feedback Feedback - Investment Disclosures and Conflict of Interest

[BatchTheBrit]

Hi everyone.

 

Something I've noticed over the last year or so is how inconsistent LMG are with their investment disclosures. These disclosures are often short or easily missed, and in ShortCircuit videos (at least the ones I've seen) they aren't mentioned at all! As frequent viewers are aware, Linus invested in Framework 2 years ago and has been posting fairly frequent updates on the main channel. They also committed to disclosing the investment in any videos that cover laptops since Linus has invested in their competition. While they have been disclosing the investment in LTT videos, the disclosure is oftentimes placed towards the end of a video and/or mentioned in passing. In some ShortCircuit videos on laptops, this isn't mentioned AT ALL. In the AliExpress laptop video posted to LTT last week, the investment disclosure was made at 19:30 in a 22 minute video with Linus briefly saying "investment disclosure" in the middle of a run-on sentence about USB and CPU power management. This disclosure would be easy to miss if you're not looking for it and many viewers don't make it 20 minutes into a video. While this may seem incredibly nit-picky for frequent viewers who are already aware of the investment, this does not serve as an adequate disclosure of a potential conflict of interest, especially for newer viewers. 

 

What isn't acceptable though is completely missing this disclosure on other channels. The XPS 15 video on the 28^th July and the Hyundai laptop video on 5^th October do not mention the framework investment at all. The Hyundai video hilariously even includes an MSI sponsorship which mentions "Looking for a laptop for next semester? Well they've got those!". In a video about another company's laptop. While ShortCircuit videos aren't necessarily reviews, they are first impressions that are used as information for purchasing decisions. While it is often another person on-camera, the video is still on a channel owned by LMG and is thus owned by Linus, who has also invested in Framework. Despite it being on a different channel with a different presenter, this still constitutes a conflict of interest and MUST be disclosed. I don't want to attribute to malice something that could easily have been missed, but giving consumers the financial context behind the content they're watching is vitally important on all channels owned by LMG. 

 

Content creators on YouTube are already required, by law, to disclose any advertising in their videos in clear and obvious ways. These standards should also be followed for potential conflicts of interest originating from financial investments. It doesn't have to be anything long or overly wordy, but a brief "Hi, I invested into Framework, a competing brand that also manufactures laptops. Do with that information as you wish" at the start of any laptop video would be much better. It's clear, concise, and crucially, at the start of the video. This way it cannot be missed. While I, for the most part, trust LTT to not allow the Framework investment to colour their laptop content or reviews; the disclosure is vital for transparency in an increasingly opaque media landscape.

 

Unfortunately this is a discussion adjacent to conflict of interest in the tech influencer space in general (i.e. reviewing or featuring products from companies that are paying for sponsored ad space, even if the ads are placed on other videos) and has lead to an atmosphere of "trust me bro" in the industry. While I have been able to trust some of these people through their great track-record, limiting conflict of interest is still vitally important. Addressing CoI doesn't mean that the sketchy collusion is happening, but we should want to limit the circumstances where they COULD happen. In turn that will limit the circumstances in which they DO happen. I want to trust LTT, I've been here since the GTX 580 days (damn, it's been 12 years), and I'm aware that there are many other problems that need addressing right now. I don't want to just jump into a dog-pile but making clear and obvious investment disclaimers is a consumer-friendly change that will give people vitally important context into the content they're watching.

 

If I've got anything wrong I'm sure people will let me know and I welcome any corrections. Otherwise I hope this feedback finds the right people  

[LogicalDrm]

Bumping this and will tag @LMGcommunity just in case this gets buried over the weekend. Very good observations, and something they should look at considering the drama touched just this kinds of issues also.

 

Posting this up and onto weekend probably not best timing.

[BatchTheBrit]

5 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Bumping this and will tag @LMGcommunity just in case this gets buried over the weekend. Very good observations, and something they should look at considering the drama touched just this kinds of issues also.

 

Posting this up and onto weekend probably not best timing.

Thanks for the bump, it was just something I'd noticed creeping in and thought it was best to mention it. Completely agree on the timing though. 

