Tech Youtubers accused of not disclosing Computex Sponsorships

[Sacredsock]

4 minutes ago, DezGalbie said:

<snip>
Yes, it is wrong to make false accusations. But some accusations are more harmful than others. If someone claims I am a rapist then I would get the lawyers in. If someone claimed I had a purple dog I would just point out the silliness of their claim. This accusation about these Youtubers is much more akin to the purple dog claim. It should be shown to be silly and then everyone moves on.

I disagree a little here, as a tech youtuber and reviewer their reputation and trustworthiness is paramount.

If a reviewer tells me that a product from company X is worthwhile buying I want to know that it is an honest opinion, if company X has paid in anyway for that review, either cash or otherwise, I want to know so that I can include that in my decision to purchase that product. hence the importance of #sponsored

[DezGalbie]

3 minutes ago, Sacredsock said:

I disagree a little here, as a tech youtuber and reviewer their reputation and trustworthiness is paramount.

If a reviewer tells me that a product from company X is worthwhile buying I want to know that it is an honest opinion, if company X has paid in anyway for that review, either cash or otherwise, I want to know so that I can include that in my decision to purchase that product. hence the importance of #sponsored

Absolutely, if someone was taking payment for false reviews then that would damage their trustworthiness and their brand. But that is not the accusation. Not at all.

[Sacredsock]

1 minute ago, DezGalbie said:

Absolutely, if someone was taking payment for false reviews then that would damage their trustworthiness and their brand. But that is not the accusation. Not at all.

the implication is that the youtubers were paid to feature certain booths / brands in their respective content. From what I have seen their has been no mention of this in that content.

Therefore, either the accusation is false and so subject to counter claims or the accusation is true and the youtubers are not following complete disclosure.

 

This is getting into legal matters that I am not familiar with, specifically, foreign legal matters.

[Ezzy-525]

Same thread, maybe these two should be merged?

[SpaceGhostC2C]

OK, so let's assume ethics away for a moment. Suppose youtuber X will do whatever gives him the most money all things considered, no questions asked.

Now suppose we have the following booths, ranked by their attractiveness to viewers, and enough time left for them to visit (and film) one:

 

Booth A: Highly attractive

Booth B: Mildly attractive, would not click before watching A

Booth C: Pretty boring. Would watch if YT left on autoplay

 

Final assumption: there are enough youtubers so that at least some of them will visit and make videos of A.

Question 1: if I'm A, would I feel the need to pay X to visit me?

Question 2: if I'm C, how much would I have to pay X to visit me?

 

 

I'm quite sure the answer to (1) is zero. As for (2), it seems to me they may as well do a hostile takeover of the channel at that point  

[Misanthrope]

36 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

We've already had someone cancel his/her floatplane membership over these allegations. 

 

It's amazing how damaging this kind of thing can be. 

 

Might have to do a stream tomorrow... 

Are you honestly surprised it didn't take a huge leap of faith from someone to jump over from vacuum cleaners to perhaps a missing disclosure?

 

What you guys do is already going up to the line between journalism and advertising by basically moving between the two so fast and often people can and likely often do fail to see your small letter "paid by X" disclosure on certain videos.

 

Just saying, this is part of the territory for such a lucrative operation: people will throw accusations in the blind, likely in bad faith, yet people are uncomfortable enough that they're bound to believe those unsubstantiated claims.

[kting15]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Are you honestly surprised it didn't take a huge leap of faith from someone to jump over from vacuum cleaners to perhaps a missing disclosure?

 

What you guys do is already going up to the line between journalism and advertising by basically moving between the two so fast and often people can and likely often do fail to see your small letter "paid by X" disclosure on certain videos.

 

Just saying, this is part of the territory for such a lucrative operation: people will throw accusations in the blind, likely in bad faith, yet people are uncomfortable enough that they're bound to believe those unsubstantiated claims.

