Speaker 1: Episode three, The Sees Scandals, Sarah Stevenson's popularity was through
Speaker 1: the roof, fresh from activating hashtag milflife after the birth
Speaker 1: of her son Fox Ocean, Sarah had managed to sidestep
Speaker 1: Heer Sin three scandal, replacing controversy with baby Spam and
Speaker 1: their new house. Rnos and the masses were loving it.
Speaker 2: But no one could have predicted what twenty twenty would
Speaker 2: hold for Sarah's day, let alone the world.
Speaker 3: There are fears more than a thousand people could be
Speaker 3: infected with the deadly SARS like virus in China. The
Speaker 3: World Health Organization has declared coronavirus a global pandemic.
Speaker 1: The COVID nineteen pandemic changed life as we knew it.
Speaker 1: Locked inside our homes with more free time than ever,
Speaker 1: public sentiment towards influences began to change and cancel culture
Speaker 1: took hold. The same year, the Black Lives Matter movement
Speaker 1: shook the world, with protests breaking out across the globe
Speaker 1: following the murder of George Floyd.
Speaker 3: Cities across the United States remained in a state of
Speaker 3: high tension tonight, as the country braces itself for another
Speaker 3: wave of protests over the death of George Floyd.
Speaker 1: Twenty twenty was a horror year for everyone, but for
Speaker 1: Sarah it was the year she got canceled as three
Speaker 1: of her biggest controversies played out in front of a
Speaker 1: captive audience in Lockdown.
Speaker 2: We are journalist Amy Kay and Sophie Torbert and this
Speaker 2: is outspoken Plus in.
Speaker 4: Episode two, we Left You.
Speaker 1: In late twenty nineteen, in Australia, bushfires were ravishing the country.
Speaker 1: The new year brought further devastation as fires continued to
Speaker 1: burn out of control.
Speaker 3: New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia are waking up
Speaker 3: to widespread fire damage. We know properties have been lost,
Speaker 3: we know many towns are without power, but the true
Speaker 3: extent is being assessed right now.
Speaker 1: More than forty six million acres were burnt during the
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen and twenty twenty bushfires, and devastatingly, thirty four
Speaker 1: people were killed and nearly three billion animals.
Speaker 4: Lost their lives or were placed.
Speaker 1: All anyone could talk about was what could be done
Speaker 1: to help. Influencers and brands jumped on the cause and
Speaker 1: began sharing ways followers could help those impacted. I remember
Speaker 1: at the time Mitch Orville was getting a lot of
Speaker 1: attention because he managed to raise over two hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy thousand dollars alongside his brand Hooded Smile, and Sarah's
Speaker 1: Day was quick to follow this trend. In November, she
Speaker 1: announced that one dollar from each of her products sold
Speaker 1: on the Bang Body would go towards a Saint Vincent
Speaker 1: Bushfire appeal Now. To put that donation into perspective, Sarah's
Speaker 1: Lebang Body products ranged from sixty ninety five to fifty
Speaker 1: eight ninety five now. The backlash was swift. People labeled Sarah's.
Speaker 2: Promotion as an underwhelming offer of charity, while others said
Speaker 2: one dollar per product was a cop out. Another commenter wrote,
Speaker 2: go fifty percent or one hundred percent of proceeds for
Speaker 2: forty eight hours to be genuine. It's currently a cheap
Speaker 2: trick to boost profit now.
Speaker 1: Sarah jumped onto her stories on the afternoon of the
Speaker 1: fundraiser announcement, complaining that she couldn't train because she was
Speaker 1: receiving so much hate.
Speaker 4: Here's what she said.
Speaker 5: The amount of hate we just got is actually disgusting.
Speaker 5: Like we were trying to do something fun that was
Speaker 5: going to give back to everyone, and yeah, I'm really
Speaker 5: disappointed in like twenty percent of the people because this
Speaker 5: was coming from a really honest, authentic giving place, like
Speaker 5: bushfires is something really real and like personal in my family.
Speaker 5: And when Labang called me with the idea, I was like, Yeah,
Speaker 5: why would I say no? Like this is awesome.
Speaker 1: Sarah was late slam for her use of the word fun,
Speaker 1: which people found insensitive and said she didn't understand the issue.
Speaker 1: Sarah went on to say this this.
Speaker 5: Is a classic example of your damned if you do,
Speaker 5: you're damned if you don't. Like if I hadn't done
Speaker 5: anything with my products to support the Bushfire Foundation, I
Speaker 5: would have got hate. If I promote one hundred percent
Speaker 5: of the profits, I still get hate for promoting my products.
Speaker 5: We say a dollar activation, still get hate.
Speaker 2: The story made mainstream media and the campaign was stopped,
Speaker 2: with no party disclosing if the money raise was donated. Now,
Speaker 2: off the back of this initial failed campaign, Sarah launched
Speaker 2: a three day e book sale to raise money for
Speaker 2: bush fire relief charities.
Speaker 4: The three charities.
Speaker 2: Chosen were Food Bank Australia, New South Wales, Rural Fire Service,
Speaker 2: Port Macquarie, Kohala Hospital and.