[TetraSky]

I think you're misunderstanding something about the investment and the disclosure of it.

It's because LINUS is the one who personally invested in Framework. Not LMG. Hence why Linus discloses it when HE is in a video featuring a laptop.

Linus is also not the CEO of LMG anymore. Even if he's still the face of it(for now), his personal investments in a company doesn't mean LMG as a whole has to disclose every investments he does.

 

The XPS video feature Alex, same with the Hyundai laptop. They are allowed their own thoughts.

 

[Needfuldoer]

If Linus reviews a laptop, he should do something a little more obvious than mumbling the words "investment disclosure" somewhere in the middle of the video. 

 

Maybe the credit screen should have some boilerplate copy in it, like "Linus Sebastian holds a personal monetary investment in Framework, Inc, a competitor to the manufacturer of the subject of this review." I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

[LogicalDrm]

4 hours ago, TetraSky said:

I think you're misunderstanding something about the investment and the disclosure of it.

It's because LINUS is the one who personally invested in Framework. Not LMG. Hence why Linus discloses it when HE is in a video featuring a laptop.

Linus is also not the CEO of LMG anymore. Even if he's still the face of it(for now), his personal investments in a company doesn't mean LMG as a whole has to disclose every investments he does.

 

The XPS video feature Alex, same with the Hyundai laptop. They are allowed their own thoughts.

 

While I do agree, Linus did/does still oversee scripts. If not all, most. He also hasn't done many reviews himself in years. Most reviews are in the "I switched" theme. So all videos with Linus as host are written and tested by someone else. Therefore asking disclaimer in description at least is valid. And could easily be done with "Linus Sebastian has invested significant sum into Framework. He has made promise that it will not affect his journalistic ethic. LinusMediaGroup as company remains neutral. All writers are free to express their own thoughts on the products they review."

[BatchTheBrit]

On 10/23/2023 at 12:41 AM, TetraSky said:

I think you're misunderstanding something about the investment and the disclosure of it.

It's because LINUS is the one who personally invested in Framework. Not LMG. Hence why Linus discloses it when HE is in a video featuring a laptop.

Linus is also not the CEO of LMG anymore. Even if he's still the face of it(for now), his personal investments in a company doesn't mean LMG as a whole has to disclose every investments he does.

 

The XPS video feature Alex, same with the Hyundai laptop. They are allowed their own thoughts.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm totally aware that Linus is the one who invested in Framework, not LMG. I'm also aware Linus stepped down as CEO. The issue comes from OWNERSHIP. Whether or not Linus is in the video, or is as involved in the day-to-day as he used to be, is irrelevant. As far as I'm aware Linus is still the majority shareholder/owner of LMG. He owns LMG (a comparatively massive media company in this space) and a company that is both covered by LMG videos and competes with other companies that are covered by LMG videos. There is a monetary conflict of interest there for the owner of the company and by extension the whole company in general, since, as owner, he still has a lot of control over the direction of LMG. Would you trust, say, MotorTrend to ethically cover Tesla products if they were partially owned by Elon Musk? (Not the best analogy, but it's the best I've got at 5am). These conflicts can lead to unethical journalistic practices and, as one of the largest voices in the industry that holds great sway on the opinions of millions of people, LMG should be held to those high journalistic standards when it comes to these sorts of issues. I mostly trust them to remain unbiased but the CoI still remains and should be disclosed in videos covering laptops. I'm not saying that LMG needs to disclose everything that Linus has invested in, only the investments that would be affected by the coverage and content of LMG.

 

The other presenters are allowed their own thoughts, I completely agree. I'm not saying that the videos or his work was somehow invalidated by the lack of a disclaimer. However a disclaimer would also not harm the video and would potentially add MORE legitimacy to these videos as they'd be approaching these conflicts openly and honestly. 

[BatchTheBrit]

On 10/23/2023 at 5:34 AM, LogicalDrm said:

"Linus Sebastian has invested significant sum into Framework. He has made promise that it will not affect his journalistic ethic. LinusMediaGroup as company remains neutral. All writers are free to express their own thoughts on the products they review."

