Speaker 1: This is Outspoken. The podcast is not afraid to say
Speaker 1: exactly what you're thinking. Our names are Amy kay and
Speaker 1: Sophie Torba. We're identical triplets, but we often don't have
Speaker 1: identical opinions, so sometimes things can get heated. Outspoken covers
Speaker 1: all things reality TV, influencers, entertainment, and issues facing women.
Speaker 2: That is so fatch.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Hello, and welcome to Outspoken, your dose of
Speaker 1: the hottest influencer and pop culture news twice a week.
Speaker 1: On today's show, we discussed by You'll be seeing considerably
Speaker 1: fewer sponsored health products on your Instagram feed, Plus Kayla
Speaker 1: Astinas's x steps down from their fitness empire, and the
Speaker 1: telltale scigence influencers are paying for their YouTube engagement. But first,
Speaker 1: a post by fast fashion brand White Fox Boutique has
Speaker 1: us questioning whether some fashion trends have gone past the
Speaker 1: point of ridiculous. Now. Over the weekend, the Aussie Bass
Speaker 1: brand posted a reel of a model going on what
Speaker 1: they described as a hot Girl walk and apparently the
Speaker 1: outfit in question was hot Girl approved by the brand. Now,
Speaker 1: there is definitely a lot to unpack with that caption alone,
Speaker 1: but shockingly, it was the outfit in question, which caught
Speaker 1: our attention. So the model was wearing high waisted tights
Speaker 1: and a crop top, which sounds like a pretty normal outfit. However,
Speaker 1: it was topped off with a matching T shirt that
Speaker 1: was only pulled down halfway so to paint the picture.
Speaker 1: The T shirt had made its way over the model's head,
Speaker 1: but was only pulled down halfway over her body, so
Speaker 1: the majority of her crop top and breasts was still exposed.
Speaker 1: And many women in our community have joked that this
Speaker 1: is what they look like when they're breastfeeding. Well, it
Speaker 1: actually reminded me on me and girls when they go
Speaker 1: and cut the boobs out of Regina George's singlet and
Speaker 1: then everyone starts sporting the look to show off their bras,
Speaker 1: and I just didn't get it. I was like, have
Speaker 1: they actually tucked the T shirt up like that? Or
Speaker 1: are they selling T shirts with I mean, I will
Speaker 1: not be buying one of them. Well, it seems that
Speaker 1: white Fox's followers were also perplexed by this outfit. One wrote,
Speaker 1: tell me this is not how we're wearing T shirts now.
Speaker 1: Another said sometimes when I eat too much, I also
Speaker 1: get tired and just write it out Winnar the booster,
Speaker 1: whilst another said, I think you forgot to pull your
Speaker 1: shirt down. Surely it's more effort to keep it up
Speaker 1: like that than it is to wear it normally. I
Speaker 1: thought it was bad enough that crop tops. You know,
Speaker 1: I've seen all those memes with women of a certain
Speaker 1: age asking where the rest of their T shirt is,
Speaker 1: and I, for one will be agreeing with this. I mean, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm getting crop tops now. I will wear them, and
Speaker 1: especially with high waisted jeans. However, I will not be
Speaker 1: showing from my bra right down to my pant line off.
Speaker 1: I I just don't want to do it. The thing
Speaker 1: that I'm just so confused about with this look is
Speaker 1: that it's not even functional as someone as one of
Speaker 1: the commenters said, it's more effort to have this T
Speaker 1: shirt up by your boobs. It doesn't look particularly comfortable either.
Speaker 1: It's also not very sun smart, and I definitely don't
Speaker 1: think that I will be rocking this outfit. Get is
Speaker 1: why not just wear the sports bra by itself? Like,
Speaker 1: what is the purpose of the other material? It doesn't
Speaker 1: even go past I do wonder what men think about
Speaker 1: this trend. The thing is, I feel like if you're
Speaker 1: very fashioned forward. You're actually dressing for other women, not
Speaker 1: men's approval. So I don't really think men are going
Speaker 1: to get this trend at all. But I don't think
Speaker 1: that that's why women are wearing this outfit. You can't
Speaker 1: say that this isn't for men. It really plays into
Speaker 1: the male gaze. I mean, the woman hasn't got a
Speaker 1: T shirt pulled over her bra. Before we move on,
Speaker 1: I just want to go back to the caption because
Speaker 1: I found that whole hot girl approved comment really gross.
