Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
We don't instruct our influences that they cannot be negative about our product not instruct them to be positive. We agree how often the products need to be shown, and include a few other things (link to product in description, etc.)
ASA's guidance was that for this we do not need to disclose anything about paying these influencers. I pointed out that although we don't specifically give them these instructions, the reality is that if one of them was negative we would kill the deal, and therefore were we essentially breaking the rules and just not putting it in writing - they said that no, we were fine until the first time we kill a deal because they said something negative. At that point on we have set a precedent and will need to have all our influencers disclose that they are being paid by us for these videos. But not until then.
Worth noting that our videos are fairly obvious - we generally have a 5 second logo clip that they play, the link in the description goes through what is obviously an adserver (though sometimes via bit.ly) - so we aren't trying hard to hide the fact. Although this was not relevant to ASA's answer to us.
Edit: Worth noting I work in Europe only, nothing in the US. Have also checked in Germany/France where we do the same thing, and there they don't seem to care right now, so no issues.
[1] http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-code...
Mmmm... Isn't Top Gear all about product placement?
Obviously some manufacturers get a preferential treatment (Land Rover!) in order to keep the presenters in character, but given both the show's success without promotional money and the certain scandal and cancellation of the show (BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product placement) if the producers were to be paid off I highly doubt there's any product placement going on.
You've never seen the Graham Norton Show I take it. It's a thinly veiled infomercial - someone's promoting a book, this persons promoting a movie, this one's selling a new single.
When appearing on BBC though, at work, I was not allowed to wear my company uniform tshirt - cause you know not allowed to advertise ...
... Actually I just looked and in the text of the journal entry in which the UCPD is written out there is at Annex 1 this statement, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2... :
"11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial). This is without prejudice to Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)"
So? It may well not be contrary to the ASA's rules but it appears to be contrary to European law. [Ratified in a UK Act of 2008 it seems]
If you're buying advertising in this manner how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements to prevent them being fraudulent, or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful).
No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products.
The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product.
Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are.
> how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements
I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial".
> or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful)
I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal.
In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S...
There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.
Which budget are you paying them from, advertising. What profession are you in, marketing. What are you hoping to gain from this project, increased sales.
You are using them to promote the product. They're paid endorsements.
I view it the same way that nobody would look at a football (soccer) team's shirts and think "wow, those players must love that company!" despite there not being a "this is an advertisement" text on the shirts.
If I wanted to deceive viewers then I would change the terms of the deal to not show the 5 second clip or the floating 3D laptop, and to not have a link in the description of the video (or at least not one that can be seen to go through an adserver URL), then I would get him to make his comments about the laptop more subtle, but more frequent across all his videos. This would still be completely legal, despite having much more potential to mislead viewers, but certainly arguably less ethical.
Here [2] is an example of (non-YouTube) another thing I've done for a brand, to show that when it isn't already imminently obvious we do make sure that the paid nature is explicitly stated.
So: do you disagree with my judgement that there is no need for a specific note on such an obvious piece of activity? I would hope and assume you will once you see it, but if not then I'll certainly go get a few more opinions to see if I should change mine.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CiQfMtSOgM
[2] http://www.pcgamesn.com/sponsored-post-introducing-qpad-prof...
I'd certainly suspect it - but it's presented as "oh look, I'm your fried, I just found this deal online". Certainly those less jaded by life, than I, I think wouldn't realise.
You of course would know because you know that companies are doing this sort of marketing - I suspect many people don't realise such endorsements are paid. Those more savvy would assume that the link below the vid is an affiliate link but probably not that the presenter was paid for the actual placement.
I've been watching Arrow lately and it's really obnoxious there (though not really any more so than other shows that Microsoft has their marketing hooks into). For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRZ03SFB68
This is consistent. Every time a character uses a computer, there are several solid seconds of LET US SHOW YOU THE NEW WINDOWS.