This would be perfect at the bottom of the video during the intro or something. I feel like putting it in the description makes it easily missed. Advertisement disclaimers on YT are both in description and on the videos themselves  

[LogicalDrm]

7 minutes ago, BatchTheBrit said:

This would be perfect at the bottom of the video during the intro or something. I feel like putting it in the description makes it easily missed. Advertisement disclaimers on YT are both in description and on the videos themselves  

Putting it in description is easier than editing it in video. I'm fairly sure descriptions are copy-paste template from where parts are changed, added or removed based on whats being presented. Any video with Linus in credits should have in-video disclaimer, but I wouldn't be that hard as require it from all videos regardless of Linus' involvement in the making. The company is going more towards era where they can and will do videos with 0 Linus in the process. 

[BatchTheBrit]

7 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Putting it in description is easier than editing it in video. I'm fairly sure descriptions are copy-paste template from where parts are changed, added or removed based on whats being presented. Any video with Linus in credits should have in-video disclaimer, but I wouldn't be that hard as require it from all videos regardless of Linus' involvement in the making. The company is going more towards era where they can and will do videos with 0 Linus in the process. 

Oh yeah of course! Gotta say I miss the old annotation days on YT.

[wanderingfool2]

On 10/22/2023 at 4:41 PM, TetraSky said:

I think you're misunderstanding something about the investment and the disclosure of it.

It's because LINUS is the one who personally invested in Framework. Not LMG. Hence why Linus discloses it when HE is in a video featuring a laptop.

Linus is also not the CEO of LMG anymore. Even if he's still the face of it(for now), his personal investments in a company doesn't mean LMG as a whole has to disclose every investments he does.

Except that overlooks that it's Linus' company; and Linus can fire anyone he wants, regardless of the CEO, and Linus gets to dictate where their company is going in terms of a company.  The CEO at that point is effectively just someone who handles the day to day business activities.

 

The Canadian Competition Act's website states the following

Quote

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

Having an owner of LMG being an owner of a laptop company makes it quite clear they have to be disclosing it in all videos that is talking about qualities of laptops

Is a prime example, not so much now; but earlier in it's release there were so many comments talking about how Framework fits as a module laptop that you can upgrade.  Overall though there conclusion on the negative side would pretty much draw people to Framework without actually mentioning it.

 

The above video is a prime example I think of LMG's lack of integrity, that they can't even be bothered with any form of disclosure.

 

10 hours ago, LogicalDrm said:

Putting it in description is easier than editing it in video. I'm fairly sure descriptions are copy-paste template from where parts are changed, added or removed based on whats being presented. Any video with Linus in credits should have in-video disclaimer, but I wouldn't be that hard as require it from all videos regardless of Linus' involvement in the making. The company is going more towards era where they can and will do videos with 0 Linus in the process. 

It might be easier putting it in the description, but it's LMG's mess up; so they should take the consequences and edit.  The majority of people will not see the description; and any embedded video will be even less likely they will see the description.

[FrozenIpaq]

11 hours ago, BatchTheBrit said:

I think you're misunderstanding my point. I'm totally aware that Linus is the one who invested in Framework, not LMG. I'm also aware Linus stepped down as CEO. The issue comes from OWNERSHIP. Whether or not Linus is in the video, or is as involved in the day-to-day as he used to be, is irrelevant. As far as I'm aware Linus is still the majority shareholder/owner of LMG. He owns LMG (a comparatively massive media company in this space) and a company that is both covered by LMG videos and competes with other companies that are covered by LMG videos. There is a monetary conflict of interest there for the owner of the company and by extension the whole company in general, since, as owner, he still has a lot of control over the direction of LMG. Would you trust, say, MotorTrend to ethically cover Tesla products if they were partially owned by Elon Musk? (Not the best analogy, but it's the best I've got at 5am). These conflicts can lead to unethical journalistic practices and, as one of the largest voices in the industry that holds great sway on the opinions of millions of people, LMG should be held to those high journalistic standards when it comes to these sorts of issues. I mostly trust them to remain unbiased but the CoI still remains and should be disclosed in videos covering laptops. I'm not saying that LMG needs to disclose everything that Linus has invested in, only the investments that would be affected by the coverage and content of LMG.

