Support NeoGAF

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

Blurred lines: Are YouTubers breaking the law? (Simon Parkin)

It's a great read about Youtube advertorials and disclosing, all of it. On giving a game's revenue share (especially independent game developers) to these Youtubers for bringing attention to it. We all remember the BF 4 launch with EA Ronku, and the XB1M13 campaign. I'm sure there are others.

Yogscast?

Yogscast is the most viewed YouTube channel in the UK with more than 7 million subscribers. The channel began as a two-man operation, posting humourous videos about World of Warcraft. In recent years Yogscast has grown to a sizeable commercial operation with a multitude of presenters (some of whom are ex-journalists). In 2012 Yogscast became a registered company with a business team that now offers revenue-share deals to game developers: a limited time cut of games sales in exchange for coverage. After initially agreeing to an interview for this article, the Yogscast senior management instead offered a formal statement, which they then posted as an 'open letter' to Reddit ahead of this article's publication.

If you've been to British gaming conventions like EGX, you know Yogscast is a huge business (they even had a separate queue when entering EGX Rezzed, when I went there).

On the law:

Clarity and disclosure is not just a matter of personal preference. Since 2009 any US-based YouTube videos that provide a paid-for endorsement of a video game must abide with FTC regulations and clearly state the fact. Many who work in the industry, however, believe there is no such law outside of the US. "There are no regulations in the UK," says Channel Flip's Weaser. "There are only best practice guidelines."

But Weaser is mistaken: British law is unequivocal. Paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 in The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs) outlines a prohibition against 'using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).' This law has been in effect since 2008. The Office of Fair Trading illustrates the point like so: 'A magazine is paid by a holiday company for an advertising feature on their luxury Red Sea diving school. The magazine does not make it clear that this is a paid-for feature - for example by clearly labelling it 'Advertising Feature' or 'Advertorial'. This would breach the CPRs.'

The reluctance of some YouTubers to clearly mark advertorial is neither new nor something that's unique to YouTube: magazines and newspapers have long wrestled with the word. Even if a piece of advertorial provides a truthful representation of the writer or broadcaster's personal opinion, the label acts as a warning to readers and viewers that, at very least, there is a risk of prejudice.

But for David Bond, a lawyer at of Field Fisher, a London law firm that specialises in technology, media and communications, the law applies to any YouTuber paid by a manufacturer to promote a game, just as it does a magazine or newspaper. "In every case the financial arrangement should be disclosed," he says. The repercussions for breaking CPRs can be significant. "The enforcement body may apply to a court for an order to prevent infringements of the CPRs," says Bond. "Breach of an enforcement order could be contempt of court which could lead to up to two years imprisonment."

John Bain (Totalbiscuit) wise response to Yogscast open letter about their revenue-share coverage:

Seems like it should be present on the video itself as a watermark or disclaimer rather than through text in the description box that can be easily ignored.

Not everyone believes that Yogscast has gone far enough in its transparency with viewers. "A lot of us are not happy with what they're doing," said one YouTuber who asked to remain anonymous. "It reflects badly on all of us. It's not hard to find their sponsored content and it's not clear that this is what it is. Their audience is kids and they don't necessarily understand the nature of what's going on. They don't have to act this way; they have a huge audience."

I will 'like' your video for £10,000:

Some of the best-known YouTube celebrities offer far less than a commentated playthrough of a game to developers struggling to spread the word about their game. One PR agency, which asked to remain anonymous, tells the story of a YouTube celebrity who asked for a one-off payment to 'like' the trailer for one of the games that the firm was representing. "We were once approached by a prominent YouTuber outside the world of gaming who suggested we pay them £10,000 to 'like' a video," he told me - a simple action that would promote the video to the YouTuber's many subscribers. "We rejected it, but the feeling in the agency was that if they are asking for this kind of fee, then people are paying."

Indie developers (Mike Bithell):

But for independent game-makers who now compete with thousands of other unheard-of games, there is clear financial benefit to employing a powerful YouTuber to the cause. Convince someone with a sizeable audience to cover your game and you have bought yourself invaluable coverage. "It scares me to think how much it would have cost to market my game to the audiences TotalBiscuit, Pewdiepie and Nerd Cubed alone brought to the game," says Mike Bithell, creator of Thomas Was Alone.

