Microsoft, EA pay for positive YouTube coverage

[CLW]

Microsoft paying YouTubers for positive Xbox One coverage


http://www.gamespot.com/articles/microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-positive-xbox-one-coverage/1100-6417235/



http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/21/report-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-positive-xbox-one-coverage

[CLW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eecnPU7Co4Q#t=24

[bdoughty]

Console MFG's, Publishers and Developers still plant paid shills to constantly give 100% positive or negative opinions on products in forums and have done so for years. At least they get paid for their work. You on the other hand... :fp: Even crack whores do not work for free, they at least get some crack.

[SmoothPancakes]

Console MFG's, Publishers and Developers still plant paid shills to constantly give 100% positive or negative opinions on products in forums and have done so for years. At least they get paid for their work. You on the other hand... :fp: Even crack whores do not work for free, they at least get some crack.

:nod: :clap: :+1:

For someone who has never bought an Xbox One, who has stated he will never buy an Xbox One, and repeatedly has stated his hate for and desire for Microsoft and the Xbox One to fail, he sure is obsessed with posting about it, even to the point of taking common business practices and trying to make MS/Xbox One look evil because they, like everyone else, are doing it. I think someone's aiming for Troll of the Year award. He's certainly got my vote! :)

[gschwendt]

http://www.castle-vidcons.com/comics/2014/01/cv0126.jpg

[AustinWolv]

:nod: :clap: :+1:

For someone who has never bought an Xbox One, who has stated he will never buy an Xbox One, and repeatedly has stated his hate for and desire for Microsoft and the Xbox One to fail, he sure is obsessed with posting about it, even to the point of taking common business practices and trying to make MS/Xbox One look evil because they, like everyone else, are doing it. I think someone's aiming for Troll of the Year award. He's certainly got my vote! :)

Might have to share the award with djhook though. Both are delusional.

[bdoughty]

He acts like one of the delusional whack jobs over at NeoGAF.

He probably is one of those delusional whack jobs over at NeoGAF.

Of course like I said, they all do this and the company almost as hated as MS has been busted, Electronic Arts!


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=755600


You understand that You may not post a copy of this Agreement or any Assignment or any terms thereof online or share them with any third party without EA's prior written consent. You agree that You have read the Nondisclosure Agreement (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A) and You understand and agree to all of terms of the Nondisclosure Agreement, which are incorporated as part of this Agreement.


http://i.imgur.com/3xBYPm9.png

http://i.imgur.com/K524Kmz.png

http://i.imgur.com/r8tXTYd.png


"Say it ain't so, Joe,"

[I OU a Beatn]

It's also come out that EA also pays YT members to speak highly of the game and pays them based on view counts. YT members who agree to it also can't speak about it publicly. As I said, it's good, smart, and cheap advertising for these companies and it's a smart move, IMO.

CLW: 409
Everyone else: -7

[bdoughty]

It's also come out that EA also pays YT members to speak highly of the game and pays them based on view counts. YT members who agree to it also can't speak about it publicly. As I said, it's good, smart, and cheap advertising for these companies and it's a smart move, IMO.

CLW: 409
Everyone else: -7

BDoughty - 1
I OU a Beatn - 0

:D

[I OU a Beatn]

Shit, I didn't even look to see if anyone had posted it yet. Fail for me. :fp:

[bdoughty]

Shit, I didn't even look to see if anyone had posted it yet. Fail for me. :fp:

I have a Need for Speed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

Thad has to be at least worth a dollar EA. Please PM me on how to send the monies.

[CLW]

just an fyi why it was discussion worthy - arguably what EA and MS (and the people doing the advertising) violates Federal regs/law on advertising.

In otherwords if EA pays a gaming wesbite or its members with cash, free games, trips, whatever, etc..... in exchange for giving nothing but 100% positive feedback w/o that site/member disclosing it to the public could get them in trouble via lawsuit and possibly federal fines as well (i don't think there is jail time associated with it but its not my field of expertise).

[I OU a Beatn]

As if EA and Microsoft are the only ones doing it. You can bet your ass Sony and every other major publisher is doing the exact same thing.

