Support NeoGAF

[Marcel]

I'm ok with this, nothing wrong with extra $$$ for selling out

Haha.

 

[Clarkus Darkus]

Looks like its back to the old school way, Playing games rather than watching someone play it or tell you about it.

 

[Doffen]

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.

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.

 

[rawd]

Looks like its back to the old school way, Playing games rather than watching someone play it or tell you about it.

The only way

 

[Marcel]

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.

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.

 

[stonesak]

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.

 

[Osiris]

I'm ok with this, nothing wrong with extra $$$ for selling out

Except, it's illegal.

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 Guideline’s 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 FTC’s 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 reviewer’s 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 aren’t 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 product’s owner could not itself make in advertising that it runs.

Note: "Material Connections" include both free items and payment.

 

[Spottiettiedop]

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?

And anger should be directed to the YouTube personality for not disclosing compensation or in this case Machinima for the influencers remark.

 

[Special C]

smart, but smells of desperation

Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.

 

[stonesak]

And anger should be directed to the YouTube personality for not disclosing compensation or in this case Machinima for the influencers remark.

Machinima is acting as an agent of MS. If there is payola going on, MS is at least as guilty as anyone else.

 

[Marcel]

Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.

And yet there's still a lot of negative PR surrounding the system, which is why they're paying YT personalities with the MS equivalent of milk money to do videos.

 

[Sons Of Anarchy]

Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.

Define profit ?

You think MS make back all there money on only 3 million consoles ?

 

[Axass]

Or if this offends you so much just avoid videos tagged with XB1M13.

When will you be upset then? When all videos on Youtube will be just big ads for the companies?

Same thing as ftp and dlc, at first people were: "Just don't buy it if you don't like it", then they realized those early little things would bring over great changes in the industry. For the worse.

Now everything's being exploited and monetized, even in full retail games, games you pay $60 for. People have to realize that when there's something bad going on, as little as it may be, you just don't turn around as if it doesn't concern you or as if it's not a big deal.

It's not a big deal yet.

 

[tengiants]

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.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

People love no evidence conspiracy theories with M$.

Yeah cause they're an aggressive company. How else did Windows find it's way into practically every PC on the planet?

Yep, so desperate. I mean they only sold 3 million units at a profit last year.

It does seem desperate.

 

[geordiemp]

My concern is IF a number of you tuber influence people by saying this game X is better experience on XB1...

Its like a biased reviewer....

Maybe we should make a list of shame of sold out you tubers promoting just for money rather than integrity ?

 

[gkryhewy]

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.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[onQ123]

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.

 

[FStop7]

I thought this was an illegal practice. Didn't the government come down hard on a bunch of prominent "mommy bloggers" over something similar?

 

[jaypah]

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.

But people are saying that these videos have already been done before without labels. I haven't watched any so I don't know if they're just informative videos or paid-for positive impressions, but apparently videos have been posted with that tag and no mention that they were paid.

 

[Marcel]

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.

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.

 

[Dance Inferno]

3 dollars per 1K views? Doesn't seem worth the trouble.

This is how advertising costs are generally represented. Having said that, a $3 CPM is pretty low, but this promo also has a relatively low barrier to entry, which could be appealing. Not a bad idea from MS all things considered.

 

[Ashler]

Did you really think things like this weren't happening already?

Do you know otherwise?

Maybe you should write an article on the subject.

 

[Marcel]

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.

 

[Archaix]

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.

Here are the Game Grumps videos I was talking about:

TMNT:

"It's a game, Xbox asked us to play it, and we're like alright, we like turtles"


Flashback:

"Xbox was like, do you wanna play some games on your show and we were like alright I guess"



No mention of the fact that it was a paid request on either video. Looking back I actually did see it was mentioned as a promotional series in a different video for Brothers which that wasn't in the description for either of these. So Microsoft seems to have included a disclosure, even though the channel put it at the very bottom of the description in only two of the four videos:

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.

The description for Charlie Murder also has the disclosure, but they pretty clearly deny being paid in the actual video:

"This is a game on Xbox Summer of Arcade, Xbox was like hey do you wanna play this game on our show and we were like OK"

"Yeah, that's the entire story"

"That's all of the story that can ever be told."

 

[Werhil]

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.

 

[ciridesu]

Lol this was real? I first thought it sounded like a laughable rumour made up by some rival fan knights.

