Speaker 1: We want to issue a trigger warning as this episode
Speaker 1: discusses animal cruelty and child exploitation. Hello and welcome to Outspoken.
Speaker 1: On today's show, we are counting down the top five
Speaker 1: influencer scandals of twenty twenty three. God, there have been
Speaker 1: some huge scandals this year. I can't wait to get
Speaker 1: into them before we do, though, I hope that everyone
Speaker 1: had an amazing Christmas with their family and friends. It
Speaker 1: is depressing that Christmas is over. I have been speaking
Speaker 1: now for weeks about how it's just gone so quickly.
Speaker 1: This whole year has gone quickly. I can't believe there's
Speaker 1: only a few more days left of twenty twenty three. Oh,
Speaker 1: it is crazy. Particularly when I was reflecting what's actually
Speaker 1: happened in the influencer space this year, it was actually
Speaker 1: hard to pick five top scandals, and a lot of them.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, that only happened a couple of
Speaker 1: months ago, but it was back in January or February.
Speaker 1: Let's start the countdown. Now, coming in at number five
Speaker 1: is the Karna Irby photoshopping debacle. So this happened back
Speaker 1: in May when an American sloper sluthor count run by
Speaker 1: John Dawesy accused the body positivity influencer of editing her
Speaker 1: body on Instagram. Now, she was labeled a hypocrite because
Speaker 1: her whole social media platform is based on embracing your body,
Speaker 1: and she even urges her followers not to edit their
Speaker 1: own photos. This story was massive, particularly because Instagram watchdog
Speaker 1: account Influence Updates got dragged into the drama. So, like usual,
Speaker 1: she picked up on the story and reshared the real
Speaker 1: to her account. Absolute chaos followed. So it turned out
Speaker 1: that Karna allegedly sent both John and Influencer updates AU
Speaker 1: a cease and desist letter demanding they remove the content
Speaker 1: before blocking them. The best bit is that Karina wrote
Speaker 1: crease and desist rather than cease and desist. Look, I
Speaker 1: wouldn't quite say the Influencer Updates was dragged into this drama.
Speaker 1: She was quite happy to report on it. But it's
Speaker 1: quite funny the turn of events suddenly when these pages
Speaker 1: start reporting that they have been sent legal letters and
Speaker 1: it becomes part of the story. Well, I don't think
Speaker 1: she was expecting the backlash that occurred because she simply
Speaker 1: just reshared the reel. It wasn't like she was further
Speaker 1: commenting on it. She was just aring it to her audience. Now.
Speaker 1: Rather than backing down, John used the moment to call
Speaker 1: Karina out for more alleged photoshopping. It was then time
Speaker 1: for Karina to release a statement, so she admitted to
Speaker 1: editing her photos in the past and said that she
Speaker 1: suffers from mild body dysmorphia. Things didn't end there, so
Speaker 1: Karna then enlisted the help of a lawyer who sent
Speaker 1: John the most bizarre legal letter I've ever read. It
Speaker 1: sounded completely unprofessional and very highly emotive. For instance, one
Speaker 1: of the lines read, it is one thing to call
Speaker 1: my client out for photoshopping photos and being hypocritical. It
Speaker 1: is another to obsess over my client, pick a public
Speaker 1: fight with her, and encourage others to bully and incite
Speaker 1: hate towards her. The letter then oddly also confirmed the
Speaker 1: original claims that Dawsy made, stating to be frank my
Speaker 1: client gently photoshopping photos, not immediately owning up to it,
Speaker 1: and responding in a way that suggests the conduct you
Speaker 1: complained about was old. Behavior does not deserve the vitual
Speaker 1: your repeated videos and aggressive hate campanes continue to incite.
