Catherine Tyldesley: Ex-Coronation Street star hits back after 'bizarre' row over free cakes

The whole 'responding to **** taking influencer demands' is pretty much it's own social media advertising strategy in itself these days.

This has only blown up because for once the 'influencer' is actually someone that people know rather than an unknown instagram model, even if they weren't directly making the requests themselves.
 
Hutch said:
Just the epitome of freeloaders wanting something for nothing.

That said I'm not sure why the bakery is publicising their response either? A polite no thanks, or even just no reply at all and no-one cares right?
Click to expand...
Could just be a natural reaction at the time, a way of venting frustration.

These 'influencers' do need stopping tbh.
 
Last edited:
superleeds27 said:
Could just be a natural reaction at the time, a way of venting frustration.

These 'influencers' do need stopping tbh.
Click to expand...

Could have easily been done while keeping the agency anonymous and remained a funny anecdote rather than "blowing up", but methinks that was the point - seems like a publicity stunt from the bakery to me, their own attempt at becoming "influencers".

I'm not quite sure what they've achieved however, other than "influencing" businesses to avoid using their services in future :cry:
 
Last edited:
Martynt74 said:
Exactly this, the email itself wasn't that bad and given it was also going to be advertised in a magazine, with an offer to use them professionally (maybe) for future events, it doesn't seem like the typical nobody wanting something for nothing.

They'd have probably got more business by doing it than being pathetic and posting their response.
Click to expand...

It's always jam cake tomorrow!
 
or the bakery thought their target market was not OK magazine readers (what's OK's demographic, like the Sun ?)

[
death of the influencer - I think companies who want to advertise stuff will increasingly realise that social media has poorer revenue conversion than (ascendant) Netflix/streaming adds
ofgem today, talking about further decline of linear tv - but the rise of streaming with adds is another thing.
]
 
I'm not feeling the outrage on this one.

  • "Influencer" (Tyldesly) is contracted to do a gig for promo agency (NVRLND)
  • NVRLND ask cake company (TLBB) to supply goods in return for promotion in lieu of cash payment
  • TLBB refuse - to be honest there wasn't any need for a response of that nature, a simple "Sorry, but we do not engage in promotional work of this nature" would have been more than enough
Tyldesly has done nothing wrong and had literally no involvement in this, NVRLND has also not done anything wrong, TLBB has overreacted to a reasonable request from a prospect customer.

Here endeth my summary.
 
Last edited:
Lopéz said:
I'm not feeling the outrage on this one.

  • "Influencer" (Tyldesly) is contracted to do a gig for promo agency (NVRLND)
  • NVRLND ask cake company (TLBB) to supply goods in return for promotion in lieu of cash payment
  • TLBB refuse - to be honest there wasn't any need for a response of that nature, a simple "Sorry, but we do not engage in promotional work of this nature" would have been more than enough
Tyldesly has done nothing wrong and had literally no involvement in this, NVRLND has also not done anything wrong, TLBB has overreacted to a reasonable request from a prospect customer.

Here endeth my summary.
Click to expand...

You seem to see a lot of these kind of these outrages, however i agree, in this instance it seems completely mis targeted.
 
Should work for exposure even be a thing in this day and age? Especially on what appears to be quite a large order.
The only reason the event organisers ask is because it clearly works and they've probably taken advantage of plenty of people in the past.
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
Should work for exposure even be a thing in this day and age? Especially on what appears to be quite a large order.
The only reason the event organisers ask is because it clearly works and they've probably taken advantage of plenty of people in the past.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it probably is. It's effectively just the modern day marketing. So you'd just need to price up what it'd cost to make the cakes vs what it's cost to reach a premium level of client with other advertising means. If you're getting your product in front of celebrities who are often going to use catering companies like this then it could potentially be a market you'd otherwise not get into.
 
Lopéz said:
Here endeth my summary.
Click to expand...
Yup, exactly what happened.

Dialup said:
Influencer wanted free cakes instead of paying for them herself and the bakery said no. Influencer throws babies out of the pram. Bakery gets free exposure and influencer looks like a prat.
Click to expand...
This is the total opposite of what happened.

Dialup said:
influencers are genuinely scum of the Earth.
Click to expand...
She's not an influencer, she's an actor. She's been an actor since before the term influencer became common.
 
Dialup said:
Influencer wanted free cakes instead of paying for them herself and the bakery said no. Influencer throws babies out of the pram. Bakery gets free exposure and influencer looks like a prat.
Click to expand...

No, according to your story, an agency wanted that not the "influencer" (who is actually apparently some soap actress rather than an "influencer").

It's pretty standard for people with a following to be paid for promotional stuff though usually, it's the other way around, advertisers/agencies etc.. approaching them rather than them trying to solicit stuff they want. There was another story with an "influencer" type rather than a celeb wanting a free stay in a hotel in Ireland.

Hutch said:
Just the epitome of freeloaders wanting something for nothing.

That said I'm not sure why the bakery is publicising their response either? A polite no thanks, or even just no reply at all and no-one cares right?
Click to expand...

Well they don't want something for nothing, they want something in return for some publicity, something that does have value.

As for why the bakery is publicising its response - publicity having value again, this story has now gone viral and they've got a load of positive attention. They've also thrown in the stock phrases about how exposure doesn't pay their bills etc... that might be the case with say actors and other artistic people working for free but if you're running a small business then advertising does tend to help bring in customers and pay your bills.

The initial e-mail seemed off as they made very vague comments and the promise of some coverage in OK magazine has since been undermined by the celeb saying they're not involved. I think any small business taking up such an offer ought to check who exactly it is for, what sort of numbers they get for their social media posts and give some strict requirements like there must be at least one post featuring the cake itself (and not in among a selection of photos on the same post) with the bakery named and tagged on the first line of the comments etc.. + [some requirements re: duration it must remain, story posts for the other items and cake photo, not posted at the same time as a bunch of other updates from the same account etc..etc..) and if not fulfilled then an invoice of £X is due etc..

It just seemed quite vague and like complete chancers but it could be worthwhile in theory (if the bakery does mail-order stuff/isn't just local), supposedly someone with her following should be able to get $1000 - $3000 per post and if that's enough to cover the two cakes + cupcakes then... maybe worth a shot.

Also, it's hilarious how the husband shares her birthday but is apparently only getting a smaller cake. :D
 
Lopéz said:
I'm not feeling the outrage on this one.

  • "Influencer" (Tyldesly) is contracted to do a gig for promo agency (NVRLND)
  • NVRLND ask cake company (TLBB) to supply goods in return for promotion in lieu of cash payment
  • TLBB refuse - to be honest there wasn't any need for a response of that nature, a simple "Sorry, but we do not engage in promotional work of this nature" would have been more than enough
Tyldesly has done nothing wrong and had literally no involvement in this, NVRLND has also not done anything wrong, TLBB has overreacted to a reasonable request from a prospect customer.

Here endeth my summary.
Click to expand...

Haven't NVRLND said they aren't getting paid either?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom