Is there a special deal between LTT and Asus?

[skaharn]

Hello everyone!

 

Long time viewer here, something has been bothering me for a while now and I'd like to know how the community feels about this.
Over the years, I've noticed that an abnormal amounts of Asus products are used on the channel. It's not even close to equal with other manufacturers such as MSI, Gigabyte or Asrock.

It seems like in every build shown in a video, if there can be an Asus product, there is one and the brand's name is mentionned explicitely, it kinda creeps me out.

Examples include the peripherals used for benchmarking on set, the motherboards, the monitors, and many other components. It's like there's a hidden rule that there must be an Asus product somwhere in every video.
I find that really weird and the lack of any disclosure even weirder.

It struck me to the point of thinking about going through the whole channel and recording every mention (passive ad) for Asus, but that would be an insane amount of work...

It baffles me because I think the team and Linus are very cautious about what they recommend and advertise but this unspoken loyalty to Asus feels like a crazy amount of representation not to be qualified as an official endorsement.

So please tell me, have any of you noticed the same thing? Did I miss the official explanation about this? Should I ask in a merch message on the WAN show next time I find a cool thing I want on LTTstore?

[dizmo]

I think you don't fully understand how LTT gets the stuff they use in their builds, on set, etc; they're free. They're given to them by the companies in exchange for coverage. It's probable that Asus just decided to seed them more products than other manufacturers. MSI is another huge supporter, if you look at their latest video with all of the 3080s in it.

[Arika]

Asus likely just send them more high-end hardware so there is a bigger chance of grabbing an Asus product of the shelves. 

That or they just have better experience with Asus in builds to just work. 

 

I think you're reading way too far into this. 

[skaharn]

I get your point but don't you think the huge disproportion gives ground for a disclaimer? It's so skewed.

[Arika]

9 minutes ago, skaharn said:

I get your point but don't you think the huge disproportion gives ground for a disclaimer? It's so skewed.

No?

They don't need a disclaimer for any other part they use disproportionately. 

 

• Samsung ssds is in pretty much every build, sometimes that corsair brick one
• Ryzen 1000 - 3000 was all you would find in build guides until recently
• Nvidia gpus heavily outweighs amd ones

[Blue4130]

35 minutes ago, skaharn said:

I get your point but don't you think the huge disproportion gives ground for a disclaimer? It's so skewed.

They are an entertainment channel, not a news or government agency. They don't need to disclose.

[Ultraforce]

1 hour ago, Blue4130 said:

They are an entertainment channel, not a news or government agency. They don't need to disclose.

they do need to disclose but disclosing specifically that they got their products free from manufacturers is unnecessary. Disclosures such as whether the video is sponsored by a company related to the subject, where they got the GPUs and CPUs for review is good and important though.

[dizmo]

3 hours ago, skaharn said:

I get your point but don't you think the huge disproportion gives ground for a disclaimer? It's so skewed.

Skewed in what regard? It's not like they're reviewing or talking about that product in every video. By the stretches you're going to, they'd also have to mention what brand clothing they're using, since it's in every video as well.

1 hour ago, Ultraforce said:

they do need to disclose but disclosing specifically that they got their products free from manufacturers is unnecessary. Disclosures such as whether the video is sponsored by a company related to the subject, where they got the GPUs and CPUs for review is good and important though.

They do not. The requirement you're thinking of is, IIRC, for US companies.

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

They are an entertainment channel, not a news or government agency. They don't need to disclose.

3 hours ago, dizmo said:

They do not. The requirement you're thinking of is, IIRC, for US companies.

 

I don't get it. Why are both of you commenting on something you clearly have no idea about and haven't reached?

Disclosures are required by Canadian law. Canada has a law called the "competition Act". It is overseen by Canada's Competition Bureau. 

 

Here is what the Competition Bureau has to say:

Quote

You should disclose all material connections you have with the business, product or service you are promoting.

 

Your connections may be “material” if they have the potential to affect how consumers evaluate your independence from a brand. For example, you may have a material connection if you have:

 

• received payment in money or commissions
• received free products or services
• received discounts
• received free trips or tickets to events
• a personal or family relationship

 

Even if it wasn't the law, you should hold people to a high standard. Even if Canada didn't have a law that ads needed to be disclosed, you should still look down on people who do not do it, because it is unethical. It is misleading and it is trying to take advantage of your viewers.