Youtubers hold great power, "where channels hold games to ransom":

Despite the logic of the arrangement, Bain believes it is damaging. "The risk is that we end up with a situation where channels hold games to ransom and will refuse to cover a title unless the publisher offers a slice of the referral profits." Arguably, it's the large sums of money involved in the process that inspire these nested compromises. "The problem is you have an unregulated medium raking in shitloads of money whilst simultaneously being hailed as the maker-or-breaker of gaming," says Simon Byron, director of games at the PR agency Premier. "They wield great power and that can be seductive to some developers. I'd hope that people won't take up any of these offers - their channel risks losing credibility, which in the fickle world of online video is the only thing they have."

"Advertisers want to sleep with you but also want you to remain a virgin":

While the fact that most YouTubers do not call themselves journalists arguably limits or reduces the harm of their unmarked paid-for coverage to consumers, they are also afforded fewer protections than traditional journalists. One young YouTuber who asked to remain anonymous said that he has seen colleagues who became popular for their coverage of EA's Battlefield series "dropped" by the publisher after they attended Activision's rival Call of Duty events.

There is an expectation of loyalty to one publisher's products, especially if those products were partly responsible for someone's initial success. If that loyalty is broken, there are consequences. As David Hepworth recently wrote in The Guardian on the dangers of advertorial: "Advertisers want to sleep with you but also want you to remain a virgin. They want to believe the favours they were granted are not being extended to the next hobbledehoy who comes along."

"The most popular YouTube stars do not have to engage in advertorial", the rise of ad block:

The most popular YouTube stars do not have to engage in advertorial. According to Business Insider, PewDiePie earns between $140,000 and $1.4 million per month from pre-roll advertisements alone. Bain's channel is also popular enough to earn a living this way. He does, however, accept sponsorship deals, but insists that he is always careful to make the nature of the coverage clear to his viewers. "I have built my reputation on honesty," he says. "To fail to disclose sponsored content would be the most grossly disingenuous thing I could do." More pointedly, perhaps, Bain believes that a failure to disclose such a deal might irrevocably damage his career. "I view my business in the long term," he says. "I've been doing this for four years and I intend to do it for 40 years to come. I have to protect my reputation."

Bain, with his army of subscribers, is perhaps less susceptible to corruption than lesser known YouTubers who hope to earn a living from their work. He believes that the rise of undisclosed advertorial deals is due to systemic issues. "This is a market in which ad-blocking software is on the rise," he says. He also points out that if a YouTuber agrees to advertise a product in pre-roll that is unavailable in some countries, then no ad will show to those viewers. "That's a significant part of what has caused the rise of 'influencer' videos," he says. "For most YouTubers, ad-based rates weren't sufficient."

For Byron, the risk is that a failure to disclose deals is not only illegal, it also risks eroding trust between viewers and YouTubers. "I've long thought that the relationship between a YouTuber and their audience is one of the most honest," he says. "But it feels like that honesty is endangered. At best, commercial deals are often only slyly acknowledged. Watch out for phrasing such as 'Publisher X asked us to get involved with...' That's usually a sign that money has changed hands. It should be made much clearer."

"Ignorance more than malice":

Mike Channell, one of the presenters of Outside Xbox (a YouTube channel that, it should be noted, is part of Eurogamer's parent Gamer Network) believes that many YouTubers have been oblivious to the implications of their decision to run unmarked paid-for content. "In most cases I believe that it's ignorance more than malice that leads to these situations," he says. "Most of these guys don't have any experience or guidance with matters of ethics. They feel inside that they're not being corrupted based on their own moral compass, but what they perhaps haven't recognised is that perception and audience faith is just as important as personal justification. I'm absolutely convinced most of them care far more about their audience than a bit of extra cash on the side."

British YouTubers are also regulated by the Advertising Standards Authority. The ASA would generally only seek to regulate an endorsement of a product on YouTube if the Youtuber was 'paid' to say something positive, says Bond. Payment includes cash and payment in kind, such as free gifts. It is, however, simple for a YouTuber to abide by the law. Signpost paid-for content as being an 'ad', 'advertorial' or 'sponsored content' for a simple, hassle free way to make it immediately clear to viewers, says Bond.

