She'll save it for anti-bullying week.
Ruby Granger #22 I can’t relate to Sun Tzu, and neither should you.
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Ruby Granger Threads Wiki
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
It's just a mockup photo for her to send to LG - "The empty space in my hands is where the naxt model LG laptop will gyo! Please send more spyonsor money so I can keep saying I use LG laptops every single day!View attachment 981225 I was just wondering if she is practicing holding a baby in her lap?
"I have just looked at Sixteenth's website and Roobee is not mentioned on their list of talent ! Have they dropped her?
She's still there. Their talent page is set to jumble the order of everyone every few minutes, presumably to dodge any claims of favouritism amongst their clients, so maybe that was the cause?
I messaged them and they’ve so far ignored it
Keep us updated: No Sixteenth contact for 0 DAYS X HOURS (like how they keep count of industry accidents).
She's there on the education tab for me, and the main page
I have found it now. Pumpkin Productivity's privacy policy states that their site is not for use by people under 16 and that Sixteenth has a Privacy Compliance Officer. She really is on thin ice.
It definitely won't hurt for people to complain, but I'd be extremely shocked if Sixteenth responded in any way. Sixteenth will protect Ruby's interests above all, and unless her brand is getting very public mainstream backlash, they won't do anything.
An ASA complaint would be a better means of getting actual response, since they're an independent body who will jump all over breaches of advertising/CAP code and Sixteenth will absolutely take notice if the ASA starts getting involved.
The argument will be whether Ruby's 'Be my most specialest bestest new penpal fwend' application form qualifies as a contest or giveaway. Ruby will undoubtedly claim that it's not - it was just a nice way to stay in touch with viewers with a letter, no different than responding to a comment online, and that letters have no monetary value, with the gifts being an unguaranteed extra that she threw in because she's SYO, SYO GENUINELY SELFLESS.
But Ruby's form clearly says "If you want to potentially receive a letter/present from me this holiday season or in the new year, just fill out this survey! These will arrive as a surprise to the address associated with your Pumpkin Productivity order." This is no different than "To be in with a chance of winning cool things, send your personal details on a postcard to: Blahblahblah." It's a prize draw.
And since she told everyone what the gifts she was sending to viewers were, there's an easily provable minimum monetary value to the prizes (although there's no way of knowing the total as she claimed the pouch was part of a literary book box she was making and didn't specify what else was in it).
White Company Glass Tea Cup & Saucer: RRP £12
Blackwell's/About Blanks Notebook - RRP £17.99
Accessorize Dragonfly Pouch - RRP £12
T2 Random Acts of Tea Tin - RRP £15
And taking her at her word, Ruby has said outright that she has chosen winners. It's screamingly obvious to anyone familiar with Ruby that this was not chosen randomly or fairly. At least one winner was described by Ruby as sounding a lot like her, and the form questions are clearly designed to find people exactly like Ruby who will undoubtedly be chosen.
She also says here "I just choose people randomly mainly". I mean, we know she doesn't at all, because it's Ruby. But she says outright, she only "mainly" chooses people randomly. So not always.
There's the issue of requiring a Pumpkin Productivity purchase to enter, which is supremely shady and she's not been up-front about it. I believe the current UK law does allow for giveaways to be restricted to people who buy a product, so long as they are not paying anything extra (entry fees/premium rate phone calls/cost of stamps) to enter the contest itself.
As others have pointed out, there's also the Data Protection concerns regarding this whole thing, which would likely fall outside the scope of the ASA. If she's collecting personal data, people need to know clearly what she'll be doing with it.
Above all else, it's also skeevy as duck. Why is a 21 year old woman soliciting the personal information of children, starting personal penpal relationships with them and sending them gifts? If that was a male influencer, it'd be seen as grooming.
If she wants to keep bragging that she's the founder of a company and an entrepreneur and influencer, she needs to start using a modicum of common sense when doing things like organising giveaways. She has a manager, a PR company and their resources at her disposal to check what kind of guidelines she needs to meet with these things (although it shouldn't take a manager to tell her that striking up personal relationships with kids online is not something she should be doing). Combine this with all the scam giveaways she's run in the past and she really needs a wakeup call.
If she wants to interact with fans more, that's what the comment section's for, or she can set up a PO box for fan letters.
If she wants to send extra gifts exclusively to buyers to reward them for their continued custom, this is something she should've done randomly and anonymously - either have the Pumpkin Productivity warehouse add extra items to random orders, or if they weren't equipped to go adding Ruby's random bullshit to stationery packages, she should've had them send out a discount code to select, random people on the Pumpkin Productivity mailing list or something.