Speaker 1: Well done on reading that out, because it was a
Speaker 1: very long run on sense. It was a bit of
Speaker 1: a struggle. Yeah. Now, John ended up enlisting the free
Speaker 1: service of an American lawyer who absolutely schooled Karna's Gold
Speaker 1: Coast lawyer in Australian defamation law. Now he referred to
Speaker 1: the original legal letter as a prank cease and assistance
Speaker 1: that it obviously must have been sent in jest. He
Speaker 1: also labeled Karina's claims as farcical and said the lawyer
Speaker 1: had failed to include any legal authority to demonstrate how
Speaker 1: Karina was entitled to relief in the Federal Court of Australia. Now,
Speaker 1: this line was my favorite bit, he wrote. Rest assured
Speaker 1: I've at least convinced him that it was certainly not
Speaker 1: some impulsive, ham fisted attempt to bully an individual solely
Speaker 1: because of his well known efforts to shed lights on
Speaker 1: the Charlatans ramp it throughout the fitness industry. After all,
Speaker 1: as lawyers, you and I both know that would be
Speaker 1: flagrantly unconstitutional. I love that people are finally hitting back
Speaker 1: at these bullshit legal letters that are being sent out
Speaker 1: by influencers, because quite frankly, most of the time they
Speaker 1: are not worth the paper that they are written. On. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I'm actually surprised though that these lawyers will even
Speaker 1: send them out, because it's quite embarrassing for this legal
Speaker 1: firm to put their name to it. No, it's all
Speaker 1: about threatening people most of the time. There's no legal
Speaker 1: substance to these letters that are being sent out, and
Speaker 1: it's just in a way to try and rinse people
Speaker 1: of any money. Yeah, but this one was written in
Speaker 1: such an unprofessional way. It wasn't evenly a motive, wasn't it. Now.
Speaker 1: As for Influencer updates AU, she ended up removing the
Speaker 1: real and announce she was taking a break from public
Speaker 1: posting and would only share updates to her paying close
Speaker 1: friends list. This was clearly the straw that broke the
Speaker 1: camel's back, because Amber, the owner of Influencer updates AU,
Speaker 1: then went on to say that this was the sign
Speaker 1: that she needed to make the decision to change the
Speaker 1: page over to a subscriber sort of format, and she
Speaker 1: felt like a weight had been lifted off her shoulders.
Speaker 1: Since then, she has been posting constant updates to her
Speaker 1: close friends list, but she has returned to publicly posting
Speaker 1: feed posts now, Sophie, I feel like this one has
Speaker 1: a special place in your heart. Coming in at number
Speaker 1: four is Lily Brown and her smelly pajamas. So back
Speaker 1: in August, Lily gave influences a masterclass on how not
Speaker 1: to respond to criticism. So it all started when her
Speaker 1: sleepwear line She'll, issued an apology to customers after receiving
Speaker 1: complaints that their latest pajama range had an unusual odor.
Speaker 1: So in an email to affected customers, the brand stated
Speaker 1: that the unfamiliar scent was caused by an eco die
Speaker 1: used in manufacturing. And if you're wondering, well, what did
Speaker 1: those pajamas smell like? One of our listeners wrote in
Speaker 1: alleging the chill was stinky, Let me tell you that
Speaker 1: it smelt like boiled egg after you peel it. Best
Speaker 1: way to describe it geez. I could not imagine wanting
Speaker 1: to sleep in that sort of scent. The funniest thing
Speaker 1: was that in this email that they sent out to
Speaker 1: customers alerting them of what had happened, they were trying
Speaker 1: to come up with a remedy of how to get
Speaker 1: rid of it, and they said, oh, you've got to
Speaker 1: wash it a number of times. In this particular solution,
Speaker 1: it was in white vas and buikarb soda and to me,
Speaker 1: I always see this as a remedy to make things
Speaker 1: smell better, but whenever I've used it, it actually makes things
Speaker 1: smell worse. Yeah. A few days later, Lily then jumped
Speaker 1: in her stories to finally address the matter personally and said,
Speaker 1: I think we're close to cracking how to get rid
Speaker 1: of this smell. So this smell must have been so
Speaker 1: pungent that even this proposed solution did not work. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of that episode of Seinfeld when that guy's
Speaker 1: bo attaches itself to the car. Now, two options were
Speaker 1: then provided to customers. Those who wanted to keep their
Speaker 1: smelly pajamas were told they could get fifty percent store credit,
Speaker 1: while those who wanted to return their pjs could get
Speaker 1: one hundred percent store credit. However, the option of a
Speaker 1: full refund was omitted. Now we ended up getting dragged
Speaker 1: into the drama after we merely reported on the facts
Speaker 1: of this story in an Instagram reel. So after that,
Speaker 1: Lily DM, thus demanding that we take the video down.
