Reviewer Ethics

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, blue2kid3 said:

Completely agree about the entertainment channel and I'm okay with that.

 

This is also one of the only mediums where you expect to keep the products, bike industry nope, audio industry is starting to go that way but most older companies nope. Even denon refused "to work with a huge youtuber" as letting reviewers keep products is against their code of ethics and some written based review companies do not allow reviewers to keep products as it's against their code of ethics.

Yeah I'm fine with LTT as entertainment, some of their videos with extreme PC builds and other things are interesting.

I didn't know that about audio products, kind of understandable if audio companies want reviewers to be unbiased, but at the same those companies are missing out on promoting their products.

9 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

It's not a review. What is the audience being deceived about? Are we suggesting all the wifi speeds he shows are fake because he got the gear for free?

So who is sponsoring the video then? It isn't clear in the video description, and I think having to watch through the video is wrong.

There has been topics on clickbait and disclosing sponsor spots before, and it seems like the fanbase either wants to defend LTT or doesn't realize its wrong because they always watch every single video.

[SansVarnic]

I have never once seen Linus go against his belief to give unbiased reviews. He has always made known [several times in fact] held himself to give zero care to the manufacturers wishes. He has even gone so far as to reveal that LTT's contracts state that even in paid, or compensated reviews Linus would not do scripted work from the manufacturer but his own opinion on the product.

 

*edit to add

Also, if you watch his reactions in many videos its usually frank. Granted some of the reviews he spends time with to get the best feel for like phone and watch reviews. But his other reviews that information is provided to him by the LTT team is obvious he is reading some things and giving honest reactions to how he feels about the product in general. His body language is easy to read.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

3 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

No…..

that’s kinda expected to get to keep what’s sent to you, unless your told otherwise. If your saying that’s unethical, that’s not just let, that’s literally every other tech channel that has ever reviewed something.

do you really thing Gamers Nexus is unethical?

 

is isn’t unethical to be payed to do a review, but it is shady (There is a difference). Ltt does not review sponsored products. They do showcases, usually on the short circuit channel.

 

Its completely ok to say this is the best solution for thing in a sponsored ad if it’s true, in fact, it has to be true. If it’s something that ltt uses, like square space, because they think it’s good, they can go say that in square space ads.

 

3 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

That was a showcase video.

it literally was a video where they were payed, by Nvidia, so show what a nvidia product can do.

that was clearly disclosed, in the beginning of the video.

I really don’t see why people hate on that video. Yeah, that list was cherry-picked, that’s fine, ltt didn’t say this was a review, the video was even called a 3090 showcase.

 

 

 

 

as for your wish for people to not feel strongly about this, too late, I already had a good hard laugh at it.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

So who is sponsoring the video then? It isn't clear in the video description, and I think having to watch through the video is wrong.

There has been topics on clickbait and disclosing sponsor spots before, and it seems like the fanbase either wants to defend LTT or doesn't realize its wrong because they always watch every single video

I’ve never seen why people are like this.

If ltt was on a tv channel, all they would have to do is put a tiny little line of text in the credits, and in some cases, not even then.

They do more than enough for yts guidelines, lots of channels would do good for themselves to do what ltt does.

 

 

 

and @Roswell, if he got sent the wireless access points, he doesn’t have to say anything about how he got them, yts guidelines for sponsored content only kick in at the mine being enchanges level.

and there’s a different standard expected for being sent a product rather than being payed to talk about a product.

[GDRRiley]

I'll state this clearly. LTT mods are not paid staff of LTT and are not required to say anything about the company.
this is my opinion not LTT

Quote

 I just feel Linus and LTT should no longer be trusted as an unbias review site / Youtube channel.

they keep money from actual content which is more than a lot of place can do. even linus doesn't really know how much a sponsor will pay for an ad spot. thats down to sales and his wife.

