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

[MrDynamicMan]

So I found this cool new site called CSgo lotto...

So I found this cool new game called shadow of mordor...

[Sakkura]

1 hour ago, brollybg said:

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?

You don't have much information to decide prior to purchasing. Reviews are very important in that situation.

 

This was especially true before it became a lot easier to refund games.

[byalexandr]

Man, fuck Warner Bros.

 

Copyrighted my video because it had one little clip from 2001: A Space Odyssey. So now they make money off of it and not even a few people have seen it, much less a person from Warner.

[ZestyJalapeno]

Activision has been doing this for years. COD gets 8-9 outta 10 every single time it's regurgitated. Don't think for a second EA is innocent too.

[themaniac]

so the only name thats been disclosed has been pewdiepie, wow talk about targeting somone, if you're gonna disclose someone disclose everyone or no one

[HarmFull]

Man, I feel pissed of about this!

 

These kind of practises should be outlawed the same way as matchfixing is!

I know it's hard to ban a developer or a YouTuber like PewDiePie from gaming but at least sanction them is some way without possible settlement!

 

YouTubers who are found guilty should get a month ban if they're first time offenders, year second, third time perma ban from YouTube (or something like that).

Developers/manufacturers that are found guilty should at least have to pay a hefty fine, like a percentage of their total revenue!

 

This is deliberately misleading customers and these things must be put to a halt as fast as possible IMO.

 

At least most of the YouTubers I watch, like LTT, ToT, Paul's Hardware, Austin and MKBHD are all upfront with their sponsored content!

You guys know that the moment you guys let go of your integrity, your fanbase will be mislead and you guys are too good for that!

 

So go and burn your money with that Lambo of yours PewDiePie! I like Linus' pink Honda more anyway (as well as his secret lambo KappaHD)

[ACatWithThumbs]

59 minutes ago, zMeul said:

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

 

Those guidelines were updated in June 2015 before that just writing it in the description was in line with the guidelines.(And that video released before they updated the guidelines.)
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/252684/ftc-updates-social-media-marketing-guidelines.html

http://www.cision.com/us/2015/07/how-the-ftcs-new-social-media-guidelines-affect-your-brand/

And like I said he doesn't even need to follow the FTC guidelines as the FTC is a US agency and has no say over EU/UK businesses and citizens the EU/UK equivalent agency would be in charge not the FTC and he would need to follow the EU guidelines not FTC guidelines.

That's why he also wasn't charged, but WB was.

 

[zMeul]

5 minutes ago, JasonRoGo said:

And like I said he doesn't even need to follow the FTC guidelines as the FTC is a US agency and has no say over UK businesses and citizens the EU/UK equivalent agency would be in charge not the FTC and he would need to follow the EU guidelines not FTC guidelines.

he doesn't? really? 

WB is a US company, YT is a US based company

he used a service provided by a US company and if memory serves, TOS specify that users must abide by US rules and regulations on top of their respective countries of residence

 

and, as I said originally: the video he made isn't less of paid advertisement - fact he didn't disclosed

[Yamoto42]

5 minutes ago, zMeul said:

he doesn't? really? 

WB is a US company, YT is a US based company

he used a service provided by a US company and if memory serves, TOS specify that users must abide by US rules and regulations on top of their respective countries of residence

 

and, as I said originally: the video he made isn't less of paid advertisement - fact he didn't disclosed

It still does not make his actions illegal.  He is not personally bound by US law.  His penalty, if any, is up to Youtube, not the US government.

Is it disagreeable, yes...but he is not personally under the jurisdiction of the enforcement agency in question.

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, Yamoto42 said:

It still does not make his actions illegal.  He is not personally bound by US law.  His penalty, if any, is up to Youtube, not the US government.

Is it disagreeable, yes...but he is not personally under the jurisdiction of the enforcement agency in question.

that's why there is a settlement and the punished ones were WB

that doesn't make pawdiepie actions less scummy and sleazy for couple of thousand $

[Misanthrope]

2 hours ago, zMeul said:

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

#GamerGate

Worry not: they're already  hard at work on how to spin it as the FTC being misogynistic and/or racist.

[Yamoto42]

1 minute ago, zMeul said:

that doesn't make pawdiepie actions less scummy and sleazy for couple of thousand $

And to that part I believe I stated I agreed.

[zMeul]

2 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

misogynistic and/or racist.

[Misanthrope]

Also according to TB:

 

 

[apm]

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

Nope. the FTC just now sued them for it.

yes it was.

in fact, it was only possible to get a review copy if you accepted the PR deal.

 

[AlTech]

57 minutes ago, themaniac said:

so the only name thats been disclosed has been pewdiepie, wow talk about targeting somone, if you're gonna disclose someone disclose everyone or no one

The article by iVerge only listed Pewdiepie specifically.

 

 

[themaniac]

1 minute ago, AluminiumTech said:

The article by iVerge only listed Pewdiepie specifically.

