I have made a very expensive mistake

[MarkPol88]

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

So, what, before ~2010, cars were effectively useless? I don't understand how you can lie to yourself like this. Cars world perfectly fine without 200+ hp in the past.

Check average weight of cars in last 30 years, then do the math.

 

11 hours ago, poochyena said:

An older sedan, with its lower bumper and less horsepower, its much less likely to kill people than a modern SUV or truck with its taller bumper and higher horsepower.

The picture above is stating only size - where did you get horsepower statistics?

Just stop mixing up ideology with facts. It never ends well for discussion.

[DeltaBruggemann]

On 8/4/2023 at 4:40 PM, poochyena said:

An old beater will do less damage and doesn't actively encourage and advertise dangerous behavior.

Except damage from collisions is dependent on Velocity and Weight not what model of car it is. An old beater and a newer sportier car will do the same amount of damage if they have similar weights and travel at similar speeds. If anything older cars can encourage reckless driving as they can be cheaper to replace and repair compared to newer cars.

Plus this your argument isn't accounting for the fact that basically all new cars, including performance cars, come with newer safety systems to help mitigate collisions.

On 8/4/2023 at 4:40 PM, poochyena said:

e-bikes are regulated by law to not exceed ~26mph. Bicycles kill significantly fewer people than cars, yet, are regulated further than cars.

You say this but like I said originally its the person not the vehicle that causes the problems. Just because an E-scooter is speed limited doesn't mean some idiot can't get on it and run into me on a foot path. An E-Scooter, Bikes, Cars are all large expensive paperweights until a Person get in one. Then its up to the person controlling the vehicle to not do something stupid and cause an accident. Doesn't matter if its a Sports car or some under powered city hatch it always comes down to the driver.

[ToboRobot]

1 minute ago, DeltaBruggemann said:

Except damage from collisions is dependent on Velocity and Weight not what model of car it is.

 

So a 3500 lbs ICE car at 60km/h hits people with less force than a 5000 lbs EV at 60km/h.

If heavier cars are more "dangerous" and EVs are heavier... 

[DeltaBruggemann]

1 minute ago, ToboRobot said:

So a 3500 lbs ICE car at 60km/h hits people with less force than a 5000 lbs EV at 60km/h.

If heavier cars are more "dangerous" and EVs are heavier... 

Except we weren't talking about EV's. We are talking about Sports cars vs Normal Cars. A GR Corolla is approx 1400kg and a normal non sports Corolla is about the same weight. So a collision at the same speed will be similar in a collision.

[treestain]

23 minutes ago, DeltaBruggemann said:

and a normal non sports Corolla is about the same weight. So a collision at the same speed will be similar in a collision.

he's arguing that the sport variant of the corolla will encourage more reckless driving

[DeltaBruggemann]

3 hours ago, treestain said:

he's arguing that the sport variant of the corolla will encourage more reckless driving

And I'm saying people Will drive reckless regardless of what car they have.

[trag1c]

On 8/4/2023 at 10:29 PM, leadeater said:

It shows a small increase where as if we look at your graph in the same time period yours has an extremely massive increase while mine shows little change at all. Your graph is agenda biased and you know it.

 

If there are 100 million people the absolute number of any event is going to be lower than a population of 300 million etc etc. Your graph is just useless statistically. It doesn't matter how out of date mine is, it's statistically meaningful and shows a vast difference than yours. If you want to make a point go find up to date per capita data not raw absolute numbers.

I would also add that even if that other graph is correct (which I am not saying it is as it's a terrible graph), there have been a lot of societal/cultural shifts in that time.  Cell phones were significantly less addictive back in the early 00s compared to the smartphones that we have now.  The availability of these devices is also significantly higher. I am sure that the uptick in the USA in your graph could be correlated (at least partially) to that since in NA, people are particularly selfish/self-absorbed with no care or regard for others, which anecdotally seems to get worse by the day.

 

Then you also have a large shift in the head units in cars which are also causing distracted driving, you've gone from a basic radio with buttons and knobs to a full touchscreen infotainment system even in base model vehicles. My 23 WRX has almost no physical buttons so even adjusting things like climate controls I have to use the touchscreen which takes a lot more focus away from the road than if I had physical buttons with tactile feedback.