Speaker 1: And I know that when I go on a walk,
Speaker 1: I definitely don't look hot girl approved. I'm usually in
Speaker 1: really grotty active wear with messy hair, and I don't
Speaker 1: generally don't give a shit about what I look like.
Speaker 1: So I mean, I definitely don't think that I'm the
Speaker 1: demographic they're going for. But what do you guys think
Speaker 1: about the whole hot girl approved comment. I'm not a
Speaker 1: fan of it at all. We've spoken about it on
Speaker 1: the podcast before. And you have to fit into a
Speaker 1: very niche category in order to be consider a part
Speaker 1: of this hot girl trend, and generally it's someone who
Speaker 1: is white and thin, and I just think that is
Speaker 1: totally not inclusive at all and not really a good
Speaker 1: thing to be pushing.
Speaker 2: Oh my fucking god. No, I just cut an email
Speaker 2: from Scanlon and Theatore. Oh my god, with Hajamebes fans
Speaker 2: you well. After reading a cv in researching your Instagram,
Speaker 2: teest talk and podcast. We're impressed with your unique sens
Speaker 2: is style, confidence of charisma and your knowledge of fashion.
Speaker 2: We believe you'll be a strong asset to a retail
Speaker 2: team here in the Double Bay store and would love
Speaker 2: to offer you a full time position. If you're interested,
Speaker 2: let's set up a call to discuss your salary. What
Speaker 2: the actual freakin' fuck.
Speaker 1: The Therapeutic Goods Administrator's new advertising code is set to
Speaker 1: rock the influencer world. Under the new guidelines, influences can
Speaker 1: no longer be paid to provide their testimonials when advertising
Speaker 1: health products. Influencers and brands have until the thirtieth of
Speaker 1: June to ensure they understand and adhere to the new
Speaker 1: rules now. The Australian first shared this news on the weekend,
Speaker 1: which has caused a lot of discussion and questions, So
Speaker 1: we thought we'd do a bit of an explainer before
Speaker 1: we get into what we think about the rules now. Firstly, Kate,
Speaker 1: there seems to be some confusion around exactly what this
Speaker 1: rule means for influencers. Yeah, so initially it seemed like
Speaker 1: influencers weren't allowed to advertise certain health products at all,
Speaker 1: but that is not the case. So the new rules
Speaker 1: won't stop influencers from working with health product brands, but
Speaker 1: they will only be able to speak about the product's
Speaker 1: approved use and claims, and when they do so, they
Speaker 1: must also clearly label it as advertising. So essentially, these
Speaker 1: sorts of ads will be very obvious and there's not
Speaker 1: going to be any issues around influencers making misleading claims
Speaker 1: about the product. Now. What the rule does do, though,
Speaker 1: is it stops influencers from being paid to provide their
Speaker 1: personal experience and testimonials on products, and it's important to
Speaker 1: note that payment includes money, gifts, or other freebies. Now,
Speaker 1: influencers will be welcome to share their time testimonials, but
Speaker 1: can only do so if they buy the product themselves
Speaker 1: and gain nothing in return. That is absolutely huge for
Speaker 1: the influencer space because despite the fact that they can
Speaker 1: still engage with ads if they stick to very much
Speaker 1: a vanilla explainer of what the products are, that's not
Speaker 1: what consumers want. Consumers look for influencers to provide a
Speaker 1: review and what they deem to be a genuine testimonial
Speaker 1: of the brand. Obviously, it's not necessarily going to be
Speaker 1: genuine because there is money exchanging hands, but those sort
Speaker 1: of reviews are at the heart of influencer culture and
Speaker 1: what influencers do. That's what they create their content around.
