Youtuber smearing lawsuit?

[LAwLz]

51 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

That whole "debacle" was over a few specific instances - it's not like before 2015 we were taking money hand over fist and not telling anyone. Even in 2014 (and before) we were disclosing sponsored projects:

Well, I am sure I could find more than a few specific instances if I went back and looked through your videos. I won't, but if my memory serves correctly it was very rare for you to highlight that it was a sponsored video. At best it was a quick "they sent one over to us" which doesn't even specify if it was in exchange for something or not.

 

52 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

That was a completely different era of online marketing. There weren't proper/clear guidelines set, and everyone was just kinda learning as we went along.

If you ask me, that is not an excuse. Call it hindsight if you want, but I think it was pretty obvious from the start that you should be honest and upfront to your viewers.

The whole "debacle" shouldn't have been necessary in my opinion.

 

54 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

these days we try to make everything as clear as possible so there's no room for confusion or any misunderstanding - if something's paid for, we disclose, and if we don't specifically say that something's paid for ("sponsored"), it's not. Keeps it clear and simple.

Credit where credit is due. From what I can tell, you are upfront about it these days, in a proper manner.

 

58 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

I haven't seen any complaints in the past few years about disclosure (aside from "you guys make too much sponsored content," but that's a whole other conversation lol), so it seems like we're doing a decent job these days.

That is one of the major reasons I no longer watch your videos. But since the channel has grown a lot in the last couple of years I can't really fault you for going with the flow. Especially when the "flow" is a river of money.

 

57 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

Appreciate you being a contributing member on the forum, even if you don't watch the videos anymore.

and I appreciate your response!

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

Because they have not been around since yesterday and know very well how easy it is to make people dust off their pitchforks

 

Your mistake is believing that only this Sai guy did this. The story was collaborated by videocardz who claim to have some invoices as a proof and by Kyle from HardOCP who apparently after doing great job on GPP made his mission to crusade against everyone in the vicinity, merit be damned.

Wait, it's videocardz and HardOCP who are going around accusing people of stuff?
I thought it was just some nobody making some tweets.

[TziTzi]

Nah Kyle at HardOCP started posting something about how they used to do that back when he was relevant like 20 years ago and that they even offered prostitutes etc.  Really trying to paint these guys as shills and implying that it's a "youtube" problem when really his outdated print media site is just as vulnerable to paid bullshit so he's shitting where he sleeps.

[Lathlaer]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Wait, it's videocardz and HardOCP who are going around accusing people of stuff?
I thought it was just some nobody making some tweets

Yeah well, he started the tweet and then videocardz claimed to have some invoices. Kyle said that in 1998 he was offered prostitutes for booth coverage and that nowadays the sums of money are "HUGE". Easiest to find it is on Paul's twitter actually since he was the most offended by those allegations (never seen him so angry on a video actually):

 

 

Also, I think the last sentence is a shot at Jay and his threadripper block. still salty about that lol.

[nicklmg]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Well, I am sure I could find more than a few specific instances if I went back and looked through your videos. I won't, but if my memory serves correctly it was very rare for you to highlight that it was a sponsored video. At best it was a quick "they sent one over to us" which doesn't even specify if it was in exchange for something or not.

 

If you ask me, that is not an excuse. Call it hindsight if you want, but I think it was pretty obvious from the start that you should be honest and upfront to your viewers.

The whole "debacle" shouldn't have been necessary in my opinion.

 

Wait, it's videocardz and HardOCP who are going around accusing people of stuff?
I thought it was just some nobody making some tweets.

Mm... I'm in the same boat I guess, I remember it being a few specific instances but maybe you could comb through and find more. At the end of the day it led to better practices overall, which is the important bit in my mind.

 

What I can say with absolute certainty is that we've NEVER labeled something as a "review" if it was paid. That's just not something that we do (even with disclosure) as "review" is a pretty sacred format. Call it semantics or whatever else, but that's a hard line that we do not cross.

 

 

Videocardz didn't make specific accusations:

 

I don't lump them in with that random dude in this case, all I'll say is that they knew exactly what they were doing with this Tweet lol.

 

Here's the [H] contribution:

 

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Lathlaer]

31 minutes ago, nicklmg said:

I don't lump them in with that random dude in this case, all I'll say is that they knew exactly what they were doing with this Tweet lol.

This is what they did:

 

1. Sai says that he "heard that people were denied coverage because they were not paid"

2. Videocardz says "that's true, you need to pay for guaranteed booth visit"

3. Steve from GN gets angry and says it's factually incorrect as they never charged anyone for booth coverage

4. To which Videocardz responds that they were not talking about GN and they want to "stay away from this" and that Steve is overreacting.

 

They said that they have "some invoices" but they are "not going to name anyone" after Steve from GN got angry and said that it's incorrect and they never charged for booth coverage.

 

So they want to have a discussion but an abstract one, perfectly a discussion where they are removed from all the responsibility and burden of proof.

 

They have been repeatedly asked to publish some of their proof and always claimed to just want to start a discussion.

 

https://twitter.com/SaiKrishanKumar/status/1006834193567870978

 

https://twitter.com/VideoCardz/status/1006834346488221697

 

[nicklmg]

17 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

They have been repeatedly asked to publish some of their proof and always claimed to just want to start a discussion.

My assumption is that there are some small-time people doing something untoward, but if no one shows the "proof" that they have it's easy to imply that it's widespread rather than just an isolated problem. Or maybe I've just got some severe blinders on and everyone else in the industry is totally corrupt.

 

Pretty simple for us to prove our case if we have to, just fire off an email to my ASUS/Intel/AMD/whoever else rep - "Hey did you pay us anything for that coverage we created at your booth, or for showing up at your booth at Computex?" "No, we invited you to the location, you said you'd maybe stop by, you stopped by and made a video, and at the end you shouted out your sponsors that paid you to come to the show."

 

Idunno. I'm over it until someone shows some paperwork  

[mr moose]

 

If one good thing has come from this, it has added to my list of irrelevant tech entities who don't care who's reputation they destroy in a sordid attempt to remain popular.