The repercussions for a YouTuber whose audience finds out from somewhere else that there may have been an advertorial aspect to the coverage can be severe. Jack Frags published a 30-minute explanation to his audience defending his engagement in EA's Ronku programme earlier this year. It's a spirited defence in which he argues that he didn't say anything that he wouldn't have had he not been engaged in the influencer programme. But as many in the games media know only too well, appearances are often as important as fact to a consumer audience who put their faith in your impartiality.

There have been times when the disclosure of sponsorship deals has backfired. During Microsoft's Summer of Arcade campaign in 2013, the company offered sponsorship to some prominent YouTubers in exchange for coverage of the games that were released as part of the programme. One YouTuber, VideogameDunkey, created a video in which he criticised one of the games, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. When Microsoft requested that he retract the video, he disclosed the deal to his audience, for which he stated that he was paid $750. The systemic failure to disclose the deals sooner hurt the game itself. "Those of us who covered the game later on, when it was released on PC, were accused of corruption," says Bain. "The public perception was that anyone who said anything positive about the game was paid off."

Nevertheless, for Bain, there is a distinction between journalistic corruption and the failure of some YouTubers to disclose advertorial content, even if they are part of the same continuum. "YouTube is far more vulnerable to brown envelope stuff than traditional press," he says. "But I believe there's less harm is done in those cases where money changes hands, simply because the majority of these channels don't label themselves as journalists or critics," he says. "There is no pretence of authority or independence."

I hope with Totalbiscuit's statements that more Youtubers are forthcoming about being transparent and not have Youtube be the shady place with no standards, because more people seem to be using that space to getting their reviews and pre-release opinions on games away from the regular source of critics.

Random17 · Jul 16, 2014

I hope with Totalbiscuit's statements that more Youtubers are forthcoming about being transparent and not have Youtube be the shady place with no standards, because more people seem to be using that space to getting their reviews and pre-release opinions on games away from the regular source of critics.

I agree.

Theoretically, couldn't a Youtuber post a negative review of a video game out of spite? As a vengeful act after being rejected for a sponsorship deal? Even if some subjective* aspects of the review are bollocks, a negative impression can still be created. This can be hard to eliminate, especially if it is a first impression or if the audience is more susceptible, e.g. younger audiences that were mentioned in the article.

*Controls are hard to use, game doesn't look good, the AI sucks (this is hard to quantify unless you play the game itself)

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

Random17 said:
I agree.

Theoretically, couldn't a Youtuber post a negative review of a video game out of spite? As a vengeful act after being rejected for a sponsorship deal?

One Youtuber did that, mentioned in the story:

There have been times when the disclosure of sponsorship deals has backfired. During Microsoft's Summer of Arcade campaign in 2013, the company offered sponsorship to some prominent YouTubers in exchange for coverage of the games that were released as part of the programme. One YouTuber, VideogameDunkey, created a video in which he criticised one of the games, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. When Microsoft requested that he retract the video, he disclosed the deal to his audience, for which he stated that he was paid $750. The systemic failure to disclose the deals sooner hurt the game itself. "Those of us who covered the game later on, when it was released on PC, were accused of corruption," says Bain. "The public perception was that anyone who said anything positive about the game was paid off."

RubberJohnny · Jul 16, 2014

So JackFrags broke the law when being paid to advertise BF4 and not disclosing it?

Random17 · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
One Youtuber did that, mentioned in the story:

There have been times when the disclosure of sponsorship deals has backfired. During Microsoft's Summer of Arcade campaign in 2013, the company offered sponsorship to some prominent YouTubers in exchange for coverage of the games that were released as part of the programme. One YouTuber, VideogameDunkey, created a video in which he criticised one of the games, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. When Microsoft requested that he retract the video, he disclosed the deal to his audience, for which he stated that he was paid $750. The systemic failure to disclose the deals sooner hurt the game itself. "Those of us who covered the game later on, when it was released on PC, were accused of corruption," says Bain. "The public perception was that anyone who said anything positive about the game was paid off."

Based on my understanding of the article, I was thinking about it from the other perspective, i.e. a Youtuber asks a indie developer for positive coverage of his game, and when he is rejected, he makes the review more negative out of spite. The impression I am getting is that he/she posted the negative review first and was then asked to remove it when it was shown to be critical.

tait269 · Jul 16, 2014

How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

RubberJohnny said:
So JackFrags broke the law when being paid to advertise BF4 and not disclosing it?