I don't think theres anything wrong with the way they handle the separation of their sponsored and non-sponsored content. Every time I've watched a video, its always been easy to note which is which especially considering it is noted in the title and always within the first 30 seconds of a video telling us that it is sponsored if it in fact is. While they do jump between the two on a regular basis, I don't think that should matter considering how they actively try to inform the viewers of sponsorships.

 

To be honest, at that point, it is on the viewer to be able to distinguish between the two because it isn't all that hard to figure out, if at all.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, kting15 said:

I don't think theres anything wrong with the way they handle the separation of their sponsored and non-sponsored content. Every time I've watched a video, its always been easy to note which is which especially considering it is noted in the title and always within the first 30 seconds of a video telling us that it is sponsored if it in fact is. While they do jump between the two on a regular basis, I don't think that should matter considering how they actively try to inform the viewers of sponsorships.

 

To be honest, at that point, it is on the viewer to be able to distinguish between the two because it isn't all that hard to figure out, if at all.

I disagree: I do notice, because I know to look for it. In fact I am basically weary of any product or build or review looking for the disclaimers.

 

LTT has 6 million subscribers: many of them are bound not to be dedicated or knowledgeable enough to be on the look out for this things because of knowledge of previous scandals, tech or otherwise.

 

Ultimately this forums are just not a good representation of the average audience for the videos which is far wider so within that context? No it is not "wrong" because it's still legal but the law does permit a certain latitude and leeway with the way things are presented and to me, it's just not clear enough.

[Ezzy-525]

9 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Are you honestly surprised it didn't take a huge leap of faith from someone to jump over from vacuum cleaners to perhaps a missing disclosure?

 

What you guys do is already going up to the line between journalism and advertising by basically moving between the two so fast and often people can and likely often do fail to see your small letter "paid by X" disclosure on certain videos.

 

Just saying, this is part of the territory for such a lucrative operation: people will throw accusations in the blind, likely in bad faith, yet people are uncomfortable enough that they're bound to believe those unsubstantiated claims.

I have a really hard time believing that all these different YouTubers would collectively do the same thing and not disclose, when as you say paid promotions are nothing new and nearly every tech YouTuber with a substantial following does them, hell, nearly every video from Computex had some sort of boiler plate logo slide with "thanks to xyz for sponsoring our trip to Computex etc."

 

So the surprising part is that someone would call out a group of guys who aren't all actually affiliated (just part of the same community) and make it sound like they're part of a shady cabal of paid shills. 

 

Hopefully this guy was ill informed and thought he was genuinely breaking news, but evenso, he should fact check before defaming people.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, Ezzy-525 said:

I have a really hard time believing that all these different YouTubers would collectively do the same thing and not disclose, when as you say paid promotions are nothing new and nearly every tech YouTuber with a substantial following does them, hell, nearly every video from Computex had some sort of boiler plate logo slide with "thanks to xyz for sponsoring our trip to Computex etc."

 

So the surprising part is that someone would call out a group of guys who aren't all actually affiliated (just part of the same community) and make it sound like they're part of a shady cabal of paid shills. 

 

Hopefully this guy was ill informed and thought he was genuinely breaking news, but evenso, he should fact check before defaming people.

I have a hard time believing that myself, I could cite many of those same reasons but the main one is that this is unsubstantiated so far.

 

But please re-read my post: I said that others could oversee all of that because of the recent vacuum cleaner fiasco. That really did not sit well with many viewers and when something like that happens, yeah people will not be in a charitable mood willing to give the people on this list the benefit of the doubt.

 

My entire point is that I honestly do not believe this actually was going on at any point on Computex this year for the people named, but on the other hand I can see how other viewers would be willing to believe the stories and throw the tech youtubers under the bus.

[kting15]

3 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

I disagree: I do notice, because I know to look for it. In fact I am basically weary of any product or build or review looking for the disclaimers.

 

LTT has 6 million subscribers: many of them are bound not to be dedicated or knowledgeable enough to be on the look out for this things because of knowledge of previous scandals, tech or otherwise.

 

Ultimately this forums are just not a good representation of the average audience for the videos which is far wider so within that context? No it is not "wrong" because it's still legal but the law does permit a certain latitude and leeway with the way things are presented and to me, it's just not clear enough.

