I have made a very expensive mistake

[ToboRobot]

6 hours ago, LinusTech said:

I'm not sure I understand the first suggestion. 

 

 

Cavalry Canuk was suggesting that rather that LTT getting a press car from Toyota, the alternative would be to source an car owned from a third party (like a fan) and compensate that person at your own cost.  So a more complicated process to find someone, and more expensive.


Toyota makes and sells the cars.  Therefore Toyota might want to have a fleet of cars for press, influencers etc to test their products, and create content.  This allows Toyota to ensure the vehicles are in good working order and unmodified so that potential customers can get chance to evaluate the car.

Cars for review have been provided to automotive journalists since the days of magazines.  This isn't a new process, and that fact that it is common knowledge to most is likely why no one thought to mention it, as it is obvious and self evident. 

It would be nice if people could do a modicum of research before they angrily post over the latest outrage du jour.

 

https://jalopnik.com/the-truth-about-press-cars-1714460086
 

[Bitter]

Corporations and companies are not our friends and don't need us to defend them 'internet white-knight' style .

[XNOR]

1 hour ago, Bitter said:

Corporations and companies are not our friends and don't need us to defend them 'internet white-knight' style .

Correct. Meanwhile, internet citizens also do not needs this endless barrage of superfluous noise and manufactured outrage. Who in their right mind thinks a reviewer should buy a car (or borrow from a customer, or whatever) for their review, and even assumes that's the standard?

 

I'm sick and tired of Youtubers and other media "forgetting" to mention their interests and affiliations, and regularly flat out shilling without disclosing their conflicted interests, but this one really doesn't seem to be one of those. If you don't understand a review car is most likely to be on loan from the manufacturer or a dealer, that really is on you.

[Bitter]

1 hour ago, XNOR said:

Correct. Meanwhile, internet citizens also do not needs this endless barrage of superfluous noise and manufactured outrage. Who in their right mind thinks a reviewer should buy a car (or borrow from a customer, or whatever) for their review, and even assumes that's the standard?

 

I'm sick and tired of Youtubers and other media "forgetting" to mention their interests and affiliations, and regularly flat out shilling without disclosing their conflicted interests, but this one really doesn't seem to be one of those. If you don't understand a review car is most likely to be on loan from the manufacturer or a dealer, that really is on you.

Not asking them to buy each car, just mention it was provided and travel compensated. That's all. Even Tedward says who loaned the cars he's driving.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, ToboRobot said:

Toyota makes and sells the cars.  Therefore Toyota might want to have a fleet of cars for press, influencers etc to test their products, and create content.  This allows Toyota to ensure the vehicles are in good working order and unmodified so that potential customers can get chance to evaluate the car.

Cars for review have been provided to automotive journalists since the days of magazines.  This isn't a new process, and that fact that it is common knowledge to most is likely why no one thought to mention it, as it is obvious and self evident. 

As Tom Scott has once said, "Everyone draws the line of what's "acceptable" just beneath what they're doing themselves."

 

It doesn't matter if it's common knowledge or that it typically happens.  The concept of disclosure is to make sure everyone knows what basis for which a review was done.  Again, it doesn't matter if something is generally implied or known about

 

Where does one draw the line?

Under Linus' idea of disclosure, he doesn't have to specify if he got a sample CPU from lets say Intel...you know one that could easily be a golden sample

Under Linus' idea of disclosure, he doesn't have to disclose that Toyota paid for at least part of the travel that enabled Alex to go to LA (and the fact that they used Toyotas graphics as well, and some of their talking points also matched what other YouTuber's were saying)

 

Under Linus' idea of disclosure/sponsorship, he wouldn't have to specify if Disney were to fly him and a crew down to California and cover the food expenses for him to film a behind the scenes at imagineering.

