Found a free link to the telegraph article. Basically:
- ASA have formally contacted her twice but decided no action required (asa are quickly establishing themselves as the most incompetent regulator)
- Gleam refuse to say when they signed her up (my guess is on or shortly before 12 Sept)
- She has a deal with P&G to promote spritzing (wtf) but apparently a lot of her spritzing posts aren’t AD according to ASA (fuckwits - what about the CMA rules?). Every post featuring febreze is an ad, IMO.
- She is saying her account was set up in March 2017 (I’ve seen this now in the times and telegraph article so Gleam are obviously trying to pump this as fact) - I thought it had been said before it was March 2018? Her first post is definitely 10 March 2018. Gleam are obviously trying to gaslight to suggest she’s been around longer than she has.
Just checked the mumsnet thread that was going on at the time she went on this morning and that was 17/09/18, someone posted that day and said they thought she'd be signed to Gleam by the end of the day. I think she was probably signed just before that as that's how she got the slot and also remember she had edited her tips (zoflora mixed with bicarb on mattress) so think you're right with 12/09/18. The first news article came out 13/09/18 or thereabouts. Anyway the feeling on there was that she had recently been signed up with PR, as her stories were really quiet and seemed really edited. The ads started around then too. Someone presumably knowing her came on there swore blind she didn't have PR. Then the gleam thing came out.
Anyway what I'm trying to say after all that
is that gleam couldn't have been representing her longer before like you say 12/09/18. A few reported her for undisclosed shark ads amongst others and they're claiming they've taken no action but they did because soon after she labelled them ad. Not the af links though!
well done Sophie, you are the bargain basement version of celebrity and everything wrong to aspire to.