Part of me really wants this kind of information to be recorded somewhere and made public some number of decades into the future. It would be absolutely fascinating as a student (in the broader sense) of technology and business to read all the confidential agreements, product placements, and back-room deals that facilitated the outcomes of technological history, even if it's after a very long delay.
By any practical measure Apple is indeed paying in that they gift the show with free iPads / iPhones / Computers / etc. Hence why the credits usually say that "promotional considerations" were provided by Apple.
However as others have said, Apple appearances do tend to be much more subtle, insofar as a big Apple logo is subtle.
In those cases, Apple is clearly not paying to have their merch being used and the show clearly didn't get approval to "officially" use the Apple logo which is why they had to cover it. But, in the end, it is still clear that this thing they use is an iMac.
To put it another way, the frontal shots typically used to frame the Apple logo are from the conventions of dialog, not atmospherics. The Apple logo tells us about the executive producer and nothing about the character. It's not ironic, satirical, or editorial. Just cynical.
Of course, MS can't do that with the surface cause it is so unremarkable so they just have to show the UI which is what makes it awkward as they really like to linger and make sure you really see that this is the original UI the device comes with.
When you see people using a Mac, for example on "Bones", you will just a custom created UI they interact with. I hear these are mostly flash animation that are supposed to look "techy" while not being boring. Which, incidentally is why things like tracking an IP or similar is looking to hilarious as it is done in the most graphical, bells and whistles kind of way. Even when they just send an email out in a scene they will use a custom animation instead of having the character really interact with OSX and use the standard mail client.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means - my mobile devices are all Android, and I primarily work on Windows machines. I don't have any issue with characters using modern technologies as part of a story, but when the storytelling detours for the sole purpose of advertising a product, it gets wonky.
Some more of my favorite examples:
Nissan/Fringe - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4fY1_NSxF0
Windows Phone/Castle - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFPcvcTzdYY
Hyundai/Burn Notice - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4xlSN9_XT0
Subway/Hawaii-50 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQYwFND7rHE
On the flip side, Chuck did Subway's product placement very well - they just leaned into it and played it for laughs, rather than trying to oh-so-cleverly have Serious Characters eat Serious Lunch with Serious Nutritional Value. The show just owned the fact that Subway had shoved a crackload of cash at them and went overboard with it.
I also like the Archer where Archer gets the spy car: "thanks, Dodge!" " So how much did Dodge kick in?" "Not as much as you'd think..."
TV is just ads for ads. There's a reason Hulu sucks so much.
Kudos for voting with your eyes.
You just blew your endorsement money.
Professionalism is mostly about signalling to colleges, customers, bosses, etc. Similar to wearing pants. I wear pants in public and particularly to work because that is what professionalism looks like in my industry and society. When I'm at home, when nobody is paying attention to what I do, I kick off the pants and put on some gym shorts (even if I'm working from home).
Protesting silently is an old phenomenon. Frankly, if an artist was enthusiastic about every person who financed their work, I wouldn't consider them a professional.
Even worse were the ones by Toyota for Warehouse 13, in the show, everyone gifts a Toyota Prius, everyone rentals a Toyota Prius, heck they even had an episode where while other cars are melting down, they drive the Prius through the hot burning lava perfectly fine!
Nowadays marketers don't even care about subtlety, product placements are becoming more and more obvious to ignore!
This is a complete sham!
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...
Due to Apple’s enormous success and many fanatical fans I don’t think it’s necessary for Apple to do things like that.
But just look at Gruber. While I still bothered to click the occasional Gruber link-bait I seem to recall he on several occasions mentioned equipment which he "had gotten from Apple". I'm assuming that means he didn't pay.
I'm sure I say stuff like that loads of places. Especially on the hipster SF blogs which for a period made this website almost unreadable.
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...
>...I don’t think it’s necessary for Apple to do things like that.
The problem with people (like you) is that they see things as 'black' or 'white' or 'good' or 'bad'. Any signs of the possibility of shades of grey are dismissed without second thought. Most if not all companies pay the media and do shady stuff under the radar while they can.