 

Is this particular case a borderline case...sure maybe, but what about the Hydrogen one; I'd argue that one required disclosure as was stated in that thread they paid for part of the travel and enabled them to make the video in LA...and it was clear that they used part of the Toyota Press Junket stuff

 

What at least a bit of disclosure is like in the "Everyone said this was impossible - Backyard Fiber Run" video, where they at least acknowledge they were essentially given  something for free...and even then they royally messed and I think violated the CCA even more is stating the 700 meters (from the beginning of the video) cost them "less than a thousand bucks".  The cable they  used, assuming it's the one linked to in their description, 700 meters costs $5698.

 

1 hour ago, XNOR said:

Correct. Meanwhile, internet citizens also do not needs this endless barrage of superfluous noise and manufactured outrage. Who in their right mind thinks a reviewer should buy a car (or borrow from a customer, or whatever) for their review, and even assumes that's the standard?

 

I'm sick and tired of Youtubers and other media "forgetting" to mention their interests and affiliations, and regularly flat out shilling without disclosing their conflicted interests, but this one really doesn't seem to be one of those. If you don't understand a review car is most likely to be on loan from the manufacturer or a dealer, that really is on you.

There was one channel, I can't remember which, that actually did buy the vehicles they reviewed because they were renting out their vehicles on Turo...they effectively turned their channel into a side business (since they would have had those vehicles anyways).  With that said, no one is asking to do things like buying the car (they could rent it, and if renting is too expensive then disclose or don't do the video)

 

It's the whole pattern of not disclosing things correctly.  It's the concept that without disclosure, someone happening on the channel wouldn't know.   Or if you trust Linus' word that they don't get influence over the video; then they should have at least disclosed the previous Mirai video...the one where Toyota at very least helped cover the costs for someone to go down to LA to be able to film the video there.

 

There also is the general issue of being inconsistent.  They shout out companies that provide them free stuff for projects; it seems pretty standard in their videos.  If they are going to be doing that, then they have to be consistent and should out the free stuff when the free stuff is what is the primary part of the video...especially when they can't even fact check some of the stuff they are saying about the free stuff

 

 

 

Here are 2 more examples (one being another car one)

"Everyone said this was impossible - Backyard Fiber Run" - Infinite Cables providing them what appears to be $5000+ in cables disclosed; BUT states the cable was sub $1000.  To this date, not correction or mention of this blunder; whether or not Linus accepts it this is actually the biggest example that 100% the CCA [74.01.a of the code is violated].  LMG was given a product and LMG misrepresented the price of the cable by a factor of 5x...AND used it essentially as a selling point. [2:05 - 2:21]   Even going as far in the video saying "checking the invoice here". [2:27 - 2:29]

"You're Wrong About Hydrogen Cars - Toyota Mirai" - Affiliation, Toyota at least covered partial travel expenses (no clarification beyond that), used some of the press materials that Toyota provided; and the talking points eerily matched other YouTuber's who it seems like every month I saw a recommendation of a new influencer who talked about how hydrogen isn't what you thought.  Toyota wasn't mentioned as providing anything...no mention of things like "thanks for flying us out" or similar....but you know, hey they claim it's impartial so it must be, the must have done their research and would have produced that video even if it wasn't for Toyota (as was claimed in the forum)

 

There were more, but non memorable enough that I can easily look for the videos, although by far the worst offender where LMG did cross was the Backyard Fiber Run video, as it can't be stressed enough; the infinite cables ad was pretty much baked into the first part of the video and the completely misrepresented the pricing.

 

 

[XNOR]

  

29 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

There was one channel, I can't remember which, that actually did buy the vehicles they reviewed because they were renting out their vehicles on Turo...they effectively turned their channel into a side business (since they would have had those vehicles anyways).  With that said, no one is asking to do things like buying the car (they could rent it, and if renting is too expensive then disclose or don't do the video)

If you consider the logistics of making a video for even a minute, you'll figure out that the logistics of renting aren't going to pan out. Rental companies won't have the versions they want to review, at the time they want to review it. Ignoring the realities of both video production and product review isn't productive.

 

However, your example illustrates why you can never do it correctly. Buying the cars and then renting them out leaves a lot more to be desired than if they loan them for a couple of weeks. These people are looking to make money by renting the cars out, and shitting them will hurt their rental business. LTT loses the chance to loan another car at worst and a brand not being featured on the channel is almost certain to hurt the brand more than the channel.