Speaker 4: The Salvation Army.
Speaker 2: As part of the promotion, Sarah discounted her ebooks by
Speaker 2: twenty percent, and this time she said she would donate
Speaker 2: one hundred percent of the sales made to her four
Speaker 2: nominated charities. Now, Sarah announced that the sale raised a
Speaker 2: whopping three hundred and ninety one thousand, six hundred and
Speaker 2: sixty dollars, with the profits said to be split equally
Speaker 2: between the four charities.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 1: Rather than being met with great fanfare like Mitch Aorble,
Speaker 1: Sarah's fans started getting agitated when she did not provide
Speaker 1: an update on the status of the donation. So six
Speaker 1: days after the sale ended, Sarah released a vlog where
Speaker 1: she briefly touched on the fundraiser. She explained that she
Speaker 1: had emailed the charities to let them know they would
Speaker 1: be receiving a huge donation and asked them how to
Speaker 1: go about transferring the money to them. Now despite confirming
Speaker 1: she was in talks with the four charities, a member
Speaker 1: of gossip forum Guru Gossip, she had an open letter
Speaker 1: to Sarah where they revealed they had reported her to
Speaker 1: scam Watch for not showing receipts of the donations she made.
Speaker 1: The user wrote, I believe you will donate and this
Speaker 1: was a genuine good deed you were doing. But this
Speaker 1: is just a gentle nudge in the right direction. It's
Speaker 1: too much money and too important a cause for you
Speaker 1: not to have posted an update yet, especially when other
Speaker 1: influencers have now. This letter spurred on others to start
Speaker 1: contacting the Australian media publications who had covered the initial
Speaker 1: story about the one dollar bushfire appeal.
Speaker 2: It's safe to say by now the pressure was mounting
Speaker 2: on Sarah. People were beginning to lash out on Instagram,
Speaker 2: with many comments getting swiftly deleted. This stress led to
Speaker 2: Sarah having a complete meltdown in her outside of a
Speaker 2: bank ten days after the fundraiser had ended. So the
Speaker 2: day prior, she had updated her followers saying that she
Speaker 2: was unable to donate to the Koala Hospital because her
Speaker 2: bank wouldn't allow her to make a transaction that big.
Speaker 2: So the following day, Sarah complained the bank had only
Speaker 2: let her transfer money to two of the four charities
Speaker 2: because of the transfer limit, and that she would need
Speaker 2: to come back the next day. It's important to note
Speaker 2: that Sarah did visit the bank at four pm when
Speaker 2: it was closing. She said I'm just trying to do
Speaker 2: this nice thing and donate all this money for my
Speaker 2: country and the animals. Sarah went on to complain that
Speaker 2: she'd been trying to pay everyone for over a week,
Speaker 2: but none of the charities were accepting the bank transfers
Speaker 2: because the daily limit on her account was one hundred
Speaker 2: thousand dollars. Now, when you consider that Sarah was trying
Speaker 2: to transfer each charity around eighty nine thousand dollars, wouldn't
Speaker 2: have only taken her four days to finalize these transfers.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the fact that she was complaining and putting
Speaker 1: a lot of the blame on the charities really caused
Speaker 1: a sour taste in people's mind. I mean, obviously it
Speaker 1: sounds like it was a bit of a complex process
Speaker 1: to do, but I think, don't share the struggles.
Speaker 4: That you're having with online. Yeah.
Speaker 2: So, on the twenty second of January, five days after
Speaker 2: Sarah's meltdown at the bank, Sarah confirmed that all four
Speaker 2: charities had received their donations. Sarah shared a screenshot of
Speaker 2: handwritten calculations and wrote, all charities have received their donations?
Speaker 2: Were who When I contacted the charities to let them
Speaker 2: know they'd be getting eighty nine thousand, thirteen dollars and
Speaker 2: seventy five cents. They were absolutely overwhelmed and so grateful.
Speaker 1: Originally some people were complaining that the sum Sarah provided
Speaker 1: didn't add up, but they were forgetting about the GST.
Speaker 1: So it's important to note that according to a chartered
Speaker 1: tax accountant, Sarah did everything completely within the rules of
Speaker 1: the tax legislation in Australia.
Speaker 4: It's very likely that she would.
Speaker 1: Have an accountant providing advice on how to maximize their
Speaker 1: profit and cash. So in this case, what people appeared
Speaker 1: to have an issue with is with Sarah promoting that
Speaker 1: she would donate one hundred percent of sales rather than
Speaker 1: saying one hundred percent of profits. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's a bit tit for tat at this stage.
Speaker 2: Yeah, in this instance, I do feel like people were
Speaker 2: very harsh on Sarah, considering that she did raise such
Speaker 2: a huge amount of money for charity. I do think
Speaker 2: people are forgetting that there were so many celebrities and
Speaker 2: influencers jumping in and trying to raise money without actually
Speaker 2: thinking through the process of how they would end up
Speaker 2: transferring such a huge amount of money to a charity.
Speaker 4: I think if this was a.
Speaker 2: Campaign that she had set up with a lot of
Speaker 2: preparation time, it would have been fair to sort of
Speaker 2: launch this criticism at her, But considering it was something
Speaker 2: done on the fly, I do think it was a
Speaker 2: little bit unfair.
