Sali Hughes #12 This is not a thread. It is not paid for, not sponsored, nor required by Sali

[Jelly Bean]

She’s using the film critic analogy again

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE. You might not agree with it but it is an essential part of your bleeping incredibly easy job. Just do it without moaning and trying to justify it and make it oh so complicated. It isn't difficult. You didn't buy it but you are talking about it therefore it is an #AD.
Oh and possibly spare a thought that all the bitchy moaners here were right all along.

 

[rosemarina]

isn’t she a vegetarian too?

I still reckon she’s a pescetarian at best :deepresearch:.

 

[melfish]

I still reckon she’s a pescetarian at best :deepresearch:.

Not with all that parmesan

 

[rosemarina]

And the non-veggie Haribo, and the cod I swear was on her personalised menu at at dinner thrown by some brand (#ad) not all that long ago. And the tube of wine gums a couple of weeks ago...

 

[Jelly Bean]

Oh and 'over declare' Bollocks. Passively aggressively tagging everything in sight INCORRECTLY is not over declaring. Rather trying to blind people with # and @ to look like she is doing it properly. And just because 'other people do it too' really really doesn't make all bleeping right.

 

[PineappleQueen19]

We know though thet a magazine is paid for , products are paid for and there is a level of disconnection between us readers and paid journalists.

Influencers pretend to be friends and come to us with ‘this fab thing ive found’ expecting us to believe them because they’re in our lives all the time.

Comparing magazines and newspapers with Instagram just isn’t apples and apples.

And the magazine landscape has changed beyond recognition in the last 15 years or so. Has it occurred to these influencers (who keep banging on about how much strict influencer guidelines are than for magazines) that maybe the murky relationship between editorial and advertising is what contributed to the demise of so many lifestyle magazines?

I used to be a frequent magazine buyer and remember the disenfranchised feeling that there was an awful lot of ad-get in the editorial pages.

 

[melfish]

Yes, keep your own house in order. The only explanation for her tremendous resistance and lashing out is that the truth of what she does wounds her. Passively aggressively declaring random crap is just meaningless, petulant protest

 

[Minniemousesshoes]

Course not. Wasn't suggesting they were comparable, just offering where the attitude might come from

I know you were. But I think sali thinks they are comparable. They’re just not.

 

[melfish]

I know you were. But I think sali thinks they are comparable. They’re just not.

Ah, got ya. I do think she sees herself on a level above influencers

 

[notbuyingit]

The film critic analogy is BS.


When was the last time Sali Hughes wrote ‘l have been given this product and it’s tit’

whereas film critics will routinely give bad reviews. With film critics there is no pretence that they are just giving their opinion, that they are just thinking out loud - their job is to clearly to review films - some will be 1 star and some 5 star films.

PLUS she is paid as a consultant for brands so she isn’t necessarily directly paid to post on her digital billboard (Instagram) BUT she is paid to consult. How much of her income is from beauty brands?

 

[Jelly Bean]

The film critic analogy is BS.


When was the last time Sali Hughes wrote ‘l have been given this product and it’s tit’

whereas film critics will routinely give bad reviews. With film critics there is no pretence that they are just giving their opinion, that they are just thinking out loud - their job is to clearly to review films - some will be 1 star and some 5 star films.

PLUS she is paid as a consultant for brands so she isn’t necessarily directly paid to post on her digital billboard (Instagram) BUT she is paid to consult. How much of her income is from beauty brands?

Exactly. Why she keeps persisting with the spurious film critic analogy is bizarre. She keeps saying it but it doesn't make it so.
She is not objective. She likes to keep brands sweet. The worst she will ever say is something like 'it wasn't for me but you might like it'. Why might that be?

 

[bottlewrapper]

I used to be a frequent magazine buyer and remember the disenfranchised feeling that there was an awful lot of ad-get in the editorial pages.

This. I did work experience on a magazine in the beauty team, and essentially it was the easiest job in the world. You get sent a load of press releases and free products, and then in matey language (the instruction I was given was 'write as if you're chatting to your mates'), you write how life changing product X was, based on rehashing the press release. You didn't do more than dip your finger in this crap or give it a sniff, and that was it. There is no way it could be called journalism. It's like comparing someone who works in Mcdonalds, where there are detailed instructions on doing everything the McWay, with a chef whose job is to create the recipes from scratch.

The advertisers did two things to try and get you to pick their product - they paid for the majority of the ads so they essentially bankrolled the entire magazine, and they laid on the most lavish press junkets, so you'd feel obligated to mention their cream because you'd got a free meal, treatment, weekend break etc.