LTT has always been an entertainment and Mass market appeal tech channel, they are a place I go for in depth reviews

Quote

 What are Ethics in reviews, what is inappropriate and how do you stay unbias? 

there is always going to be bias but you can control it to some extent

Quote

 Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

 It is unethical to be compensated in exchange to review a product regardless if its positive or negative in conclusion.

no it isn't, the manufactures especially those that ship it right from china in mass, do not want them back. its more work an pain for them to deal with. a lot of smaller channels will just give them away or sell at shipping cost which is fine to me. no one needs 500 small LED lights, 200 of which were meh, 200 decent and 100 good ones

 

thats not a review but a showcase and in most places can't be called a review

4 hours ago, Roswell said:

To be fair, “sponsored by” is intentionally vague language. It could be anything from supplying the item, paying for a straight up ad, funding costs for a project, etc.

no it isn't, it means in some way they compensated the creator for this and they had some input over the final video

Quote

LTT and many other YouTubers get away with absolute murder, skirting all kinds of federal regulations around advertisement disclosures because they’re operating under a loophole, making content for a platform. Since YouTube isn’t responsible for creator content following stuff like FTC law, creators can do whatever they want.

have you seen what the FTC and other gov orgs around the world require for them vs other industries

Quote

If LTT was broadcasting their content on TV like this they would end up getting fined left and right by the government and amass all kinds of lawsuits.

no they would not, broadcaster have less regulations on sponsored products in TV and moveis.

they need to put something in the credits for .5s

 

let me leave you with this, your idea of what they do is wrong

Spoiler

 

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by GDRRiley
clarified

[GDRRiley]

2 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

For everyone saying the sponsored content is clear here is all the information about sponsors. So did glass wire pay for the wifi

its not sponsored though. LTT had 0 talking points from them and just asked them to send some items for a project.

LTT could have gone these suck and ruckus could then decide no more stuff to LTT.

those paid links mean its affiliate program so LTT gets a cut

2 hours ago, Roswell said:

I missed that he said "sent over", but even then, it's highly questionable with zero disclosure in the description. Why should they they be transparent about doing paid advertisements? Are you really arguing that?

its not an AD.

if I ask corsair to send me over a PSU for a build that then becomes a sponsored video? No, I should disclose in the content when I talk about it that it was provided but I don't need to say its sponsored by them.

[Spotty]

2 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

For everyone saying the sponsored content is clear here is all the information about sponsors. So did glass wire pay for the wifi  

Glasswire and Backblaze would have paid for those sponsor spots shown in the video (15-30s ad spots baked in the video). They likely aren't informed which specific videos those ad spots go in to, only that it will be videos on the LTT channel. It's unlikely Glasswire or Backblaze had any involvement in the project.

 

Reviewers receiving and keeping review samples isn't uncommon. LMG's warehouse is full of hardware they have received such as laptops, PCs, phones, and computer hardware. They keep these in their inventory so they can go back to them later for other content or comparisons in other reviews. For example keeping an RTX 2080 so you can compare it to the RTX 3000 series cards is a very reasonable thing for a media/review outlet to do. The honest truth is that for a large media outlet like LMG getting a free $1500 laptop that is owned by the business isn't really that valuable to them outside of the content they use it for. However, when it is receiving thousands of dollars worth of networking gear that is being installed in his personal family home (presumably it is staying there and not being removed after the video is finished) I can understand how it does blur the lines between what is sponsored and what isn't and how it may influence his coverage of the product. Linus does mention in the video that he received the products from Ruckus, but they can do a better job declaring that. If they haven't been paid to promote the product then maybe don't call it a sponsored video so as to avoid confusion between the two, but definitely denote that they are receiving free products from the company. Maybe in addition to mentioning it aloud in the video have a banner across the bottom of the screen saying "Provided by <Brand>" where they first introduce the product where it would normally say "Sponsored by <Brand>" on sponsored videos.

 

Tom Scott has done a really good video on declaring advertisements in Youtube videos, as well as receiving free products. Though, please keep in mind that LMG operates out of Canada not USA or UK so any laws and regulations mentioned regarding the US regulations (FTC) or UK regulations may not apply to LMG.

[adarw]

7 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Tom Scott

off topic but its crazy how tom scott's channel is still alive. i cant think of any channels that lasted that long and are still getting views. 

[Roswell]

56 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

no it isn't, it means in some way they compensated us for this and they had some input over the final video

You're not reading what I said. You're literally agreeing with me. "In some way", which obviously, means in one of many different ways.

 

56 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

compensated us for this

You're not an LMG employee, you're an unpaid forum moderator. You're just as much on the outside as the rest of us.

