D) lots DGAF and refuse to declare commercial content because they simply don't have to

That's really insightful. Point B comes up a lot here. It's interesting to know that where one blogger may be #ad on a product, another may mention it but not #ad because they've not been paid to promote it, they've just been sent it to try. I see. Point C is also interesting, if not a bit pathetic!

Kirstiemcd

Meeeh - sorry, I can't seem to quote you for some reason. Nope not awkward. I've never worked on a glossy with a lot of fashion advertising so can't say it's been an issue I've faced.

idunno78

Kirstiemcd wrote: »

All the ASAI can do is issue guidelines and warnings. It has no powers of enforcement.

A few years ago, it was absolutely standard for bloggers to declare that they'd been sent products for consideration, not sure when that stopped. Now, I think the resolution you want to see has been muddied by a few different, competing things:

A) some bloggers have no idea what constitutes an ad and mistakenly hashtag a press sample as an ad because they're a bit new or not sure
SOME of them are actually being paid to promote a new product and some are not - this makes sense depending on their follower numbers and engagement rate
C) Some actually use ad erroneously to make it seem they're working with brands when they're not, because they think it'll attract other brands to work with them
D) lots DGAF and refuse to declare commercial content because they simply don't have to

It is silly that the ASAI can't do anything but just tell them! Kinda like civilian guards!! Maybe someone should hold a masterclass for the bloggers 😂😂 (joke I'm not serious). I completely agree with you that it's all of the above a-d. The ASAI should tho be a bit more informative and give them gentle reminders' for the guidelines every couple of months. Or maybe Do random spotchecks like shops would get with health and safety!

onthemitch

idunno78 wrote: »

It is silly that the ASAI can't do anything but just tell them! Kinda like civilian guards!! Maybe someone should hold a masterclass for the bloggers 😂😂 (joke I'm not serious). I completely agree with you that it's all of the above a-d. The ASAI should tho be a bit more informative and give them gentle reminders' for the guidelines every couple of months. Or maybe Do random spotchecks like shops would get with health and safety!

Y'see, the issue is – the ASAI can get reports, the ASAI can get in touch with bloggers, the ASAI can offer cautions... But they can't prosecute anyone. They can fine brands, but I've yet to see them doing that. Even if they DID spot checks, all they can do is offer slaps on the wrists and as far as I know they don't have anyone who does spot checks!

Hopeful2016

onthemitch wrote: »

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.

Thanks for answering. My queries were more what are your thoughts on the topic moreso than please disclose your tax affairs to us here on Boards. The rules are as they are currently and you comply 100% with them but what do you think about the rules. Do you agree with very expensive items and ongoing arrangements being treated as pr samples regardless of the value or the benefit to the blogger.

The tax reference was to highlight that from the company's perspective this is a tax deductible business expense yet from a blogger's point of view it's a present/gift. Presents/gifts are not normally tax deductible for businesses so it seems likely that there is difference between the nature of these items from the company's and the blogger's point of view. The business' tax treatment of the items doesn't marry with the blogger's assertions that they are purely gifts, business' are clearly working from the perspective that they are getting a service in return, social media mentions.

His thread has gotten v busy since I last posted. To keep things in perspective, I don't really care. It interests me from a taxation point of view because I'm an accountant and it think it's a grey area that will be clarified in the future. I'm not really interested in petty bickering back and forth but it has passed some time for me today while on strict lie-flat instructions after my lumbar puncture earlier today. I asked you these things onthemitch, not because I'm out to attack you personally, but because it's so rare to hear anything on this from a blogger's point of view and it's interesting to hear if can appreciate the arguments from the follower's perspective (and vice versa).

So in summary, it's a somewhat interesting topic but most people have bigger fish to fry and more pressing issues so there's no need to be tearing shreads off each other because of differing opinions on the topic. Discussion is normally a positive thing. It's ok not to agree with everyone.

I fainted during the lumbar so I may not be particularly coherent above, haven't had my hospital issue tea and toast yet.

bigpink

Blaggers not bloggers lol

Hopeful2016

onthemitch wrote: »

.