Speaker 1: When we declined, she publicly commented on the video, calling
Speaker 1: it fake news and claimed we slanted her name and
Speaker 1: her business. She also said not issuing refunds would be
Speaker 1: against the law. There was a lot of back and forth,
Speaker 1: but essentially Lily ended up confirming the pajamas were in
Speaker 1: fact faulty. She also said that the option of a
Speaker 1: refund was always available to customers, and it was stated
Speaker 1: on the website. But I personally found this to be
Speaker 1: quite deceptive because when the original letter came out alerting
Speaker 1: customers to the issue, they only offered store credit. They
Speaker 1: didn't say that any exchanges were possible, so they assumed
Speaker 1: that the consumer knew that legally they had the right
Speaker 1: to an exchange. That's what Lily said, So she said,
Speaker 1: all consumers know they are entitled to a full refund,
Speaker 1: so there was no point including it in the original email. Now, interestingly,
Speaker 1: Chill's website returns page only offers store credit to not
Speaker 1: full refunds, like Lily had stated. Now we ended up
Speaker 1: receiving a legal letter and I do use that term
Speaker 1: loosely from Lily's manager. I didn't think that managers had
Speaker 1: law degrees. No, I mean this one did. So she
Speaker 1: accused us of defamation and slander and said if we
Speaker 1: didn't agree to their terms, they would seek legal action.
Speaker 1: So Essentially what they wanted was they wanted us to
Speaker 1: take the reel down and to not comment on the
Speaker 1: matter any further. Now, what we ended up doing was
Speaker 1: a full episode on the segment, and because it wasn't
Speaker 1: worth the paper, the legal letter was written on. We
Speaker 1: didn't mention this in the original segment, but it was
Speaker 1: quite disappointing because around that time we got a lot
Speaker 1: of abuse from one particular account who was linked to
Speaker 1: a number of Lily Brown's friends, pinpointing our age and
Speaker 1: making derogatory comments towards us. And when you're just reporting
Speaker 1: news at the end of the day and facts that
Speaker 1: have been put out from a statement, I didn't quite
Speaker 1: understand the complete hostility, and that account seemed to know
Speaker 1: a lot about what was going on behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: was really sticking up full Lily. So it was quite
Speaker 1: interesting anyway. Moving on at number three, we have Ruby
Speaker 1: Tuesday Matthews, who back in May was accused of sharing
Speaker 1: an exploitative photo of her four year old son to
Speaker 1: sell a hat for her and Roby. Now. Ruby got
Speaker 1: her son Mars, to model in the marketing campaign at
Speaker 1: a banana farm. Now in the photo, the four year
Speaker 1: old was photographed shirtless in low slung pants standing next
Speaker 1: to a box of bananas that said lady fingers. Now.
Speaker 1: The backlash was swift, with people labeling the photo exploitative
Speaker 1: and disgusting. Ruby was also accused of being ignorant to
Speaker 1: the dangers of online predators. Now. Ruby addressed the concerns
Speaker 1: on her Instagram story, claiming she had taken the photos
Speaker 1: of her son on her iPhone and it wasn't a
Speaker 1: staged photo shoot. This is despite Ruby tagging a professional
Speaker 1: photographer in the photos and reels. For me, it doesn't
Speaker 1: really change things. If she took the photo or the
Speaker 1: photographer took the photo, there was still the choice to
Speaker 1: publish these photos. I think she was trying to act
Speaker 1: like it was just the way the kid happened to
Speaker 1: be standing. It wasn't some sort of photo shoot where
Speaker 1: he was instructed to stand in a certain way. Now.
Speaker 1: Ruby then explained that they had visited her friend's banana
Speaker 1: farm and that's just how Mars was wearing his outfit
Speaker 1: that day. She so defended the images, saying I'd also
Speaker 1: like to say, if you were sexualizing that image of him,
Speaker 1: I think you actually need to have a look at
Speaker 1: the bigger picture of what your issue is, and maybe
Speaker 1: you have become so overly sensitive that the line is
Speaker 1: blurred of what is wrong and what is right, and
Speaker 1: there is nothing wrong with that image. Now, that was
Speaker 1: really a sad turn of events because Ruby revealed that
Speaker 1: she had been a victim of sexual assault at fourteen,
Speaker 1: which has made her super aware and vigilant around the
Speaker 1: content that she shares of her children. And she went
Speaker 1: on to say that she could claim the backlash had
Speaker 1: triggered her, but she's a little bigger than that. She
Speaker 1: finished up by saying how soft she thinks society is
Speaker 1: these days, and that the lines have been so blurred
Speaker 1: that anything can be taken the wrong way. Now. Adam Whittington,
Speaker 1: the CEO of a not for profit charity that fights
Speaker 1: to end child trafficking and exploitation of children, weighed into
Speaker 1: the matter, labeling the photos as total exploitation of the child.