Speaker 1: I think it is really interesting to look back at
Speaker 1: this scandal three years on when you're removed from the
Speaker 1: emotions of the situation. So in times of crisis, when
Speaker 1: people feel out of control, generally they do look for
Speaker 1: someone to blame, and at the time, influencers around Australia
Speaker 1: really were being put under the microscope by sections of
Speaker 1: the Internet who were trying to determine whether or not
Speaker 1: influencers were trying to help out out of the goodness
Speaker 1: of their hearts, or whether they saw this situation as
Speaker 1: an opportunity for self promotion and being charitable at the
Speaker 1: end of the day is good for your brand, but
Speaker 1: it's also something I would like to think that a
Speaker 1: lot of people genuinely do to help out and make
Speaker 1: a difference. And I personally felt uncomfortable by the backlash
Speaker 1: that was thrown at Sarah during this time because, as
Speaker 1: you say, Kate, she did use her platform to raise
Speaker 1: over three hundred thousand dollars for animals and communities in need.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure if she didn't use her platform, she
Speaker 1: would have copt the same amount of flack and abuse.
Speaker 1: And it sort of was a situation at the time
Speaker 1: you're either damned if you do damned if you don't.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I actually remember she did say that. And it's
Speaker 2: important to remember that whilst influencers may come across as
Speaker 2: these huge entities, most of the time they are individuals
Speaker 2: running startups which don't have the support of a professional
Speaker 2: team or strategists or lawyers behind them helping them make
Speaker 2: these big business decisions. And I think there's a lot
Speaker 2: of talk about how Sarah is in a bit of
Speaker 2: a cronulla bubble, and I don't think equips herself with
Speaker 2: the right team. She often employs friends or relatives, and
Speaker 2: I think this is a situation where perhaps she didn't
Speaker 2: have the right guidance in place.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: And in terms of the criticism about her not donating
Speaker 1: the money quick enough, I think over time it has
Speaker 1: become quite evident that donating large sums of money isn't
Speaker 1: as easy as it looks. And this was the case
Speaker 1: for Australian comedian Celeste Barber, who raised fifty one point
Speaker 1: three million dollars in a record breaking Facebook fundraiser for
Speaker 1: the New South Wales Rural Fire Service and brigades donation funds.
Speaker 1: So Celess said that as donations grew and grew, she
Speaker 1: attracted a fuck ton of people telling her what she
Speaker 1: should do with it. And things got really complicated when
Speaker 1: the deed which governed the New South Wales Rural Fire
Speaker 1: Service Trust outlined that money donated could only be spent
Speaker 1: on purchasing and maintaining equipment, training and administration cost So
Speaker 1: this meant that the money wasn't really allowed to go
Speaker 1: directly to those who had been impacted by the fire.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure Celeste never imagined that she would have
Speaker 2: raised that amount of money, and I'm assuming donors would
Speaker 2: have thought that she would have the ability to allocate
Speaker 2: funds to other bushfire charities if necessary. Now there was
Speaker 2: a court case and the court ruled that money could
Speaker 2: be given to the families of Fullen firefighters and used
Speaker 2: for trauma counseling, but could not be given to charities
Speaker 2: like the Australian Red Cross or animal welfare groups, which
Speaker 2: upset many of those who donated their money. One month later,
Speaker 2: Sarah's bushfire fundraiser controversy was all but forgotten as the
Speaker 2: COVID pandemic took over our lives.
Speaker 3: The World Health Organization has declared coronavirus a global pandemic.
Speaker 1: As our lives ascended into the unknown. With stay at
Speaker 1: home orders and five kilometer radius parameters in place, we
Speaker 1: became increasingly infuriated by anyone breaking the rules or those
Speaker 1: in positions of privilege complaining about being confined to their mansions.
Speaker 1: Influencer behavior became a.
Speaker 4: Major talking point.
Speaker 1: We were beginning to question whether influencers were doing enough
Speaker 1: to deserve the privileges bestowed.
Speaker 4: Upon them now.
Speaker 2: On the twenty fifth of May twenty twenty, George Floyd,
Speaker 2: a black man living in Minneapolis, was murdered by police
Speaker 2: officer Derek Sharvin. After being handcuffed and pinned to the ground,
Speaker 2: Floyd repeatedly told the police officer he could not breathe
Speaker 2: as the officer knelt on his neck. The horrific event
Speaker 2: was captured on camera, sparking protests around the world.
Speaker 3: Chaos, violence, fire, and looty unfolding on the streets of Minneapolis.
Speaker 2: Black matters were at the forefront of the public psyche.