 

29 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It's the whole pattern of not disclosing things correctly.  It's the concept that without disclosure, someone happening on the channel wouldn't know.   Or if you trust Linus' word that they don't get influence over the video; then they should have at least disclosed the previous Mirai video...the one where Toyota at very least helped cover the costs for someone to go down to LA to be able to film the video there.

 

There also is the general issue of being inconsistent.  They shout out companies that provide them free stuff for projects; it seems pretty standard in their videos.  If they are going to be doing that, then they have to be consistent and should out the free stuff when the free stuff is what is the primary part of the video...especially when they can't even fact check some of the stuff they are saying about the free stuff

I've cut down your comment to avoid writing bible sized off-topic texts back and forth.

 

I'll repeat, if you don't understand a review car is most likely to be on loan from the manufacturer or a dealer, that really is on you. Being either oblivious or obtuse about how things work in the world can't be blamed on LTT.

[wanderingfool2]

51 minutes ago, XNOR said:

If you consider the logistics of making a video for even a minute, you'll figure out that the logistics of renting aren't going to pan out. Rental companies won't have the versions they want to review, at the time they want to review it. Ignoring the realities of both video production and product review isn't productive.

Many rental companies will have specialty rentals for exactly these purpose for things as movies etc where they need specific brands/models of vehicles.  The issue is then you are starting to have additional costs.

 

51 minutes ago, XNOR said:

However, your example illustrates why you can never do it correctly. Buying the cars and then renting them out leaves a lot more to be desired than if they loan them for a couple of weeks. These people are looking to make money by renting the cars out, and shitting them will hurt their rental business. LTT loses the chance to loan another car at worst and a brand not being featured on the channel is almost certain to hurt the brand more than the channel.

You are missing the point...how do you think I know about that thats how they sourced their vehicles...it's because THEY DISCLOSED it in my example.  I'm not saying LTT should be reading them out as a full sponsor; but there should be acknowledgement of any dealings in relation to a company.

 

Like I said, you have other's who get vehicles by having a partner at a dealership so they are able to get their hands on cars.

 

51 minutes ago, XNOR said:

I've cut down your comment to avoid writing bible sized off-topic texts back and forth.

 

I'll repeat, if you don't understand a review car is most likely to be on loan from the manufacturer or a dealer, that really is on you. Being either oblivious or obtuse about how things work in the world can't be blamed on LTT.

That's a slippery slope saying "really is on you".  IF it was a review, then disclose.  I don't care if it should be "obvious", do you understand that there will be people out there who don't recognize that.  It should be obvious that LMG lied about the cost of the infinite cables they were provided; that doesn't make it right or LMG less in the wrong.

 

It's like looking at product placements in movies, and saying people should know it's product placements/built in ads...except the thing is there's a ton of examples where that's not the case.

 

The whole premise behind disclosure laws is so that general consumers has the information to access things such as reviews.

 

No different than the fact that when lets say I'm accessing a CPU, I 100% want to know if a test was done on an engineering sample, golden sample, or retail sample.

 

Specifically as well, Linus was calling out Anker for their marketing tactics (their WAN show's clickbait effectively called it fraud) of using his image and a quote he says mischaracterized things...yet if the "anyone with a functioning brainstem" argument is used in people knowing the car was leant for free; it can be used as the same justification that anyone who sees it knows the quote is from a sponsorship or is a subquote that mischaracterized it.

[Bitter]

Also the reaction of "I was attacked and must defend" rather than "hey yeah we'll do better to be more transparent, we've been at this a long time but still have things to learn and value our audience feedback, thanks for bringing this up". Right?

[LMGcommunity]

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Many rental companies will have specialty rentals for exactly these purpose for things as movies etc where they need specific brands/models of vehicles.

9 minutes ago, Bitter said:

Also the reaction of "I was attacked and must defend" rather than "hey yeah we'll do better to be more transparent, we've been at this a long time but still have things to learn and value our audience feedback, thanks for bringing this up". Right?