 

56 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

have you seen what the FTC and other gov orgs around the world require for them vs other industries

 

no they would not, broadcaster have less regulations on sponsored products in TV and moveis.

they need to put something in the credits for .5s

This is factually incorrect. FTC regulations are freely available online to read. You should check them out for yourself because it seems like you're misinformed on the subject. Do you think ads/informercials/paid product showcases presented as journalistic content on television put "THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT" on the screen out of the goodness of their own hearts?

 

You're also confusing product placement with paid advertisement. Two totally different concepts, two totally different sets of laws.

 

51 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

its not an AD.

if I ask corsair to send me over a PSU for a build that then becomes a sponsored video? No, I should disclose in the content when I talk about it that it was provided but I don't need to say its sponsored by them.

 

You're literally describing the definition of the word "sponsored". The company is "sponsoring" your project because they're financially assisting you for your project. This requires disclosure and adequate language. In the case of this video, they gave him $10,000 of free network equipment for his house. They subsidized his home infrastructure by a significant amount in exchange for a video dedicated to them. This is absolutely an ad. It's basically an infomercial.

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, Roswell said:

You're not reading what I said. You're literally agreeing with me. "In some way", which obviously, means in one of many different ways.

you are missing the and. its not one or the other its both

7 minutes ago, Roswell said:

You're not an LMG employee, you're an unpaid forum moderator. You're just as much on the outside as the rest of us.

I was speaking in the 3rd person. and us refers to creators which I am.

7 minutes ago, Roswell said:

This is factually incorrect. FTC regulations are freely available online to read. You should check them out for yourself because it seems like you're misinformed on the subject. Do you think ads on television put "THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT" on the screen out of the goodness of their own hearts?

I've read them

they don't put it right as they talk about it do they? no at the very end where no one sees it

7 minutes ago, Roswell said:

You're literally describing the definition of the word "sponsored". The company is "sponsoring" your project because they're financially assisting you for your project. This requires disclosure and adequate language. In the case of this video, they gave him $10,000 of free network equipment for his house. They subsidized his home infrastructure by a significant amount in exchange for a video dedicated to them.

"the disclosure should be in the video " "placed in a way that is hard to miss." which LTT did

7 minutes ago, Roswell said:

This is absolutely an ad. It's basically an infomercial, lol.

its not an add or infomercial because they had 0 control or talking points. Linus criticized them in that video but I'm sure you missed that

[Chris Pratt]

8 hours ago, Mel0nMan said:

They have never been the channel I go to for legit reviews (That's GN for me) - I go to LTT for the fun ideas and crazy builds, knowing most product reviews are sponsored. 

I'm going to be pedantic, but what you said at the end here is exactly the misunderstanding that causes this problem: there is no such thing as a "sponsored review". If it's a review, then it has to be treated very differently. If it's sponsored, it's not a review.

 

Here's Linus explaining the difference (timestamped):

 

 

 

[Vishera]

9 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

All reviewers do that,all of them.

They need them for future comparisons with other products,

For example,in order to compare the RTX 3060 to a 1080 Ti you will need a 1080 Ti to do that.

9 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 What is okay? It is okay to have advertisement but advertisement must be clearly outlined and opinions must remain out of a payed advertisement I.E. It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen. A review must be objective and can have option. An advertisement should not cross "contaminate" a reviewers opinion I.E. "This is the best product we have ever used at our company" 

LTT are not getting paid for reviews as far as i know,but they do get paid to show products,for example:

 

[Chris Pratt]

4 hours ago, Roswell said:

You're not reading what I said. You're literally agreeing with me. "In some way", which obviously, means in one of many different ways.

 

You're not an LMG employee, you're an unpaid forum moderator. You're just as much on the outside as the rest of us.

 

This is factually incorrect. FTC regulations are freely available online to read. You should check them out for yourself because it seems like you're misinformed on the subject. Do you think ads/informercials/paid product showcases presented as journalistic content on television put "THIS IS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT" on the screen out of the goodness of their own hearts?

 

You're also confusing product placement with paid advertisement. Two totally different concepts, two totally different sets of laws.

 

 

You're literally describing the definition of the word "sponsored". The company is "sponsoring" your project because they're financially assisting you for your project. This requires disclosure and adequate language. In the case of this video, they gave him $10,000 of free network equipment for his house. They subsidized his home infrastructure by a significant amount in exchange for a video dedicated to them. This is absolutely an ad. It's basically an infomercial.

