PewDiePie and other YouTubers took money from Warner Bros
theverge.com
theverge.com
The bribes aren't cash. They'll fly you to a hotel to play, carter the whole weekend, give speeches about the game. And send you home with a lot of swag. Also these function as industry events since so many reviewers are there. You also sign an NDA about the event because it would be trouble some if the public got word how this systems works.
I guess we should be shocked it was a raw cash deal, but that's just the next logical step. Generally you can't assume a game review is fair unless it was produced post release.
Not really. The issue is market size.
So many wanna be reviewers will happily sell out for 15minutes of fame. Changing/discarding people is commonly done by the audience AND reviewers at a whim.
Furthermore game sales are done as impulse buys on the strength of a franchise, or studio. Look at the market for pre-orders. People don't purchase escapism rationally, as escapism isn't a rational experience.
Demanding integrity out of this system is the battle cry of naive. Studio's don't allow, profit motive doesn't push for it, and those demanding it are a minority. The only choice is to stop buying games by large publishers period. If you don't have the integrity to do this, you aren't in a position to demand it from others.
No one ever said that the problem was easy
Edit [Major addition, lol]:
Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still. And after watching a video response by him it seems he's in the legal right here. Before the FTC even had regulations for this, he was disclosing in the description of the video but it wasn't at the top of the description. Now he does both the description disclosure AND a mention of sponsorship BEFORE the LP. And it's not uncommon for the same thing to happen in the Paradox LP community (Arumba has mentioned at least one time in an LP that he was flown out and/or sponsored for the LP of a Paradox game which I think was HoI4). So, I'm not really keen to bite this click bait crap. Frankly, I think the Verge should edit this article with a major correction at the top of the article stating the promotional videos were done prior to FTC and YT/Google regulations existed on the matter.
"You folks" are the millions of teenagers who don't know any better. The people who expect youtubers to be corporate shills aren't normally the people who actually watch them.
Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect -- those who can afford Payola can buy lots of advertising, without indicating that they are doing so, giving themselves an unfair advantage.
Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc). I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing, but the current standard is that a disclosure must be UNAVOIDABLE. IE, a best practice is to put the disclosure IN THE VIDEO TITLE and IN THE VIDEO ITSELF.
I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an LPer do an LP sponsored or not. The content of the LP is still entertaining. What WB's agency did was give them explicit instructions to hide disclosures and avoid negative comments. The reason why PewDiePie and other LPers involved aren't being fined regardless of whether they've conformed to these requests or not (in the case of PewDiePie he actually put the disclosure in the description so legally he's off the hook regardless of how you or I feel) is due to the fact the regulation came out AFTER the fact.
"Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect..."
Unless there's a communist revolution in the near future I'm not seeing this as criminal as it's not criminal in and of itself. So don't try this angle unless you can show me a law that says rich people can't get richer categorically. I'm not interested in moral assessments in a legal situation I just want the legal facts not one's moral sentiments.
"Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc)."
Then I think the new regulation needs to be expanded to enforce content non-modification on presentation via third parties (DMCA could work here I think as the justification).
"I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing..."
The FTC as not fine PewDiePie and in their press release they've made no further mention of it him other than an example of some of the LPers that were working with the agency hired by WB. And since the regulation came AFTER the game and LPs were done they're not going to be fined, ever. So just deal with the fact his annoying self is going to be gracing YT for the foreseeable future (even I cringe at that thought, eew). But the fact you all are overblowing the actual legal impact of this case demonstrates a critical break from the reality of it and dishonesty on part of sites like the Verge (at least Variety reported that PewDiePie clarified the situation rather than tried to ignore it like the Verge has done so far). So, now I refuse to go to the Verge's site until they add to the beginning of the article that PewDiePie and other LPers are not in violation of the regulations as is. Until then I'm going to call out the writer and the Verge as dishonest. If they want to win me back start by reporting the facts and not supposition.
Certainly, in the past, doing this for reviewers of other commercial products (as well as outright tying of ad purchases to favorable reviews) has been distressingly common; the general corruption of the entire system of commercially-published reviews of commercially-significant products is the reason things like Consumer Reports exist as an alternative to traditional commercially-published reviews.
I know about all of their claims of objectivity. Wondering if they work completely in practice.
Since its made of people, obviously.
What it doesn't have is biases from people either buying stuff for reviewers or using advertising dollars as leverage to encourage better reviews.
I don't know if this is now or has ever been the case.
Instead, according to the complaint, Warner Bros. instructed influencers to place the disclosures in the description box appearing below the video. Because Warner Bros. also required other information to be placed in that box, the vast majority of sponsorship disclosures appeared “below the fold,” visible only if consumers clicked on the “Show More” button in the description box. In addition, when influencers posted YouTube videos on Facebook or Twitter, the posting did not include the “Show More” button, making it even less likely that consumers would see the sponsorship disclosures.
[1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/warne...
Please. Youtubers have only to put "sponsored stream" in the title to remove all doubt and be honest about it. It is a common practice, and many fans are not bothered when it happens, or think less of the youtuber since it is understood their need to monetize.
If they purposely accepted a contract that told them to hide the fact that they were being sponsored, they are as reprehensible as WB.
Their credibility took a hit which could destroy your whole enterprise.
PewDiePie was the Click Bait Name
Added Video (Never saw a video of him before) Here is his reply https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8
This headline is misleading. It suggests that this is news. It isn't - PewDiePie disclosed that he was paid to promote WB's game and did so from the start when he made the videos. The FTC investigation was over whether the existing disclosure was enough, and it was determined it wasn't.
Which begs the question: how much was the fine? If it was trivial, that would explain why WB did it; the marketing benefit would've more-than-offset the costs, fines included.
the fines are always less than the gain
For example, you take out a monthly deal for some standard normal advertising, and if their coverage is negative you stop renewing it.
Or you call a press conference at an exotic location and provide free flights and accommodation for select journalists. Who happen to have given you consistently positive coverage in the past.
1. YouTube streamers are getting paid to play games on stream by content creators / publishers. That's great, and much more interesting than an ad (it's nearly impossible to the product to actually be terrible and have this make it look good). The company, the streamer, and the consumer all win to a certain degree here.
2. A company was punished for breaking the law and lying. Great!
The only thing missing, for me, is a disclosure from the streamer that they are being paid to play a particular game. Just be honest, it'll make for a more compelling review.
Last year, when this problem started to get attention from the FTC and other regulators, TotalBiscuit posted a detailed explanation of proper disclosure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSvHhDmIe6Q
It really is that simple in most cases; just be very clear that you were paid (a free copy of the game counts), and let the viewer decide what they want to watch. I suspect their view-counts will stay about the same if the streamer is careful to put the same effort into paid videos as they do for their normal content. People watch the better streamers to see the character the streamer is creating and/or the show they produce. A good entertainer should be able to work with - or around, if necessary - paid demonstrations.
It does make me wonder how many people in the early 20th century were pretty comfortable with Standard Oil's business practices because they also created kerosene that didn't blow up in your face and kill your loved ones.
I wish I could change the title, but sadly, it's to late.
>THE FTC SAYS DISCLAIMERS IN THE YOUTUBE DESCRIPTION WERE NOT ENOUGH