The bottom line is that Toyota did not pay us, Toyota had no influence on the result of this video, and we made this video by our own choice (We have a lot of car nerds here). If Toyota had an influence on this video, they certainly would not have allowed the rant at the end about Toyota MSRPs.

 

The video would have looked the exact same if buddy down the street had let us borrow their GR Corolla.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, LMGcommunity said:

The bottom line is that Toyota did not pay us, Toyota had no influence on the result of this video, and we made this video by our own choice (We have a lot of car nerds here). If Toyota had an influence on this video, they certainly would not have allowed the rant at the end about Toyota MSRPs.

And the influencers who got gifted thousands of dollars in make-up, without any expectation of a video didn't get paid either.

 

You were GIVEN a SERVICE for free.  Like it or not, that constitutes a form of payment.  It doesn't matter if they had editorial privileges or not.  Toyota effectively got an ad out of it.

 

To put it in an easier perspective as well; since you are all stuck up about "not pay us".  Legally receiving a free loaner car to use and evaluate would have to be classified towards business non-monetary income (as well as being able to deduct the expense), so yes receiving that service as free does count

 

It doesn't matter if you guys considered the service a burden...it was still given free; and should be disclosed.

 

Toyota GAVE you a FREE SERVICE, and in exchange they got effectively advertisement for their company.  It doesn't matter if they did or didn't have say in what the review would say.  (A company like Toyota can access prior to granting you it whether or not they think the outcome would be favorable)
 

Again, it's like the influencers who go to Disney World, where Disney comped their hotel, flight, and park access; and the influencer doesn't have to even disclose according to your messed up logic on it...because Disney didn't pay them and Disney only gave them the services without conditions; and it's obvious that Disney covered the cost so why should the influencers need.

 

The simple fact is, if a normal person could call up Toyota and ask for a press car and get it; it wouldn't be an issue as it's something anyone could get.

 

Because you guys seemed to miss the major part of the Canada websites statement

Quote

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

All of my insistence on this kind of this would have not been a thing if you guys actually did even the slightest bit of disclosure,.

 

3 hours ago, LMGcommunity said:

The video would have looked the exact same if buddy down the street had let us borrow their GR Corolla.

The whole "trust me bro" ideology again, the disclosure laws are there to force transparency.  It's not up to you guys to essentially decide, "we would have done it the same" and conclude because of that you don't have to disclose

 

The fact is LMG can't be trusted in the whole "exact same".  The Mirai video proves it; no disclosure and in your guys form post when asked about it mentioned Toyota's involvement allowed you to do it in California.  Yes, like I should believe the video would have been exactly the same if Toyota hadn't been involved.

 

Or maybe how you guys clearly in black and white violated the Competition Act in your fiber video; 74.01 (1) (a)

Quote

makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;

Now lets see from the "Everyone said this was impossible - Backyard Fiber Run" (looking up the price of the cable you guys claimed to receive the true value was over $5000);

In the video, claiming how you guys were surprised at the price, claimed it's under $1000 [time codes 2:05 - 2:21] 

Even going as far in the video saying "checking the invoice here". [2:27 - 2:29]

 

That is an advertisement with a false claim; doesn't matter if Infinite Cables didn't pay you guys.

 

 

Similar concept to actually laptop reviews as well, there should always be a disclosure that Linus has an ownership stake in Framework.

[Bitter]

1 hour ago, LMGcommunity said:

The bottom line is that Toyota did not pay us, Toyota had no influence on the result of this video, and we made this video by our own choice (We have a lot of car nerds here). If Toyota had an influence on this video, they certainly would not have allowed the rant at the end about Toyota MSRPs.

 

The video would have looked the exact same if buddy down the street had let us borrow their GR Corolla.

It feels like LMG/LTT is sort of missing the point or at least missing the point I'm trying to raise. That's ok. I already take your content with a grain of salt, it's edutainment and I both understand and am ok with it. I'm not attacking anyone, so no need to be defensive I just feel that it's always worth mentioning who provided the car, router, cabling, CPU, case, etc for review whether it's sponsored, not sponsored, positive or negative coverage. That's all. Not a huge ask, generally LMG/LTT is fairly good about that so it seems like not mentioning it in this instance was,to me,out of the norm. I just hope going forward it's brought up.

