Tech Youtubers accused of not disclosing Computex Sponsorships

[Dylanc1500]

12 minutes ago, asus killer said:

i seriously thought the drama would last a lot longer, kind of fell cheated on this one, now what am i going to do to all these frickin popcorns? 

Coat it in bourbon caramel and eat your sorrows away.

[Guest]

 

On 6/15/2018 at 11:22 AM, Tsuki said:

Jay did a video about this basically saying it was all bullshit, and for most tech youtubers on that list, it is.

 

BUT

 

if you look at the comments in that video, you have people like techsyndicate who are saying "we dont charge to visit their booth, but if they offer us money, then we make sure to prioritize visiting their booth over everybody that didnt give us money."

 

which can easily be seen as charging to visit a booth.   i can easily see how it can be taken wrong.

Thats weird. It's not like Logan to delete anything. (I'm still a bit salty)

 

That being said what I think Logan was trying to say was that TekSyndicate get sponsorships to attend the events, and they feel obligated to attend their sponsors booth, which is the most polite thing to do when someone helps pay for your travel (Which is perfectly understandable given how much his channel went under and he probably needs it). It's not really unbiased but if you want to attend and theres no other way then you're in a pickle. Then again I wouldn't really put it past Logan to so something a bit dodgy, but I really shouldn't be discussing that here. 

[mark_cameron]

7 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

I think I'd like to weigh in on this and maybe hope that people realize or..... dare I say respect that I've been here a while. Even if I don't post every day on here (let alone several times a minute like I used to) anymore.

 

I'd also like to point out my own personal insight.

 

To start with, my father is a 35 year veteran of the service industry. Namely servicing corporate sized customers. Specifically for a product that I can say with some certainty, none of you has ever purchased (maybe stolen depending on your housing situation) but has handled at least once a week if not once a day for some of you. A product that certain companies, ranging from small to multi-national, buy.

 

He has maintained his status in that industry across multiple employers for various reasons. BUT, across those employers, his customers have happily jumped ship to follow him. Why? Because they know he gets the damned job done, as quickly and efficiently (see: cheaply) as possible. He under-promises and over-delivers. He doesn't view the customer as something to bilk for money, but as rather someone to have a working relationship with. I like to think this is why he occasionally gets thrown under the bus. Because he focuses on long term profit and developing a smooth running infrastructure with the capability to handle the unforeseen, rather than immediate quarterly profits. Because he goes out of his way to help the customer spend less money.

 

And his customers have followed him from employer to employer.

 

I have witnessed this for the last almost 30 years now. I have spent more hours than I care to count, in the truck with him, listening to him conduct business with his employees who he treats like family, and his customers who he also treats like family.

 

I like to think I have a little insight on good vs. bad business persons. Even though I've never operated at that level myself.

 

 

Now, I've had interactions on this forum with both @LinusTech and @Slick. Not very much, but I have had them.

 

I view Linus as a more forward thinking businessman of today's world. Not only do I believe that he has a passion for what he does, I believe he has a lot more foresight and self awareness than most business people I've ever interacted with. While that's a small number, I honestly can say that Linus is what I would like to see become more commonplace in businesses.

 

I believe he wants to grow his company not only for his own success and his passion, but because he wants more for his people and his customers. I think that unlike most "business people" I've ever met, he puts his relationship with his customers well above immediate profit because he understands the long game. I think he has what I consider to be a far more intelligent business strategy, of creating long term customers that have a well founded trust in him and whatever he does. A healthy relationship and not a parasitic one like some businesses seem to have today.

 

The point being, if any of these allegations were true, we would already have this information. He would have told us up front, at the beginning of the videos that they were sponsored by the people who's booths he had visited. Not to mention that it wouldn't matter, because IIRC one of Linus' tenets is that "I will review your product, and if it's crap, I will call it crap" basically. So paying him gets you nothing but a review and his honest opinion.

 

I completely believe this. I really do. Mainly because I respect @Slick a great deal and don't believe he would be associated with Linus if this weren't the truth.

 

Also because Linus has been up front about this kind of thing in the past, and as far as I know continues to do so.

 

Linus, Slick, feel free to disagree with me completely if you in fact disagree with anything I have just said.

Totally agree. As a businessman myself, agree.

 

Linus didn't go out on his own (at great risk to his family I might add) and build his business to literally throw it away in such a stupid manner is ludicrous.

 

Linus is in it for the long game. Or long haul.

 

Linus customers are his audience. He knows this. The revenue he gets he's been fully upfront about needs to be in accordance with the law. He told his audience about the FTC regs in the USA being massively stricter than Canada. I didn't know this and my business is the law.

 

Linus just needs to keep doing what he's doing. Prempt it with transparency 'state of the union' videos.

 

From time to time he'll get attacks on his reputation. He'll resist them by doing what he's doing being transparent. Which is why he's so popular.

 

 

[Sfekke]

9 hours 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... 

Jay already addressed in a video outlining the issue & how he does generate revenue.