 

 

 

There's a number of incorrect ideas here. The video that featured the Ruckus network equipment was absolutely not an ad or an infomercial. Did they give Linus equipment? Yes. Did they do so in the hopes that he would prominently feature their products in a video? Sure. However, they had no editorial control, and the content of the video was 100% Linus' own personal opinions and reactions.

 

Linus mentioned directly in the video that he used Ruckus before (and bought it with his own money in that instance) and liked it. While it was not explicitly discussed in the video, it's safe to assume Linus chose Ruckus for his new home, and *then* contacted them to see if they would provide equipment for a video. In other words, the order of ops is important here. Linus didn't throw the equipment into his home because they gave him free stuff. He wanted it in his home, and sought out the free stuff. Honestly, why wouldn't you do that if you were in Linus' position?

 

Everyone is being way too sensitive about this stuff here. The video was not a review of Ruckus equipment. It was a video that just so happened to feature Ruckus equipment. It's a subtle but key difference.

[tikker]

10 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

What are Ethics in reviews, what is inappropriate and how do you stay unbias?

 Ethics are always a big mess. No review is truly unbiased. One can only try.

10 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

It is more my opinion that sponsored content is wrong by both using products for personal gain, and using sponsored content as if it is beneficial for a consumer. Why? Because sponsored content will have a context of give and take it is not a zero sum gain. Sponsored content is always in the light as if it was a review or objective and something a consumer can trust and take another word for, however that is the exact opposite purpose of sponsored content. In a typical commercial you will always see why brand A) is always better than brand B) this is easy to dismiss and think critically as you know company A will always put product A in a better light than product B in sponsored content this should never be the case as it leans far to heavily on your trust with an unbias reviewer so it is much more difficult to separate or discern when product A is getting its best foot forward. IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

I get the feeling your beef is more with sponsoring content in general rather than LTT. I think I've mentioned this in another topic, but portraying your product as positive and a better choice is literally the point of sponsorships and ads. Of course they'll cherry pick a list of games for the 3090, because they want to show you it at peak performance or in some popular/relevant games. I don't agree with that being anti-consumer. By that you could say even non-sponsored reviewes are anti-consumer and anti-viewer, because they only benchmark the hardest to run or most popular games.

 

As others have mentioned and linked to, it's very important to think about what you are looking at: a review, sponsor segment or an ad. Bluntly, if people don't think for themselves and take anything that anyone says at face value when they say "best product ever", whether that's a tech channel or the queen of Britain for all I care, that's on them. Also, these entities are businesses that need (and want I assume) to make money to survive. That money has to come from somewhere.

5 hours ago, Roswell said:

You're literally describing the definition of the word "sponsored". The company is "sponsoring" your project because they're financially assisting you for your project. This requires disclosure and adequate language. In the case of this video, they gave him $10,000 of free network equipment for his house. They subsidized his home infrastructure by a significant amount in exchange for a video dedicated to them. This is absolutely an ad. It's basically an infomercial.

I agree that sponsored content should be indicated though I feel they do an adequate job at it. I also feel that if people would actually watch the entire videos (not accusing you of not doing so), they wouldn't miss the sections where they say it's a sponsor or announce that company X has provided product Y. In the home WiFi video it's literally only 25 seconds in before he mentions Ruckus and Ubiquity sent over the equipment. Others have mentioned Linus may have simply asked them, but in reality, do we have any idea what went down or are we, as usual, just speculating? Maybe he asked for free stuff, maybe he merely asked for a 5% discount in return for some exposure and they went "hey man, it's on us, good luck with your house", maybe they even approached him with a "hey noticed your house renovation, want some gear?" attitude.

[Ein0r]

Mh, I've can't say that I felt poorly advised by ltt videos when they show something I might be interested in. At best I get a product demonstration that convinces me, at worst I get  demonstration where I know I won't get royally fucked over. And if I'm actually interested in getting one of these products, I still look up other channels or sites.

 

I don't have a big problem with ltt using those products for personal gains. It's definitely not best practices and makes me quite envious because I can't make use of it. Have you seen the video of the recent studio tour? Man, they have so much hardware lying around that I could build an infinitely petter pc than I have right now, with just their unused hardware that's already 2-4 years old.