Speaker 2: We were just two months into the pandemic and tensions
Speaker 2: were boiling over. Social media was a wash with support
Speaker 2: for the Black Lives Matter movement, with black tile shared
Speaker 2: on June second, twenty twenty to show solidarity for the
Speaker 2: protests and riots happening in the US.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, back in Cronulla, Sarah was getting set to launch
Speaker 1: her third active web collaboration with White Fox Boutique. The
Speaker 1: campaign was called Reboot and was based around the idea
Speaker 1: that her line was being elevated. Sarah took followers along
Speaker 1: for the ride, capturing behind the scenes footage of her
Speaker 1: campaign shoot. Followers were left astounded when Sarah revealed how
Speaker 1: she had been styled. She was unrecognizable. Her short blonde
Speaker 1: hair had been woven into thick fluot braids, and she
Speaker 1: was quickly accused of cultural appropriation.
Speaker 2: Now, for those who are unsure, cultural appropriation occurs when
Speaker 2: members of a majority group adopt cultural elements of a
Speaker 2: minority group in an exploitative, disrespectful, stereotypical way. This can
Speaker 2: include a hairstyle, piece of clothing, and a manner of speaking. Now,
Speaker 2: to put all of this into context. Just three days
Speaker 2: after the murder of George Floyd, Sarah's Day was forced
Speaker 2: to pull her new reboot activewear campaign. She did decide
Speaker 2: to reshoot the campaign with a different look a couple
Speaker 2: of days later. Now, I remember the moment I saw
Speaker 2: Sarah's hairstyle on Instagram. I instantly screenshot it and sent
Speaker 2: it to you, because I couldn't believe that she didn't
Speaker 2: foresee that this would be a problem, especially considering what
Speaker 2: was going on in the world.
Speaker 4: It was just so tone deaf.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the fact that Sarah's Day, as well as the
Speaker 1: White Fox boutique team thought that this was acceptable really
Speaker 1: shocked me.
Speaker 4: How did no one flag this with her?
Speaker 2: Oh? I mean, the hairstyle was just highly inappropriate. West
Speaker 2: African woman Safie, who chose not to give her last name,
Speaker 2: gave some really insightful comments to news dot Com about
Speaker 2: the incident because at the time, there seemed.
Speaker 4: To be a real divide.
Speaker 2: There were those who were deeply offended and then those
Speaker 2: who didn't understand the gravity of the situation. So Safie said,
Speaker 2: for her, it came down to differentiating cultural appropriation and
Speaker 2: cultural appreciation. She said, sadly, so many people can't tell
Speaker 2: the difference. She explained that what Sarah did was take
Speaker 2: this hairstyle, capitalize on her refer to it as ghetto,
Speaker 2: a neglect to pay proper homage or acknowledge that she
Speaker 2: was inspired by women of color. She continued to quite simply,
Speaker 2: she used a significant part of our culture to make
Speaker 2: money off it. This is what so many black women
Speaker 2: of color, like myself class as cultural appropriation. Had she
Speaker 2: done her research and understood the cultural significance of this hairstyle,
Speaker 2: it would be considered cultural appreciation, but she didn't.
Speaker 1: Now Following the backlash online, Sarah released a three hundred
Speaker 1: and eighty word apology on her Instagram feed alongside a
Speaker 1: series of Instagram stories to her one point one million followers.
Speaker 1: Sarah apologized for the hairstyle, causing any offense, and explained
Speaker 1: why she made the decision to wear braids. She basically
Speaker 1: said it was her idea to wear braids because she
Speaker 1: always wears them and wanted to incorporate Coachella and festival
Speaker 1: vibes into the campaign.
Speaker 4: Let's throw to what she.
Speaker 5: Said, so specifically, we need to talk about the braids
Speaker 5: because this is where the controversy comes and the accusations
Speaker 5: and issue of cultural appropriation. So in the first and
Speaker 5: in no way I've said this in the caption, I'm
Speaker 5: not made excuses or trying to justify. I'm literally just
Speaker 5: trying to give reasoning because everyone's asking me questions, like
Speaker 5: even if they're mean questions, Everyone's like, why the f
Speaker 5: do you think it's okay to wear braids? Like this
Speaker 5: is me answering, This is me answering.
Speaker 6: Yeah, this is a very serious topic and like for
Speaker 6: us to be put in this category, it's very scary
Speaker 6: for us because this is the complete opposite of what
Speaker 6: we're about.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm I'm like the last person to judge anyone
Speaker 5: or to try to be controversial or cultural appropriate, Like
Speaker 5: I just want everyone to be happier. What everyone anyway,
Speaker 5: I'm derailing. So I was the one who first came
Speaker 5: up with the braid idea, and I showed I make
Speaker 5: a mood board for everything. I made a Pinterest with
Speaker 5: like mostly Coachella stuff. It was like these big braids
Speaker 5: and they were pink and it was fun, and so
Speaker 5: most of the pictures that I showed everyone were like
Speaker 5: Coachella festival.
Speaker 4: It was really fun.
Speaker 2: Yeah, So that was the pin.
Speaker 6: I had that like electric feel that was tied in
Speaker 6: nicely to the whole idea of this campaign that we
Speaker 6: sort of up with in the first place.
Speaker 5: And that's the thing. I don't know if I'm just
Speaker 5: like not educated.
Speaker 4: In this or it's like I don't know, because not.
Speaker 5: Once did I even think about cultural appropriation. If that
Speaker 5: even crossed my mind, I wouldn't have done it, because
Speaker 5: you guys know, I hate conflict, I hate controversy. I
Speaker 5: don't want to offend anyone. If I thought it would
Speaker 5: offend anyone, I would have never, ever, ever, ever done it.