Speaker 1: See I personally think that this would have been bigger
Speaker 1: news back in twenty fourteen when influencers were at the
Speaker 1: top of their game. People really loved influences, They really
Speaker 1: took on board what they said, and there was more
Speaker 1: authenticity around these reviews. However, these days, I think people
Speaker 1: can tell the difference between something that is genuine and
Speaker 1: something that is paid for, particularly when influencers now have
Speaker 1: to say whether it is or is not an AD
Speaker 1: when they are talking about products. So while I do
Speaker 1: think yes, this is big news, I do think that
Speaker 1: there are loopholes where influencers will still be able to
Speaker 1: sprute products. They just have to very much stay within
Speaker 1: the guide. I feel like people are going to tune
Speaker 1: out even more from that type of advertising though, because
Speaker 1: it just reminds me of the ads you see on
Speaker 1: TV when you sort of walk out of the room
Speaker 1: so you don't have to watch them. I feel like
Speaker 1: we're going to tune out even more and it is
Speaker 1: going to give influences less power. But I do think
Speaker 1: it is helpful, particularly in the space where it's really
Speaker 1: important to have the correct messaging going out about health
Speaker 1: and wellness products. I think it is a really positive
Speaker 1: move because there's so much misinformation in that space and
Speaker 1: it's so dangerous. Yeah. Well, the TGA said that the
Speaker 1: changes were made because therapeutic goods should be chosen on
Speaker 1: the basis of clinical need and not through the persuasion
Speaker 1: of influencers, and the new code has made it very
Speaker 1: clear to advertisers of therapeutic goods that they must not
Speaker 1: engage influence is to provide testimonials. So it's going to
Speaker 1: be really interesting to see how things go on June thirtieth,
Speaker 1: when this is not allowed again. I think it's important
Speaker 1: to have a look at the products that are covered
Speaker 1: by the rules, so influencers will not be able to
Speaker 1: give their testimonials on vitamins, supplements, protein powders, and skin
Speaker 1: products that make therapeutic claims. So these include acne related
Speaker 1: products or anti aging products. They also can't give their
Speaker 1: personal testimonials on skin lightning products, sunscreens, and general health
Speaker 1: products and medicines. Now, I think it's this whole sunscreen
Speaker 1: aspect that has got a lot of people upset because I,
Speaker 1: for one, think that the rules are great, but I
Speaker 1: don't think that they should apply to suncream. That's so true, Kate,
Speaker 1: because in the past couple of years, I feel like
Speaker 1: we've seen this dramatic switch and people have been talking
Speaker 1: more about sunscreen. We've seen our favorite influencers talking about
Speaker 1: the need to wear sunscreen and making it cool, and
Speaker 1: I think it's really sad that we're going to lose
Speaker 1: that because that's one positive thing that influences can provide
Speaker 1: a huge influence over well. Cotney Mangen, who is a
Speaker 1: sunsafe advocate and has fought melanoma four times, said, I'm
Speaker 1: extremely disappointed to see that sunscreen was included in the
Speaker 1: list of products. However, products like tanning accelerators and tanning
Speaker 1: oils were not. I believe any discussion, paid or unpaid
Speaker 1: around sunscreen will help save lives, and that's the bottom
Speaker 1: line for me. I do not think that there are
Speaker 1: any negatives to talking about wearing sunscreen and that it's
Speaker 1: only positive. There are already so many strict rules around
Speaker 1: when a company can even make a product that's a sunscreen,
Speaker 1: and then there are already so many guidelines around what
Speaker 1: you can and can't say when you are promoting a
Speaker 1: sunscreen already, so to make it even more difficult I
Speaker 1: think will be harmful because people won't be talking about
Speaker 1: wearing sunscreen as much as they should and we should
Speaker 1: all be screaming it from the bloody rooftops. She went
Speaker 1: on to say, if it takes influences getting paid to
Speaker 1: talk about sunscreen, then I don't care what it takes,
Speaker 1: as long as people are talking about it. And if
Speaker 1: this therefore means that sunscreen w doon't be promoted and
Speaker 1: discussed as much, that just breaks my heart because there
Speaker 1: will be real life consequences for that discussion not happening.
Speaker 1: Courtney has absolutely hit the nail on the head here
Speaker 1: because the TGA strictly regulates the manufacturing of sunscreen in
Speaker 1: Australia and those rules are amongst the strictest in the world. Okay,
Speaker 1: some people are saying influencers should promote sunscreen for free.