According to FTC, not legally enforceable since they're guides and not laws, but I'm not so clear on it: http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/23/5337574/the-ftc-on-paying-youtubers-to-endorse-games

RubberJohnny · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
According to FTC, not legally enforceable since they're guides and not laws, but I'm not so clear on it: http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/23/5337574/the-ftc-on-paying-youtubers-to-endorse-games

I think he's British, so it'd come under the ASA

Rapstah · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

If they're getting paid in money or gifts without disclosing it then that is also illegal in the US and UK as specified. It's not illegal to hype something without getting paid. Let's not pretend like it wouldn't be an enormous scandal if it turned out that games press outlet X had been paid to be positive about game Y.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

No dividing wall between editorial and advertising for a Youtube video (right now). You'll have that advertising coverage in a gaming magazine/website but the reviews won't be affected, as editorial team will be kept separate from it in regular outlets. That's why the Jeff Gerstmann dustup happened (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GagFPnSG0j4#t=10m37s4) as an exception where the publisher and new management at Gamespot wanted the review to reflect all the marketing dollars.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

RubberJohnny said:
I think he's British, so it'd come under the ASA

Good point.

Triggerhappytel · Jul 16, 2014

Nerd3 also made an interesting video about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qi5KsJDTiV4

I don't really see much good coming from this set-up. Sure, Yogscast have been forthcoming in their terms, but if it's in their interest for the game to be successful how can we trust that we're getting honest opinions from them? And it's obvious publishers or developers are going to bid to give them a better rate in order to get the coverage in the first place. It just all seems so corrupt, and feels like they're abusing their position to leverage more money for themselves. I don't personally watch Yogscast, but I think this may set a dangerous precedent.

In Service · Jul 16, 2014

A well argued article and OP - good to read it.

The question is always one of disclosure. If at the start of a broadcast someone declares they received the product for free in the post from the publisher then that might be all that is needed - and arguably most of the print media may have fallen foul of that general principle until recent years.

However, receiving cash for endorsing a product is something that should carry a heavier obligation of disclosure with a cogent disclaimer in written text along the screen imho.

Diablohead · Jul 16, 2014

First I heard of yogcast was the character dlc for sonic racing transformed, I still don't really know who they are and I live in the UK and watch youtube quite often, eh.

With youtube and video reviews growing every year rules for this kind of stuff do need to be kicked up a gear IMO.

mangochutney · Jul 16, 2014

£10k to like a video. Jesus Christ. And people think traditional media is bad and corrupt!

And yeah, ASA would not look too kindly on some of this activity, struggling to find what I found before during the BF4 and Xbox fiasco but I remember it talking about very similar things and how you have to be very clear why you're covering the content you are.

I wonder if it would fall under Product Placement and they can get away with the PP logo you see on some TV shows now.

mitchman · Jul 16, 2014

It's interesting to see all the preview gameplay videos by the BF youtubers for the Dragon's Teeth DLC all included a clear "Sponsored by EA" text clearly visible at the beginning of the each video. All of them used an identical logo so it was clearly something supplied to them by EA.
Some followed up the next day or later that day with a review of the various maps, not all of them were positive. I guess they (both EA and the youtubers) learned from the previous mistakes.

TitusGroan · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

As someone who deals with media contacts, I can tell you that the marketing and editorial teams at these outlets are completely different departments, and there will be very little if any contact between the two. It actually annoys me when people claim sites like IGN take money and ad space for review scores. The advertising team is completely different from the editorial, and if you look at the bottom of IGN (or any professional gaming site), there will be an Advertise button which lays out in clear terms for prospective advertisers what the rates are for ad space.

No 'Click here for glowing preview' or 'Press here to bump your review score by three points' buttons. Just clear ad templates with the going rates for ad space based on the site's popularity. The reason game sites tend to go for game ads is because most of the site's users are gamers, and therefore it benefits both sides to have adverts that are most relevant to the userbase.

The information is all based on legal requirements too, so if IGN were to hypothetically take money for a review score, they'd be going against the terms laid out on their own site, be in breach of advertising law, and thereby could face legal action. Which no sane editor or publisher is going to allow.

