Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.

Gentle Reader

New member
Hello Tattlers, sorry for interrupting and huge apologies for veering off topic- I came to the party late after Freaky Friday, but since watching the compelling narcissistic rage video have been lurking ever since. I just wanted to say hello, and thank you for all your insightful and entertaining posts since then and all the fantastic beauty tips and suggs.

I’ve been mulling over what has happened as a result of this thread and upon the currency of trust. SH capitalised on the Guardian brand to secure the trust and following of her many fans. She was adamant that she alone could be trusted in the industry as a uniquely ‘honest’ voice in beauty. Most of those who post here were readers of her column and many of us shelled out for products she recommended. Now as an influencer she sells that trust to the highest bidder for ££. Her undeclared many free haircuts and treatments, botox and filler use and duplicitous soft selling of favoured brands is so glaringly obvious now, but was hidden in plain sight for years. Commenting on this doesn’t make you a ‘tragic fuck’. People like this deliberately cultivate an intimacy with their readers and profit from it, but when they betray the trust that has been bestowed upon them they can’t understand why people are annoyed - ‘disgruntled’ even - and perhaps want to discuss and query it somewhere.

I wonder if ‘situational narcissism’ might possibly be relevant here? Being deluged with so many freebies for so many years, and being perpetually courted by PRs and luxury brand publicists no doubt enhances any latent narcissistic leanings. Twitter hasn’t helped matters either. This absurd fetish for blue ticker friends and acquaintances was weirdly manifested at her wedding - which seemed to function as some kind of real life Twitter coronation. By the way, I am not at all saying she has any kind of PD here at all - just that the behaviour we're looking at seems to be pretty narcissistic, as does the behaviour of so many other online 'gurus' and influencers.. Why we give our trust away so freely to these people I do not know..

Now the Guardian below-the-line has been closed, this thread provides such a lovely necessary adjunct to the beauty column and I've learnt so much from you all - even bought otc tretinoin from the continent and about to invest in a nu-face mini. Paradoxically, I have also massively reined in my general spending on beauty products after spending time on this thread - a very pleasing and unexpected consequence indeed - thank you all so much!
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 54

BostonFernGreen

Chatty Member
Because they’re facing their fears. They’re shy and self conscious but the medicine of Chanel has coaxed them out of their shell to reveal a beautiful and unassuming soul who can’t quite let go of the sadness of their former life. The whole process was an honour and deep down they know they’re not worthy. It’s CHANEL! Chanel. I don’t know if you’ve heard of them? They’re a charity for influencers! They just get them in and pamper them and stuff. So sweet. I donate every month. At least 50% of my salary.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 29

zcfthc5

Chatty Member
Just noticed the bizarre disclaimer on her IG: “This post is not sponsored, required nor paid for.”

Huh? And she gets to write for a living?
*breathes in*

#This post is not directly paid for, but is one of the ratio of posts I can claim as not paid for to continue my planned ratio of paid:non paid posts which are important in continuing the value of my personal brand's outreach and accessibility, and a form of advertising this brand to potential commercial partners, and therefore this post is part of my paid income through my direct, indirect, and semi-direct selling methods.

*breathes out*
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 25

Aude

VIP Member
I'd suggest:

The Tattle 2019 good housekeeping award to India Knight for her massive Twitter clean-up before sharing with the nation (Sunday Times 6 October) her concern about the nastiness on social media.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 24

maytoseptember

VIP Member
Sali’s response is so bloody patronising. Not paid for the post and not required by Chanel so it’s not an ad? Give me a break. As IF Sali would have turned up to the event, had her make up done with all the influencers, had her photograph professionally taken, and then skipped off... “see ya!”

It doesn’t work like that. We all know this. She was professionally and morally obliged to do that post and use those hashtags. God, they think they’re so clever but it’s transparent as fuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 22

Tesla's Ghost

VIP Member
Does this "embargo" strategy really work? Unless you're 4 and your pal comes to you and tells you they know something, but can't say anything, and eventually it turns out they saw dog poop in the park.