 

This same distracted behavior also applies to pedestrians as well since I have seen numerous people wander out into traffic while looking down at their phones. 

[silentdragon95]

Some of you guys really need to chill, lol.

 

I tend to agree with the sentiment of the video however. The thing is, even if you don't compare EVs to ICE cars, a small "performance-ish" car will usually be more fun than a high end performance car. There just aren't many places where the performance of high end cars actually matters. If I'm going for a fun car, I'd rather have something small that feels fast when chucking it around some mountain roads at legal speeds than a Porsche where the same thing feels like a leasurly afternoon drive. Okay I may be exaggerating slightly, but I have for example driven a Polo GTI (Mk V) and a Golf R (Mk VII) back to back on the same roads. The Golf R is an amazing car that basically invites you to set the adaptive cruise control to >200 kph and just cruise long-distance along the highway. The Polo will go just as fast, but it certainly doesn't feel relaxed at all at 250 kph. However, on backroads where the speed limit is 100 kph, the Golf R just felt... clinical. Yes it can take corners well and the brakes are great, but anything legal and safe just doesn't feel exciting because the car could do so much more. In the Polo however, the same roads feel much more engaging. And heck, the Golf R isn't even a real high end performance car! I wish I could get my hands on a VW Up GTI at some point, that thing sure won't be fast, but I bet you it's fun.

 

I have also driven the Audi E-Tron (I guess they call it Q8 E-Tron now) and while it was only the base model with around 300hp, it's till plenty fast and the throttle response of an EV like that is ridiculous if you're used to ICE cars. Don't floor it for more than 2 seconds in town if you intend to keep your license, lol. However, while it also does handle well thanks to it's low center of gravity (like pretty much all EVs), it feels even more clinical than the previously mentioned Golf R.

 

So I guess at the end of the day it comes down to what you are looking for in a car. If you are looking for actual, legal fun, a smaller, slower car is probably your best bet. Personally, I like both but prefer big luxury barges, but I wouldn't expect those to be fun on a mountain road. They will be relaxed, however.

[wanderingfool2]

Still going to ask again

 

@LinusTech @JordB

 

What involvement did Toyota have in this video?  It's funny how you went on about the "fraud" of Anker on the WAN show (I'm assuming their sponsorship contracts had allowed them to do it, if so then yea it becomes the influencer for not vetting the contract)..and yet you are following practices that might actually be in violation of some laws.

 

I think I've said it before in the Mirai topic, but I'll say it again.  If a company provides the product for you and it's what is being discussed in the video; it doesn't matter if you don't consider it a sponsorship, it should be disclosed (and maybe legally has to)

 

My assumption is that they provided the vehicle for this and some of the marketing material, but still; it needs to be very clear what is or isn't provided when the video highlights the product so much.

 

Like the hydrogen video and I'm assuming this video violates the Canadian Competition Act.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/influencer-marketing-and-competition-act

[LinusTech]

9 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Still going to ask again

 

@LinusTech @JordB

 

What involvement did Toyota have in this video?  It's funny how you went on about the "fraud" of Anker on the WAN show (I'm assuming their sponsorship contracts had allowed them to do it, if so then yea it becomes the influencer for not vetting the contract)..and yet you are following practices that might actually be in violation of some laws.

 

I think I've said it before in the Mirai topic, but I'll say it again.  If a company provides the product for you and it's what is being discussed in the video; it doesn't matter if you don't consider it a sponsorship, it should be disclosed (and maybe legally has to)

 

My assumption is that they provided the vehicle for this and some of the marketing material, but still; it needs to be very clear what is or isn't provided when the video highlights the product so much.

 

Like the hydrogen video and I'm assuming this video violates the Canadian Competition Act.

https://ised-isde.canada.ca/site/competition-bureau-canada/en/deceptive-marketing-practices/types-deceptive-marketing-practices/influencer-marketing-and-competition-act

You seem confused. 

 

These regulations exist to prevent consumers from being misled by advertising that's disguised as editorial content.