Now, Youtubers, on the other hand, control both editorial and advertising, and have no such clear layout or information on advertising rules. They operate on murky finances that are based more on handshake deals and quid pro quo arrangements than anything with legal basis, and therefore are much more likely to be able to take money for a game product and not declare it. I believe KSI has done corporate gigs and taken money for coverage of various games without being clear about it.

The whole Youtube scene needs to be cleared up, and I find it hilarious when people act as if they're MORE trustworthy than sites like IGN.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

On the issue of publishers paying youtubers to cover games:

Gamasutra: Pay for Play - The ethics of paying for YouTuber coverage

As you can see, 98 percent of those with less than 5,000 subscribers said that they have never received money from a developer or publisher to record videos of games. In comparison, at least 26 percent of YouTubers with over 5,000 subscribers said they had taken money to record videos.

This was a comment by HassanAlHajry (if you check for early youtube walkthroughs, might have heard of his name):

I never accepted any myself and was offered thousands of $ so yes its true, some youtubers don't even mind promoting really bad games just for the cash (they talk as if it was the best game ever when it's actually a piece of shit), the names and lists are out there in many popular forums like NEOGAF and so.

They make you sign DNA and other BS too (for certain companies not all) where you can't state anything negative for the game or talk about bugs/glitches you noticed. 

Huh, didn't know TheRadBrad (2,141,274 subscribers) had accepted the Xbox One Console Campaign Assignment, with the whole XB1M13 thing back in January: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97617869&postcount=768

ebullientprism · Jul 16, 2014

This is a really fascinating read.

"We're working with a few selected partners on limited duration rev shares around our content covering the game," he said, revealing the team's name for the proposal as 'YogsDiscovery'. "We don't allow for any stipulations as to the content we release when working with publishers, our voice is always our voice," he added.

I can believe that publishers/partners dont have control or stipulations over the content they produce. I do find it hard to believe that they would be as honest with games they are paid to cover as they would be on the ones they are not paid to cover.

I am not even talking about reviews or previews. Just pure random gameplay becomes suspect.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

mangochutney said:
£10k to like a video. Jesus Christ. And people think traditional media is bad and corrupt!

And yeah, ASA would not look too kindly on some of this activity, struggling to find what I found before during the BF4 and Xbox fiasco but I remember it talking about very similar things and how you have to be very clear why you're covering the content you are.

I wonder if it would fall under Product Placement and they can get away with the PP logo you see on some TV shows now.

Oh god, now I'm imagining some Youtuber casually filming him/herself and it going like the House of Cards Vita product placement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHCqw23zU_o

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

Some tweets from William Pugh that highlight where the views->sales will be a problem and how viewers are watching the videos not for interest in the game but the personality:

Wouldn't they have to create a new algorithm for determining which views became which sales? Right now, all game developers can do is see when sales spike happened and correlate it to a youtube video's timing.

https://twitter.com/tha_rami/status/489399835662249984

What are "referral links"?

KJ869 · Jul 16, 2014

That % deal just sounds wierd.

Halcyon · Jul 16, 2014

Yogscast and Sips/HAT Films are my 3 favorite gaming channels.

I feel at some point the gaming youtube scene is going to crumble though.

Dusk Golem · Jul 16, 2014

I'm reading through this, but one thing I wanted to comment before I continue.

Youtubers hold great power, "where channels hold games to ransom":

Despite the logic of the arrangement, Bain believes it is damaging. "The risk is that we end up with a situation where channels hold games to ransom and will refuse to cover a title unless the publisher offers a slice of the referral profits." Arguably, it's the large sums of money involved in the process that inspire these nested compromises. "The problem is you have an unregulated medium raking in shitloads of money whilst simultaneously being hailed as the maker-or-breaker of gaming," says Simon Byron, director of games at the PR agency Premier."

This is complete horsecrap. YouTubers are not holding games at ransom, and the fact someone is suggesting this is ridiculous to me. Yes, big YouTubers can bring success to a game, and in that sense they are invaluable, but they are not the only means to the way or the sole cause to a game succeeding or failing, and honestly it's not their responsibility to play every game out there. This is putting way too much stake into them, when it's up to the developer/publisher to market their game. Sure they can be invaluable, yes, but in no way by them not playing a game are they, "holding the games on ransom."