I don't see how it would be breaking the law. They're paying people to talk about their games either neutrally or positively, just not negatively. It's no different than these companies hiring actors to do commercials and endorse their product.

[CLW]

As if EA and Microsoft are the only ones doing it. You can bet your ass Sony and every other major publisher is doing the exact same thing.

I don't see how it would be breaking the law. They're paying people to talk about their games either neutrally or positively, just not negatively. It's no different than these companies hiring actors to do commercials and endorse their product.

FTC regulations on "truth in advertising" or some other such law.

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

i don't doubt others are doing it that's why i take anything EVERYONE on a website says about a product with a grain of salt.

[CLW]

EA Also Reportedly Paying YouTube Channels for CoverageThose involved are supposedly not allowed to disclose any information regarding the arrangement.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/01/21/ea-also-reportedly-paying-youtube-channels-for-coverage

[morsdraconis]

He acts like one of the delusional whack jobs over at NeoGAF.

You just didn't listen to what he had to say did you? He's talking about being transparent with people that don't know that contracts like this happen. He's talking about people taking money to only say POSITIVE things about something. Never negative things. He's talking about being unable to review a game and use footage that he's made because he disliked the game and is unable to only say positive things about the game.

It's a terrible practice and should be shamed just as much as finding out that review websites are getting paid to give games good reviews. It's called journalistic integrity and it means a whole lot. It can be the difference between continuing to be a big youtube person and no longer getting the views that you used to get.

[CLW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CnSIJJNjIs

[AustinWolv]

You just didn't listen to what he had to say did you? He's talking about being transparent with people that don't know that contracts like this happen. He's talking about people taking money to only say POSITIVE things about something. Never negative things. He's talking about being unable to review a game and use footage that he's made because he disliked the game and is unable to only say positive things about the game.

It's a terrible practice and should be shamed just as much as finding out that review websites are getting paid to give games good reviews. It's called journalistic integrity and it means a whole lot. It can be the difference between continuing to be a big youtube person and no longer getting the views that you used to get.

Don't care either way. Movie reviewers do it, game companies do it, plenty of industries do it.

The real question is if CLW would be posting it up if info comes out about Sony doing it. Or is hot to trot to put the links up because it is XB1?

[HANDSWARD]

Why is this even a story? Every company that sells a product, good, or service does this in some way, shape, or form. Larry the Cable Guy takes prilosec otc, and recommends that you should too. :deadhorse:

[morsdraconis]

Don't care either way. Movie reviewers do it, game companies do it, plenty of industries do it.

The real question is if CLW would be posting it up if info comes out about Sony doing it. Or is hot to trot to put the links up because it is XB1?

Again, you're not understanding the issue. The issue is that these companies are FORCING people to sign deals that prevent them from saying anything bad about the thing they are reviewing and also PREVENTS THEM FROM ACKNOWLEDGING TO ANYONE THAT THEY HAD TO SIGN ONE.

So, while yes, it's perfectly ok to do what they are doing, it's NOT ok, to also prevent these people, who have a LARGE SWAY in what is bought and not bought (you're naive if you think that is not the case because it most definitely is), from being able to say to their viewers that they are indeed being paid to say these things in an only positive light no matter what their personal feelings are about that product.

It's a terrible business practice and, while one that I was pretty sure was already the case and that I tolerate for some of the media that I consume throughout the week, it's one that I've grown increasingly tired of seeing peddled without objectivity being offered.

[AustinWolv]

The issue is that these companies are FORCING people to sign deals that prevent them from saying anything bad about the thing they are reviewing and also PREVENTS THEM FROM ACKNOWLEDGING TO ANYONE THAT THEY HAD TO SIGN ONE
You act like the people don't have a say in it. Having reviewed products for other industries, it is apparent what you are getting into. They aren't slaves, they signed up for it.

[steelerfan]

You act like the people don't have a say in it. Having reviewed products for other industries, it is apparent what you are getting into. They aren't slaves, they signed up for it.

No. They are being FORCED. Likely at gunpoint. :D :fp:

[bdoughty]

You act like the people don't have a say in it. Having reviewed products for other industries, it is apparent what you are getting into. They aren't slaves, they signed up for it.

