By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Microsoft paying YouTubers for positive Xbox One coverage ( edited with more info )

Tagged games:

mysteryman on 21 January 2014
GribbleGrunger said:
I'm going to be diplomatic here and assume some people just don't get it.


For the sake of my faith in humanity, I shall do the same.



Around the Network
Normchacho on 21 January 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Figgycal said:

You're inherently misleading if you're not allowed to say anything negative about the console. You're definitely misleading if you're getting paid to talk about the console and keep it hidden (also illegal btw).


With that logic most advertising is illegal.


But this isn't advertising. These people are not a marketing company or part of MS. What they are paying for are private testimonials. The problem with that of course is that there are laws about using testimonials. It is against the law for MS to pay for a testimonial without disclosing that it's a paid testimonial.



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

NYANKS on 21 January 2014

The youtuber has to announce that they are being paid or it is illegal. The contract tells youtubers to not state that they are being paid to do this. Hence, it is illegal.



Mr Puggsly on 21 January 2014
Figgycal said:

? This isn't about reviews.

"You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video." Completely fine and to be expected  in advertising.

"You agree to keep confidential at all times all matters relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Promotional Requirements, and the CPM Compensation, listed above." Not fine.

This is in violation of the FTC guidelines that call for full transparancy when an endorsement is made.

 

I rarely see advertisers being open with all that information.

My guess is people with no expertiese on this subject are speculating.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

mysteryman on 21 January 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Figgycal said:

? This isn't about reviews.

"You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video." Completely fine and to be expected  in advertising.

"You agree to keep confidential at all times all matters relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Promotional Requirements, and the CPM Compensation, listed above." Not fine.

This is in violation of the FTC guidelines that call for full transparancy when an endorsement is made.

 

I rarely see advertisers being open with all that information.

My guess is people with no expertiese on this subject are speculating.

Obviously.



Around the Network
Porcupine_I on 21 January 2014



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Normchacho on 21 January 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Figgycal said:

? This isn't about reviews.

"You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video." Completely fine and to be expected  in advertising.

"You agree to keep confidential at all times all matters relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Promotional Requirements, and the CPM Compensation, listed above." Not fine.

This is in violation of the FTC guidelines that call for full transparancy when an endorsement is made.

 

I rarely see advertisers being open with all that information.

My guess is people with no expertiese on this subject are speculating.


Who's just speculating?

 

"The revised Guides also add new examples to illustrate the long standing principle that “material connections” (sometimes payments or free products) between advertisers and endorsers – connections that consumers would not expect – must be disclosed. These examples address what constitutes an endorsement when the message is conveyed by bloggers or other “word-of-mouth” marketers. The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. Likewise, if a company refers in an advertisement to the findings of a research organization that conducted research sponsored by the company, the advertisement must disclose the connection between the advertiser and the research organization. And a paid endorsement – like any other advertisement – is deceptive if it makes false or misleading claims."



Bet with Adamblaziken:

I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.

Figgycal on 21 January 2014
Mr Puggsly said:
Figgycal said:

? This isn't about reviews.

"You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video." Completely fine and to be expected  in advertising.

"You agree to keep confidential at all times all matters relating to this Agreement, including, without limitation, the Promotional Requirements, and the CPM Compensation, listed above." Not fine.

This is in violation of the FTC guidelines that call for full transparancy when an endorsement is made.

 

I rarely see advertisers being open with all that information.

My guess is people with no expertiese on this subject are speculating.

You're right about the bold part. The first no. It's assumed that if you watch a commercial - you're watching paid actors or a celebrity promote a product. If you watch a commercial with "real customers" - they have to have a disclaimer saying those "real customers" were compensated. But even speculating isn't the word I'd use. You can read for yourself examples of what the FTC considers breaching its guidelines - they get very specific.



Somini on 21 January 2014
Porcupine_I said:


I love those guys. And he nails exactly why this is wrong. I wish i was in the US where i could sue this and win without a problem :)



Figgycal on 21 January 2014
shikamaru317 said:

This is no more misleading than putting a beautiful scantily clad woman beside a product, something that advertisers frequently do. The advertisers don't need to put a disclaimer that says "product does not come with a woman", it's the viewers responsibility to separate the product from the other elements of an advertisement. The same should apply here, there is no reason for the Youtubers that decide to participate to disclose that they are being paid, all that does is decrease the effectiveness of the promotion and give Microsoft far less bang for their buck, so they put a clause in the contract saying that the Youtubers can't disclose that they are being paid. I'm no lawyer, I don't know if it's illegal, and frankly I don't care, because if it is illegal it's just another stupid law that our politicians wasted time making when there are far more important concerns in the US. If it does break a law, the law should be amended, because that law sounds as stupid as the laws that allowed the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit and the Winnebago cruise control lawsuit.

Why? These guidelines are actually beneficial to you as a consumer.