Speaker 1: But realistically, going forward, you think that this is something
Speaker 1: they're going to do. While I think there is a
Speaker 1: moral obligation, I think realistically influencers aren't going to be
Speaker 1: promoting sunscreen for free. And the thing is, do we
Speaker 1: expect other big marketing systems like broadcasts to just promote
Speaker 1: sunscreen brands for free? No, we don't expect that from them,
Speaker 1: So why are we expecting it from predominantly young women
Speaker 1: who are trying to make money off the platform. Yeah?
Speaker 1: I disagree there, Kate, because I think at the end
Speaker 1: of the day, influencers, in order for them to be successful,
Speaker 1: they also have to sell us a particular type of
Speaker 1: live style and put out a lot of genuine content
Speaker 1: and share about their lives. So I think that it
Speaker 1: would be a good branding move for many of them
Speaker 1: to continue promoting sunscreen because as a viewer and a consumer,
Speaker 1: if we know that they're not getting paid to do that,
Speaker 1: we then buy into a lot more of their messaging.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that's going to realistically happen, though,
Speaker 1: I think that on influencers are going to be promoting
Speaker 1: things that they're paid for, and particularly now, that there's
Speaker 1: going to be some confusion around what exactly they can
Speaker 1: say about things, And I mean the fact that it's
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of self reporting, so the
Speaker 1: general public are going to be dobbing influencers in and
Speaker 1: then the TGA will review that claim. And I feel
Speaker 1: like influencers aren't going to want to be aligning their
Speaker 1: names with sunscreen brands in the case that they may
Speaker 1: have been sent one from Free a year ago and
Speaker 1: someone's going to try and catch them out. I just think,
Speaker 1: why not make it as easy as possible for influencers
Speaker 1: to promote something so good as sun safety and sunscreen.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's already so regulated. It sounds like many
Speaker 1: people within the sunsafe community will be speaking to members
Speaker 1: of the TGA about this move and trying to overrule
Speaker 1: it because it just makes absolutely no sense. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: it's quite interesting because another influencer has weighed into the topic,
Speaker 1: and that is Ruby Tuesday Matthews. Now, she said, whilst
Speaker 1: I completely agree for the need for more regulations, structure
Speaker 1: and accountability by brands and influencers within these industries, it
Speaker 1: makes me sad to think how many great small businesses
Speaker 1: and startups This will affect. She went on to say,
Speaker 1: it also blows my mind that we are targeting health
Speaker 1: and wellness brands encouraging a healthy lifestyle, but not alcohol
Speaker 1: or junk food. Now, I think it's important to add
Speaker 1: that while Ruby's focus is on small businesses and startups,
Speaker 1: she does earn money from promoting these type of products.
Speaker 1: So recently she promoted a functional beauty snack with apparent
Speaker 1: anti aging properties, as well as superfood brands and cosmaceutical
Speaker 1: skincare brands. So it does seem to be that she
Speaker 1: is pushing her own agenda slightly here. I mean, while
Speaker 1: I do think she is pushing her own agenda, I
Speaker 1: do think that there is a concern for many small
Speaker 1: businesses who do rely on influencer marketing because I don't
Speaker 1: think that they're going to be selling many products through
Speaker 1: these revised rules. They are going to be having to
Speaker 1: pivot and look at other ways to promote their products,
Speaker 1: potentially through Facebook advertising, Instagram advertising, or public relations. And
Speaker 1: I do really feel for those who have started businesses
Speaker 1: with influencer marketing very much at the forefront. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's so many brands that spring to mind that use
Speaker 1: influencer promotions at the heart of what they do. I mean,
Speaker 1: think about JS health. I have seen so many influencers
Speaker 1: sprooking their products. What are they going to do now?
Speaker 1: Are they going to be pushing everyday testimonials? Because they
Speaker 1: do have a good batch of those, but I do
Speaker 1: think they need to be propelled further by influencers, Like
Speaker 1: how do you get those everyday testimonials out to people?