Speaker 1: He also said it happens every single time a so
Speaker 1: called influencer gets caught up exploiting their own kids. They always, always,
Speaker 1: always say, in response to the backlash, if you see
Speaker 1: my child's image as sexual, you have the problem. You
Speaker 1: need to look at your stick problems. They then send
Speaker 1: trolls to make comments in support of their actions, or
Speaker 1: call those genuinely trying to help them by educating them
Speaker 1: trolls and haters. Now, coming in at third place, we
Speaker 1: have the South Australian Tourism Commission's Influencer only event with
Speaker 1: Sam Smith. Now, South Australians were left less than impressed
Speaker 1: when they were not only excluded from being able to
Speaker 1: attend the concert, but discovered their taxpayer funds we used
Speaker 1: to pay for the exclusive event. Now as South Australians ourselves,
Speaker 1: the state was in uproar. I was pissed off about this.
Speaker 1: It was just such a bad look. So the invite
Speaker 1: only event was Sam's only performance in Australia and the
Speaker 1: first in South Australia since twenty fifteen. So in total,
Speaker 1: three hundred people were invited and the Tourism Minister, Zoe
Speaker 1: Bettison claimed one hundred and fifteen were competition winners, while
Speaker 1: ninety were influences and media personalities and twenty one were
Speaker 1: SATC staff Lucky SATC stuff getting a front row ticket
Speaker 1: to that. Now, the event was supposed to attract national
Speaker 1: and international exposure for the state through Sam's social channels
Speaker 1: as well as the influencers. The problem was the Contra
Speaker 1: deal offered by the government didn't attract big name influencers,
Speaker 1: and furthermore, as the influencers were obligated to post, the
Speaker 1: coverage was very minimal, with most of it disappearing after
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. They were clearly banking on Sam Smith
Speaker 1: sharing this to their account because they do have over
Speaker 1: fourteen million followers. The only catch was the content that
Speaker 1: they did share was of them outside McDonald's on South
Speaker 1: Road and it was a glamorous spot. No because the
Speaker 1: Tourism Commission they'd taken them to all of these fancy restaurants,
Speaker 1: winder Stars, grease, wined and dined them and then that
Speaker 1: was the photo that they chose to share them outside
Speaker 1: this huge golden Arch sign. They literally could have been anywhere.
Speaker 1: Now in March, the ABC obtained documents which revealed the
Speaker 1: details of the deal the SATC struck with influencers to
Speaker 1: get them to attend the event. So for some interstate influences,
Speaker 1: the Contra deal included free flights, transfers, accommodation and meals,
Speaker 1: with the commercial costs predicted at two thousand dollars per influencer. Now,
Speaker 1: the SATC confirmed that they shared the cost for the
Speaker 1: event with Frontier Touring, who was putting on Sam Smith's concert,
Speaker 1: and in January, Tourism Minister Zoe Betterson said the Sam
Speaker 1: Smith concert cost less than half a million dollars and
Speaker 1: resulted in thirty two million dollars worth of advertising for
Speaker 1: the state. This was despite the fact that a review
Speaker 1: found that they had absolutely no way to measure the
Speaker 1: influencer's return on investments. Yes, so the results of a
Speaker 1: review into the handling of the event were revealed in May,
Speaker 1: and it was found that the SATC needed a greater
Speaker 1: level of transparency when choosing which influencers to engage with.
Speaker 1: Sa also agreed to overhaul its policies about engaging with influences.
Speaker 1: We also have to mention the fact that there was
Speaker 1: a rogue pisser, so someone apparently pissed in the mosh pit.
Speaker 1: This was being reported at the time. We still don't
Speaker 1: know who that influencer is. Yeah, and also this was
Speaker 1: the first event that Sophie Kaisha attended with her new girlfriend,
Speaker 1: Sophie vander Hoovel, so Sophie actually shared vision of her
Speaker 1: cuddling into the other Sophie at the Sam Smith concert
Speaker 1: recently for Sophie's birthday. God, it must be so confusing
Speaker 1: with them both being called Sophie. I'm called Sophie, and
Speaker 1: when we're reporting on issues with Sophie Guidlin and Sophie Kasha,
Speaker 1: it gets confusing. The amount of sophie is that are
Speaker 1: flying around. Well, I think Sophie Kaysha calls her VD instead.
Speaker 1: Now I feel like we need a drum roll because
Speaker 1: coming in in top spot for Outspoken's Biggest Influencer scandal
Speaker 1: of twenty twenty three is Emma Clair. So. In April,
Speaker 1: she shocked the internet when she admitted to killing two
Speaker 1: cats as a child. I can't believe this was in April.
