Warner Brothers paid some YouTubers to make positive game reviews and didn't disclose this

[Trik'Stari]

I question how this is legal.

 

If you're being paid to say good things about a product, then it's not a review, it's an advertisement.

[Bsmith]

damn, the whole internet is going to shitters if it keeps going like this with companies paying for positive reviews in order to increase their sales.

[Sakkura]

First "I found this new site" and now "I found this new game." Lots of shady stuff happening on YouTube, but at least now it's getting exposed. 

[zMeul]

I wonder how long 'till Polygon and Kotaku will report on this - if ever ...

#GamerGate

[Ominous]

What about Activision?  Don't they force their huge cock down people like Tmartns throat?  As in pay them a shit ton to promote their terrible game, cause to be honest.  It is their only shot on getting Infinite Warfare out there and it is still probably gonna fail due to his CSGOlotto scandal.  

[Yog]

Giving those youtubers the benefit of the doubt, Shadow of Mordor was a pretty good game (at least, so I heard, never played it) and liked by a lot of people. It's completely possible they wouldn't have given a negative review anyway. They could have just taken the money because it's something they agreed with anyway, maybe they were planning on making a positive review anyway? Who wouldn't take money for doing something you were going to do anyway?

[AlTech]

15 minutes ago, Bsmith said:

damn, the whole internet is going to shitters if it keeps going like this with companies paying for positive reviews in order to increase their sales.

So what? We're gonna have Wall Street Crash 2.0 but Internet Edition?

[ShadowCaptain]

38 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I question how this is legal.

 

If you're being paid to say good things about a product, then it's not a review, it's an advertisement.

 its not legal at all

[Sharkyx1]

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

 

Back on Topic: What other game publishers do you think are doing this?

We know Konami did it with MGSV as far as inviting reviewers out to Europe for a "review event" where they had to write it on site and only could play the first 10hrs

 

That's where all those 9/10s came from

[LAwLz]

Remember when people were defending Linus for not disclosing that he got thousands of dollars worth of equipment in order to make promotional videos for the products (I think it was the 3D printer). It wasn't until someone here on the forums contacted the Canadian FCC that we started getting the proper disclosures from Linus. 

 

Very disgusting behavior from both Warner Brothers and all the YouTubers involved. If a company gives you something in return for making a video about it then you should always make it 100% clear in the video.

[AlTech]

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

I question how this is legal.

 

If you're being paid to say good things about a product, then it's not a review, it's an advertisement.

It's not legal as i said at the top of the OP and as @ShadowCaptain said

[dlink377]

If the youtuber clearly said that it is sponsored video, I don't see any problem with that.

 

Although it is much better if the youtuber tell their honest view about the game, but that itself is already a review, not a sponsored video.

[mikat]

rest in pieces yt2k16

[brollybg]

I don't really understand what's the problem. Are you guys really so dependant on other people's reviews that you can't decide or think for yourself if a game is good or not?

[Sauron]

Frankly it's only the non-disclosure that makes it disgusting... if you open up saying "I have been paid to give this game a positive review, coming up", then you're doing nothing wrong. The audience will decide if they still want to watch the video or whether they want to buy the game even knowing the review was biased.

1 hour ago, MageTank said:

No idea if its true or not, but I did see a video earlier that claimed Pewdiepie said from the start that it was a sponsored video. 

 

 

While i personally do not care for the guy, I do believe that article is simply using his name for publicity. 

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140908074058/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-wdRroa4ms

 

As you can see, as far back as September 8th 2014 (4 days after the video released) he had "This video was sponsored by Warner Brother". 

Interesting, I'm sure someone will sum it up soon enough. Still, if all he did was write it in the description under the fold it's still a bit shady although not technically illegal.

[ACatWithThumbs]

Putting PewDiePie in the headline is BS as he doesn't even do reviews or opinion pieces on games.
In a review knowing about a sponsorship is important, but in a comedic gameplay it is pretty irrelevant.
Not to mention that he actually did disclose it as he wrote in the video description that it was sponsored and he also says it in most of his videos.
That's why I stopped reading the Verge, because of this kind of clickbate crap.

It literally says in the video description:
" This video was sponsored by Warner Brother "

 

[zMeul]

15 minutes ago, JasonRoGo said:

Putting PewDiePie in the headline is BS as he doesn't even do reviews or opinion pieces on games.
In a review knowing about a sponsorship is important, but in a comedic gameplay it is pretty irrelevant.
Not to mention that he actually did disclose it as he wrote in the video description that it was sponsored and he also says it in most of his videos.
That's why I stopped reading the Verge, because of this kind of clickbate crap.

