By Ariffin Sha
At 6pm on Christmas Eve, Gushcloud released their official statement in response accusations from local well-known blogger Wendy Cheng (also known as Xiaxue) about their unethical behaviour in the blogger endorsement business.
TOC’s has earlier published a summary of Xiaxue’s blog post and Gushcloud’s initial response.
Gushcloud had earlier posted a quick statement via an Instagram post together with an image that says, magnanimously, “Live and let live”.
ll
In the official response, CEO and co-founder Vincent Ha refuted Xiaxue’s allegations in detail. Mr Ha explained the delay in the official response of more than a day was due to the consultation of its investors, clients, influencers and lawyers and to seek permission to make some data public.
Refutation 1: Mistaken reports on earnings
Mr Ha said that almost half of Gushcloud’s revenue in 2012 was made in the last quarter of 2012. With regards to the interview that Xiaxue quoted, he said that he was personally in the United States and one of his employees had spoken to the media about their earnings which was mistakenly construed to be $170,000 monthly.
Mr Ha acknowledged that the company could have issued a clarification, although he was not aware of the mistake then. He said that there was never an intention to “inflate earnings” as claimed by Xiaxue, and that it was an honest mistake which they will acknowledge and take responsibility for. He assured readers that Gushcloud’s conscience was clear.
Refutation 2: Ad masking? We carry mentions of vendors
Mr Ha stated that Gushcloud does not force their influencers to astroturf or pretend that they are not paid for the promotion of a product. Xiaxue’s accusation was supported entirely by Gushcloud’s email which said “posts should not be like advertisements”. Mr Ha indicated that the company intention was to make it a point that “ad advertisements are not fun to read and are not the most effective”.
Mr Ha added that Gushcloud does not dictate the disclosure requirements to their bloggers as the laws in Singapore do not require it, nor does Gushcloud stop bloggers from including disclosures like “Sponsored Post” or “Advertorial” in their entries. He also cited various examples where bloggers have done so.
lll
In reference to the request by Xiaxue through her fake company on not to reveal the fact that it was an advertisement. Mr Ha said that Gushcloud would normally check with their bloggers if they are comfortable with it.

“If they are comfortable, we share with them the client’s preference because our intention is to offer the best service to our clients… What we do is lawful. The law does not require disclosures right now and this framework allows our bloggers to have the flexibility to write in their way which they are comfortable with.”

Refutation 3: No inflation of readership figures
Mr Ha claims that the tracking links Xiaxue put on Gushcloud bloggers do not show the accurate numbers. Citing “many technical reasons for this”, he said that between the blogger’s own Google Analytics and Xiaxue’s tracking link, which uses aspects of Google Analytics, Gushcloud chooses to defer to the numbers from the blogger.
Mr Ha also listed several examples where the page views of the bloggers correspond to the presentation deck given to potential advertisers. These figures are updated automatically in the presentation deck.

What Gushcloud presented about Ms Yan Kay Kay in 2014
What Gushcloud presented about Ms Yan Kay Kay in 2014
What Google Analytics says about her numbers in 2014
Numbers presented by Gushclouds on its bloggers statistics from Google Analytics
Gushcloud also noted that its current system of using manual methods to update blogger statistics might be inadequate, and indicated plans to automate this in the near future.
Refutation 4: Buying views and subscribers on YouTube? Figures speak for themselves
Mr Ha made reference to the personal statement by his co-founder, Ms Althea Lim which provided the figures that disputed Xiaxue’s claims of paid views for the YouTube channels of Gushcloud’s bloggers.
In addition, Mr Vincent also noted that YouTube does regularly remove fake video views too.

“In summary, we don’t buy YouTube views,” wrote Mr ha. “We are here for the long-term and our reputation is precious to us.”

Refutation 5: Financials messy for a new start-up
Mr Ha noted that of all the five allegations, this is perhaps the most damaging to Gushcloud as it suggests that they are unable to pay their bloggers and vendors and risk losing their faith, and the company is financially unsound.
Mr Ha accused Xiaxue of cherry picking documents to create a loss of confidence in his company. He made reference to the Qualified Opinion from Gushcloud’s 2012 Financial Report, when the company was a start-up and record keeping was messy as they were expanding.
He reassured supporters that Gushcloud is able to pay its bloggers and vendors and cash flow is healthy.

“The fact of the matter is 2011 and 2012 were tough years, we had many bumps and we nearly failed. 2013 was better but we were still learning our way. In 2014, things have improved but yet we have to face new challenges as a bigger company. I have every confidence that Gushcloud will keep growing, learning and improving because we have good teams.”

Conclusion
Mr Vincent on a somewhat friendly note, expressed that Xiaxue is entitled to her own opinion, but also reminded readers of her association with Nuffnang, Gushcloud’s competitor.

“There are many areas in which we can agree to disagree on because this is the nature of competition. But let’s look at ways in which we compete on providing the best service to our influencers and our clients instead of dragging each other through mud.”

While Gushcloud had indicated earlier that it was exploring legal options, but it is not certain from this statement if they will proceed with any legal actions against Xiaxue.
 
 
 

Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

GIC continues to deliver “steady long-term returns” but refuses to publish them in SGD term

It was reported in the media today (13 Jul) that Singapore’s GIC…

Nearly 50 million Facebook accounts hacked due to existing vulnerability on platform

Facebook users were shocked as the news spread about how nearly 50…

直批执政党傲慢 林鼎:应透过选举改变现状

继昨日(30日)提名日之后,人民之声确认竞选三选区,其中一大看点,是林鼎亲自领军,到惹兰勿刹对垒原人力部长杨莉明团队,林鼎早前就已抨击杨莉明在处理客工宿舍疫情上失策。 他强调,此次选举是有关人民行动党杨莉明与执政政府的无能和傲慢。林鼎也指出,执政党在执政61年后,已经变得“又聋又瞎”,拒绝聆听人民的声音。 早前有网民戴着“反行动党”口罩,似乎引起原国务资政张志贤不悦。林鼎表示:“作为政治家,你得学会接受,总会有人反对你。但你不应该出言冒犯,因为你必须尊重选举的用意。” 随后,他也提及杨莉明过去针对客工宿舍问题的回应,他表示,他们不愿意道歉,是因为执政党的傲慢。 “杨莉明应为疫情负责” 尽管理解政府并非完美无瑕,但人民会期望政府能够达到自我评估和在必要时道歉,并向人民保证将会作出改善。 显然,他指出,杨莉明在此次疫情处理上,表现出傲慢的态度,让新加坡陷入深渊,甚至最后只能进入封锁阶段,控制疫情。对此,他表示,杨莉明应该对此负责。 除了杨莉明,他也点名其他前部长,如原卫生部长颜金勇、原教育部长王乙康等,他表示,部长们均在岗位上擅离职守,因此应该辞职以示负责。 “杨莉明,几乎需要一个人,为这场灾难负责。因为这场灾难,使我们被迫进入长达两个月的封锁阶段,导致许多企业和个人财务上陷入困难。” 林鼎强调,下届大选正是为国家带来改变的时机,让国家更公平更繁荣,而非仅对少数特权者有利,大选的目的也是为了确保新加坡人和下一代能够获得更好的工作。 他指出,外国人的收入会比本地人来的高并不是因为当地人无能或不愿意工作,而是对于工作不透明。 林鼎认为,从政府的职业库中,经常将永久居留和新加坡人混为一谈,因此他也质问,每季度新加坡人的失业率和就业人数。他强调,新加坡人必须独立出来,因此这数字必须是透明。…