 

 

i wasn't targetting you, i was just saying that they should've disclosed everyone or no one

[AlTech]

7 minutes ago, apm said:

yes it was.

in fact, it was only possible to get a review copy if you accepted the PR deal.

 

Well the viewers didn't know that.

[ACatWithThumbs]

1 hour ago, zMeul said:

that's why there is a settlement and the punished ones were WB

that doesn't make pawdiepie actions less scummy and sleazy for couple of thousand $

It wasn't scummy at all.
He made a video of him playing the game in a non opinionated comedic context and put in the description of the video that it was sponsored which at the time was in line with the guidelines of FTC.
The FTC only charged WB at all because you couldn't see the text in the Facebook and Twitter posts when you used the player directly within the site not because the videos where breaking any guidelines.
And PewDiePie didn't even re-upload the video on those platforms without a text he simply posted the YouTube link.

If this was a game review where he got sponsored and only talked positive things about the game without disclosing it that would be scummy.
But WB providing a demo to him which he then made a comedic video before release is not scummy at all the context and intent are very important.
And in this case there was clearly no intent from PewDiePie to deceive people nor had he any reason to do so.

[AlTech]

41 minutes ago, JasonRoGo said:

It wasn't scummy at all.
He made a video of him playing the game in a non opinionated comedic context and put in the description of the video that it was sponsored which at the time was in line with the guidelines of FTC.
The FTC only charged WB at all because you couldn't see the text in the Facebook and Twitter posts when you used the player directly within the site not because the videos where breaking any guidelines.
And PewDiePie didn't even re-upload the video on those platforms without a text he simply posted the YouTube link.

If this was a game review where he got sponsored and only talked positive things about the game without disclosing it that would be scummy.
But WB providing a demo to him which he then made a comedic video before release is not scummy at all the context and intent are very important.
And in this case there was clearly no intent from PewDiePie to deceive people nor had he any reason to do so.

Hypothetically, if i offered you a wad of cash in exchange for deceiving people would you take it?

[TheWutofWat]

I just want to know what is happening to the YouTube community, it was great in 2012 till 2015 but now there is no way I am trusting anyone who have a big channel or make a "click bait" videos. I do know Linus and other Youtubers that I have in my sub box so I do trust them with all of my heart.

 

I just want for people to be aware of this s*** and realise that we are in a world that money speaks and poor have no voice.

Such world does not desire this nor anyone. 

[Yamoto42]

11 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Hypothetically, if i offered you a wad of cash in exchange for deceiving people would you take it?

I believe @JasonRoGo's point is that it was not a review, and therefore not deceptive.  In that regard, having never seen the video in question, or any of his videos actually, I cannot comment.  If it is true it was not a review, I also (not myself being PewdiePie) cannot comment on his intent; a requirement in the definition of 'deception'.

 

What it objectively is, regardless of intent, is a conflict of interest.  This is not necessarily 'scummy' in and of itself, and is sometimes perfectly acceptable.  However it ALWAYS has the ethical obligations of full disclosure.

[laminutederire]

6 hours ago, Yog said:

 Who wouldn't take money for doing something you were going to do anyway?

Honest people maybe?

[MilfShake]

8 hours ago, Simon771 said:

No no, I mean Linus himself get 5k per month.

After paying all the bills and employes

If you have been in a supposedly 'growing' and 'successful' business several years like LTT and you only net 60k a year before tax and you have to endure the stress and workload of a business owner, I would just rather go get a master degree in IT and have a higher annual salary.

[MageTank]

6 hours ago, Sauron said:

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.

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.

I agree, that its shady for someone to be paid to play a game without exactly specifying it within the video itself. I also share the FTC's stance on it, that it must be said within the video itself, as a lot of people will not see the description. My only point is, it doesn't appear that he intentionally tried to hide it, like the current CS:GO scandal.

 

5 hours 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 $

Actually, I already showed using wayback machine that the "Sponsored by Warner Brothers" was in his description 4 days after the video uploaded (Could have been sooner, but there is no archived page on the 4th of september, 2014). You are correct though. That "disclosure" was not sufficient enough to meet with FTC guidelines, and there isn't really an excuse for that.

 

I personally feel reviewers (gaming, tech, anything for that matter) should only be given a trial evaluation copy. Like a demo. Or only have a temporary lease on the product. Allowing them to keep things only brings potential bias to the reviewers that just want free stuff. You can see that bias all over youtube. It's easy to tell when someone is genuinely passionate about a product, or when they are faking emotions to get things for free. 

 

As for the relevance of Pewdiepie to this, I can't really say if it applies. It states he is playing a demo in the title, so he didn't the game for free, but he did apparently take money for playing it. On the other hand, he didn't exactly say it was a good game, or told people to go out and buy it (at least, not from what i saw in the first video, can't bear to watch more than that). If Warner Brothers was paying him for a critique or review, then they clearly wasted money.