Speaker 1: I suppose it will be a case of Facebook marketing
Speaker 1: and retargeting, but I wonder that's going to have the
Speaker 1: same effect. Well, what about the influencers, Because many people
Speaker 1: are questioning what long term effects this ruling will have
Speaker 1: on influencers careers. What do you think, Kate? Look To
Speaker 1: be honest, I think that there is enough wriggle room
Speaker 1: in the rules at the moment that if they stick
Speaker 1: to a script, they are still going to be able
Speaker 1: to earn money for promoting a product. And I don't
Speaker 1: understand where these brands are going to go elsewhere because
Speaker 1: they still need to hit these influential people to get
Speaker 1: their brand out there. Okay, it's not going to be
Speaker 1: as genuine, but it's still going to be something. And
Speaker 1: I think people already know the influencers promote products. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe this could be the start of the influencer industry dying.
Speaker 1: Who knows, But there needs to be something that actually
Speaker 1: replaces it, and I don't know what that could be
Speaker 1: at the moment. There's also been a lot of questions
Speaker 1: about influencers who run their own business in the health space.
Speaker 1: So someone like Georgie Stevenson, who runs protein and supplement
Speaker 1: brand Naked Harvest, is she going to be allowed to
Speaker 1: promote her own products talk about her own experiences with
Speaker 1: those products seeing as she has created the brand. Well no,
Speaker 1: because she's an influencer, like she is going to have
Speaker 1: to stick to the guidelines like everyone else, and there
Speaker 1: are going to be a lot of people in her boat.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are so many health and fitness influencers
Speaker 1: that literally all they do is promote supplements and protein powders.
Speaker 1: I mean, Sarah's Day comes to mind, and I do
Speaker 1: wonder if these influencers are going to have to pivot.
Speaker 1: Maybe they're going to start wearing a lot more makeup
Speaker 1: than they used to and do reviews on their makeup
Speaker 1: that they're using. Maybe some of them are going to say, hm,
Speaker 1: I've got to get out of the health of fitness space.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm going to become a mummy blogger. Like I
Speaker 1: think that we're going to see a lot of influencers
Speaker 1: pivoting from what they normally do. What nothing. We haven't
Speaker 1: done anything if we saw it. No, we haven't been
Speaker 1: anywhere near your Facebook page. Oh, for fuck's sake, Well
Speaker 1: you've done.
Speaker 2: Oh you've changed my profile picked to a fat naked
Speaker 2: man and you've changed my status to win is fingering
Speaker 2: his cat.
Speaker 1: The Mescia Twins' latest YouTube video is attracting a lot
Speaker 1: of attention, not because of its content, but due to
Speaker 1: the comments section. Before we get into it, amy, who
Speaker 1: are the Mescier Twins. So. The popular social media duo
Speaker 1: is made up of twenty one year olds Olivia and Ashley.
Speaker 1: The identical twins began garnering a huge following in twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen when they started sharing their daily lives, beauty, fashion
Speaker 1: and lifestyle advice across Instagram and YouTube. On Instagram, they've
Speaker 1: amasked a following of six hundred and sixty eight thousand followers.
Speaker 1: They also have two million followers on TikTok and four
Speaker 1: hundred and twenty six subscribers on YouTube. They also started
Speaker 1: their own fitness program called Meskier Twin Fit. So so
Speaker 1: it was the comments under their most recent YouTube video
Speaker 1: which has garnered all the attention. Yeah that's right. Underneath
Speaker 1: the girl's recent video about their adventures in Hawaii, there
Speaker 1: were comments which really stood out and led to many
Speaker 1: people questioning whether the girls purchased YouTube comments. So seven
Speaker 1: of the comments underneath the video said ah, that was
Speaker 1: so esthetically pleasing to watch. I don't even know why.
Speaker 1: I love you guys so much. Hope you have fun now.
Speaker 1: All seven of those posts also had the same grammar
Speaker 1: because there were no full stop, so they were the
Speaker 1: seven identical comments. There were also three comments that all
Speaker 1: said ash, your energy is radiating in this video. Love
Speaker 1: this video, and so grateful we get to follow this
Speaker 1: journey with you. There were also a further seven comments
Speaker 1: that said literally, love you guys so much. Such inspirations now.