Why do we need a morning, afternoon, night, hour of the witch etc. cleanser? Who started with this psychodrama our skin goes through on a daily basis in order to sell more cleansers? I don't know how many times I saw an explanation (other than "it's my job") like - I rotate between 4-5-6 cleansers (and other products) depending on what my skin needs, how it feels...
- How are you feeling today, skin?
- I don't know, a bit nostalgic, but anxious, sad, yet trapped in existential dread.
- Well, it's Oskia then.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 21

Jelly Bean

VIP Member
Yeah and then do a column in the Guardian about sustainability and how "the industry" is trying to change things. When really all it does, with the help of influencers, is sell more products.
It is hard for any beauty influencer to ever talk about sustainability when their whole careers are based on selling things usually involving plastic. To flag up an occasional ethical product really is pissing in the wind. We all really just need to buy less and completely use up the products we do have. Yet yet yet more and more new things are created eg this new secret foundation. We do not need a new foundation. To keep introducing a new wonder product and new essential step to our already overloaded beauty regime is all part of the problem. As an eg I looked at Victoria Beckham's new beauty range and nothing there was exceptional. All had been done many many times before. I'm sure the quality is great and it probably stays on longer than some products we already have but the difference is infinitesimal really. Yes of course people want choice but things have got so dire I truly believe the insatiable need to create more and more non essential stuff is a luxury we simply cannot afford any more. Influencers need to step up and influence properly and not be so driven by money and selling and preying on insecurities to tell people to keep buying the exact same thing in a *slightly* different format.
 
  • Like
  • Heart
Reactions: 19

kuklinka

New member
if the brand involved controls the timing of the post and content (is how it looks) then it is an ad

From ASA:
However when the brand has control over the content of the post and rewards the influencer with a payment, free gift, or other perk, the post becomes an ad. If the commercial intent isn't clear from the overall context of the communication, it should be labelled as an ad so as not to break the ASA’s rules and mislead the influencer's audience.

and:

The manner in which influencer relationships are maintained varies. I’ve found that some brands retain complete control over social media posts. They'll write them, supply images and schedule a time for them to appear. Others take a more hands-off approach: they'll get a general assurance from the influencer that his or her comments about the product will be positive, but leave the content, timings and format completely up to the influencer. In each case, where we've established the brand has paid for and exercised effective control over the influencer endorsement and the commercial intent isn't clear from the overall context of the communication, we tend to stay firm and secure assurances that future ads will no longer be “hidden” behind a purportedly authentic endorsement.

The fact that the promotions went up together (I see about 12 from that day) and that the hashtags are the same is evidence that the brand had control over the timing and the content.

The shoot itself, samples, etc is the physical 'payment', whereas the content is also 'intellectual property' and can be also considered 'payment.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Heart
Reactions: 19

PineappleQueen19

VIP Member
Of course it’s an ad Sali. In lieu of cash you accepted an expensive photo shoot as payment, which you then use as currency on your ig account. It’s how the whole bloody thing works!

It’s the great philosophical question of our time... If an influencer does something and no one photographs it, do they even exist?

And please keep telling us how much you hate having your photograph taken. One day you might even believe it yourself.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 18

Jelly Bean

VIP Member
We SERIOUSLY need an 'eye roll' option on here 🙄
Yes plus the inevitable 'I was there first' inference.

Just been reading the Esther Walker article. Fascinating. She is saying that any mentions or IG posts of a product, if you are involved in a campaign for them, have to been signed off by the company. So I was remembering SH spontaneously popping into the BB shop to view their 'Can't live without....' campaign (featuring herself) and saying clearly she wasn't asked to do it and wasn't paid to do it. Ditto prominently using BB on a getting ready on the train IG. But this is where the blurry line becomes fuzzier. Just because she wasn't paid extra specifically for those pictures, and they possibly were spontaneous, doesn't negate the fact they are adverts does it?
I suspect that sometime in the future someone like Caroline Hirons will dismiss this practice airily with a 'oh everyone knows it goes on all the time. You'd have to be incredibly naive not to realise that' implying the fault is on the part of the gullible punter.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
  • Angry
Reactions: 18

Curio

Chatty Member
The thing is, Bourjois is a brand that had a lot of competition and failed to keep themselves relevant (that sounds somehow familiar). It doesn’t make sense to say ‘buy from these heritage brands’ to keep them alive, like they’re a local independent greengrocer. They just didn’t keep up; a few pity purchases is hardly a marketing strategy for a global brand.

Also, does ‘heritage brand’ mean that Caroline Hiron’s mum once worked there 🤔
 
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Heart
Reactions: 18