 

 

Anyway, a bit OT. My guess is that Asus has simply sponsored them a lot in the past and since Asus got such a broad assortment of products, they end up with at least one Asus product in their videos by coincidence.

I am not sure if you need to keep mentioning that a product came from a sponsor in exchange for something even if it happened in the past. So for example if Nvidia gave LTT a 3090 in order to review it, LTT would have to keep mentioning that it was provided by Nvidia even 2 years down the line if they happened to use the same GPU in a new video.

Someone who has read the Canadian marketing law more thoroughly might want to chip in on that. Might be a fairly big oversight on LTT's part if that is required but they don't do it.

[Unedited_Mind]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I don't get it. Why are both of you commenting on something you clearly have no idea about and haven't reached?

Disclosures are required by Canadian law. Canada has a law called the "competition Act". It is overseen by Canada's Competition Bureau. 

 

Here is what the Competition Bureau has to say:

 

Even if it wasn't the law, you should hold people to a high standard. Even if Canada didn't have a law that ads needed to be disclosed, you should still look down on people who do not do it, because it is unethical. It is misleading and it is trying to take advantage of your viewers.

Just move country, problem solved.

[Blue4130]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

I don't get it. Why are both of you commenting on something you clearly have no idea about and haven't reached?

Disclosures are required by Canadian law. Canada has a law called the "competition Act". It is overseen by Canada's Competition Bureau. 

 

Here is what the Competition Bureau has to say:

 

Even if it wasn't the law, you should hold people to a high standard. Even if Canada didn't have a law that ads needed to be disclosed, you should still look down on people who do not do it, because it is unethical. It is misleading and it is trying to take advantage of your viewers.

Simply using a particular mobo in a video about something like "BEST CPU" or other random video is not "promotion" is it? Surely it is geared towards promotion of said topic of video?

[Unedited_Mind]

What if the ASUS Extreme boards give the best performance? If testing hardware.... it makes sense to use the best performing surrounding parts.

If your mind cannot understand variance and are fixated on like a 2% difference not even that between boards then it is a you problem.

 

2% is not noticeable.

[Blue4130]

16 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Simply using a particular mobo in a video about something like "BEST CPU" or other random video is not "promotion" is it? Surely it is geared towards promotion of said topic of video?

After more reading, product placement does NOT need to be disclosed during the video.

 

"Likewise, there are no explicit legal restrictions against product placements in Canada. The Canadian Marketing Association’s Code of Ethics states that product placement within entertainment programing is acceptable. However, advertisers must still be cautious to ensure that the placements do not contravene other advertising and marketing laws, including:    false and misleading advertising (e.g., product/service is used in such a way to give a deceptive impression about is attributes);    industry specific restrictions (e.g., alcohol and tobacco placements); and    marketing to children and young teenagers.

•  

So as long as it isn't the main topic of the video, they likely have no issue. So for a GPU review, Asus sends them a board, MSI sends the GPU that they are reviewing, they don't need to disclose the Asus board, only the MSI connection.

[LAwLz]

39 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

Simply using a particular mobo in a video about something like "BEST CPU" or other random video is not "promotion" is it? Surely it is geared towards promotion of said topic of video?

Since the Competition Bureau often uses the word "feature", my guess is that the law applies to all products that is in some way featured in content, although I haven't read the actual law in such detail to know for sure. Plus I am not a lawyer so it is possible that I would misunderstand it even if I had read that section.

 

In any case, it is very likely that it applies to such situations, otherwise people could very easily get around any disclosures by just saying videos were not actually about that product, it just happened that the product was in the video. A makeup tutorial where 10 different products are used, all from the same brand would not need discloser because the video is about how to apply makeup, not specifically about a particular product, right?

 

Also, I strongly believe that people should be as transparent as possible regarding the sponsorship. It is always good to disclose more than the minimum requirement written in the law. 

 

 

  

17 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

After more reading, product placement does NOT need to be disclosed during the video.

