S.T.A.G.E. said:
MDMAlliance said:
Except it's not advertisement because reviews are done with the premise of checking whether or not it should be bought. Advertisement is solely done for the case of selling the product. An advertisement for a product would not, in any way, turn potential buyers away from the product. Youtubers are NOT reviewing a game to make people buy the game, that's not their intention. Youtubers also do NOT do Let's Plays in order to get people to buy the game, though some of them may tell you at the end of their video to try it out (in that case, what the YouTuber says at the end is advertisement), but the Let's Play itself was not advertisement. Also, pewdiepie doesn't refer to it as "free advertisement." He specifically says "free exposure and publicity" because he knows it ISN'T advertisement.
|
Then lets just do it your way and call it free publicity. The argument still continues regardless, just a different wording.
|
I don't like people calling it "free advertising" because the word "advertising" itself has a connotation to it. When people call it that, it makes it look like it can only be good for the company. Because it's "Free" and it's "advertising," there is no reason it should be blocked. That's not the reality of the situation, so "free exposure and publicity" is a lot more accurate. It can be good, it can be bad. It also can mean that the company doesn't WANT that kind of exposure or publicity. Then things make more sense.
As for the program Nintendo is running, if it stays the way it does, I imagine more YouTubers will be dissatisfied and as a result, the benefits of having game content on YouTube will diminish (for Nintendo).