Apple does play favorites. If you are in Apple's good graces and play by their rules, their team will give you early access to you have more time to write in-depth reviews about their devices (But don't EVER think about prematurely releasing the story). If you get on their bad side, you're pretty much stuck and have to wait like normal people for launched product releases.
I find it that quite unethical. It's no different than paying Reddit commenters for mentioning it.
Ignoring the fact that the Xbox One has been selling great, isn't that more or less the point of marketing? Make a product seem popular, generate buzz, make money?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
Edit: I am a bit shocked to see so many people (well, accounts) arguing astroturfing is OK, it used to be despised and big news when Microsoft did it then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Incidents I will assume that is more astroturfing. Otherwise, goodbye Internet as an information source....
If you're dumb enough to believe 'free' advice you pretty much deserve what you get. Remember when the service is free, the product is you.
Our entire society is astroturfed whats possibly more sad is that people can get genuinely caught up in these campaigns and start spreading them for free.
No, looking from the "what I expect" perspective, most people expect these bloggers/youtubers to reflect the "opinion of the crowds" and to reflect reality more accurate I guess. In this light, Microsoft's attempt to pay them could be seen as unethical.
Personally I never trusted of these bloggers/youtubers so I'm far from shocked with this news. I expect them to be doing that by the very nature of their "jobs", if not for direct profit from vendors, then for ad-click revenue.
I'd say don't be naive with anything, specially things involving products and revenue.
There are entire startups whose job it is to set up advertisers and YouTubers with this type of arrangement - look no further than FullScreen, BigFrame, et al...
One is that you're correct, it has been happening for years within the industry, so it's kind of weird to see an article almost in the style of an "expose" on the practice.
Two is that it really isn't getting huge market traction. Or it wasn't at the time when I was working more closely with it. It was considered more like a value-add or diversification strategy alongside other media buys and not a primary strategy.
It's not the first time this has come up, and I bet they've done similar things for their other software in the past. As you could read in the article, they know how to cover their butts quite well, as such it's immensely hard to prove, but iirc, Mark Penn used to run a company called Burston-Marsteller that went quite far in the Microsoft evangelism (shilling).
Some notable examples: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-micr...
It's downright disgusting and misleading. Market your stuff until the cows come home, but don't try to act as if it's organic interest while it's actually a paid product placement, which is exactly what's happening here.
That's intentional misdirection, bribery wrapped in an NDA. I hope the FTC takes interest in such blatant disregard of ethics in marketing. Microsoft may be big, but it has to play by the rules too.
And no, it's not okay because some other firm does it.
I don't get how Microsoft tries to play the angel of ethics when throwing mud at other companies, but doesn't really respect its (potential) customers when it comes to their own PR.
The best thing you can do is not play their game.
"These kinds of payments aren't inherently suspect in and of themselves. If the video makers disclosed that Microsoft was paying extra for these videos, and if they were allowed to say whatever they wanted in those videos, then the whole thing could be seen as merely an unorthodox way to increase exposure for the Xbox One on YouTube.
That's not the case, however. According to a leaked copy of the full legal agreement behind the promotion, video creators "may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One, or any of its Games" and must keep the details of the promotional agreement confidential in order to qualify for payment. In other words, to get the money, video makers have to speak positively (or at least neutrally) about the Xbox One, and they can't say they're being paid to do so."
I don't know if being "against FTC guidelines" is equivalent to "illegal" or not. But let's hope so.
The great thing about modern society is that most consumers have evolved enough savvy to be suspect of almost all brand-encounters. Even to the point of alerting to a lot of sure false-positives.
Comparing the good points of the two Glossy Blu-Ray Players would make a good comparison of the two I believe.
"That shit will BLOW UP!!!"
Here's hoping they're right. Again.
This is on the level of finding out Santa Clause isn't real and politicians are generally liars.