 

And taking them home after a video or not sending them back is just how the game is played, if it isn't some excessively large or expensive product. I remember Linus having to send back a lot of hard drives iirc? Companies sell 100k items, and allocates 5k of these for advertisting purposes. What should the company do with those one-time used products that get sent back to them in varying conditions?  GN will probably put that product a lot harder to the hest than LMG, and LMG will use it a lot more than fairly known unboxing channels.

 

I also don't know the legal aspects of advertising, sponsoring and the like, which makes it easier for me to be somewhat chill about it.

[LogicalDrm]

15 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

Also didn't a past wan show say that linus would keep ads off the forums but now I'm looking at a secret labs chair ad. It's not about a specific thing that bothers me but that the bar gets set lower and lower for LTT ethics and sticking to their word

You will need to link to that.
Forum is only part of their operation that isn't generating enough to be even self-supported. The ads and forum subscriptions bring in some money that is used to cover costs. But that's not nearly enough. So if LMG would only be for profit (as you are hinting here),
they would shut down forums.

 

You (all) also keep talking about FTC and its regulations. LMG is Canadian company and has tp abide Canadian laws first and foremost. Ofc FTC can note about content shown to US audiences, but for actual penalties and such, they don't have any power outside the US borders.

[GeorgeMKane]

Quote

It is unethical to keep the product after a review

I feel like you're not getting why they are sent products in the first place. First of all, they often times get products (whether they be prototypes, betas, or the publicly released version) to review them. Obviously, they have a deal with the company that sent them that allows them to keep them. I've seen in multiple videos where LTT will keep a product and use it weeks or even months later in another video. This actually helps all of us, by helping us / guiding us in determining what's best for whatever situation or topic the video is about.

 

I feel like this is you being upset that they got the product for free, and not you. It's almost like going into a subway and asking for extra on everything, and being surprised you have to pay for it, but the employee who works there definitely doesn't.

Quote

It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen.

I've literally done this working in retail before. Why? It was the best product of the kind/type/category, that I had seen before. This is opinionated and not factual. This in no way means it's the best product you've ever seen, but it's the best one of the type/kind/category that I have seen. That's purely opinionated, and no where near unethical.

 

IMO, I think you need to revisit what's unethical, and what's not.

[Beerzerker]

In my view and as long as I've been around such, it's like this:

Look at the number of viewers that watch the LTT channel each day - Then look at the number of LTT forum members here......
It all adds up to a BIG market with plenty of potential for any company wanting to sell something to a at least a few of those guys.

LTT has the numbers by views and so on to be a valuable asset (Market), so if a company wants to setup a means of promoting their products it's not a free ride.
It's the same as paying for advertising on TV except this caters directly to the target portion of the market you want to reach.
And since LTT IS a media company that's really what it's for - Advertising.

Nothing is free and access to what he's got isn't either, he has every right to "Charge" these companies for admission to the "Market" he owns.

And as in "HOW" they want to pay - That's between them, it's not for me or you to decide nor is it any of our business.

Linus, like it or not has built this into a form of media-empire backed by the sheer numbers you see everyday here, watching the channel and whatever else - Like we are the product to Microshaft, he himself along with his media company are a product to these companies and has what they want and will pay to have access to.

Good on him I say.

[Sauron]

There's no such thing as an unbiased review, by its very nature it's opinionated content.

 

As for whether LTT is ethical in they way they present their content... I would say they have been, in so far as the consumer electronics industry itself is ethical. Ultimately they still present products and there's a baseline consumerist attitude in anything they put out, again, by the very nature of the industry they cover and through no particular fault of their own.

 

Sponsored content is clearly labeled so I don't consider it unethical (at least not any more than any other form of advertisement).

15 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

For everyone saying the sponsored content is clear here is all the information about sponsors. So did glass wire pay for the wifi  

Glasswire paid for the ad spot in the video, indirectly funding the production of the video itself. You may notice that outside of content showcases they usually take care to give the sponsor spot to a company that doesn't have a direct interest in what is being shown in the video.

 

The wifi setup was paid by Linus personally, at least that's what is said in the video. If you have evidence showing that was a lie then by all means, show me.

[YoungBlade]

18 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 Pay to Play: It is unethical to keep the product after a review ( unless purchased from retailer with own company or individual funds) 

 It is unethical to be compensated in exchange to review a product regardless if its positive or negative in conclusion.