Short Version :

Ad Revenue

Sponsored Videos - Doesn't do paid reviews to prevent bias

Merch

& I am forgetting some but those highlights I remember.

He and others do get sponsored to go there, but isn't that like all previous years?

This nobody claiming stuff like this better prepare to get a job far far far away from any other internet personalities, he wont be accepted anymore after this.

 

I trust the techtubers a lot, Linus/Jay/Kyle/Jerry/Paul/Greg/etc but I'll be honest :

If there is some stuff you are holding from us, now might be the good time to let us know.

I recently became a Floatplane member & might join the BW Ultra club in a month or 3, this doesn't change my opinion.

However just tell us the truth, and I'm 99.9% sure you and all others will.

 

@LinusTech maybe it isn't a bad idea to do the same as Jay, outline sources of income & explain why + why not.

[Christophe Corazza]

3 hours ago, JoostinOnline said:

You're stuck in 2017.

 

I wish I were :-D

[laminutederire]

13 minutes ago, mark_cameron said:

Totally agree. As a businessman myself, agree.

 

Linus didn't go out on his own (at great risk to his family I might add) and build his business to literally throw it away in such a stupid manner is ludicrous.

 

Linus is in it for the long game. Or long haul.

 

Linus customers are his audience. He knows this. The revenue he gets he's been fully upfront about needs to be in accordance with the law. He told his audience about the FTC regs in the USA being massively stricter than Canada. I didn't know this and my business is the law.

 

Linus just needs to keep doing what he's doing. Prempt it with transparency 'state of the union' videos.

 

From time to time he'll get attacks on his reputation. He'll resist them by doing what he's doing being transparent. Which is why he's so popular.

 

 

There is a difference between caring about having an audience and caring about your audience.

I feel in this case for instance, Linus just does seem not care one bit who is watching the content. He seems to care how many of them above all else.

That's why long time viewers like myself just stopped watching his content which is just not interesting at all anymore to me since it has shifted quite a bit. And I don't think I'm the only one. Hence why he doesn't care that we old time viewers stay as long as more newcomers arrive instead.

[Tsuki]

32 minutes ago, RorzNZ said:

Thats weird. It's not like Logan to delete anything. (I'm still a bit salty)

 

That being said what I think Logan was trying to say was that TekSyndicate get sponsorships to attend the events, and they feel obligated to attend their sponsors booth, which is the most polite thing to do when someone helps pay for your travel (Which is perfectly understandable given how much his channel went under and he probably needs it). It's not really unbiased but if you want to attend and theres no other way then you're in a pickle. Then again I wouldn't really put it past Logan to so something a bit dodgy, but I really shouldn't be discussing that here. 

normally i'd agree with you, if you're being sponsored, then yes you 100% have to visit the booth, thats a given.  thats why it makes me so mad that the comment was deleted, and i cant get the actual quote, because the way he phrased it, seemed like it was a lot more than just normal sponsorships..

i get why it was deleted if thats the case though, especially if lawyers are getting involved like Jay said, it would completely destroy any credibility to all of them, if even one person on that list did what they're being accused of.

and honestly i feel like Jay is actually the one that removed it, per instruction from one of those lawyers. (just a suspicion, i could be WAY off base there)

[Christophe Corazza]

9 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

normally i'd agree with you, if you're being sponsored, then yes you 100% have to visit the booth, thats a given.  thats why it makes me so mad that the comment was deleted, and i cant get the actual quote, because the way he phrased it, seemed like it was a lot more than just normal sponsorships..

i get why it was deleted if thats the case though, especially if lawyers are getting involved like Jay said, it would completely destroy any credibility to all of them, if even one person on that list did what they're being accused of.

and honestly i feel like Jay is actually the one that removed it, per instruction from one of those lawyers. (just a suspicion, i could be WAY off base there)

 

Unfortunately, that’s something we can only guess at.

[mr moose]

6 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I don't know why.....but this offends me. 

Care to elaborate.  I was only jesting.

[Cheezdoodlez]

1 hour ago, Sfekke said:

maybe it isn't a bad idea to do the same as Jay, outline sources of income & explain why + why not

Look back to page four. Linus already made one of these videos. It's a year old now but still. LTT can't make one of these every single time someone throws around accusations. 

[Master Disaster]

3 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

@mr moose I have a conspiracy theory explaining your conspiracy theory about a conspiracy.

 

I think Kyle wins as far as responses go.

 

That was incredible, I'm literally crying with laughter right now.

 

If Paul actually wrote that himself I think he's in the wrong business to be honest.

 

Genuinely one of the funniest things I've seen/heard in a long time

[Master Disaster]

On the actual topic it seems as though he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing however I do agree he went about it in the wrong way.

 

It would have been smart to maybe fire off an email to everyone involved telling them exactly what he'd been told and asking for a response before going public.

 

By giving them a chance to refute the claims first he could have been the name behind breaking a pretty big scandal, instead he's now the name on the pretty big scandal.

 

Hopefully after discussing all this crap together everyone can come to a satisfactory outcome which doesn't involve expensive litigation, when lawyers get involved they're generally the only ones making money.