Exactly, EA and MS are not forcing people to do anything. They read the contract and agreed to it. Sorry Mors but you are the naive one when it comes to the business world. I had 20 years in the auto/diesel industry and we had to deal with things in product line contracts that would make this seem trivial.

[steelerfan]

Why is this even a story? Every company that sells a product, good, or service does this in some way, shape, or form. Larry the Cable Guy takes prilosec otc, and recommends that you should too. :deadhorse:

You mean Troy Polamalu doesn't use $3 shampoo??? :(

Please don't tell me that Tony Siragusa doesn't use those male panty liners that he has been peddling throughout the playoffs. That would be disappointing.

[CLW]

Why is this even a story? Every company that sells a product, good, or service does this in some way, shape, or form. Larry the Cable Guy takes prilosec otc, and recommends that you should too. :deadhorse:

The issue is that these companies + the youtubers are arguably in violation of Federal law which could subject your employer to potentially large financial fines when/if the u.s. government decides to take action in the matter. Moreover, EA/MS and the youtubers could possibly be sued via class action (something EA is getting used to at this point) for the violation of said Federal Law.

The difference between Larry the Cable Guy Prilosec commercials and this is its obvious that Larry the Cable Guy is getting paid by the drug company to push the drug where the youtubers it is not obvious (thus the arguable violation of federal law).

The fact you cannot see the distinction is sad but hey go ahead and challenge the resident lawyer of TGT on a legal question. He only called Treyvon Martin right and the death of the NCAA series right MONTHS before anyone else did. All this issue is going to take is someone that is pissed on the internet to find a lawyer willing to sue EA/MS/Machinima etc... given the deep pockets involved it's not unlikely for a lawsuit to be forthcoming (assuming the federal statute at issue gives a private right of action).

[morsdraconis]

(sigh)

They're being forced to not say bad things about the items they are reviewing without losing out on the money they are provided. People are having to choose between their integrity and making money for a living doing what they love. All the while, the ones that are peddling things in a dishonest way are making companies money hand over fist by falsely advertising the quality of products to an audience that watches and listens to them for advise on things.

I'll say it again, it's one thing for a company to give someone a contract with a clause that states that they have to only say nice things about something. It's something ENTIRELY different to also have in that contract a clause that states that they can't be transparent with their listeners, readers, viewers, etc. One is common practice for companies to attempt to make their product look appealing to the masses. The other is dishonestly making their product look better than it actually is without the consumer knowing any wiser because of the lack of transparency available.

So, in the sense of youtube, non-affiliated youtube channels are having to choose between continuing to do their own thing or being slaves to their contracts to make more money from what they are doing by joining a affiliated youtube network (machinima being one of those). It's a business and ethical conundrum for a large subsection of youtube content providers. It's basically choosing whether or not to sellout and face the consequences behind doing so (loss of market share because of their fan bases no longer trusting their content). You can kid around all you want, but there are so VERY large debates happening right now over various content issues related to copyright infringement and now this ethical issue that could very well determine the future of youtube and thus online video content delivery methods as a whole.

[CLW]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ajHl1qzOII

[HANDSWARD]

CLW, I'm not challenging your law expertise. And I didn't read the entire thread prior to my posting, but it does seem like there is a lot of grey area with this. So answer this for me... You say "it is not obvious" with the youtubers, which IMO is very debatable. I mean, these area people who are doing what they do to make money. So it seems logical to me to assume that anyone could be paying them?

[SmoothPancakes]

The issue is that these companies + the youtubers are arguably in violation of Federal law which could subject your employer to potentially large financial fines when/if the u.s. government decides to take action in the matter. Moreover, EA/MS/Sony/Nintendo/every other game company in the world and the youtubers could possibly be sued via class action (something EA is getting used to at this point) for the violation of said Federal Law.

The difference between Larry the Cable Guy Prilosec commercials and this is its obvious that Larry the Cable Guy is getting paid by the drug company to push the drug where the youtubers it is not obvious (thus the arguable violation of federal law).

The fact you cannot see the distinction is sad but hey go ahead and challenge the resident lawyer of TGT on a legal question. He only called Treyvon Martin right and the death of the NCAA series right MONTHS before anyone else did. All this issue is going to take is someone that is pissed on the internet to find a lawyer willing to sue EA/MS/Machinima/Sony/Nintendo/every other game company in the world, etc... given the deep pockets involved it's not unlikely for a lawsuit to be forthcoming (assuming the federal statute at issue gives a private right of action).

Fixed it for you.

[bdoughty]

The fact you cannot see the distinction is sad but hey go ahead and challenge the resident lawyer of TGT on a legal question. He only called Treyvon Martin right and the death of the NCAA series right MONTHS before anyone else did.

Wow, Trevon Martin and the NCAA series, move over Gerry Spence we got a real legal badass here.

[I OU a Beatn]

:D @ this stuff being illegal. Give me a break.

[bdoughty]

:D @ this stuff being illegal. Give me a break.

It's iffy because the examples the FTC uses are iffy.

http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

Scroll all the way to the bottom and see examples 7 and 9. You can see how any lawyer could twist and turn these examples to best suit either side of the case. Also would need to see the youtube videos in question and see if any of the posters made such disclosures. Again, so many companies teeter on the edge when it comes to marketing their products, I just can't see where the shock is warranted. No doubt in my mind that both EA and MS legal teams are fully aware of all the legalities involved.

Not to mention the majority of the people complaining are spiteful PS4 owners with their panties in a wad that do not own a Xbox One or for that matter an EA Sports game. Can you really create a winning class-action with products you never purchased in the first place?

[SCClassof93]

Guys, you are all missing the wonderful thing here. Mors and clw agreeing on an issue is big news :D. For me I have no idea the legal issues and don't care but I do call a shit sandwich a shit sandwich and if you are paid to review something and don't disclose this fact, well, you suck.........you suck almost as bad as those that had to pay you to prostitute yourself for their shitty games. Does not matter who or how many make shit sandwiches they are still shit sandwiches. Carry on :up:

[cdj]

With hindsight being 20/20, I wonder if the returns were worth it for either MS or EA. Even if the NDA hadn't come out, my guess would be no. Too many companies get wrapped up in 'what can do we do to help our company on social media' and there are better, cheaper, and more legal ways than this.

[SCClassof93]

With hindsight being 20/20, I wonder if the returns were worth it for either MS or EA. Even if the NDA hadn't come out, my guess would be no. Too many companies get wrapped up in 'what can do we do to help our company on social media' and there are better, cheaper, and more legal ways than this.

Like making a solid product :D

[CLW]

Here is my position on this issue:

1. Its sleazy - basically MS/EA/Others are trying to "trick" the mass consumer audience into viewing basically a commercial w/o that consumer realizing it is actually a paid commercial for the product

2. It is POSSIBLY illegal - I haven't read the statute/regs at issue other than briefly looking at the link above which arguably applies

3. It's stupid - I cannot imagine the $ spent on these things actually delivers much additional revenue for the company moreover the bad PR/press surely outweighs any return they do see

I suppose some morons might buy a product based on what they see on youtube or some gaming website. Me I don't buy it and have always been skeptical of what anyone posts online about a game. I take their info and view it as a piece of evidence of puzzle. I analyze all of the pieces I can find and give different weights to those pieces (most importantly is what I actually can see myself, the track record of the game/publisher has with me, then people who have a track record I agree with, then what others say, etc...) I then come to my own conclusion and often post it here which others can agree/disagree with or ignore completely.

[I OU a Beatn]

I suppose some morons might buy a product based on what they see on youtube or some gaming website. Me I don't buy it and have always been skeptical of what anyone posts online about a game. I take their info and view it as a piece of evidence of puzzle. I analyze all of the pieces I can find and give different weights to those pieces (most importantly is what I actually can see myself, the track record of the game/publisher has with me, then people who have a track record I agree with, then what others say, etc...) I then come to my own conclusion and often post it here which others can agree/disagree with or ignore completely.

Exactly. This is precisely why I think it's a joke that everyone is flipping out about it. Do people actually decide on their $60 purchase with YT personalities recommending it? I sure as hell hope not.