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

Dusk Golem said:
I'm reading through this, but one thing I wanted to comment before I continue.

This is complete horsecrap. YouTubers are not holding games at ransom, and the fact someone is suggesting this is ridiculous to me. Yes, big YouTubers can bring success to a game, and in that sense they are invaluable, but they are not the only means to the way or the sole cause to a game succeeding or failing, and honestly it's not their responsibility to play every game out there. This is putting way too much stake into them, when it's up to the developer/publisher to market their game. Sure they can be invaluable, yes, but in no way by them not playing a game are they, "holding the games on ransom."

I think the holding games to ransom quote is in relation to specific cases (£10K for a "like") rather than the sole marketing of games or generalising sales traffic through youtubers. Ultimately, it's up to the developer to accept that kind of risk/reward marketing or try more traditional avenues.

SlasherJPC · Jul 16, 2014

This is a scary trend that is growing as we speak. It's bluring the lines and it's making it hard to figure out who you can truly trust with their supposed "opinion". I just don't know how I feel about it all. Gives me that gut feeling your mother always warned you about.

TyrantII · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

Quid pro quo isn't the same as direct payment. I agree not much difference, but there is in the letter of the law in most places.

mangochutney · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

Well a banner ad is clear in that it is a banner ad.

The consumer knows what the flashing image is there as an advert. So they know it was paid for, or will be paid for if you click it etc.

If someone makes a YouTube video saying how great something is or say a celebrity tweets they love their new Widget X then you don't know if that was a paid sponsorship message and if the messaging is truthful and genuine.

Also on GI covers and IGN First, I would be interested to know how those work. Because I'm not sure I see the benefit to a developer/publisher in saying OK we won't let all magazines and websites have news of our new game, we'll just let one have it. Oh and we'll pay them too.

To me that doesn't make sense. I would instead probably suggest that GI and IGN are paying for the exclusivity, and if they're not then it will be an offer that has mutual benefits - for example give us the first look at Forza Horizon 2 and we'll give you all this banner space for little or no money during your launch window.

The key difference from that and the whole YT thing is that no money from the product creator went to the content creator and if GI and IGN are stumping up cash for the cover/exclusive stories then that again is not a dev/pub buying up content pieces.

Deepo · Jul 16, 2014

This article on Gamasutra was also interesting, about how Total Biscuit is committing to being more up-front about paid-for content.

zhorkat · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
What are "referral links"?

Let's say I have a game and people can buy my game at awesome.game/buy. If I want you to promote my game, I can tell you to give people that link to buy the game. However, I can also give you a special link such as awesome.game/buy?referral=messo to give to people so that I know that all the purchases made by people using that special link happened because you were promoting my game. That would be one way to try and figure out how many sales during a given time period were actually a result of a particular promotion.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

zhorkat said:
Let's say I have a game and people can buy my game at awesome.game/buy. If I want you to promote my game, I can tell you to give people that link to buy the game. However, I can also give you a special link such as awesome.game/buy?referral=messo to give to people so that I know that all the purchases made by people using that special link happened because you were promoting my game. That would be one way to try and figure out how many sales during a given time period were actually a result of a particular promotion.

So, kind of like sponsors. I think I get it.

IAmRandom31 · Jul 16, 2014

I'm still shocked I can go to youtube, type in, for example " child of light OST " and listen to the whole thing non-stop.

Awesome that is. Best thing about youtube

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

SlasherJPC said:
This is a scary trend that is growing as we speak. It's bluring the lines and it's making it hard to figure out who you can truly trust with their supposed "opinion". I just don't know how I feel about it all. Gives me that gut feeling your mother always warned you about.

The youtube world is changing. Hold me.

Messofanego · Jul 16, 2014

A bit surprised how this story isn't getting that much traction here. It's definitely made me more paranoid about which Youtubers are bought and which aren't.

SlasherJPC · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
A bit surprised how this story isn't getting that much traction here. It's definitely made me more paranoid about which Youtubers are bought and which aren't.

I think most people don't care. Especially those that really only watch YT'ers for entertainment and really don't care what their opinions are on gaming, etc. Then again, it's my belief, that the most popular folks have those numbers due to kids. Kids eat that zany, crazy, silly, shit up and they might be the one asking mom and dad for that new game Pew Die Pie is playing.