It literally says in the video description:
" This video was sponsored by Warner Brother "

the video originates in Sept 2014 and him "disclosing" it only happened few months later, in 2015

still, doesn't make it less than paid advertising

 

also, he doesn't say the nature of the deal between him and WB intermediaries - one thing is to a get a review copy and another is to make a promo video for couple thousand $

[thekeemo]

2 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Well he has to pay for his rent, his food and bills. He has to save up money for Education for his child (this costs an absolute fortune especially with Brexit) And hopefully start paying back mortgage on the car he owns.

What?

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

What?

because other people doesn't have kids, mortgages and other shit to pay

but no, it's OK as long as you're pewdiepie  

[thekeemo]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

because other people doesn't have kids, mortgages and other shit to pay

but no, it's OK as long as you're pewdiepie 

I mean what did it have to do with brexit

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, thekeemo said:

I mean what did it have to do with brexit

hell if I know .. maybe he moved to UK?!

[Clonzoo]

I really do feel like this shady even if they says this is a paid review or whatever. In my opinion there is no such thing as a paid review, even if you as a reviewer have told the company that pays you to review that you will be honest or that you tell your viewers this is paid but honest. In my opinion its advertisement. There is no telling if they are honest or not even what they say. A company that sells strawberry can pay be to talk about them, and I can say to my audience that, this is a paid but honest review, but should they belive me? Paid reviews is advertisement because you can't know 100% if the "review" is honest or words from the company falling from the reviewers mouth. Now, sure you can trust the reviewer, I tend to trust Linus mostly because I belive he is smart enough to be honest about this because if he isn't the community on this forum will put him in their mouth, chew him good and swallow him. I don't think I'd trust pewdiepie as much. But all in all a paid review should always be said that its a paid review first of all, and always be treated as advertisement if they say its a paid review. If they don't say this is paid then its illegal in my opinion.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Anyone who finds PewDiePie entertaining deserves to be conned.

[ACatWithThumbs]

28 minutes ago, zMeul said:

the video originates in Sept 2014 and him "disclosing" it only happened few months later, in 2015

still, doesn't make it less than paid advertising

 

also, he doesn't say the nature of the deal between him and WB intermediaries - one thing is to a get a review copy and another is to make a promo video for couple thousand $

He actually had it in the description right away and that was in line with FTC guideline at the time.
They changed the disclosure guidelines a month after the video released so those do not apply in this case.
On top the FTC only had a problem with it because you couldn't see it on the Facebook and Twitter posts which is again not really rellevant in PewDiePies case as he didn't upload the videos on those platforms, but posted a YouTube link so there was no attempt to hide the sponsorship there either.
And the FTC doesn't even have any power over what PewDiePie does in the first place as he isn't an US citizen nor does he live or work in the US so they aren't the correct agency to handle it with him which is why he didn't get in any trouble but WB did.

[zMeul]

8 minutes ago, JasonRoGo said:

They changed the disclosure guidelines a month after the video released so those do not apply in this case.
On top the FTC only had a problem with it because you couldn't see it on the Facebook and Twitter posts

don't mislead

he failed to follow FTC's guidelines: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#how

Quote

If I upload a video to YouTube and that video requires a disclosure, can I just put the disclosure in the description that I upload together with the video?
No, because it’s easy for consumers to miss disclosures in the video description. Many people might watch the video without even seeing the description page, and those who do might not read the disclosure. The disclosure has the most chance of being effective if it is made clearly and prominently in the video itself. That’s not to say that you couldn’t have disclosures in both the video and the description.

 

The Guides say that disclosures have to be clear and conspicuous. What does that mean?
To make a disclosure “clear and conspicuous,” advertisers should use clear and unambiguous language and make the disclosure stand out. Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily. They should not have to look for it. In general, disclosures should be:

close to the claims to which they relate;
in a font that is easy to read;
in a shade that stands out against the background;
for video ads, on the screen long enough to be noticed, read, and understood;
for audio disclosures, read at a cadence that is easy for consumers to follow and in words consumers will understand.
A disclosure that is made in both audio and video is more likely to be noticed by consumers. Disclosures should not be hidden or buried in footnotes, in blocks of text people are not likely to read, or in hyperlinks. If disclosures are hard to find, tough to understand, fleeting, or buried in unrelated details, or if other elements in the ad or message obscure or distract from the disclosures, they don’t meet the “clear and conspicuous” standard. With respect to online disclosures, FTC staff has issued a guidance document, .com Disclosures: How to Make Effective Disclosures in Digital Advertising, which is available on ftc.gov.