What was different was that salaries were paid by the magazine, so there was at least the appearance of journalistic independence (although not really - that scene 'where are the advertisers?' in the Devil Wears Prada was spot on).

Now 'beauty journalists' are paid directly by the brands to write about the product. They might be paid in freebies, or gifts, or cash, but the brands pay their mortgage. That's why it's all an ad. Every single mention.

 

[melfish]

Exactly. Why she keeps persisting with the spurious film critic analogy is bizarre. She keeps saying it but it doesn't make it so.
She is not objective. She likes to keep brands sweet. The worst she will ever say is something like 'it wasn't for me but you might like it'. Why might that be?

I can't tell whether she's being disingenuous or is just - to use one of her favourite terms - thick?? Also, she says she won't waste word count on products she doesn't like but she sure wastes it on unnecessary adverbs. If things can't be universally bad because beauty is subjective, then they can't be universally good either

 

[bottlewrapper]

I can't tell whether she's being disingenuous or is just - to use one of her favourite terms - thick??

Thick gets my vote.

A film critic has nothing to do with the advertising campaign of a film. Film critics don't get flown out to a spa weekend to see the film and receive a themed goodybag of film merchandise, they just get a single free ticket. Film studios do free screenings for non-film critics (ie the public) to try and start word of mouth buzz - beauty brands don't randomly give out large numbers of full size products to nobodies who won't advertise it on social media. Film critics don't pretend to be your friend. Films contribute to the cultural discourse, face cream does not. Film critics are valued for their erudition and critical discernment in assessing the film on its own merits and as part of the artistic bodies of work of the director and actors. Toiletries and cosmetics are not an art form, they are consumer products.

So yeah, lots of differences between the two.

 

[Jelly Bean]

I was re reading the Twitter convo she had with British Beauty Blogger (who I know nothing about) and BBB was saying how it is all so difficult declaring things as it doesn't take into account various degrees of it all. But surely advertising is advertising? To influencers they might see it as highly nuanced and tricky but to Josephine Public all we want to know is are they being rewarded in any way AT ALL for the mention? Not just monetary? Even the fact they were given the product free is a reward #presssample #gifted therefore #AD as they then chose to talk about it.

And the fact SH keeps blaming here as the fact she has to be so transparent (in her eyes) just about says it all really. She wouldn't bother otherwise.

 

[AmberSpyglass]

I have always thought that whatever items these IG Influencers put on their page should be marked with #AD because that’s just what it is.

 

[rosemarina]

Nailed it, @Jelly Bean. She absolutely wouldn’t bother otherwise.

 

[Jelly Bean]

Nailed it, @Jelly Bean. She absolutely wouldn’t bother otherwise.

I know. It galls me that for months we have been pointing out the ASA rules and have been labelled trolls and bullies for doing so. And she has petulantly been blaming here for having to follow rules (admittedly in a half arsed and wrong fashion). Now she will take credit for 'well I've been transparent all along. Overly actually'.
We know she isn't the only one not doing it properly. She seems to think we assume that. But this is a thread about her.

 

[lipsticktaser]

I was re reading the Twitter convo she had with British Beauty Blogger (who I know nothing about) and BBB was saying how it is all so difficult declaring things as it doesn't take into account various degrees of it all. But surely advertising is advertising? To influencers they might see it as highly nuanced and tricky but to Josephine Public all we want to know is are they being rewarded in any way AT ALL for the mention? Not just monetary? Even the fact they were given the product free is a reward #presssample #gifted therefore #AD as they then chose to talk about it.

And the fact SH keeps blaming here as the fact she has to be so transparent (in her eyes) just about says it all really. She wouldn't bother otherwise.

I agree with you, but I also see BBB point.
If influencer A got paid 10k for a mention of a new mascara and you just got a free mascara. You both need to put the same thing but the reward is quite different.
But then it’s simple really #ad -paid promotion
#ad - presssample.
#ad - imsofarupthisbrandsarseyoucantseemytoes

 

[bottlewrapper]

If influencer A got paid 10k for a mention of a new mascara and you just got a free mascara. You both need to put the same thing but the reward is quite different

Very true. But these influencers aren't doing it for the rewards, lipstick taser! They are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, because they are your friend and they just want you to have the benefit of their vast knowledge. #honest

Of course, they could just buy the mascara with their own money. That way, they don't have to label it as an ad. But omg, then they would be in exactly the same position as their beef faced, thick followers. Which is that unless you're given this stuff for free, most of it isn't worth spending your own money on.