Speaker 1: This just feels like the other day now. The twenty
Speaker 1: eight year old made the disgusting revelation on her newly
Speaker 1: revamped podcast called Simply Chaotic, and the timing could not
Speaker 1: have been worse for Emma, who had just given birth
Speaker 1: to her first child a week earlier. Now. As a refresher,
Speaker 1: Emma and her co host Kirsty had been sharing personal
Speaker 1: secrets on the podcast. When Emma said, I've got one.
Speaker 1: I killed my cat, but I promise I'm really good
Speaker 1: with my animals. She then went on to say, I
Speaker 1: didn't mean to I was young, I was a child.
Speaker 1: I was swinging my cat around like I was thinking
Speaker 1: it was just a stuff toy, and I accidentally let
Speaker 1: go of it. That is really difficult to listen to again.
Speaker 1: It is deeply disturbing. The incident that took place, and
Speaker 1: the fact that she thinks that this is some sort
Speaker 1: of fun secret to share on a podcast. Let's get
Speaker 1: to know me better. Oh, I horrifically murdered a pet cat. Oh,
Speaker 1: it is so disgusting. Emma did later confirm that the
Speaker 1: cat died from fright rather than an injury, and she
Speaker 1: also said her sister didn't speak to her for months
Speaker 1: following the incident and that her mum was fucking fuming.
Speaker 1: She would then went on to say, I'm giggling about
Speaker 1: it now, but this happened years and years ago, and
Speaker 1: like I was a fucking little child. Emma then finished
Speaker 1: up by offhandly revealing that she also killed her best
Speaker 1: friend's cat. For her to then reveal that this wasn't
Speaker 1: an isolated incident and this has actually happened a second
Speaker 1: time with another friend's cat, was just so deeply troubling. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it really was. I just still can't believe that she
Speaker 1: even recorded this, edited it, and then put it out
Speaker 1: for the world to listener, and also used it as
Speaker 1: a teaser to promote the episode. That's so true. This
Speaker 1: wasn't live. This was said with a lot of hindsight,
Speaker 1: and I just can't still get over it now. The
Speaker 1: backlash was swift, causing Emma to share a statement. However,
Speaker 1: rather than apologizing, she told her followers to chill and
Speaker 1: said the story is a bit of light humor. She
Speaker 1: also advised her audience to not listen to her podcast
Speaker 1: if they couldn't handle the humor. She finished the statement
Speaker 1: by writing again, sorry, not sorry for an hour accident
Speaker 1: that happened over twenty years ago, and sorry not sorry
Speaker 1: for having a giggle about it, because I think, still
Speaker 1: twenty years on, I'm in shock by it now. Following
Speaker 1: Emma's statement, multiple brands cut ties with her, including Lust
Speaker 1: Minerals and MC beauty. A day later, Emmett had suddenly
Speaker 1: changed her tune, apologizing for sharing the story and stating
Speaker 1: that she was well aware that the story was not
Speaker 1: light humor and in fact very serious. She also deleted
Speaker 1: the story from her podcast, however, kept up the promotional
Speaker 1: material that featured the story. She did end up leaving
Speaker 1: social media shortly after the incident due to the apparent
Speaker 1: bullying and death threats that she received. Before leaving the platform,
Speaker 1: she said, the last nine weeks have been the toughest
Speaker 1: of my life and my mental health has been destroyed.
Speaker 1: Now she has stayed offline since then, I am wondering
Speaker 1: if we will see her return this year. I am
Speaker 1: really surprised Kate that Sarah's Day has not made the
Speaker 1: top five scandals for this year. Well, if we were
Speaker 1: doing a top ten, I was thinking of putting her
Speaker 1: Sunny scandal in there, But I have noticed that she
Speaker 1: really has taken a step back from really big scandals.
Speaker 1: She's been wearing up to go though, since she has
Speaker 1: shut down Sunny, so I feel like she may feature
Speaker 1: next year. Yeah. I am really excited to see what
Speaker 1: unfolds next year. Now, thank you so much for listening
Speaker 1: to today's episode. If you have enjoyed it, could you
Speaker 1: please make sure you do share across your stories. Yes,
Speaker 1: and we do hope you have a wonderful New Year's
Speaker 1: For Outspoken Plus subscribers, we will be counting down the
Speaker 1: top five relationship dramas of twenty twenty three, so if
Speaker 1: you are a subscriber and are looking for more content
Speaker 1: to get you through the holiday period, it is a
Speaker 1: great time to sign up now. This podcast was recorded
Speaker 1: on the traditional land of the Ghana people of the
Speaker 1: Adelaide Planes. We pay respect to elders past and present,