Sali Hughes #11 A red lip, a pink tight, a leopard boot - how very singular!

[kuklinka]

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.

 

[Jelly Bean]

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 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.

Thank you so much - that is all VERY interesting. Seems very clear cut doesn't it? The ambiguity in my mind was about monietary payment = ad, but ASA seems to indicate payment per se is not necessary.

 

[Wolf359]

I haven’t worn Chanel for years because of the dodgy Nazi stuff.
Surprised that woke Sali hasn’t got a very strong, woke position on that.

 

[Jelly Bean]

I haven’t worn Chanel for years because of the dodgy Nazi stuff.
Surprised that woke Sali hasn’t got a very strong, woke position on that.

It is grim. There were a few designers who were very dodgy during the war but the worst were Chanel (spy for the Third Reich amongst other things) and Hugo Boss who joined the Nazi party and designed some of their uniforms. HB apologised formally in 2011. Not sure Chanel ever have? They might have done.
It is interesting to think when enough time has gone by that these things should be forgotten - all personal choice of course. I used to absolutely love Vitalumiere - beautiful - but when you read about what that woman did it seems tainted.

 

[flamflim]

Oh god her answer is just

What?! If 7 or 8 film critics all got dolled up by the same make up company and posted identical pictures at the same time with the same hashtags it would be bizarre. And what do film critics have to do with it? They would then critique the film directly after. And they can't just choose not to critique the film because they don't like it.


I'm confusing myself trying to comment on this. Not more conflating!

 

[PineappleQueen19]

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.

This clarification goes to show how ridiculous her convoluted disclaimer is. (“This is not an ad. Not sponsored, not paid for, nor required by the brand”). It can be none of these things and still clearly be an ad.

Hopefully her “friends/family” (*cough*) who read here can kindly let her know it’s not all encompassing, I’m sure we’ll see a new version soon.

 

[Satisfying Click]

“This is not an ad. Not sponsored, not paid for, nor required by the brand”

Please can the next thread title be a play on this? "This is not a thread..."

 

[PineappleQueen19]

Please can the next thread title be a play on this? "This is not a thread..."

Yes!

This is not a thread. It is not paid for, not sponsored, nor required by Sali Hughes

 

[BostonFernGreen]

I have complained to ASA about the Chanel ad by the way

That’s a great idea. At this point it is basically classic manipulation of doing something flagrantly and then denying it. Extremely self serving and disrespectful to the audience and the people who state the guidelines for advertising. They obviously have more expertise than Sali.

 

[flamflim]

Marie Claire, Women's Health, model/random/probably influencer

Two more...

 

[Colin]

Dear God why do they all look so miserable?

 

[lipsticktaser]

Nothing about those pictures make me want to buy the makeup.
A photo by Rankin but we’re not to believe it’s a campaign. if that was the case they’d just have iPhones and ring lights. It’s all such a bloody murky con.

 

[flamflim]

The comments below this one's post....you'd think she'd cured cancer!!

Seems most of them have tagged the Chanel London Boutique. Sorted by recent and these ones came up.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Eeuuww and that jewellery - Clare's Accessories would reject it as too tacky.

 

[BostonFernGreen]

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.

 

[flamflim]

I'd like to see the list of folk who turned this down....

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.

#chanelcuresshyness

 

[Satisfying Click]

So reassuring to see Chanel #celebratingdiversity

 

[Jelly Bean]

Yes - I can't quite put my finger on what it is but there is quite a specific *look*.

 

[Aude]

...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...'

Thanks for the information @kuklinka. Interested to see that it specifically includes 'free gift, or other perk' alongside 'payment' as ways in which a brand rewards influencers.

As we've said upthread, influencers do seem to be under the impression that it's only payment in cash that counts as 'reward' and thereby distinguishes an ad from not an ad.

...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.'

Particularly given this, I don't understand how SH can wear - and itemise - the same Bobbi Brown make up in two posts but label one an ad and one not an ad.

 

[rosemarina]

Yes - I can't quite put my finger on what it is but there is quite a specific *look*.

Wait, wait, I know this one...