Here's how the transaction typically goes: A company either gives an offer to send out a review sample (or even just sends one unsolicited). The reviewer accepts the sample. The review decides to post a review of the product. If the company permits it, the reviewer keeps the product after the review.

 

Where is the unethical behavior in this?

 

Let's say someone asks me my opinion of a restaurant. By your reasoning, it now matters whether or not I paid for the food when I went to that restaurant. Would it actually be unethical for me to share my honest opinion if the only time I had been there, I didn't have to pay for the meal? If so, why?

18 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 What is okay? It is okay to have advertisement but advertisement must be clearly outlined and opinions must remain out of a payed advertisement I.E. It is unethical to say in an ad this is the best product we have seen. A review must be objective and can have option. An advertisement should not cross "contaminate" a reviewers opinion I.E. "This is the best product we have ever used at our company" 

I'm going to assume you're not talking about situations where reviewers straight up lie because the advertiser wants them to. That is obviously unethical and I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.

 

So, assuming the reviewer truly believes that the product is the best one they've used, why is it unethical? Isn't telling the truth assumed to be ethical by default? Why is it unethical to tell the truth about something just because you were given money to tell the truth?

18 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 It is more my opinion that sponsored content is wrong by both using products for personal gain, and using sponsored content as if it is beneficial for a consumer. Why? Because sponsored content will have a context of give and take it is not a zero sum gain. Sponsored content is always in the light as if it was a review or objective and something a consumer can trust and take another word for, however that is the exact opposite purpose of sponsored content. In a typical commercial you will always see why brand A) is always better than brand B) this is easy to dismiss and think critically as you know company A will always put product A in a better light than product B in sponsored content this should never be the case as it leans far to heavily on your trust with an unbias reviewer so it is much more difficult to separate or discern when product A is getting its best foot forward. IE a 3090 playing a cherry picked list of games because that is the goal of sponsored content and is anti viewer and anti consumer. 

LTT tries to make money on videos regardless of whether the content is sponsored. That's ultimately why they make videos: to make money. If they thought the sponsored video wouldn't get any views, or might hurt their brand, they wouldn't do it. That's why LTT has turned down sponsors and advertisers in the past due to community feedback. Linus said in a WAN show that they're not going to partner with NiceHash in the future because the community didn't like it.

 

If you're going to assume that content will be unfairly curated in a sponsored video, because LTT is allowing the allure of money to taint their opinions, then shouldn't you also assume that it is being unfairly curated in "regular" videos?

 

For example, since people love an underdog story, could it be that LTT has been giving overly positive coverage of AMD products for the past few years because that's what the audience wants to see? The underdog coming from behind and winning is always popular, and if you look, LTT's AMD review videos from the last few years have been much more popular than their Intel ones. In fact, the most popular Intel review video I can find is about the 10000X series titled "Intel's behavior is PATHETIC - Core i9 10980XE Review."

 

Why are you concerned about LTT misleading consumers to get sponsor money, but you aren't concerned about LTT misleading consumers to get regular old YouTube ad money? Or just shifting their opinions to what's popular to build their brand to sell more merch? I would argue that both of those things would be more unethical than doing sponsored videos, because in those cases, LTT staff are actually lying to us to make money, not just showcasing a random product to make money.

18 hours ago, blue2kid3 said:

 I don't want to make anyone feel any way to strongly about this post. All I want is for those to maybe become encouraged to think for themselves and hopefully have more transparency and improved Ethics at LTT.

I certainly do think for myself about things like this. And greater transparency is always good, which is why I like the fact that LTT has done a couple of videos about how they earn money. Which, by the way, they don't have to do - it's just to give their viewers transparency about things like this.

 

In my opinion, LTT has not done anything unethical here. As long as they give their honest opinions about products, I think they've done a good job.

[Rex Hite]

I see LMG as a PR company that dabbles in advertising and so I expect LMG to do and say whatever it takes to satisfy their paying clients as well as promote the consumer tech industry in general on behalf of all their clients, current and potential. They have also really taken to selling what amounts to trade-show swag. Expensive swag but swag nonetheless. I have over the years been given very high quality AGFA, Kodak, Fuji and Ilford 'branded' clothing. But it was always free. Getting people to pay for that stuff is some branding genius. Kudos for that.

