If you have a “business” account which all influencers and micro influencers and wannabes do, you have access to statistics.
It enables you to see how many view your stories as we all have but with a business account, you see who has skipped them, how your engagement has been, what did well and what didn’t do well.
I think this is why she does these highly imaginative and hun relatable stories now as she knows people will engage on them and tell her how hilarious she is etc etc. Previously, her engagement would have been from the DV stories she would share and the engagement would have been from people empathising. Now she doesn’t do that, she needs to get her engagement figures up as brands will ask for this when offering her work. You’ll see other influencers might do a poll or ask me anything.
You’ll also notice with Rachel that her ads usually come along just after one of those made up tales because she’s lining her engagement up for the next ad. It’s a constant stream and if a grid ad doesn’t do well, she will do another engagement story.
She’s said herself that this is now her business, she’s got it all planned meticulously so now as soon as I see that #ad, I go straight past it and skip, she has to show brands a percentage of who is skipping - if an ad doesn’t perform well, they’re less likely to ask her to advertise for them again.
Even when people question her on her ads, it’s classed as engagement, so, if they are going to pull her on her inconsistencies and lies, they need to email her as it isn’t part of engagement figures or, question her behaviour on a post that isn’t an ad (brands don’t care and just see that as butter followers that will have been pre-warned)
Emailing for PayPal money refunds as an example is ALWAYS the best way though as it’ll NEVER be part of her engagement figures.
There aren’t any laws.
Child actors/models are signed to agencies and have to go through heaps or legal paperwork and restrictions, in my view, if children are going to be used in ads and influencers are going to justify it as “it’s like you see in ads on tv or magazines” then there’s need to be laws and regulations for them to. They’re more at risk on social media than they are on tv!
As for the pocket game. The children aren’t being taught the value of anything because everything they want, they have or are gifted it. Rachel plays on “I had nothing once” but it’s just a line to excuse her over indulgence. It’s a way to make people feel guilty for questioning why she spends so much now and for people to never question why her children get so much given to them. To them, they are never taught the value of things so they see it as “we can get more shirts” In all honesty though, he’s technically buying his own shirts anyway from all the wages he’s earns from doing ads for her! He’s paid at least 20 years worth of rent in lieu with the ads - they all have!
Her crying at the other children not having shirts was all to stop anyone slating her as it looks like she cares. If she REALLY cared, she’d have been a lot less keen to show off everything she has brought or been gifted this year and then offer £1 gifted balls of cotton wool to women in a refuge to make them feel safe.
Last edited:
