I'm ok with this, nothing wrong with extra $$$ for selling out
Haha.
I'm ok with this, nothing wrong with extra $$$ for selling out
I can't blame people for not wanting payola in the stuff they enjoy watching on YT. The only problem is people acting like certain Youtube personalities were trustworthy to begin with. They weren't.
Looks like its back to the old school way, Playing games rather than watching someone play it or tell you about it.
It's not like Microsoft are asking them to lie or deceive their viewers.
Let's say someone is showing a video of their latest and best BF4 multiplayer match on X1. All they need to do is mentioning that they played this on Xbox One, and voila they gave you information and earned some $.
It's not like GameGrumps or TotalBiscuit will create a video were they only sweet-talk X1 and trash on the Super Atari 64.
It's not like Microsoft are asking them to lie or deceive their viewers.
Let's say someone is showing a video of their latest and best BF4 multiplayer match on X1. All they need to do is mentioning that they played this on Xbox One, and voila they gave you information and earned some $.
It's not like GameGrumps or TotalBiscuit will create a video were they only sweet-talk X1 and trash on the Super Atari 64.
I'm ok with this, nothing wrong with extra $$$ for selling out
Payola:
The term has come to refer to any secret payment made to cast a product in a favorable light (such as obtaining positive reviews).
FCC defines "payola" as a violation of the sponsorship identification rule that in 2005-06 resulted in tens of millions of dollars in fines to cable corporations in New York.
New FTC Guidelines on Endorsements and Sponsorship Disclosure Broadcasters and New Media Companies Beware.
The FTC guidelines on new media have created garnered the greatest attention in the popular press. The guidelines expanded the need to disclose "material connections" between an advertiser and endorser in circumstances where the connection might not be obvious to the consumer. In this context, the FTC made explicit application of the Guidelines principles to bloggers and other "non traditional" media. The rules may actually be more stringent for new media than for traditional media (including radio and television). The FTCs believes that people expect that a newspaper or broadcast reviewer, for example, may have received the books they review, or saw the movie they critique, for free. However, the public is unlikely to be harmed as the traditional media reviewer has an unbiased editor or supervisor to review their comments, so the reviewers opinions are less likely to be swayed by the free stuff they receive. The FTC distinguishes the blogger, who receives "swag" directly and may not have any sort of supervision and review for his or her on-line comments. Thus, the FTC guidelines suggest that the fact that the blogger got the free stuff is not public knowledge, and thus the receipt of the free stuff must be disclosed (even for low-value product samples if there is a continuous flow of such items). The key is whether the reviewer reasonably expects to continue to receive free product for review. Advertisers are required to train and monitor "their" bloggers for compliance and to insure product claims arent being made beyond what the advertiser could otherwise support. Radio stations that have independent bloggers or other new media producers, who are not under the direct supervision of station management, may need to be sure that these people are aware of the need to disclose the "material connections" with advertisers or promoters of products, and that bloggers or other new media producers who have disclosed "material connections" not make claims about products that the products owner could not itself make in advertising that it runs.
If you are receiving compensation for playing/endorsing/reviewing a game and do not reveal that you were compensated, it's illegal. I've watched 5 of the tagged videos and none have mentioned if they were compensated. That's the problem people have.
Edit: Holy shit, there's a payola defense force?
smart, but smells of desperation
And anger should be directed to the YouTube personality for not disclosing compensation or in this case Machinima for the influencers remark.
Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.
Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.
Or if this offends you so much just avoid videos tagged with XB1M13.
Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.
People love no evidence conspiracy theories with M$.
Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.
I'd be worried the sales are going to be a cliff, like the Wii U. Their sales so far are based only on initial hype. They have no games that make them special to sustain any sort of sales so the only other way is these dumb payola videos.
I kinda hate this because it take the honesty out of the youtube videos but I think it will be ok if they label the videos as paid ads.
I kinda hate this because it take the honesty out of the youtube videos but I think it will be ok if they label the videos as paid ads.
3 dollars per 1K views? Doesn't seem worth the trouble.
Did you really think things like this weren't happening already?
Do you know otherwise?
Maybe you should write an article on the subject.
If the video is clearly labeled as a paid ad, there would be no problem. However, many people in here have claimed that Game Grumps and comparably popular channels have neglected to mention that they're being paid to show content by a publisher in the past. That's being dishonest to your fans and going into a grey area of FTC payola rules.