Side note, a good friend has a GRolla and for the most part agrees with all the negatives mentioned.

 

As for people saying that the behind the scenes videos made by LTT about LTT prove anything...they're LTT videos made by LTT about LTT lol. Think about that for a minute. The candidness shown is refreshing but end of the day I don't believe for a minute that they're going to intentionally show anything bad or negative about themselves without having a positive counterpoint or explanation of how or why they're fixing it or improving it. It's still all business, I understand that and I hope everyone else does too.

[vetali]

This thread is hurting my head. Every car reviewer... EVERY uses press cars in their reviews. Some do long term reviews where they actually purchase the car but those are usually pure automotive reviewers and a very small sample size of their reviews. Its the same as tech releases where press get the item before with an embargo. In that same logic a 4090 review can't be trusted by LTT because of the manufacturer supplying the card for review.

[wanderingfool2]

16 minutes ago, vetali said:

Its the same as tech releases where press get the item before with an embargo. In that same logic a 4090 review can't be trusted by LTT because of the manufacturer supplying the card for review.

Well I for one don't trust any positive reviews of pre-release samples.  To put it in perspective, NVIDIA stopped providing hardware unboxed review samples once it was clear HU wasn't going to focus on ray tracing.

 

19 minutes ago, vetali said:

Every car reviewer... EVERY uses press cars in their reviews. Some do long term reviews where they actually purchase the car but those are usually pure automotive reviewers and a very small sample size of their reviews

And many car reviewers do offer some form of disclaimer.  Also, even if  disclaimers didn't happen by the majority it's not to say that they shouldn't.

 

I'm not saying it's not obvious that LMG got a free rental out of it; BUT what I am saying is that it still has to be disclosed.  There are plenty of people out there who also won't know that it's a effectively a promo car.  Imagine buying something outside of your knowledge zone; one cannot just assume the entire audience will know...there's a bunch of lets say audiophile people who fit exactly into this category, where they think somehow 96 khz digital files are somehow better than 46 khz

 

Like I've said, the Canada.ca site that talks about influencers and the implications of the Canadian Competition Act sets out the disclosure as a requirement...but hey Linus seems as though he's one of those the law doesn't apply to me if I think it wasn't the laws purpose.  The website itself spells it out quite clearly that this scenario does apply to Linus.

 

While people might think what I'm saying is dumb because it's "obvious" then Linus is as equally as bad for literally doing "Pretending I Endorse Your Product Is Fraud" with Anker.  Under the same logic that everyone's applying; it's pretty much a similar scenario...after all, they are quoting words Linus actually said, at one time they sponsored Linus (at I'm assuming in the sponsorship agreement they were allowed using things like Linus' face, which at this case Linus only has himself to blame); and "anyone with a functioning brainstem" would know not to trust quotes from popular people on a website about a product; or the fact that everyone knows Linus doesn't have Anker as a sponsor anymore.

[Ultraforce]

On 8/9/2023 at 1:03 AM, LinusTech said:

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. 

Some of the Short Circuits about cars in fact have done that where usually Alex says thank you "Insert Here BC car dealership" for providing access to the car for the review.

[vetali]

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Well I for one don't trust any positive reviews of pre-release samples.  To put it in perspective, NVIDIA stopped providing hardware unboxed review samples once it was clear HU wasn't going to focus on ray tracing.

So negative reviews of pre release provided hardware are valid...?

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

And many car reviewers do offer some form of disclaimer.  Also, even if  disclaimers didn't happen by the majority it's not to say that they shouldn't.

Just looked through 3 youtube channels I follow. None have disclaimers on press cars. Spoiler, you can tell its a press car by the plates.