 

The other presenters are allowed their own thoughts, I completely agree. I'm not saying that the videos or his work was somehow invalidated by the lack of a disclaimer. However a disclaimer would also not harm the video and would potentially add MORE legitimacy to these videos as they'd be approaching these conflicts openly and honestly. 

While I see your point, I also don't think it is necessary on videos by other writers. If they are being influenced by something as small as Linus's investment, that speaks more to the overall structure and how things are setup - it won't just be Framework that is a part of that. That's almost getting to the point of saying that they should also disclose any previous advertising relationship with anyone that they may be covering or reviewing. They sometimes do mention that though as well that when it might be a clear conflict.

 

You're assuming that the writers will be influenced either by Linus himself directly (script review) or indirectly. I think it's really hard to speak to the indirect influence - the only time I think that would be applicable is if someone else on the team decided to review a Framework product. Although I would think at that point, the disclosure would be made. In comparing laptops - Framework is a legitimate player now and so long as the reviewer is comparing it on specs or established understandings, I think they're in the clear.

 

The argument I would say is more directly related to content specifically on Framework and not other laptop reviews. If there is a chance for Framework sales to increase because of content LMG is producing, I would agree that a disclosure there makes more sense. It's less about the "journalistic integrity" of the content and more about being clear how LMG (Linus) might benefit from the coverage. So with that said, I do think there are two things at play here: (1) "journalistic integrity" - I have a bigger challenge with this, this doesn't magically go away by saying someone is invested in it. It still requires the viewer to be edcuated and make decisions based on information available to them and (2) LMG profiting on content - should be disclosed if there is an opportunity for Linus to personally profit here.

 

I think most conversations Linus has had to-date has been more about point #1 of trying to ensure the team remains fair and objective towards Framework. I think that was the main stipulation and I don't think we have seen any evidence that their "reviews" have been affected by the Framework investment. Unless you are able to definitively point to a video in which it seems influenced by Framework investment, I don't think that point stands. 

[wanderingfool2]

21 minutes ago, FrozenIpaq said:

That's almost getting to the point of saying that they should also disclose any previous advertising relationship with anyone that they may be covering or reviewing.

If lets say AMD was the primary sponsor, then yes it would have to be disclosed.  When there are multiple and often competing sponsors it's less of an issue, except when the sponsor is part of the video.

 

24 minutes ago, FrozenIpaq said:

While I see your point, I also don't think it is necessary on videos by other writers. If they are being influenced by something as small as Linus's investment, that speaks more to the overall structure and how things are setup

When the writer's boss is the one that owns the major investment it definitely is necessary.

 

The thing is after Linus became an investor in Framework, you cannot tell whether or not there are influences or not; which is why it should be disclosed in every video that pertains to laptops.  As it then leaves the consumer to decide whether they trust the creator or not to remain neutral.

 

I've known more than one owner of the company who front facing was "honest and fair", but while working with them I learned they were anything but.  Manipulating things to work in his favor, using his power to pressure other vendors to do what he wanted etc.

 

The simple fact is, LMG is creating content that can materially effect Linus' investment; and Linus is the owner of both companies so it should be publicly disclosed in those videos.

[BatchTheBrit]

9 hours ago, FrozenIpaq said:

While I see your point, I also don't think it is necessary on videos by other writers. If they are being influenced by something as small as Linus's investment, that speaks more to the overall structure and how things are setup - it won't just be Framework that is a part of that. That's almost getting to the point of saying that they should also disclose any previous advertising relationship with anyone that they may be covering or reviewing. They sometimes do mention that though as well that when it might be a clear conflict.

 

You're assuming that the writers will be influenced either by Linus himself directly (script review) or indirectly. I think it's really hard to speak to the indirect influence - the only time I think that would be applicable is if someone else on the team decided to review a Framework product. Although I would think at that point, the disclosure would be made. In comparing laptops - Framework is a legitimate player now and so long as the reviewer is comparing it on specs or established understandings, I think they're in the clear.

