Has Anyone Else Unsubscribed From Gamers Nexus?

[tkitch]

14 hours ago, HomicidalPingu said:

The Sonos one… beat for beat product marketing with the classic “I was ready to shit all over it but now Sonos only make amazing products and you should buy TWO not one”.

Then why are they presented as reviews and not labelled showcases anymore? You also completely bypassed my second point. 

 

This sonos one?  What makes you think it was a paid sponsorship?  Because he liked it?

Again:  Find me ONE REVIEW that was paid for by the manuf.  You keep making claims but have 0 fucking documentation.  Back your arguments up or shut the fuck up. 

[thrasher_565]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

I do not know what you mean. I used a d14 for my 2600k, CPUs always benefitted from more cooling. I  don't know where you are getting it did not work for the 8700k, it very much does. Yea, they did hotplate to control wattage and standardize the test at some point, but I don't get what point that is. 

the point is most cpus didn't need a $150 cooler hence the focus on cheaper coolers. and the deep cool cooler beat the d15 and was cheaper...

there zero prof that lower temps has any impact. ya maybe you can get a boots bin but dose it really help? is it worth the cost? no. just spend the moeny on a faster gpu/cpu instead.

[starsmine]

45 minutes ago, thrasher_565 said:

the point is most cpus didn't need a $150 cooler hence the focus on cheaper coolers. and the deep cool cooler beat the d15 and was cheaper...

there zero prof that lower temps has any impact. ya maybe you can get a boots bin but dose it really help? is it worth the cost? no. just spend the moeny on a faster gpu/cpu instead.

D14/d15 were never 150


75 USD in 2011, 100 in 2022

[ToboRobot]

8 minutes ago, starsmine said:

D14/d15 were never 150


75 USD in 2011, 100 in 2022

It's $140 Canadian on Amazon, and some retailers have it even higher.

[UghNotLikeThis]

GN drinking game: Take a shot every time Steve says "What were they thinking?!"

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, tkitch said:

Find me ONE REVIEW that was paid for by the manuf.  You keep making claims but have 0 fucking documentation.  Back your arguments up or shut the fuck up. 

While he is using things like sponsor or reviews, I do think the general point that he's hitting on is correct.

 

The main channel one which is obvious is the "You're Wrong About Hydrogen Cars - Toyota Mirai".  There are definitely talking points, the video was released around the same time as other influencers releasing it, and some of the images on screen came from the Toyota Marketing package.

 

Whether or not LMG wants to admit it, it should count as an endorsement given that at least some of the travel was covered by Toyota and given access to the vehicle; and it should be defined in the video the relationship with Toyota (and yet in the video there wasn't a mention of that linkage).  The only way we know is from a forum post discussing the video where the question was brought up and at least partially answered.

 

The Sonos one is a more rocky example, but what I would say in regards to the one posted.  It does say review in the title, but it took to two thirds of a video to even imply the fact that Sonos was providing the equipment free.  While I don't personally think the Sonos one really crossed the line, I do understand some people's argument that it wasn't properly disclosed in a manor that it should be given the size of LMG.

 

The Toyota video though is one where I think they cross the line after reflection; as the link should have clearly been disclosed and it wasn't.

 

This is the US FTC when they reference the law

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/plain-language/1001a-influencer-guide-508_1.pdf

Page 2:

Quote

If you endorse a product through social media, your endorsement
message should make it obvious when you have a relationship
(“material connection”) with the brand. A “material connection” to
the brand includes a personal, family, or employment relationship or
a financial relationship – such as the brand paying you or giving you
free or discounted products or services.

That in itself implies that every video that's highlighting a product (whether or not the company controls the narrative) should have some messaging expressly baked in disclosing the relationship.  [So in the case of Sonos clearly mentioning they were given the product for review, or in the case of Toyota that they covered some of the costs]

 

And I know that the word endorse might bring up some contention in what it means, so here is also an FTC document talking about "endorsement"

https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/P204500 Guides Concerning Endors and Testimonials.pdf

Page 9:

Quote

Current Section 255.0(b) defines an “endorsement” as any advertising message
that consumers are likely to believe reflects the opinions, beliefs, findings, or experience
of a party other than the sponsoring advertiser

While the Sonos one is a bit sketchy if it applies, I do think there could be an argument being made that since Linus was telling his opinions about it without proper disclosure it's hard to say whether or not some of those beliefs or talking points might be part of Sonos.  [But again, I think the Toyota one is the biggest example of it].  As a whole, LMG should really just have a quick 2-3 second thing where they say where they got the products/affiliations from in the video at the beginning.

[Thaldor]

4 hours ago, DeerDK said:

It's still not a sponsored commercial. I tried looking up ethical influencer rules/guidelines for affiliated links. It seems like everything is within bonds. There is a text right under the link.

 

But we are discussing techicalities in relation to affilate links now. Where is the evidence of an undisclosed sponsor deal?

The problem isn't the money they get but where they get it. At least for me it eats the credibility of the opinions presented if sponsorships aren't disclosed, in the case of CS Sonos video, CLEARLY.

 

Example: I am 100% against Epic Game Store and anyone affiliated to them because their affiliate program. I would be okay if it was Epic Games paying content creators generating traffic and sales on the platform, this way the content creator doesn't lick the game developers nuts because the opinion on the game doesn't affect their revenue. However the system is that the game developer gives a cut of their sales to the content creator who generates sales for the game and here content creators income is directly based on the sale of the game and so their goal is to create those sales.

 

I would say the undisclosed sponsor deal in SC Sonos case is that LMG even put the Sonos store affiliate link behind short link so for those who do not visit the link it's not clear that LMG is getting paid from Sonos sales directly by Sonos meaning they have direct monetary interest to boost Sonos sales

 

When it comes to the "review" vs. "unboxing", for me opinion piece is opinion piece, be it what but if you express your opinions and your income is based how well that exact product sells, I keep my salt shaker close by.

[DeerDK]

1 hour ago, Thaldor said:

.... 

I would say the undisclosed sponsor deal in SC Sonos case is that LMG even put the Sonos store affiliate link behind short link so for those who do not visit the link it's not clear that LMG is getting paid from Sonos sales directly by Sonos meaning they have direct monetary interest to boost Sonos sales

... 

You keep calling it undisclosed although there were clear information about the affiliate link right under it.

If people don't click the link, LMG won't earn money on the sale from another source, so I consider that argument moot. 

Proove something undisclosed took place or stop it. 

 

In more general terms, the ethics about affiliate links are not a LTT issue. It's industry wide. I just looked up GNs latest videos, and all the coolers in their review has affiliate links (tried skimming through, but couldn't find any mention of the affiliate program, will try again later and edit if I find it) 

 

I don't say this to discredit GN, Im just pointing out it's a common thing, and if by your words, why should you trust a review if the media earns money on you buying one of the tested products. 

 

That said, I don't generally care for unboxings/product presentations. If I look something up it's usually because I seek information so I want a real review. For the same reason I generally don't watch ShortCircut, but I know it's not in depth reviews.

And a real review is not just an opinion piece IMO. It includes comparable data to similar products so that the consumer can make informed decisions. 

Now, speakers are difficult to do that with, until you have a sound lab, but in that case "I like it" is a valid approach, and Linus is pretty clear about sponsored content. They can read the supplied text, but won't keep away from speaking their mind. Look at the whole Vessie waterproof discussion. 

Finally, the trust of the consumers/viewers is worth way more than one or two skims from product sales. So why risk it?

 

Taking product presentations with a grain of salt is always wise. As I said, I want comparable data in my reviews. 

[SansVarnic]

-= Locked =-

Topic has reached its conclusion.