 

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I'm not saying it's not obvious that LMG got a free rental out of it; BUT what I am saying is that it still has to be disclosed.  There are plenty of people out there who also won't know that it's a effectively a promo car.  Imagine buying something outside of your knowledge zone; one cannot just assume the entire audience will know...there's a bunch of lets say audiophile people who fit exactly into this category, where they think somehow 96 khz digital files are somehow better than 46 khz

Do you really think it changed the narrative of the review that it was a press car? Because it seems to me you had a bad take, got called out on it, and refuse to admit you're in the wrong. Linus and Alex did pretty much what all car reviewers (especially video based) do. Read some specs and info about the car, (also spoiler, is provided by the manufacturer) drove it, and gave their impressions on the vehicle.

 

9 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

Like I've said, the Canada.ca site that talks about influencers and the implications of the Canadian Competition Act sets out the disclosure as a requirement...but hey Linus seems as though he's one of those the law doesn't apply to me if I think it wasn't the laws purpose.  The website itself spells it out quite clearly that this scenario does apply to Linus.

Do you have a source for the section of the law that coincides with what you are saying?

 

Anyway, the whole reason why I even opened the thread was because I wanted to mention it'd be cool if LTT could source a FL5 Civic Type R to compare it to. Usually Honda is pretty stingy with their press cars, but seeing the GR Corolla on the channel and the pretty positive community response on the video could sway them. I've driven both the FK8 and FL5 and they are amazing cars in that low 300HP range. Have not driven a GR Corolla yet.

[wanderingfool2]

3 hours ago, vetali said:

So negative reviews of pre release provided hardware are valid...?

Not necessarily valid; The negation of a premise doesn't negate the consequent.  Like if they were provided a card, and they had nothing good to say about it; it has more credence than if they were singing praises for it.

 

3 hours ago, vetali said:

Do you really think it changed the narrative of the review that it was a press car? Because it seems to me you had a bad take, got called out on it, and refuse to admit you're in the wrong. Linus and Alex did pretty much what all car reviewers (especially video based) do. Read some specs and info about the car, (also spoiler, is provided by the manufacturer) drove it, and gave their impressions on the vehicle.

 

So what, the whole "everyone else does it".  I'm not wrong, from the get go I said my assumption was that they got it from Toyota...I've clearly said though that it should be disclosed.  I find it hypocritical of Linus to call out Anker for essentially using something that I'm assuming they are legally allowed to do based on former contract with Linus.  Linus is acting like being given a free rental somehow doesn't represent as a service because it's "burden"

 

Let me put it this way, poised as a question.  Do you think the influences who receive free makeup should have to disclose it when they are showing off the brand on their platforms?  This is given without conditions, with the company just hoping it gets used; knowing that overall it will have positive reviews by the creator.  After all, everyone should know they were given the product free.  Or those Disney trips that blog...everyone should know they got it for free, so they shouldn't have to disclose.

 

It's also the fact that this is the second video where Toyota as done something with LMG; where the first one there might have even been a flight down to CA...and 100% LMG used media press stuff from Toyota in that video without a disclosure.  Then again the Infinite Cables, where they misrepresented the value of a product and essentially made it out as though Infinite Cables was offering cables at a steal of a price.

 

A company that makes an ad, because that's effectively what this was (even if Toyota didn't have any say in it). 

 

The fact is, LMG in what I view is breaking the Canadian Competition Act.

 

3 hours ago, vetali said:

Do you have a source for the section of the law that coincides with what you are saying?

Well there is the general broad overview by the Canadian government that I've already said and quoted from.

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

(Which Linus seems to think that this doesn't apply to him because it's not an "ad disguised as editorial content", which is a terrible narrow minded idea of what it's covering.)

 

Anyways though you want specifics.

 

Lets start with the low hanging fruit:

The Infinite Cables video ("Everyone said this was impossible - Backyard Fiber Run")

In the video: A $5000, based on the length and the price Infinite Cables lists on their site; essentially acted like infinite cables was a great deal because the cable should have cost like $10k but was like "$700"; with Jake saying under $1000..and a reference to checking the invoice

74.01 (1) a.