 

"Likewise, there are no explicit legal restrictions against product placements in Canada. The Canadian Marketing Association’s Code of Ethics states that product placement within entertainment programing is acceptable. However, advertisers must still be cautious to ensure that the placements do not contravene other advertising and marketing laws, including:    false and misleading advertising (e.g., product/service is used in such a way to give a deceptive impression about is attributes);    industry specific restrictions (e.g., alcohol and tobacco placements); and    marketing to children and young teenagers.

•  

So as long as it isn't the main topic of the video, they likely have no issue. So for a GPU review, Asus sends them a board, MSI sends the GPU that they are reviewing, they don't need to disclose the Asus board, only the MSI connection.

That info is from 2006. A lot has changed since then.

For example the Ad Standards origination in Canada (which is a self regulatory body) did not have guidelines for influencer marketing until 2016. The Competition Bureau did not have its "influencer marketing" page made until 2019 from what I can tell either.

 

My guess is that the examples in this thread would fall under what Ad standards calls "posting beyond contractual obligations". Asus gave them a motherboard for use in one video, but they keep using the same motherboard in other videos because they think it is good. Ad Standards states that "viewers has the right to know that there is a material connection between the brand and the influencer, even if the influencer genuinely loves and endorses the brand", which I totally agree with.

[Blue4130]

10 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Since the Competition Bureau often uses the word "feature", my guess is that the law applies to all products that is in some way featured in content, although I haven't read the actual law in such detail to know for sure. Plus I am not a lawyer so it is possible that I would misunderstand it even if I had read that section.

 

In any case, it is very likely that it applies to such situations, otherwise people could very easily get around any disclosures by just saying videos were not actually about that product, it just happened that the product was in the video. A makeup tutorial where 10 different products are used, all from the same brand would not need discloser because the video is about how to apply makeup, not specifically about a particular product, right?

 

Also, I strongly believe that people should be as transparent as possible regarding the sponsorship. It is always good to disclose more than the minimum requirement written in the law. 

 

 

  

That info is from 2006. A lot has changed since then.

Sure, I will admit that I am also not a lawyer. I am also extremely cynical and assume that everything is sponsored or comped in some way.

 

I also assume that LTT has a fairly robust law team that keeps them on the correct path for Canadian laws. If they aren't disclosing, then they likely don't have to.

[LAwLz]

49 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

I am also extremely cynical and assume that everything is sponsored or comped in some way.

The thing is that if people actually followed the law and were honest, you wouldn't have to assume everyone was a paid shill. Sadly, that is not the world we live in and it might be best to do what you do and assume influencers are trying to deceive you.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Blue4130 said:

I also assume that LTT has a fairly robust law team that keeps them on the correct path for Canadian laws.

I am 99% sure they don't have that. It is not listed on their site at the very least.

My guess is that they might have someone assigned with the task of reacting to issues, rather than proactively try and prevent issues. But they only do it if it is absolutely necessary and it is by no means their primary task at the company.

[Blue4130]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The thing is that if people actually followed the law and were honest, you wouldn't have to assume everyone was a paid shill. Sadly, that is not the world we live in and it might be best to do what you do and assume influencers are trying to deceive you.

 

 

I am 99% sure they don't have that. It is not listed on their site at the very least.

My guess is that they might have someone assigned with the task of reacting to issues, rather than proactively try and prevent issues. But they only do it if it is absolutely necessary and it is by no means their primary task at the company.

They used to have one, not sure if they still do. At the very least, they have representation. It has been mentioned in past WAN shows.

[ysbi]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am 99% sure they don't have that. It is not listed on their site at the very least.

My guess is that they might have someone assigned with the task of reacting to issues, rather than proactively try and prevent issues. But they only do it if it is absolutely necessary and it is by no means their primary task at the company.

You seriously think LTT doesn't have some sort of legal advice at least on retainer? C'mon, now.

[Lurking]

New to the Internet, or Media in general? In the days of paper magazines most had huge advertisement from the brands that miraculously won in their "10 best...." articles. 

 

99.99% of YT reviewers get the parts for free in return of at least a non-critical "opinion". They will mention some negatives to appear legit. But those negatives are things one can live with. You can follow some YT channels and in the beginning they are small and just review what they happen to have and are honest. Then they get bigger, get sponsors and you see how their reviews start to skew toward the products they get to review. 