Speaker 5: So again not making excuses, but you guys know, I
Speaker 5: always wear two braids. Even when I had long blonde extensions,
Speaker 5: I got my hair braided, and even now I'm not
Speaker 5: gonna lie even doing Yeah, I'd be lying if I
Speaker 5: said I completely understood what's okay and what's not okay,
Speaker 5: Because even after researching so much, asking people, asking my friends,
Speaker 5: of all different cultural backgrounds, of all different races, everyone
Speaker 5: has a different opinion, everyone has a different It's a.
Speaker 6: Very fine line. So I don't know.
Speaker 5: So I don't know what's offensive. I don't know what
Speaker 5: is cultural. I don't know, so That's why I'm like,
Speaker 5: you know what, we had a call.
Speaker 4: With White Fox. White Fox.
Speaker 5: They don't want to offend anyone, Like the whole team
Speaker 5: who worked on this campaign are heartbroken. That would put us.
Speaker 6: We worked on it for like three months or so
Speaker 6: in the making, and now read for everyone, it's okay.
Speaker 1: Initially, many people took Sarah's apology on face value and
Speaker 1: accepted that she was ignorant and uneducated. It is important
Speaker 1: to note, however, that the apology was not directed at
Speaker 1: white people, but at people of color. Therefore, it's not
Speaker 1: up to us to accept the apology. Opinions started shifting though,
Speaker 1: when it appeared Sarah wasn't as remorseful as she had
Speaker 1: made out originally. Firstly, both Sarah and Kirk kept the
Speaker 1: sneak peak of the campaign up despite deciding to pull it.
Speaker 1: The video included Sarah wearing the braids the evening of
Speaker 1: her apology.
Speaker 4: Sarah was also very passive.
Speaker 2: Aggressive on her Instagram story about having to reshoot the campaign.
Speaker 2: Now it was very clear she was feeling sorry for herself.
Speaker 2: She made a snide comment about it apparently being a
Speaker 2: tough day for everyone, not just her, to make matters worse,
Speaker 2: a screenshot from Sarah's Day's Facebook came unity surfaced where
Speaker 2: she was warned of the cultural appropriation weeks before when
Speaker 2: she first posted about the campaign to her story. However,
Speaker 2: at the time, the post was deleted and deemed as trolling.
Speaker 2: Sarah's apology post was also highly moderated. It only had
Speaker 2: messages of support. The original comments calling out the hairstyle
Speaker 2: as cultural appropriation were also deleted, despite it being an educational,
Speaker 2: well balanced discussion. Now, White Fox Boutique did not comment
Speaker 2: on the controversy or issue an apology for their involvement,
Speaker 2: and I thought this was really poor because it wasn't
Speaker 2: solely Sarah's decision to launch the campaign, yet she was
Speaker 2: the only one who.
Speaker 1: Faced up and apologized to it. Yes, the apology was
Speaker 1: not fantastic and it did not seem genuine, But I
Speaker 1: find it really strange that White Fox Boutique, which is
Speaker 1: a large brand, didn't come out and give a statement
Speaker 1: and apologize because they at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: they gave the all clear for this. This was their
Speaker 1: brand putting out the activewear.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they were collaborating with Sarah's Day on the project.
Speaker 2: You think they'd have a say in the campaign.
Speaker 1: They really seemed to hang her out to dry, which
Speaker 1: is really confusing because they still do use her as
Speaker 1: the face of many of their campaigns.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it was very odd.
Speaker 2: Now it didn't take long for people to start piling
Speaker 2: on Sarah. It got to the point where Sarah and
Speaker 2: her young son Fox were receiving death threats. Receipts also
Speaker 2: started coming out of the woodwork. An alleged image of
Speaker 2: Sarah's husband Kurt, playing scrabble emerged with a homophobic slur
Speaker 2: spelled out on the board. A screenshot of an apparent
Speaker 2: Bible verse Sarah shared saying people who don't believe in
Speaker 2: God will get COVID also spread around. Despite the backlash,
Speaker 2: Sarah's activewear campaign sold out in a matter of minutes,
Speaker 2: and in October, they launched a restock of the Reboot collection.
Speaker 4: As part of the.
Speaker 1: Restock, they filmed a new video campaign, which Kurt directed,
Speaker 1: and of course, Sarah v log behind the scenes of
Speaker 1: this campaign. She described the campaign as the most extravagant
Speaker 1: and highly planned, biggest campaign they've ever done. It sounded
Speaker 1: strange to describe a restock campaign as that, but it
Speaker 1: was quite clear they were trying to make up for
Speaker 1: the canceled campaign.
Speaker 4: Yeah it was.
Speaker 2: And what I found very odd was the actual concept
Speaker 2: of this video. So the new video campaign slogan was
Speaker 2: rise above. And the video starts out with Sarah driving
Speaker 2: in a g wagon and she flicks around on the
Speaker 2: radio channel and there's a news report saying good afternoon.
Speaker 2: She then flicks to another channel that says.