This video is part of Microsoft Studios Summer of Arcade promotional campaign. Some of the content contained in this video and/or compensation for my participation has been provided by Xbox and Microsoft Studios.
Disclosure is overrated in my opinion. I mean its better than outright dishonesty of course, but at the same time something will have been lost if this kind of thing escalates. Its not good for the consumer or entertainment value in general if companies end up turning everyone into paid shills, even if they are clearly labeled as such.
Did you really think things like this weren't happening already?
It's not like Microsoft are asking them to lie or deceive their viewers.
Let's say someone is showing a video of their latest and best BF4 multiplayer match on X1. All they need to do is mentioning that they played this on Xbox One, and voila they gave you information and earned some $.
It's not like GameGrumps or TotalBiscuit will create a video were they only sweet-talk X1 and trash on the Super Atari 64.
You don't know the full terms of the agreement. Negative impressions might be (and in all likelihood) disallowed.
As long as the video maker/s disclose that the content was paid for Microsoft, it's fine. Just own the fact that you're selling out for a paltry $100 or so.
If they don't mention that the content was paid for in the video, they're being dishonest with their viewers. And as some have mentioned, falls in a grey area of payola rules as defined by the FTC.
It seems we were not kept up to date by games journalism, I for one am shocked. Care to update us on these matters? I'm sure you could write a nice informative games journalism article.
That's so depressing...
But smart nonetheless. I guess the people watching the videos already have an xbone, so no harm done?
Do you know otherwise?
Maybe you should write an article on the subject.
Jason will write a well-researched article about game journalism payola around the same time Suikoden 2 comes out on PSN and Shenmue 3 is announced for PC.
And anger should be directed to the YouTube personality for not disclosing compensation or in this case Machinima for the influencers remark.
People here makes it sound like Microsoft are paying for hidden product placements in videos that has little to do with Xbox One. And talking about FTC in regards of small youtube channels is blowing the issue out of proportion, imho.
Maybe!
I'm not talking about "game journalism payola." There's nothing interesting about harping on the same old points about how reviewers are inevitably influenced by their developer and PR relationships in subtle ways. I'm talking about the world of YouTubers, where ethical standards are still being sorted out, and where "cash for coverage" actually seems to be a problem. That's a much more interesting story. (although I have a lot on my plate at the moment)
Also, if Suikoden 2 comes out on PSN, I will be busy writing nothing but Suikoden 2 articles for a straight year.
Oh Jason
So your colleagues are too holy to be influenced by petty cash and gifts and peer pressure from their friends in marketing that they interact with every day, but those darned youtube personalities ARE susceptible?
Please link where it says this, it doesn't say this anywhere. As a matter of fact, it says you must "Follow the Guidelines in the Assignment" and the "Assignment" hasn't been revealed or leaked yet.
Honestly, you and I both do not know what you have to do, or say, at all. So you really cannot say "All you need to do is................" because that hasn't been detailed at all.
If you know what the "Guidelines of the Assignment" are, then share them. Cause otherwise, you are just guessing.
Of course not. It's not like there's an insular protective culture in the PR/enthusiast press relationship or anything.
I'm not talking about "game journalism payola." There's nothing interesting about harping on the same old points about how reviewers are inevitably influenced by their developer and PR relationships in subtle ways. I'm talking about the world of YouTubers, where ethical standards are still being sorted out, and where "cash for coverage" actually seems to be a problem. That's a much more interesting story. (although I have a lot on my plate at the moment)
I'm surprised there practically aren't any gaming news outlets picking up this story.
People here makes it sound like Microsoft are paying for hidden product placements in videos that has little to do with Xbox One. And talking about FTC in regards of small youtube channels is blowing the issue out of proportion, imho.
YouTube is definitely a broader and more "direct" way of moneyhatting coverage. I'm surprised there practically aren't any gaming news outlets picking up this story.
Also, if Suikoden 2 comes out on PSN, I will be busy writing nothing but Suikoden 2 articles for a straight year.
It would put half a spotlight back on their own cozy/fishy relations with publishers, so nope. I wouldn't mind being proven wrong though!
I've heard more than a few "traditional games journalists" make offhand mention to it. But I haven't seen a single actual article on the topic. It couldn't possibly be because they are reliant on the exact same advertising money though. I'm sure there's another reason.