 

Anyone with a functioning brainstem can tell that an auto reviewer isn't buying every vehicle, so there's not much room for deception. Toyota provided the vehicles for us to make content about, but this isn't a sponsorship and no money exchanged hands in either case. We also didn't grant Toyota any edit privileges or any way to otherwise interfere with our creative process. 

A car to cover isn't a free product or service. It's just necessary to make the video, and frankly a pretty major inconvenience. Would you enjoy swapping cars every couple of weeks (re-pairing your phone, moving all your stuff around, re-shuffling your car seats) for work? It gets old.  As for the rest of this list:

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

 

There's nothing else to disclose. None of those things happened. The closest thing would be Alex's free trip to... their car to cover... the car.. then immediately a trip back up? That's not a gift. That's a burden... and again nothing to do with the spirit of the CCA. No marketing happened. There was no private Taylor Swift concert or whatever. It's a non-issue.

 

You're not the first to accuse us of violating the CCA, and like the others, your accusation is based on assumptions of things we *could* be doing, but like always, we aren't doing those things, so *shrug*

The good news is that you've latched onto a really important issue and there are plenty of low-hanging targets out there that you could be drawing attention to who ARE engaging in undisclosed marketing. I genuinely think finding them and shining a light on them would be really good use of time.

[Bitter]

13 minutes ago, LinusTech said:

You seem confused. 

 

These regulations exist to prevent consumers from being misled by advertising that's disguised as editorial content.

 

Anyone with a functioning brainstem can tell that an auto reviewer isn't buying every vehicle, so there's not much room for deception. Toyota provided the vehicles for us to make content about, but this isn't a sponsorship and no money exchanged hands in either case. We also didn't grant Toyota any edit privileges or any way to otherwise interfere with our creative process. 

A car to cover isn't a free product or service. It's just necessary to make the video, and frankly a pretty major inconvenience. Would you enjoy swapping cars every couple of weeks (re-pairing your phone, moving all your stuff around, re-shuffling your car seats) for work? It gets old.  As for the rest of this list:

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

 

There's nothing else to disclose. None of those things happened. The closest thing would be Alex's free trip to... their car to cover... the car.. then immediately a trip back up? That's not a gift. That's a burden... and again nothing to do with the spirit of the CCA. No marketing happened. There was no private Taylor Swift concert or whatever. It's a non-issue.

 

You're not the first to accuse us of violating the CCA, and like the others, your accusation is based on assumptions of things we *could* be doing, but like always, we aren't doing those things, so *shrug*

The good news is that you've latched onto a really important issue and there are plenty of low-hanging targets out there that you could be drawing attention to who ARE engaging in undisclosed marketing. I genuinely think finding them and shining a light on them would be really good use of time.

Skepticism is always healthy when it comes to product reviews, I take pretty much anything LTT reviews with a grain of salt more so than I do say GN who's super transparent about everything. A simple mention of 'Toyota provided the vehicle and paid for travel but had no input on blah blah blah' would have gone a ways to clear this up before anyone got any wrong impressions. Something to perhaps keep in mind in the future, transparency benefits us all in the long term.

[ToboRobot]

It seems ridiculous to need to state that Toyota or marketing agency on their behalf provided the car for a limited time in order to create the content.  But LMG does lots of ridiculous stuff to cater to the fans, so I think a quick text note or mention can resolve this issue in future auto content.


 

[nhand42]

33 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Skepticism is always healthy when it comes to product reviews, I take pretty much anything LTT reviews with a grain of salt more so than I do say GN who's super transparent about everything. A simple mention of 'Toyota provided the vehicle and paid for travel but had no input on blah blah blah' would have gone a ways to clear this up before anyone got any wrong impressions. Something to perhaps keep in mind in the future, transparency benefits us all in the long term.

Transparency doesn't necessarily mean a disclaimer in the video, not unless it's required by law or by the platform, and as LT outlined above it's not required in this situation. Transparency can also be their code-of-conduct either written or demonstrated over many years. It can also be their discussions on the WAN show or long-form explanations on the forums.

 

Transparency simply means being open to scrutiny and there's no doubt in my mind they embrace that already. They've given us more access into the behind-the-scenes of their company than any other I've seen. They've gained our trust through a decades long strategy of being open with us, their audience. I doubt they're going to risk that hard earned trust over a car review!