[SCClassof93]

Here is my position on this issue:

1. Its sleazy - basically MS/EA/Others are trying to "trick" the mass consumer audience into viewing basically a commercial w/o that consumer realizing it is actually a paid commercial for the product

2. It is POSSIBLY illegal - I haven't read the statute/regs at issue other than briefly looking at the link above which arguably applies

3. It's stupid - I cannot imagine the $ spent on these things actually delivers much additional revenue for the company moreover the bad PR/press surely outweighs any return they do see

I suppose some morons might buy a product based on what they see on youtube or some gaming website. Me I don't buy it and have always been skeptical of what anyone posts online about a game. I take their info and view it as a piece of evidence of puzzle. I analyze all of the pieces I can find and give different weights to those pieces (most importantly is what I actually can see myself, the track record of the game/publisher has with me, then people who have a track record I agree with, then what others say, etc...) I then come to my own conclusion and often post it here which others can agree/disagree with or ignore completely.


Exactly. This is precisely why I think it's a joke that everyone is flipping out about it. Do people actually decide on their $60 purchase with YT personalities recommending it? I sure as hell hope not.

http://a.wattpad.net/cover/3407336-256-k41a2def3.jpg

[Stan HAMsen]

It feels that freaking cold today. :down:

[SCClassof93]

It feels that freaking cold today. :down:


Coincidence? :hmm:

[SmoothPancakes]

Exactly. This is precisely why I think it's a joke that everyone is flipping out about it. Do people actually decide on their $60 purchase with YT personalities recommending it? I sure as hell hope not.

Yep. Couldn't care less what any of these Youtube dumbasses think of a game. Only thing I care about when it comes to games on Youtube is watching gameplay. Depending on what I see of the gameplay, that will potentially sway me one way or the other on a game that I'm on the fence about. But these dumbasses who try to make a career out of posting Youtube videos, couldn't give the slightest two shits about them or their thoughts.

[SCClassof93]

http://static.fjcdn.com/gifs/The%2Bmost%2Binteresting%2B.gif%2Bin%2Bthe%2Bworld ..%2BI%2Bdon%2Bt%2Balways_452a88_3395726.gif

[morsdraconis]

Exactly. This is precisely why I think it's a joke that everyone is flipping out about it. Do people actually decide on their $60 purchase with YT personalities recommending it? I sure as hell hope not.

Yes, they do and you should be very sad that that is the case because it DEFINITELY is. Microsoft and EA wouldn't be spending that money if they didn't.

[cdj]

Exactly. This is precisely why I think it's a joke that everyone is flipping out about it. Do people actually decide on their $60 purchase with YT personalities recommending it? I sure as hell hope not.

Do you think the outrage is really that bad? I thought the PR hit/outrage would actually be worse.

I agree with mors - if these companies didn't think these YouTube content creators were extremely influential, they wouldn't have made this silent investment. Personally, I am not sure they are that influential, but it's clear MS/EA think they are.

[CLW]

Do you think the outrage is really that bad? I thought the PR hit/outrage would actually be worse.

I agree with mors - if these companies didn't think these YouTube content creators were extremely influential, they wouldn't have made this silent investment. Personally, I am not sure they are that influential, but it's clear MS/EA think they are.

I agree they have some influence the question of how much is up for debate. I'm sure there are morons out there that if/when their favorite "Let's Play" youtuber says "this game rocks" they buy it regardless of what else might be out there. However, I think their influence isn't worth the amount of money EA/MS are probably paid them.

[bdoughty]

'm sure there are morons out there that if/when their favorite "Let's Play" youtuber says "this game rocks" they buy it regardless of what else might be out there.

:+1: You buy something because Pewpewdie's girlfriend makes you feel naughty, you deserve what you get. No single video is going to get me to buy a product. I can only guess the reason EA/MS do it is they find it to be really cheap advertising. There's a sucker born every minute (probably closer to every second with this generation). Every company in the world is trying everything they can to sell to them.

[Stan HAMsen]

I totally googled "pewpewdie girlfriend."

[bdoughty]

I totally googled "pewpewdie girlfriend."

Just beware of her voice, kinda kills it for me.