Speaker 3: God comefully she actually wore that, which he.
Speaker 1: Is so canceled.
Speaker 2: Sarah then struts into this garage past a flickering TV
Speaker 2: that has Sarah's Day's campaign on the TV screen. She
Speaker 2: walks up to this motorbike and then is shown waving
Speaker 2: flags as two motorcycles speed pass and do big jumps
Speaker 2: on their bikes. There's a lot of fire, which to
Speaker 2: me suggests this rising from the ASHES messaging. And one
Speaker 2: noticeable addition to the campaign are the models Kate Jones
Speaker 2: and Lola tomp So. Kate is a curve model and
Speaker 2: content creator. She's known as Dedicated Lifestyles on Instagram and
Speaker 2: it has one hundred and eighty five thousand followers, while
Speaker 2: Lola Thompson is a black model, dancer and content creator
Speaker 2: with one hundred and eleven thousand Instagram followers and one
Speaker 2: hundred and thirty thousand on TikTok, Sophie, did you think
Speaker 2: it was a deliberate move to have more inclusive models
Speaker 2: in this campaign?
Speaker 4: One hundred percent.
Speaker 1: This was a deliberate move, and I think after the backlash,
Speaker 1: Sarah needed to be more inclusive in the campaign. But
Speaker 1: it just made it feel really awkward and tokenistic. There
Speaker 1: was it was very performative.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did find it really awkward. I do remember
Speaker 2: that many people were surprised that Kate and Lola agreed
Speaker 2: to be in the ad, but to be fair, it
Speaker 2: was a big opportunity for their modeling careers.
Speaker 1: And for Kate and Lola, it was an opportunity for
Speaker 1: them to reach out to a section of Sarah's audience
Speaker 1: who probably hasn't felt heard or seen before.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I totally agree.
Speaker 2: Now, at the end of the vlog, when Sarah and
Speaker 2: Kurt throw to the finish clip of the video, Kurt
Speaker 2: looks visibly agitated and he makes what appears to be
Speaker 2: a snide remark, saying enjoy rise above. Now. Interestingly, in
Speaker 2: this part of the video, I noticed that there was
Speaker 2: an awkward cut which makes it seem like Kurt was
Speaker 2: actually edited and that what he said in full wasn't
Speaker 2: included in the video. To me, the messaging was all
Speaker 2: about rising above the backlash they received, and I think
Speaker 2: it was a strange concept to follow and came across
Speaker 2: as very petty and unremorseful. This campaign had to be
Speaker 2: reshot because of cultural appropriation. Don't use this as an
Speaker 2: opportunity to talk about your own agenda.
Speaker 3: It does.
Speaker 1: It doesn't come across that they're very remorseful or sorry
Speaker 1: for what they did.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was almost like they were the victims in
Speaker 2: the situation because they had to reshoot a campaign. Now,
Speaker 2: Sarah's horror year wasn't done yet, if you can believe it.
Speaker 2: Sarah's final major scandal for twenty twenty was sparked by
Speaker 2: missing rock and pillow inserts.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: On the sixteenth of November twenty twenty, Sarah decided to
Speaker 1: puply name and shame small business Sabi and Soul under
Speaker 1: the guise of helping others. She shared a total of
Speaker 1: thirteen Instagram stories where she alleged that the brand had
Speaker 1: debited one hundred dollars from her account but not delivered
Speaker 1: the three Moroccan cushion inserts she had ordered. Sarah provided
Speaker 1: screenshots that showed she had placed the order on the
Speaker 1: fifteenth of October, alongside unanswered follow up emails and Instagram
Speaker 1: dms to Sabi and Seoul. After sharing the apparent receipts,
Speaker 1: Sarah finished up by writing, so now I'm just like,
Speaker 1: okay cool. Was that a scam or She then went
Speaker 1: on to say it wasn't about the money, because she
Speaker 1: is financially comfortable, but it's about the customers who saved
Speaker 1: up their menial wages only to be scammed. She said,
Speaker 1: I remember working in a fast food job getting paid
Speaker 1: around twelve dollars an hour. If this happened to me,
Speaker 1: I would have been so devastated that essentially a ten
Speaker 1: hour shift had gone down the drain. Thank god, she's
Speaker 1: looking up for the little guys, isn't it. She went
Speaker 1: on to say. Anyway, I'm genuinely not doing this to
Speaker 1: hate on that brand. I'm just sharing my frustration of
Speaker 1: this brand's negligence and lack of customer care. I could
Speaker 1: never imagine doing this to my ebook Activewear, Body Bloom,
Speaker 1: First Protein Pity Party, or Butter Me Up customers. Humble
Speaker 1: Brag I put so much effort, time and care into
Speaker 1: customer service and the teams that run them on my
Speaker 1: end that I simply cannot understand when a brand chooses
Speaker 1: to go mia on emails dispatching, but yet continues to
Speaker 1: take people's money with nothing in return. That's just fraud,
Speaker 1: my friend.