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

On a side note Onthemitch, I don't think the advice you have been given re Depop is accurate. Unless you are selling more that a few pairs of second hand trainers and jeans I don't see how that could be considered carrying on a trade or similar. From looking at your Depop page, unless you have a second one selling different items, there's no way that tax would be due on those sales. You're selling you own personal goods, not in mass quantities, you haven't altered them in anyway, you're not profit driven and you've owned the items for a reasonable period of time (i.e. You're not buying them specifically to sell on). I'd run this by him/her again if you have more items you'd like to sell because that doesn't make sense.

Apologies for off topic.

LizT

idunno78 wrote: »

All I'd like to see from ASAI them making sure bloggers understand the use of #ad and make sure they use it properally across all their social medias! Maybe use of #bloggermail or say they were sent it, not make out like they bought it! That's it!

The snap of the bloggger making out that she ordered her mam the tv from currys really pissed me off. It would have been so easy to say 'Currys offered to send me some of their new stock and I asked for a tv because mam needs one' instead of deliberately making it appear she paid for and ordered the tv off her own bat. Don't treat your followers like fools.

I think one of the problems with snapchat compared to actual blogging is that in a blog, it's easy to stick a disclaimer on the end of the post explaining that the product was sent for free for review. On snapchat though, I get the feeling that half the bloggers can't be bothered explaining that items were sent because it would become very repetitive.

IRE60

onthemitch wrote: »

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?

No, there should be no issue here. onthemitch is clearly up front with punters - no need for a hashtag as the statement is enough. The arguement here (most of the time) had been about transparency, and this clearly is, not the receipt of freebies.

IRE60

And, chiming in late, tax is an issue and one that is central to this arguement. Driving a car, given to you by a car company in return for a favourable sipin, imo, is a) a contract b) taxable under benefit in kind.

Just because your blogging doesn't mean it's excuseable to receive and not pay the boatman!
I'm at a board meeting one a month - item one on the agenda - any conflicts of interest. I think, personally, promoting stuff and not saying it's swag, is an interst conflict with your followers.

We're currently en route through a governance review which is strict.

I think that many bloggers would fail governance. And I think many will come on the radar of The Revenue - and rightly so.

idunno78

onthemitch wrote: »

Y'see, the issue is – the ASAI can get reports, the ASAI can get in touch with bloggers, the ASAI can offer cautions... But they can't prosecute anyone. They can fine brands, but I've yet to see them doing that. Even if they DID spot checks, all they can do is offer slaps on the wrists and as far as I know they don't have anyone who does spot checks!

Maybe spot checks might just keep people in there toes? Maybe thing might change if this area keeps going the way it is they might invest more interest in it! Ya wouldn't know!

Cria

All I want is transparency and honesty not too much to ask .. I've unfollowed the majority now i saw the girl pretend to buy her mother a television and was appalled that she did that I saw a comment on her Instagram when someone asked does she declare when it's an ad or sponsored and she said she always states it clearly she hadn't the day before very disappointing

FAILSAFE 00

Cria wrote: »

All I want is transparency and honesty not too much to ask .. I've unfollowed the majority now i saw the girl pretend to buy her mother a television and was appalled that she did that I saw a comment on her Instagram when someone asked does she declare when it's an ad or sponsored and she said she always states it clearly she hadn't the day before very disappointing

Pretend to buy a TV

LizT

FAILSAFE 00 wrote: »

Pretend to buy a TV

She got sent a tv from currys and on her snap she said 'I got this for mam, I can't wait to give it to her' followed by several snaps of her implying she bought the tv from currys. On the same day many other big bloggers also recieved packages from currys, they obviously weren't just ordered and paid for normally as they all arrived wrapped up and they all recieved them at the same time.

Cria

LizT wrote: »

She got sent a tv from currys and on her snap she said 'I got this for mam, I can't wait to give it to her' followed by several snaps of her implying she bought the tv from currys. On the same day many other big bloggers also recieved packages from currys, they obviously weren't just ordered and paid for normally as they all arrived wrapped up and they all recieved them at the same time.

She's notorious for not hash tagging anything on her snapchat and Instagram

Jen44

I thought only employees were subject to BIK tax

bigpink

onthemitch wrote: »

Y'see, the issue is – the ASAI can get reports, the ASAI can get in touch with bloggers, the ASAI can offer cautions... But they can't prosecute anyone. They can fine brands, but I've yet to see them doing that. Even if they DID spot checks, all they can do is offer slaps on the wrists and as far as I know they don't have anyone who does spot checks!