[Bitter]

1 minute ago, ToboRobot said:

It seems ridiculous to need to state that Toyota or marketing agency on their behalf provided the car for a limited time in order to create the content.  But LMG does lots of ridiculous stuff to cater to the fans, so I think a quick text note or mention can resolve this issue in future auto content.

It doesn't take much. In every video that GN does with a company they take a moment to voice over some B roll that they paid their own way. Just a quick 'And so we're all clear, Toyota was kind enough to fly us out and lend the car for the day but all the views and opinions on it are definitely ours'. That's all, simple, quick, to the point.

[Bitter]

1 hour ago, nhand42 said:

Transparency doesn't necessarily mean a disclaimer in the video, not unless it's required by law or by the platform, and as LT outlined above it's not required in this situation. Transparency can also be their code-of-conduct either written or demonstrated over many years. It can also be their discussions on the WAN show or long-form explanations on the forums.

 

Transparency simply means being open to scrutiny and there's no doubt in my mind they embrace that already. They've given us more access into the behind-the-scenes of their company than any other I've seen. They've gained our trust through a decades long strategy of being open with us, their audience. I doubt they're going to risk that hard earned trust over a car review!

Just because it's not required by law doesn't mean they can't do it. Only takes a second to do and gets everyone on the level.

[nhand42]

15 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Just because it's not required by law doesn't mean they can't do it. Only takes a second to do and gets everyone on the level.

And my point is they are already on the level by being open about their company and giving us access to behind-the-scenes. Transparency requires more effort than a recited piece of legal-text before the video starts. Tinfoil hatters aren't going to be convinced by such a disclaimer anyway.

[Bitter]

21 minutes ago, nhand42 said:

And my point is they are already on the level by being open about their company and giving us access to behind-the-scenes. Transparency requires more effort than a recited piece of legal-text before the video starts. Tinfoil hatters aren't going to be convinced by such a disclaimer anyway.

No but we wouldn't be having this discussion if they had a simple bit of boiler plate on the video, now would we? Linus wouldn't have come here to defend the company. Person wouldn't have accused the company. Simple as that. Giving us behind the scenes videos isn't the same as having a consistent code of ethics that's constantly reinforced by repeating them to your audience and sticking to them. Amazon lets us see in their warehouses with promotional materials, I wouldn't call them transparent.

[Blademaster91]

25 minutes ago, nhand42 said:

And my point is they are already on the level by being open about their company and giving us access to behind-the-scenes. Transparency requires more effort than a recited piece of legal-text before the video starts. Tinfoil hatters aren't going to be convinced by such a disclaimer anyway.

This wouldn't have even come up, and Linus wouldn't be here defending the company if there was a simple disclaimer of Toyota sending them a car for review.  It's a simple thing to do that most reputable car review channels do as transparency for the viewer to let them know the video isn't an ad for a car. Also behind the scenes videos aren't the same as giving consistently accurate info in videos and being honest to your audience, if LMG wants to review cars I think they need to be more transparent with the viewers, although the question of a vid seeming like a sponsored ad has come up a bunch of times and it usually results in Linus coming in to defend the company.

[nhand42]

9 minutes ago, Bitter said:

No but we wouldn't be having this discussion if they had a simple bit of boiler plate on the video, now would we?

I'm sure we would. Maybe not the same people, but once an audience gets large enough no matter what LTT does somebody is going to complain and accuse them of being corrupt. Boilerplate won't stop that.

[Bitter]

Even MotorWeek had a boiler plate "the test car was lent to us by the manufacturer" on their car review segments.

[LinusTech]

If it's sponsored (money changes hands and/or brand has influence on content), we'll let you know, like always. 

 

If it's not, no disclosure is required, so I guess we can consider our policies, but we are well on the legal side already. 

[Cavalry Canuck]

5 hours ago, LinusTech said:

There's nothing else to disclose. None of those things happened. The closest thing would be Alex's free trip to... their car to cover... the car.. then immediately a trip back up? That's not a gift. That's a burden... and again nothing to do with the spirit of the CCA. No marketing happened. There was no private Taylor Swift concert or whatever. It's a non-issue.