Quote

74.01 (1) A person engages in reviewable conduct who, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the supply or use of a product or for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, any business interest, by any means whatever,

(a) makes a representation to the public that is false or misleading in a material respect;

So a very easy violation there; as I think we all can agree that stating a cable worth $5000+ is under $1000 is a misleading and material.

 

Toyota Mirai video (which Toyota paid for at least part of travel, and LMG used Toyota provided press material); as well as this video would be the same...where the Canadian Competition Bureau interprets things like "misleading in a material respect" as also including material connections (which they consider to be ANY free service, which LMG definitely got by being provided a car, and even more so when travel expenses were partially paid in the Toyota Mirai video).

 

To quote the CCB's own wording on what they consider again

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

The test case for this, would you trust a random person who you knew was given the car to test; or a random person who had lets say purchased the car or borrowed from a friend.

 

The fact is it should apply here.

 

Other ones in violation; pretty much most laptop video since Linus became a stake holder in Framework.  Absolutely no disclosure

"Explain This To Me... WHO is Buying Giant Laptops??"

"How bad is the Cheapest Laptop"

"The MOST Tricked Out Laptop - MSI Titan GT77"

Doesn't matter if it's a positive or non positive review, LMG should be disclosing their connection to Framework in every video where it's featuring laptops

[ImorallySourcedElectrons]

5 hours ago, vetali said:

Do you really think it changed the narrative of the review that it was a press car? Because it seems to me you had a bad take, got called out on it, and refuse to admit you're in the wrong.

And prepare for him to repeat the same argument ad nauseam until everyone else gives up, that's a bit of a trend on this forum.

[XNOR]

On 8/9/2023 at 6:45 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Many rental companies will have specialty rentals for exactly these purpose for things as movies etc where they need specific brands/models of vehicles.  The issue is then you are starting to have additional costs.

These won't have brand new models of the spec you'd want at the time you want it. Making a review and making a movie are two very different things. The logistics just don't work out for doing a review, but you refuse to think them through for a moment.

 

I don't know why this car review specifically set you off, as there are countless other reviews where the manufacturer provided the review samples, as is the standard. The products reviewed often aren't even for sale at the time a review needs to be written to be relevant. Viewers are expected to have some basic knowledge and understanding. We may as well complain the videos presume you know English.

 

On 8/10/2023 at 4:14 PM, vetali said:

This thread is hurting my head. Every car reviewer... EVERY uses press cars in their reviews. Some do long term reviews where they actually purchase the car but those are usually pure automotive reviewers and a very small sample size of their reviews. Its the same as tech releases where press get the item before with an embargo. In that same logic a 4090 review can't be trusted by LTT because of the manufacturer supplying the card for review.

The bakery never told be he actually bakes the bread they sell me! How could they not tell me this? This is important information that changes everything!

 

Guess I understand Linus' remarks about there always being somebody interpreting things poorly or maliciously a bit better now.

[XNOR]

On 8/11/2023 at 8:40 AM, ImorallySourcedElectrons said:

And prepare for him to repeat the same argument ad nauseam until everyone else gives up, that's a bit of a trend on this forum.

The techosphere tends to attract people with certain qualities. It's no coincidence the opensource community has a tendency to fork things endlessly.

[wanderingfool2]

On 8/12/2023 at 11:09 PM, XNOR said:

These won't have brand new models of the spec you'd want at the time you want it. Making a review and making a movie are two very different things. The logistics just don't work out for doing a review, but you refuse to think them through for a moment.

 

I don't know why this car review specifically set you off, as there are countless other reviews where the manufacturer provided the review samples, as is the standard. The products reviewed often aren't even for sale at the time a review needs to be written to be relevant. Viewers are expected to have some basic knowledge and understanding. We may as well complain the videos presume you know English.

 

Because it's straight up against the Competition Act in Canada; and if you read what I said, you would have noticed that it's the culmination of all of these things. (and the fact that Linus essentially called out Anker for "fraud"; because of something anyone with a functioning brainstem would understand then)

 

There are special rental places that you CAN get the car you want...Linus doesn't get to moan and complain about it being a burden getting the car.  The video was made BECAUSE they got the car to use for free.  The makes Toyota directly involved, even if they don't have editorial control over it.