What you think should be put in place regarding bloggers?

onthemitch

bigpink wrote: »

What you think should be put in place regarding bloggers?

Okay, so personally – I think that there should be a double-edged sword to it. I think both the company and the blogger involved should be given an on-the-spot fine if it turns out that advertorial (ie something that is paid for) is not being marked as such. In my mind that would include mentions on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook as well as in the blog post – and I think it should be mandatory for the word "ad" to be included in the headline, not in the last line of the piece.

But that would *only* apply in instances where something is being paid for – which would fit along the same lines as magazines. When it comes to freebies, I wouldn't have any obligation for anyone to disclose to be honest.

IRE60

onthemitch wrote: »

Okay, so personally – I think that there should be a double-edged sword to it. I think both the company and the blogger involved should be given an on-the-spot fine if it turns out that advertorial (ie something that is paid for) is not being marked as such. In my mind that would include mentions on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook as well as in the blog post – and I think it should be mandatory for the word "ad" to be included in the headline, not in the last line of the piece.

But that would *only* apply in instances where something is being paid for – which would fit along the same lines as magazines. When it comes to freebies, I wouldn't have any obligation for anyone to disclose to be honest.

and if someone got a free car - that's ok not to disclose that?

onthemitch

IRE60 wrote: »

and if someone got a free car - that's ok not to disclose that?

You are actually obsessed with this car.

Legally, no, there is no onus on an individual to disclose whether or not they got a free car – and I don't see how that could be enforced, if it were to be put into law.

For example, loads of Irish celebrities, rugby players etc, are given cars as a loan to publicise that car brand or to increase brand awareness. Journalists are given cars to drive (in fact, most motoring journalists I know don't own their own cars, as they drive a different one each week). I know that's about reviewing the cars, whereas the other is about getting publicity for them, but practically speaking I think it would be too complicated to enforce a law stating that everybody with any kind of public profile had to disclose if something they are using / showing was given to them FOC.

For my part, I've always disclosed the fact that my car is a loaner from a brand, and will continue to do so; from an ethical point of view, I think that people *should* disclose. So I guess I don't really think it's "ok" not to disclose it, I just can't see how you would possibly make it illegal not to.

Do you see what I mean?

retro:electro

Do you not think it's in the interest of the reader to know if something was a freebie or not?

onthemitch

anna080 wrote: »

Do you not think it's in the interest of the reader to know if something was a freebie or not?

Absolutely – and I've said that all along. I *do* disclose everything that is given to me for free, because I think the readers deserve to know.

I just don't see how it would possibly work to make it legally binding to disclose if things are given for free – you'd have to enforce it across bloggers, journalists, celebrities... it just wouldn't be feasible I don't think!

IRE60

I actually don't care about the car and I didn't remember you were in receipt of one.
I'm trying to highlight big ticket items that your be used to circumvent your proposal. So long as there is not "cash" there's no disclosure can be easily avoided. If i get my shopping free every week - that's ok because there's no cash involved.
I don't think that will fly - It might suite PR companies etc - but its still simply avoidance.

SpillingTheTea

I just think it's wholly unethical to promote a brand when you've been given something for free and to not disclose it. It shouldn't matter if it was a nail polish or a car, it's unethical in my eyes and I think that's where there is this huge surge of frustration from us as readers/viewers of these bloggers/social media influencers. We just want complete transparency.

IRE60

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I just think it's wholly unethical

I think ethics is a distant memory for many of them

onthemitch

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I just think it's wholly unethical to promote a brand when you've been given something for free and to not disclose it. It shouldn't matter if it was a nail polish or a car, it's unethical in my eyes and I think that's where there is this huge surge of frustration from us as readers/viewers of these bloggers/social media influencers. We just want complete transparency.

But why are standards so different for bloggers / "social influencers" than they are for journalists, celebrities etc?

And, if, say, there was a law that said: every human being in receipt of a free item given to them by a brand with the sole purpose of that item being promoted must disclose the fact that the item in question was given to them for free – how would that be enforced? In newspapers, say? Where would that disclosure go? What about magazines? Celebrities posting pics to Instagram? I think it would be mayhem trying to enforce it.

I think the *only* way bloggers / social influencers will ever start disclosing every single freebie is if people start voting with their clicks. Unfollow people you think are pulling the wool over your eyes – maybe send them a message explaining why. Tweet about it, post it on Facebook. I don't mean necessarily in a "public shaming" way, but if their currency is their following, the only way you're going to make people come clean is by taking that following away from them.

onthemitch

IRE60 wrote: »

I think ethics is a distant memory for many of them

I think this is a bit unfair because, as @kirstiemcd said a few pages ago, a lot of these individuals have no formal training. They've never studied journalism; they have never read any books on ethics, or given it much thought at all. I don't think they're deliberately being disingenuous – I think sometimes they're just young women and men who've never had full-time jobs where they had bosses and colleagues to answer to, and so everything is decided by them, according to what they "feel" is right.

Maybe a code of ethics for bloggers, published by the ASAI and freely available to influencers, would be a good idea – but, like codes of ethics for journalists, it's the individuals themselves who have to enforce them.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

onthemitch wrote: »

I think this is a bit unfair because, as @kirstiemcd said a few pages ago, a lot of these individuals have no formal training. They've never studied journalism; they have never read any books on ethics, or given it much thought at all. I don't think they're deliberately being disingenuous – I think sometimes they're just young women and men who've never had full-time jobs where they had bosses and colleagues to answer to, and so everything is decided by them, according to what they "feel" is right.

Maybe a code of ethics for bloggers, published by the ASAI and freely available to influencers, would be a good idea – but, like codes of ethics for journalists, it's the individuals themselves who have to enforce them.

With all due respect if they're making a career out of this then they can hardly plead ignorance as they've never had formal training.

I've recently started my own business despite having no formal training or experience and I still had to follow the same protocol as everyone else, and educate myself.

onthemitch

LexieOnRale wrote: »

With all due respect if they're making a career out of this then they can hardly plead ignorance as they've never had formal training.

I've recently started my own business despite having no formal training or experience and I still had to follow the same protocol as everyone else, and educate myself.

I wasn't really saying they could / should plead ignorance, just that I don't think it's being done on purpose and maliciously. That's all!

And to be fair, as far as protocol is concerned, what we're talking about now is what readers think bloggers *should* do. The protocol, or the rules, state that they must disclose ads / commercial partnerships, not freebies. So when it comes to freebies, non-disclosure isn't breaking with protocol.

SpillingTheTea

onthemitch wrote: »

SpillingTheTea wrote: »

I just think it's wholly unethical to promote a brand when you've been given something for free and to not disclose it. It shouldn't matter if it was a nail polish or a car, it's unethical in my eyes and I think that's where there is this huge surge of frustration from us as readers/viewers of these bloggers/social media influencers. We just want complete transparency.

But why are standards so different for bloggers / "social influencers" than they are for journalists, celebrities etc?

And, if, say, there was a law that said: every human being in receipt of a free item given to them by a brand with the sole purpose of that item being promoted must disclose the fact that the item in question was given to them for free – how would that be enforced? In newspapers, say? Where would that disclosure go? What about magazines? Celebrities posting pics to Instagram? I think it would be mayhem trying to enforce it.

I think the *only* way bloggers / social influencers will ever start disclosing every single freebie is if people start voting with their clicks. Unfollow people you think are pulling the wool over your eyes – maybe send them a message explaining why. Tweet about it, post it on Facebook. I don't mean necessarily in a "public shaming" way, but if their currency is their following, the only way you're going to make people come clean is by taking that following away from them.

I do agree with what you are saying, and actually being a follower of you for a while I respect that you are one of the small few that actually disclose stuff which is why I completely respect you.
But I think from a follower/viewer's perspective it can become quite frustrating when we are being treated like we are stupid. At the end of the day, as I've said in earlier posts, I genuinely don't have a problem with bloggers etc getting freebies or anything like that because that's your job, but when you see a couple of bloggers get given the same free stuff which then promotes a brand and then only 1 or 2 actually properly mark it as #ad or #spon, it does two things:
1) We lose faith and we get annoyed and then we are seen as 'haters' or just jealous when we say 'no we don't want that' and
2) Bloggers such as yourself that do properly and ethically disclose things, it gets you lumped in with the bad guys just because you're a blogger.

Obviously in an ideal world I personally would love if bloggers and Influencers were to actually disclose everything because then that would mean that we know we aren't reading and unofficial advert, but it's not going to happen. That doesn't mean I won't have my say about it until something changes. (I know it's not THAT deep, but it's annoying)

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

It doesn't matter whether they're doing it on purpose or not. If I don't put everything through the books, and I'm pulled up on it, I can't say sorry I didn't know, my bad.