If she wants to run giveaways, she needs to start abiding by standards and practises (and actually send out prizes with proof that a winner was selected).
And she could've done that, but instead she chose to do the stupidest possible thing, very publicly, because she just had to show off how "generous" she was being to get praised for it. Meanwhile there's a dozen charities whose money she's still sitting on.
TL;DR - Ruby isn't twelve, much as she wishes she were. The "But I'm young and still learning!" excuse won't fly, and she needs a kick in the ass from the ASA for this and all the other tit she keeps pulling.
I came to check on these threads and accidentally clicked on a much older one, read through some and didn't even question the posts until I saw the dates. Sad to see how much she has NOT changed.
This feels like a safeguarding nightmare.
I work with children (at a play centre type place so not anything super formal or 1-1 like a nursery or school etc) and I would never be allowed to be alone with a single child unless it’s physically unavoidable and my workplace has cameras everywhere
The fact that Ruby is potentially having private conversations through this form with people under 12 seems beyond inappropriate, as already said by others
not accusing her of anything outright dodgy I don’t think she’s doing it for that purpose (at least I really hope not) but none of this sits right
Also not sure if this has already been mentioned but can under 16s legally enter giveaways? (Used to work at McDonald’s and we weren’t meant to accept those monopoly vouchers for anyone under 16- so assuming it would be a similar premise?)
The fact that Ruby is potentially having private conversations through this form with people under 12 seems beyond inappropriate, as already said by others
not accusing her of anything outright dodgy I don’t think she’s doing it for that purpose (at least I really hope not) but none of this sits right
Also not sure if this has already been mentioned but can under 16s legally enter giveaways? (Used to work at McDonald’s and we weren’t meant to accept those monopoly vouchers for anyone under 16- so assuming it would be a similar premise?)
lol I can't be bothered to do ANY research for her... just finished a legal foundations test and refuse to look at anything legal for the rest of the day. Our roobs is not worth itI don't know why but I get the feeling she's just tricked us into doing a proper business legal or whatever research for her
(first time posting, hello to you all! Also english is not my first language so I'm sorry for any mistakes x)
Just re-read the age range and only just seen under 12 listed. Why is she encouraging children if they are under the age of 12 to spend money on her scam of a store. It's likely it won't be their own money or they will be using their pocket money to make the purchase. She really is terrible and her sickly childish act makes it worse. Plus they might keep it a secret from their parents too if they've spent too much money. Like somebody else said, if this was an older male influencer, it would look dodgy. I hope for her sake, she discounts anyone in the younger age categories.
Honestly this whole thing of including under twelves is just Ruby having the brain capacity of the dead flies on her windowsill.
I think one of the biggest problems with Ruby encouraging young kids to give out personal information is that it implies that this is somewhat normal information to share with someone who is essentially a stranger on the internet.
Not saying that Ruby would do this at all, but the amount of Youtubers I watched as a teenager who I later found out groomed children is terrifying. I strongly believe influencers have a responsibility to create boundaries between them and their audience, especially if the audience is considerably younger than them. I hate to think that kids might think it's normal to have private conversations with adults on the Internet and later repeat this with an influencer with much more unsavoury intentions.
Not saying that Ruby would do this at all, but the amount of Youtubers I watched as a teenager who I later found out groomed children is terrifying. I strongly believe influencers have a responsibility to create boundaries between them and their audience, especially if the audience is considerably younger than them. I hate to think that kids might think it's normal to have private conversations with adults on the Internet and later repeat this with an influencer with much more unsavoury intentions.
Exactly, I don't doubt for a second that Ruby is going into this very naively with what she sees as innocent and harmless intentions, but she won't be the only creator that young people watch and look up to. If she normalises giving away all your details, that could have serious consequences down the line if a young person comes across someone with bad intentions. In the digital age, it doesn't even have to be someone with a public platform like Ruby, it could be anyone online. So sure, Ruby's just being stupid but she has a responsibility towards her young audience whether she likes it or not and she could be directly endangering them. She can't afford to be making silly thoughtless mistakes like this. She should know better and she needs to step up or back off - given how we've seen she's handled the planner debacle AND the Holocaust charity money, I wouldn't want to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe she should dedicate some of her "charity work" New Years resolution to advocating for internet and child safety organisations (for FREE, Ruby).
UUUUUGH is anyone here in uni in the UK? Do you know if it is exam season or when it will be over? when can we expect a new Rubmas video to be analyzed by GG? We have no "contant" people this is not a drill
- Status