 

Within what the laws allow they can make any claims they want about their own ethical standards. The first job of any PR firm is to establish its own credibility. Given that LMG, for the most part, promotes toys and game-playing I personally don't think what they do and how they do it demands particularly high standards of ethics in reviews or advertisements beyond what the law requires. Claims about the separation of sponsored ads from reviews are effectively just self-PR to satisfy a minimal standard. But that's fine. At the end of the day it's mostly about toys.

 

LMG doesn't represent big-pharma, big-ag, big-energy or big-arms, they represent big-toy.

 

 

 

 

[Spotty]

7 hours ago, Sauron said:

The wifi setup was paid by Linus personally, at least that's what is said in the video. If you have evidence showing that was a lie then by all means, show me.

In the video Linus said he paid for the Ruckus gear at his old house ($1,000 AP), but for this video in the new house he says that Ruckus sent him over $10,000 worth of their networking gear. At the start of the video he says "With the help of Ruckus who sent over not only this but another 5 (supposed to be another 7) of their WIFI 6 access points and Ubiqiti who provided the PoE switch that is going to power it all... Like seriously, this is over 10 grand of the best wifi gear money can buy" and just before the Backblaze sponsor spot he says "So yeah thanks for sending those over" [referring to Ruckus].

 

By saying they 'sent over' the gear it implies to me that they provided it to him for free. If that's not the case then it really isn't made clear in the video. It should be made very clear whether or not he paid for it, received it at a discount, or was provided it for free. In the video he demonstrates the product, reviews it (tests it against other access points, tests its network speed and range) and ultimately endorses the product. If the company is giving him thousands of dollars worth of free products that he is keeping for his own personal use in his home then he really needs to declare that when endorsing them.

[blue2kid3]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

In the video Linus said he paid for the Ruckus gear at his old house ($1,000 AP), but for this video in the new house he says that Ruckus sent him over $10,000 worth of their networking gear. At the start of the video he says "With the help of Ruckus who sent over not only this but another 5 (supposed to be another 7) of their WIFI 6 access points and Ubiqiti who provided the PoE switch that is going to power it all... Like seriously, this is over 10 grand of the best wifi gear money can buy" and just before the Backblaze sponsor spot he says "So yeah thanks for sending those over" [referring to Ruckus].

 

By saying they 'sent over' the gear it implies to me that they provided it to him for free. If that's not the case then it really isn't made clear in the video. It should be made very clear whether or not he paid for it, received it at a discount, or was provided it for free. In the video he demonstrates the product, reviews it (tests it against other access points, tests its network speed and range) and ultimately endorses the product. If the company is giving him thousands of dollars worth of free products that he is keeping for his own personal use in his home then he really needs to declare that when endorsing them.

 I am very happy a mod see's the issues here.  

[blue2kid3]

I feel like a solid 70% think I am against LTT, LMG and linus but the simple fact is I have been watching linus since 2009. He inspired me to get into PC gaming and I have used his links for products that I felt have value and own a lot of his merch specifically the desk mat that I think is great value.  I have felt a decline in what I would call ethics and simply want him to improve in the same way I would and have wanted Nvidia to improve. Linus is worth 16 million USD and has a responsability as a very wealthy person and owner of a moderatly large press company to be a leader in the space and platform and with content like the one you mention and countless others has been lacking.

[LAwLz]

On 9/12/2021 at 4:06 AM, Ravendarat said:

The videos already have a giant banner that say "sponsored by ........." immediately at the start. Seems like pretty clear marking

The problems with that is that like 95% of all videos from LTT are sponsored, including their reviews. But we as viewers have no idea how much influence the sponsor has over the video.

 

 

Another problem is that the whole "product showcase" is a term LTT themselves came up with and just started using one day without any explanation. Viewers have no way of knowing the implications of a "product showcase" unless they happened to have viewed some segment of the WAN show where Linus talked about it once or twice. Not to mention that they put it at the end of the title so it often doesn't even show up in the title because they become too long, so you have to click the video to see "product showcase".

 

And on top of those things, they have done several videos where the video itself was sponsored by the maker of the product, but it wasn't labeled a showcase because LTT thought the sponsor didn't have that much influence over the video. One example was the Oculus Quest video which was sponsored by Facebook. Not to mention that the video seemed like a review.

I don't think people would be able to tell whether or not this was a review. You only have subtle clues that only hardcore viewers will pick up on to determine if it's a review or not, and that's not how disclosures should be.