Speaker 1: Those with all from different people, so different accounts of
Speaker 1: posting these yes now. The names of those commenting also
Speaker 1: raised eyebrows because some of the accounts were called Janice
Speaker 1: fuck me, check my profile, Megan tap me to sex
Speaker 1: with me, Madeline, I am addicted to sex Madison, fuck
Speaker 1: me check my profile and the profile pictures accompanying these
Speaker 1: accounts were also of a pornographic nature, so they look
Speaker 1: like bot account What do you mean? These could be
Speaker 1: genuine messier twin fans about now? I feel like most
Speaker 1: of us are aware that some influencers, particularly micro influencers
Speaker 1: or those looking to get noticed by brands, will purchase
Speaker 1: followers and even likes to try and build a name
Speaker 1: for themselves, but some people will be surprised to find
Speaker 1: out that this also happens for comments, particularly those on YouTube.
Speaker 1: And the reason why people by YouTube comments is to
Speaker 1: increase their growth, status and engagement levels, while others do
Speaker 1: it to influence the perception of the business or brand.
Speaker 1: And it is really interesting because YouTube has a number
Speaker 1: of different metrics that it uses to rank videos, and
Speaker 1: engagement is of course one of them. So if many
Speaker 1: people are finding the content interesting enough on a video,
Speaker 1: they will comment on it, so YouTube sensors that this
Speaker 1: comment should be seen by more viewers and consequently puts
Speaker 1: it out to more people. Therefore, if a video is
Speaker 1: receiving a lot of bought comments, that video will be
Speaker 1: favored by YouTube's algorithm. And put out to more people.
Speaker 1: If I was a Mescier Twins, I'd be one a
Speaker 1: refund because they clearly haven't paid too much money to
Speaker 1: get these comments with those sort of names attached to
Speaker 1: the profiles. Do you think they selected the comments that
Speaker 1: they wrote because it sounded like something that I have
Speaker 1: seen stands writing on other YouTuber's walls. I mean, not
Speaker 1: seven times, but just the once. Well that's the thing.
Speaker 1: After doing a little bit of research on the topic,
Speaker 1: I found out that there is actually a difference between
Speaker 1: purchasing real comments and bot comments. So purchase comments, which
Speaker 1: are apparently real are usually from freelancers, so they are
Speaker 1: made from humans and are less likely to be identified
Speaker 1: by YouTube's algorithm, whereas fake comments come from bots and
Speaker 1: they are usually a bunch of words jumble together which
Speaker 1: don't really mean much, or just generic things like follow
Speaker 1: us for this. Yes, but there are many companies online
Speaker 1: who do sell YouTube comments, so these YouTube comments in question,
Speaker 1: they were probably not put out obviously by a genuine
Speaker 1: company that has a high quality service. The other theory
Speaker 1: is that potentially the girls are involved in an engagement pod,
Speaker 1: and we have spoken about them on the podcast before.
Speaker 1: But if you haven't listened. Basically, they are a group
Speaker 1: of users that come together to like and comment on
Speaker 1: each other's posts with the purpose of gaining greater reach.
Speaker 1: So what happens is someone will share a link in
Speaker 1: the group and urge the people in the group to
Speaker 1: go and like the photo and also comment, and sometimes
Speaker 1: people will give examples of the sort of comments they'd
Speaker 1: like users to share. Surely they're not doing that because
Speaker 1: they are so big on social media. Surely someone would screenshop,
Speaker 1: but also with the account names as well, Like I
Speaker 1: think it would be more, you know, if it was
Speaker 1: all of because engagement pods are usually all the people
Speaker 1: are in there for the same reason, they want to
Speaker 1: become influencers, and they're all sort of the similar demographic.
Speaker 1: This seems a little bit odd, yea. But the thing
Speaker 1: that is odd is the fact that the comments really
Speaker 1: relate to the girls. The girls being inspirational includes their name.
Speaker 1: So perhaps they have employed a social media manager or
Speaker 1: someone to increase their engagement online, and either the manager
Speaker 1: has gone and bought very cheap comments, or the manager
Speaker 1: is engaged in one of these weird engagement posit or
Speaker 1: doesn't really make sense. I've always thought, what is there
Speaker 1: to stop another arrival? Influencers say, purchasing fake comments for
Speaker 1: another one, because all you have to have is the
Speaker 1: person's username. So someone could go, oh, I want to
Speaker 1: make the Mesciar Twins look bad, I'm I'm going to
Speaker 1: purchase some really bad bot comments on their account. Well,
Speaker 1: another reason that some influencers do purchase comments is not
Speaker 1: to increase engagement, but it's to flood out negative comments.