They're not simpletons. They know full well constant reviews of products because they're freebies/paid would be taken less seriously than an impartial review.

The first well known Irish blogger wanted 1500 ex vat to come to the opening of a salon I managed previously, you can be sure for that price she wouldn't be doing a bad review.

retro:electro

onthemitch wrote: »

But why are standards so different for bloggers / "social influencers" than they are for journalists, celebrities etc?

And, if, say, there was a law that said: every human being in receipt of a free item given to them by a brand with the sole purpose of that item being promoted must disclose the fact that the item in question was given to them for free – how would that be enforced? In newspapers, say? Where would that disclosure go? What about magazines? Celebrities posting pics to Instagram? I think it would be mayhem trying to enforce it.

I think the *only* way bloggers / social influencers will ever start disclosing every single freebie is if people start voting with their clicks. Unfollow people you think are pulling the wool over your eyes – maybe send them a message explaining why. Tweet about it, post it on Facebook. I don't mean necessarily in a "public shaming" way, but if their currency is their following, the only way you're going to make people come clean is by taking that following away from them.

I think its because the relationship between the follower and the blogger is much more personal than the other options you've listed above. You let us into your home (so to speak) we see your dogs, kids, family, friends, what you've had for dinner etc.. So the relationship is a personal one, so when there's non disclose the followers can't help but feel a little duped. And I'm not saying that's wholly the fault of the blogger, maybe it's also the fault of the viewer? Maybe we shouldn't let ourselves get so sucked in and manipulated. But if bloggers want to be seen in the same lines as journalists and magazines etc then they should act as such and treat their audience in the same vein and not get so personal with us and treat us like we are apart of their intimate and immediate circle.

Cynically, It's as though you are building up our trust just to dupe us.

Michellenman

Is the aim at the end not the same though regardless of whether a blogger is being paid or has been 'gifted' an item? The end result is the same for the reader. A blogger might be paid or may have been given a car on loan in exchange for advertising to their readers but that makes no difference to the reader really, they are still be advertised to and that should be clear.

For me, full disclosure is the only way to go and I think onthemitch is a great example of this. My main gripe would be that from my perspective, regardless of what's been given,the sentiment behind the exchange is to advertise it to me and should be disclosed as such.

I think the whole 'it only has to be #ad when money has exchanged hands' is a bit crap and somewhat of a cop out because I honestly don't think anyone is loaned a car or any other big ticket item (not aimed at onthemitch personally, she's certainly not the one and only blogger to get one!) and told that they don't HAVE to post about it on social media and advertise it to their following. I really dont think the companies would be loaning out big ticket items like these if they could end up sitting in a driveway/house where none of the followers would know about them. There must be some sort of agreement that the item will get some social media exposure (which is advertising). Think this is obvious when you see the ways in which people try to weasel pics of the car or the logo on the steering wheel on to their various platforms in ways that seem totally unnatural and very much 'it's that time of the week, better get a pic of the car up!'

Unfortunately there's no rule to say that it should be #ad in these circumstances so the blogger is not breaking any rules. This issue lies with the regulatory authority, not with (most!) bloggers IMO.

NicMc1987

I've noticed in the last few months every blogger under the sun seems to be going to a certain restaurant in Dundrum Shopping Centre! I know they hosted a blogger night when they opened and maybe the food was really just that amazing to justify all these return visits. But....EVERY single time they are in Dundrum they all seem to go to this restaurant. Never a mention of whether it is subsidised or discounted....

Cria

onthemitch wrote: »

Okay, so personally – I think that there should be a double-edged sword to it. I think both the company and the blogger involved should be given an on-the-spot fine if it turns out that advertorial (ie something that is paid for) is not being marked as such. In my mind that would include mentions on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter and Facebook as well as in the blog post – and I think it should be mandatory for the word "ad" to be included in the headline, not in the last line of the piece.

But that would *only* apply in instances where something is being paid for – which would fit along the same lines as magazines. When it comes to freebies, I wouldn't have any obligation for anyone to disclose to be honest.

Question for you have you ever given a bad review on a freebie I very rarely see a bad review from any blogger I can only assume it's from fear of not getting anymore.