MrNyarlathotep · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
A bit surprised how this story isn't getting that much traction here. It's definitely made me more paranoid about which Youtubers are bought and which aren't.

Its weird, because a topic suggesting that YT lets plays might be damaging to sales of certain games will instantly be filled with people claiming they're transformative works and games makers should be paying youtubers for all that promotion they get.

You'd have thought those people would be thrilled to know that actually happens.

Lovely Salsa · Jul 16, 2014

I wonder how much money Pewdiepie got for playing South Park Stick of Truth early

what a dreamjob

Vlade · Jul 16, 2014

Maybe just their word crimes, amirite? blurred lines, the law, word crimes, yeah?

....

I should go.

Archaix · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
A bit surprised how this story isn't getting that much traction here. It's definitely made me more paranoid about which Youtubers are bought and which aren't.

This has been obviously going on for a while and even when it isn't disclosed it's still easy to see a lot of those times (and I promptly unsubscribe from any of those channels), but the Discovery thing is all sorts of gross because Yogscast actually directly benefits from increased sales of the game. They can claim up and down all they want that it won't affect their coverage, but they're full of shit when they say that. Nobody participating in such a scummy practice is going to talk down about a game when it will affect their bottom line. I won't be buying any game featured in that series, during or afterwards.

Conkerkid11 · Jul 16, 2014

Messofanego said:
One Youtuber did that, mentioned in the story:

There have been times when the disclosure of sponsorship deals has backfired. During Microsoft's Summer of Arcade campaign in 2013, the company offered sponsorship to some prominent YouTubers in exchange for coverage of the games that were released as part of the programme. One YouTuber, VideogameDunkey, created a video in which he criticised one of the games, Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. When Microsoft requested that he retract the video, he disclosed the deal to his audience, for which he stated that he was paid $750. The systemic failure to disclose the deals sooner hurt the game itself. "Those of us who covered the game later on, when it was released on PC, were accused of corruption," says Bain. "The public perception was that anyone who said anything positive about the game was paid off."

But everyone, especially VideogameDunkey's viewers, knows that all of his reviews are a joke. I'm just now hearing about this, and find it hilarious that Microsoft and many others took it so seriously.

DOWN · Jul 16, 2014

tait269 said:
How is this different from something like a Game Informer cover, IGN First or just generally that massive ads/campaign in the background of every major gaming news site?

You know that gaming journalism sites have competition and this incentive to hype things big time so they can have the best coverage? Just because a game is on the cover, doesn't mean the site was paid instead of the site actually trying to snag or buy the interview and media exclusives from the publisher instead.

Messofanego · Jul 29, 2014

In related news, Youtuber prices for them wanting to make a video on your Minecraft server:

http://www.spigotmc.org/threads/list-youtubers-with-pricing.22242/

Want to pay them hundreds to thousands to promote your server?

Code:

AshleyMarieeGaming   Jack@saltydogmgmt.com           379,870 ~$200(8*)  1899.35
AntVenom             contact@antvenom.com          2,287,997 ~$2500      915.19
Bashurverse          business@bashurverse.com      1,180,473 ~$800      1475.59
DeadloxMC            Could not find.               1,988,111 ~$300-1000 1988.11
GhostGamingYT        Ask drtshock(1*) for details     84,632 ~$150       564.21
JeromeASF            thealphaelephant@gmail.com    3,050,136 ~$3000     1016.71
Lachlan              Could not find.                 380,732 ~$400-$500  846.08
LanceypoohTV         lanceypoohtvnetwork@gmail.com   304,482 ~$1000      304.48
LittleLizardGaming   LittleLBusiness@gmail.com       510,668 ~$600       851.11
Logdotzip            Logdotzip@gmail.com             238,322 ~$250       953.28
Minecraft Universe   truemusbusiness@gmail.com     2,220,819 ~$1500     1480.55
mlgHwnT(2*)          hwntinquiries@gmail.com         303,271 ~$300      1010.90
MrWoofless           woofless.business@gmail.com     665,185 ~$850       782.57
Nooch                Could not find.                 473,996 ~$450      1053.32
Podcrash             Ask rtribe13(5*) for details    66,154  ~$(6*)      1102.56
PrestonPlayz         tbnrfrags@gmail.com             686,417 ~$850       807.27
SSundee(3*)          Business Site                 2,783,649 ~$7,500     371.15
TechKingGames(7*)    techkinggames@gmail.com          21,867 ~$20-30
TerasHD              imterashd@gmail.com              53,615 ~$150       357.43
TheAtlanticCraft     peter.atlanticcraft@gmail.com   935,566 ~$1,000     935.57
Vikkstar123HD        vikbarn@gmail.com               546,220 ~$500      1092.44
xRpMx13              Could not find.               1,039,230 ~$1000     1039.23
ZexyZek(4*)         Business@ZexyZek.com            943,096 ~$250-$400 2357.74