Okay since I've been on floatplane for awhile I've forgotten how sponsored content is handled on youtube, but I stil maintain that it is clearly marked and easy to distinguish once you get into the video

[kting15]

@Misanthrope I feel like we can agree to disagree though. I do see your point.

[Misanthrope]

10 minutes ago, kting15 said:

Okay since I've been on floatplane for awhile I've forgotten how sponsored content is handled on youtube, but I stil maintain that it is clearly marked and easy to distinguish once you get into the video

Ok That one seems fair I'll give you that.

 

But what if we go back 1 year?

 

It's still there sure, but I don't think you would argue that it's as prominently displayed. Well maybe it is a matter of interpretation really? So what if we go back further to 2 years ago?

 

 

Ok now we're down to a fairly contained legend, further away on the frame in fact very likely to get kind of obscured by the UI specially since this appears on the very beginning on the video.

 

Look maybe you think all 3 examples are extremely fair but I think we can obviously see this has been a learning process as time and in particularly, the public, has become increasingly discerning over the years.

 

EDIT: By the way I didn't catch your second reply until after posting this though.

[mr moose]

16 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

LTT has 6 million subscribers: many of them are bound not to be dedicated or knowledgeable enough to be on the look out for this things because of knowledge of previous scandals, tech or otherwise.

 

Ultimately this forums are just not a good representation of the average audience for the videos which is far wider so within that context? No it is not "wrong" because it's still legal but the law does permit a certain latitude and leeway with the way things are presented and to me, it's just not clear enough.

I buy a vacuum cleaner for every computer build now.  I'm not sure what I need it for but the cupboard is full of them already. 

[Brooksie359]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok That one seems fair I'll give you that.

 

But what if we go back 1 year?

 

It's still there sure, but I don't think you would argue that it's as prominently displayed. Well maybe it is a matter of interpretation really? So what if we go back further to 2 years ago?

 

 

Ok now we're down to a fairly contained legend, further away on the frame in fact very likely to get kind of obscured by the UI specially since this appears on the very beginning on the video.

 

Look maybe you think all 3 examples are extremely fair but I think we can obviously see this has been a learning process as time and in particularly, the public, has become increasingly discerning over the years.

They verbally say it's a sponsored piece at the beginning of the video for every sponsored piece I have seen. 

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I buy a vacuum cleaner for every computer build now.  I'm not sure what I need it for but the cupboard is full of them already. 

Not me though, No I am very discerning. Now if you excuse me I am running low on Doritos and Mountain Dew.

[kting15]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok That one seems fair I'll give you that.

 

But what if we go back 1 year?

<snip picture>

 

It's still there sure, but I don't think you would argue that it's as prominently displayed. Well maybe it is a matter of interpretation really? So what if we go back further to 2 years ago?

 

<snip picture>

 

Ok now we're down to a fairly contained logo, further away on the frame in fact very likely to get kind of obscured by the UI specially since this appears on the very beginning on the video.

 

Look maybe you think all 3 examples are extremely fair but I think we can obviously see this has been a learning process as time and in particularly, the public, has become increasingly discerning over the years.

On that I would say honestly that they're most likely learning to be better about it. At the time they may have felt like how they handled sponsorships was adequate and then as time went on they changed and improved the way they handle it and adapt to it to make it easier for people to see because they took note of complaints, confusion, outrage, etc.

[Misanthrope]

7 minutes ago, Brooksie359 said:

They verbally say it's a sponsored piece at the beginning of the video for every sponsored piece I have seen. 

Last one doesn't says Google sponsored them verbally. It's on the screen and he says "The google store [...] contacted me about sending me a care package, like a tech for dads type of...feature"

 

It is:

1) On screen, just not as prominently shown

2) Very heavily implied in describing how he was contacted by Google

 

So it's probably legally just fine. But if you play fast and lose? I bet many viewers wouldn't remember if questioned, or not the specifics. However in my opinion it's still insidious because it is basically shown as one of Linus typical non-sponsored content pieces when it is very clearly a 10:39 long advertisement for Google.