Speaker 1: So if someone if an influencer has had a controversy lately,
Speaker 1: and the whole comments section is filled with negative hate
Speaker 1: field comments, they might not want their advertisers or sponsors
Speaker 1: to see it, so they will pay for a whole
Speaker 1: load of people to leave glowing reports of how much
Speaker 1: they love the person and how much their influence by them.
Speaker 1: So potentially this could have happened here as well. Or
Speaker 1: maybe they've just got seven Burner accounts and they didn't
Speaker 1: tell each other that they were going to be leaving
Speaker 1: the same comment. Well, I felt like if you had
Speaker 1: a Burner account, you probably wouldn't name it fuck me
Speaker 1: and all this sort of probably not She's the least
Speaker 1: exciting to look at. Toby Pierce has announced he's stepping
Speaker 1: down from his role as chief executive officer at Sweat,
Speaker 1: the fitness empire he founded alongside ex fiance Kayla Itsinus
Speaker 1: now Amy. Many people are speculating the move could have
Speaker 1: something to do with both Toby and Kayla recently finding
Speaker 1: love with new partners. Yeah, that's right. So so Toby
Speaker 1: went Instagram official with his new girlfriend, fitness influencer Rachel
Speaker 1: Dylan one month ago, and just a few weeks later,
Speaker 1: Kayla announced she was in a relationship with her former
Speaker 1: best friend Jay Woodroff Now. Toby's decision to step down
Speaker 1: comes less than a year after he and former fiance
Speaker 1: Kayla Estinas sold the business to US software giant i
Speaker 1: Fit Health and Fitness. So in July last year, The
Speaker 1: Australian reported that Toby and Kayla received a fifty to
Speaker 1: fifty split of proceeds from the sale of Sweat, which
Speaker 1: was sold for a reported four hundred million dollars. And
Speaker 1: many people remember Sweat was of course known as a
Speaker 1: bikini body training company previously, which started in twenty thirteen,
Speaker 1: and this is when Kayla and Toby began selling ebooks.
Speaker 1: So prior to Toby stepping down, there was a lot
Speaker 1: of discussion around whether Toby's relationship with Rachel Dillon could
Speaker 1: be a conflict of interest, and this is because Rachel
Speaker 1: also has her own fitness app called Move with Us.
Speaker 1: So Rachel's story is very similar to Kayla's in that
Speaker 1: she worked as a personal trainer and then launched an ebook.
Speaker 1: Rachel then created her own app and now has over
Speaker 1: forty staff working for her. I'd be embarrassed to say
Speaker 1: it because I was very oblivious to who Rachel Dylon was,
Speaker 1: but she actually is worth a reported fifty eight million dollars,
Speaker 1: so extremely successful in her own right, and it seems
Speaker 1: like she doesn't need Toby's help as she is already
Speaker 1: such a big success, And from what I've heard around
Speaker 1: the traps in Adelaide, Toby is very much focused on
Speaker 1: new business ventures because he has already found so much
Speaker 1: success with sweats, so he may just be stepping down
Speaker 1: to pursue other business opportunities. And I think Rachel would
Speaker 1: be quite protective of her own business, but it just
Speaker 1: isn't the best look at the moment because they do
Speaker 1: have competing fears app So there is obviously going to
Speaker 1: be a lot of speculation, especially in a small town
Speaker 1: like Adelaide. Yeah, what's a complete conflict of interest? Really? Well,
Speaker 1: I personally think that Toby's announcement has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with his new relationship, because it's quite clear that these
Speaker 1: relationships have been going on for a lot longer in private.