Speaker 2: I found it really amusing that Sarah had to itemize
Speaker 2: each individual product she has sold with Trepeka and Lebang
Speaker 2: to make herself sound more important. As you said, it
Speaker 2: was a bit of a humble brag. It's a strange
Speaker 2: flex though, because apart from her ebook, all of the
Speaker 2: products that she listed are owned by separate businesses who
Speaker 2: have their own customer service team, so she's got nothing
Speaker 2: to do with that process.
Speaker 4: And as for her ebook, the customer.
Speaker 2: Service is taken care by the company that created it,
Speaker 2: which is Hello Hello Studios. So a very strange brag.
Speaker 1: And Sarah was quick to update her followers that she
Speaker 1: wasn't the only one who had been scammed by Sabi
Speaker 1: and Soul. She claimed that she had received over twenty
Speaker 1: dms from her followers, claiming they had also fallen victim
Speaker 1: to the small business. She ended up sharing three of
Speaker 1: the dms she received. It is important to note that
Speaker 1: she blurred out the senders identifying features. You could see
Speaker 1: that Sarah had responded personally to their messages. One of
Speaker 1: the messages said, I just ordered off them. I bought
Speaker 1: some pillows intending to give them to my mum for Christmas.
Speaker 1: I'm only thirteen and I worked for that money.
Speaker 2: I think it was this screenshot which had people quite confused,
Speaker 2: because they're like, how does a thirteen year old have
Speaker 2: a debit card or access to PayPal? You've got to
Speaker 2: be eighteen to have a PayPal account. And people started thinking, well,
Speaker 2: maybe Sarah's Day Stands are just coming up with these
Speaker 2: fake claims to actually talk to her, because she was
Speaker 2: responding individually to these people's dms. Now, it wasn't long
Speaker 2: until Sarah's Stands had flooded Sabi and Soul's Instagram account
Speaker 2: with hate. There were negative comments on nearly every single
Speaker 2: one of Sabi and Soul's posts, with people writing scam
Speaker 2: or scammers, and people also began claiming that they had
Speaker 2: experienced bad customer service too. Interestingly, the comment section was
Speaker 2: a mix of Sarah's Stands and Sarah's Day haters. Now,
Speaker 2: the owner of Sabian Stole went on the defense and
Speaker 2: started responding to the hate. She wrote, if everyone from
Speaker 2: Sarah's Day's followers could please cease messaging me while I
Speaker 2: resolved this with Sarah. There has simply been a huge
Speaker 2: misunderstanding here. I will explain more soon, but there is
Speaker 2: no scam, just a genuine human error now. The business
Speaker 2: went on to call Sarah's claims slanderous and misinformed. The
Speaker 2: owner also hit back at people's claims of being scammed,
Speaker 2: writing people are desperate for attention from influencers, unfortunately saying
Speaker 2: me too.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 2: The owner also challenged those claiming that they were scammed,
Speaker 2: asking them to provide details around their identification so she
Speaker 2: could look into the system. There was a particular person
Speaker 2: from South Africa who was a nurse that she looked
Speaker 2: up and said that there was no record of her
Speaker 2: ever purchasing, so a lot of people were confused if
Speaker 2: these were actual customers or just Sarah's stans trying to
Speaker 2: get Sarah's attention.
Speaker 1: The owner of Sabi and Soul also shared that it
Speaker 1: stated on the Frequently Asked Questions page that as of
Speaker 1: August twenty twenty, cushion inserts had to be purchased with
Speaker 1: cushion covers, and those who purchased only inserts would have
Speaker 1: their orders automatically canceled due to limited stock. Unfortunately, this
Speaker 1: information was not available on the individual product page, but
Speaker 1: was added the day Sarah called out the brand. Now,
Speaker 1: seeing if Sarah only ordered pillow inserts, it appears her
Speaker 1: order was automatically canceled the moment she placed it. However,
Speaker 1: there weren't any follow up customer service emails to let
Speaker 1: her know that this was the case, or any replies
Speaker 1: to her follow up emails. After all of the backlash,
Speaker 1: Sarah ended up deleting her Instagram stories and shared an update.
Speaker 1: She wrote, Okay, I've written this post numerous times, but
Speaker 1: let me get straight to the point. I've decided to
Speaker 1: delete my previous stories about how money was taken out
Speaker 1: of my account for a product I never received. I
Speaker 1: made an online purchase for our homewares. I stand by
Speaker 1: everything I said, and I don't want any other customers
Speaker 1: falling victim to this. But I've seen the negativity it
Speaker 1: has created on this brand's page and that doesn't sit
Speaker 1: well with me. I just don't like that kind of
Speaker 1: commenting and language. I value honesty, kindness, and compassion, and
Speaker 1: I am now practicing the third. Yes, the money was
Speaker 1: taken out of my account and the issue remains, but
Speaker 1: I have this platform to promote kindness and love above
Speaker 1: anything else. Yes, I feel a responsibility to spread awareness
Speaker 1: and protect others from potentially having the same issues as me,
Speaker 1: But I want to spread happiness even more. Anyway, It's
Speaker 1: all good, guys. Let's just be good people. Research before
Speaker 1: you purchase online, and don't leave hate comments no matter
Speaker 1: what the circumstances.