[Lathlaer]

13 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Ok now we're down to a fairly contained legend, further away on the frame in fact very likely to get kind of obscured by the UI specially since this appears on the very beginning on the video

Just watched that video. 

 

1. The text "Sponsored by Google" is a bit obscured in the beginning but there is a fair bit of time when the UI does not cover it (unless you keep watching the video with your mouse on the vid)

2. He says specifically that "Google Store contacted me about sending me..."

3. There is a "This video is sponsored by Google Store" description right under the video.

 

Sure, I get the point you are trying to make and ofc. it's not as visible as Tarantino-style "SPONSORED BY GOOGLE STORE" across the screen but anyone claiming that the info isn't there needs to carefully not look for it since it's given in 3 different ways (2 if you are being particular about wording in video itself) ;-)

[Misanthrope]

6 minutes ago, kting15 said:

On that I would say honestly that they're most likely learning to be better about it. At the time they may have felt like how they handled sponsorships was adequate and then as time went on they changed and improved the way they handle it and adapt to it to make it easier for people to see because they took note of complaints, confusion, outrage, etc.

I do agree they are doing far better nowadays. Yet the vacuum cleaner thing happened so to me that was a very clear reminder that Linus is salesman first, youtuber and tech personality second.

[Morgan Everett]

This wouldn't greatly surprise me if true; if it's not this, it'll be something else. It's unfortunate that the often impressionable audiences of these channels aren't anywhere near as circumspect as they ought to be.

[asus killer]

getting the popcorns for the drama that will inevitably follow

 

this seems simple to me, that guy made an allegation, he either can prove it or is just seeking attention. 

[Lathlaer]

8 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Yet the vacuum cleaner thing happened so to me that was a very clear reminder that Linus is salesman first, youtuber and tech personality second.

How does the Dyson thing relate to the topic? I mean, it says big white "Sponsored by Dyson" in the beginning and "Thanks to Dyson for sponsoring our video" in the description. Something here I don't get. Or is it because it was a vacuum cleaner?

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, Lathlaer said:

How does the Dyson thing relate to the topic? I mean, it says big white "Sponsored by Dyson" in the beginning and "Thanks to Dyson for sponsoring our video" in the description. Something here I don't get.

How can you not get it?

 

A vacuum cleaner IS NOT A TECH CONSUMER ELECTRONIC. Barely even tech related why the fuck was it on LTT? Why was it not just a sponsor to a video instead of a sponsored video?

 

Why did it follow the exact same pattern of other tech actual tech products releasing the same day on several channels at the same time as if it was a very important product embargoe date except it was a fucking vacuum cleaner? I mean come on do you honestly live under a rock? You never heard the door-to-door jokes about vacuum cleaner salesmen?

 

Yet a good chunk of the people on that list on the opening page deliberately took the money from these Dyson guys, threw their core audience under the boss and tried to shamelessly and carelessly sell them fucking vacuum cleaners, just like those pesky door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen of old.

[Lathlaer]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

How can you not get it?

 

A vacuum cleaner IS NOT A CONSUMER ELECTRONIC. Barely even tech related why the fuck was it on LTT? Why was it not just a sponsor to a video instead of a sponsored video?

 

Why did it follow the exact same pattern of other tech actual tech products releasing the same day on several channels at the same time as if it was a very important product embargoe date except it was a fucking vacuum cleaner? I mean come on do you honestly live under a rock? You never heard the door-to-door jokes about vacuum cleaner salesmen?

 

Yet a good chunk of the people on that list on the opening page deliberately took the money from these Dyson guys, threw their core audience under the boss and tried to shamelessly and carelessly sell them fucking vacuum cleaners, just like those pesky door-to-door vacuum cleaner salesmen of old.

No, it's ok this part I get. It was just a segway from the conversation about disclosing sponsored content and this vacuum video happens to be one of the better described as sponsored, hence the confusion.