Utterly sad. It is such a fucking shame to see the way internet is slowly changing from a platform of sincerity and free speech to just another corporation device where viral marketing runs rampant.

 

[EchoChamber]

I watched a video and the youtuber said
"This is gameplay of forza 5 on the Xbox one i suck at this game pay me motherfuckers" something like that ,i this translated from Spanish but lol i wonder if got paid

 

[Marcel]

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.

I don't care for it either personally, but it's where the wind is blowing. Easy money for the YT personality, free advertising for the publisher. And the consumer as usual is left out.

 

[Skeff]

Did you really think things like this weren't happening already?

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.

 

[3rdamention]

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.

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.

 

[Doffen]

You don't know the full terms of the agreement. Negative impressions might be (and in all likelihood) disallowed.

That is the point of promotion. Why would Microsoft pay for having negative PR?

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.

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.

 

[Marcel]

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.

Sorry, you get crime reports from Japanese internet cafes instead.

 

[Sword Of Doom]

That's so depressing...

But smart nonetheless. I guess the people watching the videos already have an xbone, so no harm done?

Throwing money at everything is not smart

 

[Magwik]

I feel like MS did something very similar when quite a few people I subscribe to started playing Spartan Assault at the same exact time, and promoting the game.

 

[jschreier]

Do you know otherwise?

Maybe you should write an article on the subject.

Maybe!

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.

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.

 

[SneakyStephan]

And anger should be directed to the YouTube personality for not disclosing compensation or in this case Machinima for the influencers remark.

Every single thread there is people attempting to defer responsibility to someone else, this goes around in a circle
It's another form of damage control/PR and it's so fucking annoying

EVERYONE is responsible
MS for setting this up, machinima for taking part, every single youtube personality who participates

 

[Marcel]

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.

The "mommy blogger" scandal wasn't necessarily a huge thing either but the FTC saw what was going on and stepped in. Properly disclosing who's paying you, when, on what terms etc. is actually a big deal, yes. Just because it's not a big deal to you doesn't mean the consumer doesn't need to know the facts.

 

[friskykillface]

I would have streamed dead rising 3 had twitch been available from the launch

same with ryse,battlefield 4, ghosts, killer instinct and forza


:'( why so slow with twitch microsoft, i want to be a sell out

or is this only for youtube?

 

[SneakyStephan]

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, parties and gifts and peer pressure from their friends in marketing that they interact with every day, but those darned youtube personalities ARE susceptible?

What makes you better than them? Go on tell us how you are above it all, how you've transcended your human nature while those dirty wanabe plebs who compete with your own industry need to be set right

this is hilarious

I especially like the 'we're not talking about game junnalists right now', Major Nelson would be proud

 

[Marcel]

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?

Of course not. It's not like there's an insular protective culture in the PR/enthusiast press relationship or anything.

 

[Doffen]

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.

Step 1 and 2 are most definitely parts of the assignment. But if you want I can surely apologize for guessing the content of a fairly standard Microsoft ad/promotion assignment.

I'm sorry, sir.

 

[Osiris]

Of course not. It's not like there's an insular protective culture in the PR/enthusiast press relationship or anything.

"You don't shit where you eat" is a pretty universally accepted norm

 

[Tsundere]

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)

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.

 

[Marcel]

I'm surprised there practically aren't any gaming news outlets picking up this story.

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!

 

[stonesak]

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.

Where do you draw the line? If MS pays someone like PewDiePie under the table to promote the Xbox One, is that when we should start thinking there's a problem?

 

[Archaix]

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.

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.

 

[NoirVisage]

Also, if Suikoden 2 comes out on PSN, I will be busy writing nothing but Suikoden 2 articles for a straight year.

Jason.

Don't write a check your behind can't cash, Cause I'm gonna want detailed 4 page articles on all 108 stars. that should be a years worth of the stuff!

 

[Tsundere]

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.

We should probably find a new name for games journalism then.

 

[hesido]

This is very clever marketing which will gather a lot of promotion with a budget of only ..drum roll..
3750 usd given to content creators.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but +3usd for 1000 views, and the promotion will end at 1250000 cumulative views of participant videos. Divide that by 1000 and multiply by 3 and you'll get 3750 dollars ONLY.

That's a bit on the low side, don't you think.. I hope less people fall for it and they can't reach the 125000 views for participant videos within that time limit. Videos will forever stay the way they are created, and you won't receive that extra 3 usd after 1250000 total views of all videos.