I believe I was the one that suggested a viewer/fan/3rd party may have gotten tickets to LTX and their mileage paid for to have the car used for content.

I hope Alex didn't have to drive all the way to Ontario to pick the car up. If so, why couldn't Toyota supply a car from a local dealership for the day?

[LinusTech]

25 minutes ago, Cavalry Canuck said:

I believe I was the one that suggested a viewer/fan/3rd party may have gotten tickets to LTX and their mileage paid for to have the car used for content.

I hope Alex didn't have to drive all the way to Ontario to pick the car up. If so, why couldn't Toyota supply a car from a local dealership for the day?

I'm not sure I understand the first suggestion. 

 

As for why Toyota has press cars, it's because their dealership model means that the dealers own the cars, not Toyota. Some YouTubers work through local dealers as well and will include 'thank yous' as part of that arrangement. 

[wanderingfool2]

7 hours ago, LinusTech said:

A car to cover isn't a free product or service. It's just necessary to make the video, and frankly a pretty major inconvenience. Would you enjoy swapping cars every couple of weeks (re-pairing your phone, moving all your stuff around, re-shuffling your car seats) for work? It gets old. 

Yes, getting a car to utilize IS a service.  It doesn't matter if it's an inconvenience or if it was "necessary"...it's still a free service you received.  It was essentially a rental that was comped. 

 

It doesn't matter if most people can assume you got the rental free, it still has to be disclosed.

 

Let me put it this way.

If Toyota hadn't offered the vehicle:

a) would you have made the video?

b) would you have done the video about a different car?

c) would you have rented the vehicle?

 

For a, if the answer is no; or for b if the answer is yes then yes it very much applies to you

 

7 hours ago, LinusTech said:

Anyone with a functioning brainstem can tell that an auto reviewer isn't buying every vehicle, so there's not much room for deception.

And guess what, any major one also has disclosures...and some end up renting (and there are some who did purchase and flip).

 

7 hours ago, LinusTech said:

No marketing happened

You literally made a video that featured mostly a Toyota vehicle.  Yes, it's called marketing; at least on Toyota's side of things it will have gone under marketing expenses.

 

To quote the Canadian website

Quote

Your connections may be “material” if they have the potential to affect how consumers evaluate your independence from a brand

It doesn't matter if Toyota had or doesn't have a say in what your opinion is; the fact that the video you made prominently highlights it (even if you are giving honest opinions); Toyota now essentially has a free commercial.  By not adding disclosures, you are taking away from someone to judge whether or not your opinion may or may not be biased.

 

 

7 hours ago, LinusTech said:

You're not the first to accuse us of violating the CCA, and like the others, your accusation is based on assumptions of things we *could* be doing, but like always, we aren't doing those things, so *shrug*

The act is there so that companies like LMG HAVE to disclose material connections.  My assumption is was simple, they provided you the rental vehicle (because that's what it is) and like also gave some of marketing material, including specs and stuff (whether or not it was used I didn't make that assumption).

 

You might not see it as a big deal, but allowing a company to provide you a vehicle for a while AND then making a video about (doesn't matter if you claim it's independent or not) IS something that should be disclosed; because like it or not Toyota now has a LTT video where what is talked about is their vehicle.  That will 100% be considered marketing in Toyota's books.

 

Or just like in the hydrogen vehicle, I recognized the Toyota marketing material (you guys literally used Toyota's slides) from other influencers who did disclose their connection.

 

To be clear, what Toyota effectively got out of providing you a free rental vehicle is effectively akin to product placement.

 

7 hours ago, LinusTech said:

The good news is that you've latched onto a really important issue and there are plenty of low-hanging targets out there that you could be drawing attention to who ARE engaging in undisclosed marketing. I genuinely think finding them and shining a light on them would be really good use of time.

Out of all the large channels I watch, you guys actually are the ones that I think to myself the most often whether or not enough disclosure happens in terms of who is providing what products.  The larger the channel, the more correct you have to be in regards to following the rules.

[ToboRobot]

8 hours ago, Bitter said:

It doesn't take much. 

For people to use their brains and think.  And yet here we are!