 

Notable exceptions are Gamers Nexus, Consumer Reports etc. they attempt to buy the products anonymously and are not afraid to bash them if they deserve it. GN get some "free" products for review, but they still seem to be hones about it. Obviously you should always question a reviewer's motives and form your own opinion. I find a forum like this give more unbiased information than most commercial 

 

i don't watch LTT (anymore) so I can't tell where they fall on the spectrum. but even fi they are 100% honest and unbiased, you still should take it with a grain of salt. 

[thrasher_565]

2 hours ago, Lurking said:

New to the Internet, or Media in general? In the days of paper magazines most had huge advertisement from the brands that miraculously won in their "10 best...." articles. 

 

99.99% of YT reviewers get the parts for free in return of at least a non-critical "opinion". They will mention some negatives to appear legit. But those negatives are things one can live with. You can follow some YT channels and in the beginning they are small and just review what they happen to have and are honest. Then they get bigger, get sponsors and you see how their reviews start to skew toward the products they get to review. 

 

Notable exceptions are Gamers Nexus, Consumer Reports etc. they attempt to buy the products anonymously and are not afraid to bash them if they deserve it. GN get some "free" products for review, but they still seem to be hones about it. Obviously you should always question a reviewer's motives and form your own opinion. I find a forum like this give more unbiased information than most commercial 

 

i don't watch LTT (anymore) so I can't tell where they fall on the spectrum. but even fi they are 100% honest and unbiased, you still should take it with a grain of salt. 

as long as there more pros then cons that's a good enough review its been like that on you tube for years. the legit reviews are ones that buy the items so they can say w/e they want about it and hope that they get enough views to pay for the item / pay check

 

some might get sponsors like gfull and then pay for w/e they want. something complete different from the tech channel so they dont care.

 

ltt dose all of em

Edited June 13, 2022 by thrasher_565

[Ultraforce]

10 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am 99% sure they don't have that. It is not listed on their site at the very least.

My guess is that they might have someone assigned with the task of reacting to issues, rather than proactively try and prevent issues. But they only do it if it is absolutely necessary and it is by no means their primary task at the company.

I would definitely agree given the whole thing of a mixed bag of occupational health and safety stuff that they even reference in their videos. Such as with the accountant and intel extreme tech upgrade declaring that he is not working or at work when doing this so itès fine.

 

3 hours ago, Lurking said:

New to the Internet, or Media in general? In the days of paper magazines most had huge advertisement from the brands that miraculously won in their "10 best...." articles. 

 

99.99% of YT reviewers get the parts for free in return of at least a non-critical "opinion". They will mention some negatives to appear legit. But those negatives are things one can live with. You can follow some YT channels and in the beginning they are small and just review what they happen to have and are honest. Then they get bigger, get sponsors and you see how their reviews start to skew toward the products they get to review. 

 

i don't watch LTT (anymore) so I can't tell where they fall on the spectrum. but even fi they are 100% honest and unbiased, you still should take it with a grain of salt. 

LTT has definitely been critical of both stuff they've gotten for free including full on sponsored videos into the level of really like some elements of this but don't buy it.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, ysbi said:

You seriously think LTT doesn't have some sort of legal advice at least on retainer? C'mon, now.

They have probably contacted some legal professional for some things, but I doubt they have a "legal team" employed at them who constantly do proactive work such as looking through future videos for issues.

[Erioch]

5 hours ago, Lurking said:

Notable exceptions are Gamers Nexus, Consumer Reports etc.

Consumer Reports faked SUV rollovers to get the results they wanted back in the 90s.   

[Montana One-Six]

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 I doubt they have a "legal team" employed at them who constantly do proactive work such as looking through future videos for issues.

Why would they? I mean if they have some legal advisor that gave them advice on how certain rules and laws generally apply to their videos they don't need a legal team looking at their stuff 24/7.

 

 

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, Montana One-Six said:

Why would they? I mean if they have some legal advisor that gave them advice on how certain rules and laws generally apply to their videos they don't need a legal team looking at their stuff 24/7.

I feel like you are replying to the wrong person.

Someone said that LTT has a "legal team" and as a result we should assume everything they do is legal. My counter to that was that I don't believe they have a legal team. As you said, why would they? 

I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even hired a lawyer or "legal team" to look over their practices. They probably play things quite a bit by ear, and are reactive if something arises.