 

The argument I would say is more directly related to content specifically on Framework and not other laptop reviews. If there is a chance for Framework sales to increase because of content LMG is producing, I would agree that a disclosure there makes more sense. It's less about the "journalistic integrity" of the content and more about being clear how LMG (Linus) might benefit from the coverage. So with that said, I do think there are two things at play here: (1) "journalistic integrity" - I have a bigger challenge with this, this doesn't magically go away by saying someone is invested in it. It still requires the viewer to be edcuated and make decisions based on information available to them and (2) LMG profiting on content - should be disclosed if there is an opportunity for Linus to personally profit here.

 

I think most conversations Linus has had to-date has been more about point #1 of trying to ensure the team remains fair and objective towards Framework. I think that was the main stipulation and I don't think we have seen any evidence that their "reviews" have been affected by the Framework investment. Unless you are able to definitively point to a video in which it seems influenced by Framework investment, I don't think that point stands. 

It should be necessary on videos by other writers and it takes very little effort to do so (a 5-10 second disclaimer at the start of the video). While the other writers may not be directly influenced by Linus's investment there is still a financial incentive for the OWNER of the company. This can lead to editorial changes to content that would not happen if there was no investment, consciously or otherwise. It would also speak to the overall structure of the company but that is still something that the audience needs to be aware of and should be disclosed. As for advertising relationships, it depends where you personally draw the line. If they're reviewing/covering a product from a company that they have an active advertising relationship with (i.e. are being paid by them) I think that should be made clear in the video. But that's my own standard that I can only establish if I'm made aware of that potential conflict. I personally have issues with the Hyundai laptop video being sponsored by another company that also makes laptops but that's just my standard. I'm not suggesting they change their advertising policies or Linus sell his Framework shares, I just want them to be open about these issues so the audience can make their own decision on the validity of the content. 

 

The exact mechanism behind how there could be potential ethical issues is irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. The standard for a conflict of interest doesn't take these things into account, it only requires there to be a material connection to two conflicting interests. Also it doesn't matter that Framework is a legitimate player now, if they're comparing Framework products to another product it should absolutely be disclosed that the company's owner also owns part of Framework. There is no way to objectively review tech unless you're literally just listing specs with no personal impressions of actually using the device. No LMG content is, or will ever be, like that so I'm confused by this point.

 

I would argue that it's just as important to disclose the investment for other laptop reviews/videos as it is in Framework videos. LMG coverage of competing products can, by extension, change the perception of Framework and potentially their sales as well. For example, if they stress the lack of reparability and upgradability on a competing product they can indirectly improve the perception of Framework's laptops, especially if they later use Framework as an example of upgradability done right. They wouldn't be wrong by complimenting Framework's excellent reparability. However, you will then never be able to discern whether this true statement was said because it's true or because there's a vested interest in improving Framework's perception. 

 

Quote

"journalistic integrity" - I have a bigger challenge with this, this doesn't magically go away by saying someone is invested in it. It still requires the viewer to be edcuated and make decisions based on information available to them

I'm asking for there to be a disclaimer so the viewers are "educated" about the conflict of interest before they watch the content. Not every viewer of LMG content is aware of the Framework investment. I am stressing the need for more information availability so people can make better decisions. You are actually agreeing with me here.

 

Quote

I think that was the main stipulation and I don't think we have seen any evidence that their "reviews" have been affected by the Framework investment. Unless you are able to definitively point to a video in which it seems influenced by Framework investment, I don't think that point stands. 

I mention above that it will be hard to discern whether claims made about products are influenced by the Framework investment. But I can give an example. In the Ali Express Laptop video they call HP "certified dickheads" for putting screws under the laptop feet (16:30). They then do the same for Chuwi. Again, these are true, if somewhat hyperbolic, statements considering how consumer-friendly reparability is. They then mention Framework 2 minutes later with a very short and missable investment disclaimer, albeit in a discussion about battery life. I'm almost certain that this was done just because Framework had published a blog post that was relevant to the battery issues found on the Chuwi, but you cannot be certain that there was no incentive to include a reference to Framework, even in passing, so they'd look good comparatively. Again, I'm NOT saying that this is happening (and it's not the best example) but there is the potential for it to happen and that must be disclosed. 

 

I hope this clarifies a few things