Speaker 2: Jeez, that's a very interesting update from Sarah.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: We covered this story on our podcast at the time,
Speaker 2: and we ended up following up with the owner of
Speaker 2: Sabi and Sal to hear her side.
Speaker 4: Of the story.
Speaker 2: Now, she was willing to share a few details with us,
Speaker 2: but she did say she was taking legal action against Sarah,
Speaker 2: so couldn't say too much. She did share a screenshot
Speaker 2: with us, though, which appeared to show that she had
Speaker 2: given Sarah a refund on the day that Sarah had
Speaker 2: purchased the pillow insert, which was on October fifteenth. Looking
Speaker 2: back at this drama, it just shows how sure you
Speaker 2: need to be as an influencer before you start calling
Speaker 2: out a brand because there's no denying that the customer
Speaker 2: service was very poor and the communication should have been
Speaker 2: a lot better. However, the fact that Sarah had received
Speaker 2: a refund immediately and didn't bother to check her account
Speaker 2: before calling out the business publicly is really terrible, I know,
Speaker 2: especially labeling the brand as a fraud and scammer. It's
Speaker 2: just affametory and I'd love to know if the brand
Speaker 2: ended up taking legal action against Sarah.
Speaker 1: Yeah, particularly because at the time, Sarah had one point
Speaker 1: one million followers on Instagram, and by sagging Sabi and
Speaker 1: Soul in her stories and saying that she'd been scammed,
Speaker 1: she literally directed one point one million people over to
Speaker 1: their Instagram account as retribution. And she would have known,
Speaker 1: as Stanz would cause drama and that's probably why she
Speaker 1: tagged them.
Speaker 2: Oh it's just crazy to think how much damage this
Speaker 2: actually caused this small brand, And when you think about
Speaker 2: the fact that Sarah's job is to influence people and
Speaker 2: she literally sent people after this brand, it's really heartbreaking.
Speaker 2: I mean, at the time, we were in the midst
Speaker 2: of COVID, small businesses were really struggling to stay afloat,
Speaker 2: and then something like this happens for this brand. It
Speaker 2: appears that Sabi and Soul have sadly shut down, since
Speaker 2: their Instagram page hasn't been updated since March twenty twenty,
Speaker 2: and their online store no longer exists. This was a
Speaker 2: one woman show that was trying to operate during COVID,
Speaker 2: and from a PR perspective, it is just such a
Speaker 2: shame that the owner didn't notice that Sarah had placed
Speaker 2: an order, because it really could have been turned into
Speaker 2: great brand exposure. A lot of people do follow Sarah
Speaker 2: for her style.
Speaker 1: Obviously she talks a lot about her home renovations, and
Speaker 1: it could have been something where it could have kept
Speaker 1: her business afloat and really got her name out there.
Speaker 2: I do really question Sarah's claims that she was trying
Speaker 2: to warn her followers.
Speaker 4: Sarbi and Soul was a small.
Speaker 2: Business, which we have mentioned several times. I mean, they
Speaker 2: only had around two thousand followers on Instagram. It's not
Speaker 2: this big business that a lot of people were going
Speaker 2: to get scanned by. And I stand by what I
Speaker 2: said back in the podcast in twenty twenty that I
Speaker 2: think it was immature and reckless of Sarah to call
Speaker 2: out the brand yeah.
Speaker 1: And the owner of Sabi and Soeul they did share
Speaker 1: with us back in twenty twenty that Sarah had purchased
Speaker 1: the cushion inserts through PayPal, and PayPal is of course
Speaker 1: renowned for its scam protection because there's a simple process
Speaker 1: you can go through to get a refund. So I
Speaker 1: don't understand why she didn't do that instead of publicly
Speaker 1: slamming a small business during COVID.
Speaker 2: I did have a laugh because I remember back in
Speaker 2: twenty twenty that taddle Life suggested starting a go fund
Speaker 2: Me page to help fund Sabi and sols legal claims
Speaker 2: against Sarah.
Speaker 4: I would love to know what happened.
Speaker 2: If the owner of Sabian Soul is listening, please reach
Speaker 2: out to us, so if anyone knows.
Speaker 4: Any more about it, I would love to know.
Speaker 1: How do you come back from the worst year of
Speaker 1: your life when the brand you build has been battered
Speaker 1: and your army of followers have turned to detractors. In
Speaker 1: next week's final installment, we cover Sarah's attempt at a rebrand,
Speaker 1: how the Wellness Warrior tried to evolve into a wholesome,
Speaker 1: pilates loving mum with strong Christian roots with lucrative brand
Speaker 1: deals to compete for, and a hungry community of new
Speaker 1: mums yearning for connection. Mummy blogging is a high stakes
Speaker 1: business venture, but what happens when your kids start becoming
Speaker 1: content and a heartbreaking diagnosis makes.
Speaker 2: You evaluate at all. That's on next week's final installment.
Speaker 1: This podcast was recorded on the traditional land of the
Speaker 1: Ganna people of the Adelaide Planes. We pay respect to
Speaker 1: elders past and present. If you are enjoying this series
Speaker 1: on Outspoken Plus, we would love to see you post
Speaker 1: it on your Instagram story.