Speaker 1: Well don't you think as a pr move though, that
Speaker 1: you would then want to announce it well into the future,
Speaker 1: you know, not like shortly after these relationships have been
Speaker 1: made public. Well, the thing is, Toby indicated to the
Speaker 1: advertiser that him stepping down was part of the transition
Speaker 1: process to iFIT who have bought out the company, So
Speaker 1: it makes a lot of sense. And he told the
Speaker 1: newspaper that he had agreed to continue to do certain
Speaker 1: things that set the business up for future success, and
Speaker 1: he had already achieved those things, which is why he
Speaker 1: was stepping down. So he's going to be replaced as
Speaker 1: chief executive by Adam Kosh, who has been Sweat's chief
Speaker 1: operating officer for the last three years. But Toby has
Speaker 1: confirmed he will be staying on as an advisor for
Speaker 1: the company. But do you think that this is all
Speaker 1: quite convenient that I fit have stepped in and you know,
Speaker 1: like it's quite it would be very awkward to be
Speaker 1: working closely with your ex fiance. I mean, they do
Speaker 1: share a child together, and from all reports they seem
Speaker 1: very amicable. But let's not forget that it does create
Speaker 1: a different dimension when you do add other partners in,
Speaker 1: particularly one that has a competing fitness app. I really
Speaker 1: feel like this has a lot to do with Toby's
Speaker 1: decision to move on from Sweat.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 1: I think it's more so that they decided to try
Speaker 1: and sell the business when they split up. The whole
Speaker 1: thing is Kayla is the face of Sweat. She can't
Speaker 1: move on Without her, there is no Sweat, and while
Speaker 1: they have implemented new trainers, I think that it would
Speaker 1: be very detrimental if she was to move on as
Speaker 1: the face of that brand. However, Toby is of course
Speaker 1: in the background, so he can move on. And I
Speaker 1: do recall when they came out with this decision to
Speaker 1: sell part of the business to I Fit, that it
Speaker 1: was very clear on the statement that they would be
Speaker 1: staying on in their roles. So I do think it's
Speaker 1: quite convenient that they're using it as an excuse that
Speaker 1: iFIT has now bought some of the business. I really
Speaker 1: think that Toby and Rachel must be the real deal though,
Speaker 1: because the fact that he is willing to leave such
Speaker 1: a profitable and lucrative business it says a lot, and
Speaker 1: they have been doing it long distance for a while.
Speaker 1: Toby is still staying in Adelaide as well, so I
Speaker 1: do wonder if Rachel's going to do a move over
Speaker 1: to Adelaide. The thing is, he's already made his two
Speaker 1: hundred million or so from the business. He was only
Speaker 1: in that role to help it transition to the new owners.
Speaker 1: And as you touched on Sophie, he has confirmed that
Speaker 1: he is staying in Adelaide because there were rumors swirling
Speaker 1: that maybe he was thinking of moving because his Beaumont
Speaker 1: house is up for sale. It goes to auction this week.
Speaker 1: But of course he has just bought a five million
Speaker 1: dollar penthouse apartment in Adelaide, so it looks like he's
Speaker 1: staying put now. On the topic of Kayla has seenus,
Speaker 1: I found this very funny because for a long time
Speaker 1: she has cultivated this social media following without giving too
Speaker 1: many details about her life. But she is becoming more
Speaker 1: and more transparent with who she is and what she does,
Speaker 1: and I think a very important part of this was
Speaker 1: sharing her McDonald's order, because I remember, being someone that
Speaker 1: lives in Adelaide, there are always rumors going around about
Speaker 1: Kayla had seenus, and I remember people being like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, I saw her eating a boost bar at
Speaker 1: the supermarket and people acting like she's not allowed to
Speaker 1: have any takeaway. So she's confirmed that she does in
Speaker 1: fact order McDonald's, which I think is fairly obvious, and
Speaker 1: her go to order is a large McChicken meal with fries,
Speaker 1: a coke, a small caramel Sunday and an apple pie. Refreshing?
Speaker 1: Is this after hearing Sarah's day's McDonald's order of a
Speaker 1: naked egg McMuffin. Yes, it was rather refreshing. I've got
Speaker 1: to note what are your go to McDonald's orders. We
Speaker 1: all have the same one. It has to be a
Speaker 1: steamed bun preferably a big macmeal with no meat in
Speaker 1: the burger, and a coke zero. And I've trained Brandon
Speaker 1: to order this for me at the drive through. So
Speaker 1: I think that's all we've got time for today. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us for another episode, and
Speaker 1: if you want to join in on the conversation, head
Speaker 1: over to our Facebook community which has outspoken of the
Speaker 1: podcast community. Also, we'd love it if you could leave
Speaker 1: us a five star review.