Cake gate,someone must be getting the sack

[cossy400]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1236182...

The agency are saying the email has been misconstrued....

I'll never claim to be the brightest button in the box BUT the email trail reads very muchly that they were after a Freeby.

[Biggy Stardust]

Getting the sack on account of begging for freebies? Unlikely.

I think the whole "influencer" thing is tacky & demeaning.

[number2]

There's nothing to misconstrue, they were after free stuff in exchange for publicity.

It's embarrassing for the 'star' and the agency, and rightly so.

There's nothing especially wrong with it I suppose, its just a bit council and desperate.

[number2]

A z list celeb is poncing freebies off the back of their ego, writing cheques they can't cash.

When the supplier approaches the celeb and offers, then there's a deal, and usually the celeb is inundated...

In this case it's just a bit embarrassing. No harm done, just a bruised ego I'm sure.

[Gareth79]

MrBogSmith said:

It’s perfectly possible for that transaction to be a win / win situation.

Happens every day in business.

Although the bakery is a localised business so I imagine most of the social media reach would be irrelevant.

These small businesses have read plenty of stores of other small businesses being totally screwed over in the past, so I'm not surprised that may are now turning it down.

Often the "exposure" never materialises, the person doesn't post a tweet/instagram post raving about how wonderful the cake is, if there is anything it might be a name in a tiny font days later.

The other thing which happens is the company orders cakes from 2x companies, one as a backup, and then cancels at the last minute "lol oops well the other ones are nicer".

[bloomen]

If the 'celebrity' was Taylor Swift it would probably be worth sucking PR phallus. Though you'd probably go mad trying to keep up with the demand.

But I expect it's that geezer who used to be in Dollar who now runs a burger van or someone similar.

[Oliver Hardy]

number2 said:

There's nothing to misconstrue, they were after free stuff in exchange for publicity.

It's embarrassing for the 'star' and the agency, and rightly so.

There's nothing especially wrong with it I suppose, its just a bit council and desperate.

Doesn't big business do this all the time with stars getting free cars and designer clothing and jewellery, is that a bit council

[bloomen]

Oliver Hardy said:

Doesn't big business do this all the time with stars getting free cars and designer clothing and jewellery, is that a bit council

They've got labour and product to burn though.

If it's a few people in a shed they'd have to go a whole lot further out on a limb.

I guess if you're a proper fancy cake maker that might add up to a lot of labour and ingredients. And I'm sure the PR person knows that, but don't mind.

[number2]

Oliver Hardy said:

number2 said:

There's nothing to misconstrue, they were after free stuff in exchange for publicity.

It's embarrassing for the 'star' and the agency, and rightly so.

There's nothing especially wrong with it I suppose, its just a bit council and desperate.

Doesn't big business do this all the time with stars getting free cars and designer clothing and jewellery, is that a bit council

That's the other way round... business leveraging a celeb's status and celeb getting a freebie. There's a mutual benefit.

This is someone trying to ponce freebies because they think they have celeb leverage but in reality they're a soap actor known only to the demographic that watch Coronation Street. There's nothing really in it for the business and a lot of risk as noted above too.

It's not hard to grasp: celeb with inflated ego trying to ponce vs businesses leveraging real value opportunity with celeb with legitimate reach.

Asking for freebies vs being offered freebies.

[gotoPzero]

The whole thing is totally cringe. Ohh look at me I will have a birthday party paid for by Hello.

Hello err don't you know who we are now give us free cakes.

Cake maker.. ohh look at me aren't I clever turning down this begging email.

Ffs all as bad as each other.

[Oliver Hardy]

number2 said:

Oliver Hardy said:

number2 said:

There's nothing to misconstrue, they were after free stuff in exchange for publicity.

It's embarrassing for the 'star' and the agency, and rightly so.

There's nothing especially wrong with it I suppose, its just a bit council and desperate.

Doesn't big business do this all the time with stars getting free cars and designer clothing and jewellery, is that a bit council

That's the other way round... business leveraging a celeb's status and celeb getting a freebie. There's a mutual benefit.

This is someone trying to ponce freebies because they think they have celeb leverage but in reality they're a soap actor known only to the demographic that watch Coronation Street. There's nothing really in it for the business and a lot of risk as noted above too.

It's not hard to grasp: celeb with inflated ego trying to ponce vs businesses leveraging real value opportunity with celeb with legitimate reach.

Asking for freebies vs being offered freebies.

Oh OK,, get your point.

[RobinOakapple]

According to the article it's the party planner who asked for the freebie, not the celebrity named. So I expect the PP was looking to pocket the value of the cakes etc while charging everything at full price to whoever was paying for it.

[Oakey]

RobinOakapple said:

According to the article it's the party planner who asked for the freebie, not the celebrity named. So I expect the PP was looking to pocket the value of the cakes etc while charging everything at full price to whoever was paying for it.

This is the correct answer. I bet the PP isn't accepting payment in exposure

[EddieSteadyGo]

Oakey said:

RobinOakapple said:

According to the article it's the party planner who asked for the freebie, not the celebrity named. So I expect the PP was looking to pocket the value of the cakes etc while charging everything at full price to whoever was paying for it.

This is the correct answer. I bet the PP isn't accepting payment in exposure

That isn't the correct answer, as the article says that the party planning company (NVRLND) was retained by the "celebrity" on an "expenses-only basis".

[Louis Balfour]

MrBogSmith said:

It’s perfectly possible for that transaction to be a win / win situation.

Doubtful. For a local business that may well not have the capacity to service more demand, if indeed the deal would create that. Which it probably wouldn't.

MrBogSmith said:

Happens every day in business.

Yes it does. Royal warrants? Same deal.

It's all well and good if there is a natural fit between the supplier and the supplied and each actually does stand to gain from the situation, though.

[Type R Tom]

Often with these influencer types, by the time you remove all the bots and the people living too far away to use the business, you are left with tiny numbers of people who may potentially be customers.

The way to do it is offer a referral code and then give the influencer a cut. That approach usually brings an end of the conversation

[EddieSteadyGo]

Louis Balfour said:

Yes it does. Royal warrants? Same deal.

Are you sure about that? I had always assumed that the Royals would want to pay the going rate for any services they contracted, so they avoid exactly this type of controversy.

[bigpriest]

This happened a while ago with those "Real Housewives of Cheshire" types - so I'm told by a source.

Daily Mail

[Griffith4ever]

Loved her response on Facebook. Our workers don't get paid with heart emojis :-)

I get asked a few times a year for heavy discounts or free products (worth around £600 to £1100) for social media coverage. I always ignore them. I have full order books, and I regularly get genuinely delighted people cover my business on their social feeds / YT vids, because, they are happy with the product (and they get more views when reviewing my products ).

[S600BSB]

Let them eat cake