 

Again, for the Toyota Mirai video they admitted that at least partial costs were covered; and they used Toyota's press material for it.

 

[Lomac]

On 8/8/2023 at 10:50 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

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

 

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

 

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

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

Okay, so... Unlike LMG who only does the occasional automotive review, I actually do this as a side gig for a large Canadian company on a weekly/bi-weekly basis.  There is no disclosure requirement for stating if we received a press vehicle directly from a manufacturer.  There is also no disclosure requirement if we got a vehicle from a dealership instead either.  Now, if a manufacturer were to fly me out to an unveiling, feed me oysters and champagne ,and house me in a hotel, then that gets mentioned.  The reason why you'll see some reviewers - particularly those doing online videos - thank "Hunky Honda Dealership" is because it was likely the agreement that they would shout out their name in thanks for getting the vehicle.  How LMG does their reviews does not constitute anything like you seem to be implying, nor are they breaking any laws.  If they were, then our company's lawyers - as well as all of our national competition's lawyers - seem to have missed the very one thing only you have caught.

 

Some examples of reviews that seem to be missing that vital information you think LMG requires:

 

Driving.ca
Wheels.ca

Autotrader.ca

 

 

If you want to talk about the Mirai review specifically, here's a fellow Canadian journalist checking out literally the exact same car Alex did down in California.  Presumably Toyota also helped chip in for fuel costs as well.

 

Review

 

Also, an Ontario plated press car in BC means absolutely nothing.  It's the same thing as having a U-Haul truck with Arizona plates on it.  In Vancouver, most of the press cars I touch have Ontario plates.  Doesn't mean I flew out to Pearson Airport on Mazda's dime and drove the vehicle back to Stanley Park.

[Pepe Bones]

On 8/4/2023 at 4:24 AM, Alinz said:

How is a Toyota Corolla GR not a "real piece of engineering"?. Its easy to compare them by the way, they are both cars.

Simple: What is new, from engineering perspective, in the Corolla GR? What is innovative really on what they offer so we can call that engineering had a big jump on it?

[Guest]

Some of the comments are ridiculous.  

[XNOR]

On 8/14/2023 at 9:33 PM, wanderingfool2 said:

Because it's straight up against the Competition Act in Canada; and if you read what I said, you would have noticed that it's the culmination of all of these things. (and the fact that Linus essentially called out Anker for "fraud"; because of something anyone with a functioning brainstem would understand then)

 

There are special rental places that you CAN get the car you want...Linus doesn't get to moan and complain about it being a burden getting the car.  The video was made BECAUSE they got the car to use for free.  The makes Toyota directly involved, even if they don't have editorial control over it.

 

Again, for the Toyota Mirai video they admitted that at least partial costs were covered; and they used Toyota's press material for it.

 

I don't know why you keep moaning about something that is simply how it works, how it has always worked, and how it will work in the future. The past week has illustrated LTT does certainly is by no means perfect and has their work cut out, but this one is simply you lacking basic knowledge and understanding. That's a you problem, not an LMG problem.

 

As common knowledge apparently warrants spelling out, repeating yourself ad nauseam also isn't how debate works. Repeating things and being obtuse to the point of people quitting the discussion isn't debate, and isn't winning the argument.

[wanderingfool2]

45 minutes ago, XNOR said:

I don't know why you keep moaning about something that is simply how it works, how it has always worked, and how it will work in the future. The past week has illustrated LTT does certainly is by no means perfect and has their work cut out, but this one is simply you lacking basic knowledge and understanding. That's a you problem, not an LMG problem.

That argument is competely lacking.

 

IT IS a LMG problem.

 

Linus even admits that any review of a product good or bad drives sales.  I don't care what everyone thinks, the law clearly states that...and given that they HAVE gotten vehicles from dealerships before it DOES need to be disclosed.

 

It's only common knowledge in lets say car communities' or such.  If you sit down a person who has no knowledge of cars (lets say my mom) and ask them, did they rent the car, given it free, or had Toyota lend them one she wouldn't know.