TitusGroan · Jul 29, 2014

I'd redact those emails if I were you, unless you know for sure that they're all business email addresses and not personal ones.

Aside from that... very troublesome business, and something I'm not at all happy about. This is a dangerous precedent, and could make things infinitely harder for indie devs if these Youtubers end up becoming the gatekeepers to the gaming community on Youtube.

Messofanego · Jul 29, 2014

TitusGroan said:
I'd redact those emails if I were you, unless you know for sure that they're all business email addresses and not personal ones.

They seem to be business emails. Checked and it's on their twitter profiles, ask.fm, youtube profiles, by just googling.

Messofanego · Jul 30, 2014

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/jot

Simon Parkin, Yogscast's Lewis, and Matt Lees talk about this youtube ethics and revenue share topic on the BBC Game On podcast.

Really good debate when Lewis tries to say they're "still very naive and learning" when they're actually a huge business and Matt Lees gets stuck in.

okiemok · Jul 30, 2014

Messofanego said:
Simon Parkin, Yogscast's Lewis, and Matt Lees talk about this youtube ethics and revenue share topic on the BBC Game On podcast.

Thanks for this. Lewis is definitely put on the spot. He seems to continue to argue that he is not promoting a product.

Fuchsdh · Jul 30, 2014

This is going to remain an issue as long as people go into producing Youtube content expecting to make a living (or better) at it.

Point is it's even easier for Youtube personalities to hide the fact that they're getting bought off compared to the traditional games journos we love to criticize.

TitusGroan · Jul 30, 2014

Nice to see Matt Lees getting stuck into this. I was listening to the Daft Souls podcast the other week, and he didn't hold back his feelings on the subject there.

I think this is something a lot of Youtubers are just hoping will slip quietly by, so it's important to keep reminding people that this is an issue. Youtubers originally presented themselves as an alternative to the 'corrupt' games media, so when questionable stuff happens like this we should keep shining a light on it.

okiemok · Jul 30, 2014

It is funny when you think about it, as Yogscast got where they are today because of a little independent game called Minecraft, which supplied them fans and source material for free. They certainly spent a good amount of time on it. As I recall their early videos were even based on the weekly updates Notch was pumping out.

And you have to ask - what if they were around as they are today, but this prior to Minecraft, and approached Notch with a revenue sharing scheme and he rejected them (Notch is a fairly stubborn animal). Would they have still dedicated as much time to it? Would they have shown that game at all?

If you look at things in this light a go back to indies that have had successful launches and crowdfundings due to certain YouTubers - it really gives you pause.

Gamasutra did a survey very recently, but I think it still hides the the problem. I would have liked to have seen the reports for Indies that have sold over 10K units instead of everyone, as I suspect the percentages are much higher.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/...ly_paying_for_YouTuber_and_press_coverage.php

jacksepticeye · Jul 30, 2014

TitusGroan said:
Youtubers originally presented themselves as an alternative to the 'corrupt' games media, so when questionable stuff happens like this we should keep shining a light on it.

Certain kinds of youtubers, not all and that's something that has to be remembered in all of this.

Not all youtubers are the same type. Ones like TB, Nerd3 and Yogscast are a bit more "first look/review" type channels that need their credibility for their opinions more so than other "silly moment" style channels

Support NeoGAF

Blurred lines: Are YouTubers breaking the law? (Simon Parkin/EG)

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Gold Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

A 21st Century Rockefeller

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Member

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Drunky McMurder

Member

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Banned

Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Similar threads