 

He's done the right thing now, he's publicly apologised to everyone involved and formally retracted the allegations, he's even offered to speak to everyone personally to. I say give him the benefit of the doubt and let him be. It'd be much more productive to source the fake documents as the person who created those has more to answer for IMO.

[JuNex03]

3 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

-snip-

The guy's techtuber/reviewer career is now basically over. Things like this hurt both sides, especially since he can't even provide evidence.

[79wjd]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Care to elaborate.  I was only jesting.

/s

[Misanthrope]

4 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

On the actual topic it seems as though he genuinely thought he was doing the right thing however I do agree he went about it in the wrong way.

 

It would have been smart to maybe fire off an email to everyone involved telling them exactly what he'd been told and asking for a response before going public.

 

By giving them a chance to refute the claims first he could have been the name behind breaking a pretty big scandal, instead he's now the name on the pretty big scandal.

 

Hopefully after discussing all this crap together everyone can come to a satisfactory outcome which doesn't involve expensive litigation, when lawyers get involved they're generally the only ones making money.

 

He's done the right thing now, he's publicly apologised to everyone involved and formally retracted the allegations, he's even offered to speak to everyone personally to. I say give him the benefit of the doubt and let him be. It'd be much more productive to source the fake documents as the person who created those has more to answer for IMO.

Actually the smart thing would have been to hand over all relevant information to an actual professional journalist who would confirm sources, requests comments and then go public with a story.

 

Sorry but there's usually a lot of talk about how bad the "old media" and such but the mere fact that we call bloggers and entertainers "tech" journalists doesn't means at all that they are. Being able to report news implies far more than just being able to state what happens: it implies numerous ethical responsibilities to several different parties that range from the subjects of the stories to the sources of said stories.

 

There is a way to report on information that is possible under NDA without being sued into oblivion but it's not easy at all and Twitter drama is certainly not the way to go about it.

[Bananasplit_00]

15 hours ago, TheSLSAMG said:

 

This guy, he set his Twitter account to "Protected" now (probably because of all of the backlash.)

None of them probably came to whatever booth he had I seriously doubt the absolute top teir tech tubers would require you to pay them to look your stuff, missing one of the big booths looses them money as they don't make a video on it ffs

[mynameisjuan]

Why the hell do people care? 

 

Company wants advertiser. Advertiser gets money from company. Advertiser advertises. 

 

Serious people need to stop getting but hurt over stupid shit. 

[Velcade]

10 hours ago, JuNex03 said:

well looks like the guy apologized at least.

 

Translation:  My ass is getting sued and I don't like that so I'm sorry for what I said.

[Brooksie359]

13 hours ago, Tsuki said:

Jay did a video about this basically saying it was all bullshit, and for most tech youtubers on that list, it is.

 

BUT

 

if you look at the comments in that video, you have people like techsyndicate who are saying "we dont charge to visit their booth, but if they offer us money, then we make sure to prioritize visiting their booth over everybody that didnt give us money."

 

which can easily be seen as charging to visit a booth.   i can easily see how it can be taken wrong.

Is he referring to the companies that sponsored their trip to computex? Because I would assume it is obvious that if they sponsor their trip that they would prioritize seeing their booth. 

[Doobeedoo]

Hah this shitstorm by some jelly scrubs. 

[inthebrilliantblue]

16 hours ago, DezGalbie said:

 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.

Do you own a business? Because if you did you would understand the implications of being slandered in such a way, even if it was "silly".

[GilmourD]

16 hours 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... 

You know... People worry about the "deep state"... I'm much more worried about the "DERP STATE".

I can't comprehend how we live in a time where people are just inherently ignorant or, even worse, just actually that stupid as to believe something like that.

[mynameisjuan]

4 minutes ago, GilmourD said:

You know... People worry about the "deep state"... I'm much more worried about the "DERP STATE".

I can't comprehend how we live in a time where people are just inherently ignorant or, even worse, just actually that stupid as to believe something like that.

Or how people would care enough to treat the company as if they committed a murder. 

 

Even if it was true its not the end of the world. All these youtubers are there to make money and share their passion. If a company pays them to show their product, they get paid and we get to see some new stuff. It makes sense when there are too many products to cover them all. 

 

People need to lighten up.

[Syntaxvgm]

Tek Syndicate

HAH

With how hard logan fights to stay barely relevant, I highly doubt that.

[Syntaxvgm]

16 hours 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.

LTT was a victim of circumstance. They disclosed the sponsorship in a way more transparent way than everyone else, but dyson didn't tell anyone all that shit was going down same day. People like Austin Evans got caught with their pants down, and dont get me started on the written tech publications. The ltt video was literally like bold text "SPONSORED" at the bottom, so if anything that proved to be a positive sign for me.

Quote

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.

Bullshit

A hell of a lot clearer than Austin Evans where he sucked the vaccuum's dick for the whole video, and irrc "dyson sent" is the closest to "this is sponsored" that he mentions.