-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Xbox One and Machinima: Be nice or neutral, and don't tell anyone we're paying you
- Thread starter atomsk
- Start date
SwiftDeath
Member
May the fines ever be in Machinima's profit margins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ajHl1qzOII
Inside Gaming tries to defend itself and Machinima from charges of impropriety. Basically tried to claim that this was all a mistake, the NDA didn't actually apply to notification, and that everyone does ads too!
Somewhat hilariously, half of the footage, and sources for the vid are the various Neogaf threads, despite being owned and working in the same offices as Machinima, people who they can directly talk to about this subject. I did like they they screenshotted the EA/CPM thread, and shown a pic of Shinobi's for it. lol.
The whole thing was very Kabuki theater.
Inside Gaming tries to defend itself and Machinima from charges of impropriety. Basically tried to claim that this was all a mistake, the NDA didn't actually apply to notification, and that everyone does ads too!
Somewhat hilariously, half of the footage, and sources for the vid are the various Neogaf threads, despite being owned and working in the same offices as Machinima, people who they can directly talk to about this subject. I did like they they screenshotted the EA/CPM thread, and shown a pic of Shinobi's for it. lol.
The whole thing was very Kabuki theater.
Garcia
Member
I wonder how many unsubscriptions have they amassed so far. I did my part and unsubscribed this morning.
I vote yes.
DangerMouse
Member
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
Perfection.
Metalingus5150
Member
I didn't even realize I was subscribed to them until I unsubscribed.
Chobel
Member
I say yes, even though it looks worthless to me, but it's better to let the others judge by themselves.
Also, be sure to put Eltorro gif.
TetraGenesis
Member
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
Okay, I've gotta ask: Do you do this for a living?
Because you should.
Three months ago: There is a segment of GAF that hated that streamers got stripped of monitization. Claims of "why is Nintendo mad? Its free advertising!"
Now: there is a segment of GAF that hates that streamers got monitization. Claims of "Can't trust youtube streamers now, they are sellouts to the highest bidder!!!"
*Sigh* That's not the point. They can make all the money they want. Hell, they can make a video and say "EA/Activition/MS/whoever is paying me to play and promote this game and that's what I'm doing" and no one would care. The issue is that people weren't disclosing that they were paid and the content that we're watching is promotional. Its shady as hell and its illegal.
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
I.. I just... Perfection.
Did anyone catch that bit in the Sessler video about a publisher trying to pay Adam Sessler to keep a writer from doing a review?
How can you say that game journalism is clean when those type of gestures are made without any kind of publicity or transparency around it?
When EGM was blacklisted by Ubisoft and SCEA for scoring MLB The Show and Assassin's Creed low, I respected their decision to include the reason for the abscence of a review in the Editor's note.
It's just weird that these kinds of things go on with little to no fanfare. Sessler says that he didn't accept it, but Sessler probably wasn't the only senior writer that the PR firm tried to bribe with money. Those are the kinds of things you should have someone dig into. You shouldn't just see no evil, hear no evil and pass the envelope of cash back across the table.
Those kinds of bribes or just influence are pretty major. Editor's who assign reviews have a large amount of unchecked discretion when assigning a review. Does a PR person calling you up and telling you, "It would be good if a sports guy reviewed this game, or it would be great if this person didn't review a game, because they are very critical."
You know in the back of your mind that these people hold ad revenues in their hand. They hold access in their hand. They hold connections and networking opportunities in their hand, and in the case of Adam, they hold bribe money and perks in their hand.
I loved what Jason said. Be critical. Be skeptical. Question why someone is giving you presents or why a company would pay for you to go to Hawaii to play a game. They aren't tossing out that kind of cash to put on that event unless they are expecting a change in the bottom line. They don't put out that money unless they expect it to accomplish something and create value for their product that exceeds the price of buying you a trip to a tropical island and perfect conditions to play a game.
How can you say that game journalism is clean when those type of gestures are made without any kind of publicity or transparency around it?
When EGM was blacklisted by Ubisoft and SCEA for scoring MLB The Show and Assassin's Creed low, I respected their decision to include the reason for the abscence of a review in the Editor's note.
It's just weird that these kinds of things go on with little to no fanfare. Sessler says that he didn't accept it, but Sessler probably wasn't the only senior writer that the PR firm tried to bribe with money. Those are the kinds of things you should have someone dig into. You shouldn't just see no evil, hear no evil and pass the envelope of cash back across the table.
Those kinds of bribes or just influence are pretty major. Editor's who assign reviews have a large amount of unchecked discretion when assigning a review. Does a PR person calling you up and telling you, "It would be good if a sports guy reviewed this game, or it would be great if this person didn't review a game, because they are very critical."
You know in the back of your mind that these people hold ad revenues in their hand. They hold access in their hand. They hold connections and networking opportunities in their hand, and in the case of Adam, they hold bribe money and perks in their hand.
I loved what Jason said. Be critical. Be skeptical. Question why someone is giving you presents or why a company would pay for you to go to Hawaii to play a game. They aren't tossing out that kind of cash to put on that event unless they are expecting a change in the bottom line. They don't put out that money unless they expect it to accomplish something and create value for their product that exceeds the price of buying you a trip to a tropical island and perfect conditions to play a game.
serversurfer
Member
What actually stood out at me about that anecdote was Sessler dating it by saying, "This was back when we gave bad reviews," or something like that.
As opposed to now, when you don't?
Can't it be buried deep into their description?
GribbleGrunger
Dreams in Digital
You're kidding me right? There are STILL people who don't understand why this is wrong? For goodness sake.
According to the FTC, the disclosure has to be in an obvious and viewable place. Hiding it away is also deemed as illegal and unscrupulous.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Yup. They're saying the NDA was only to not reveal details about the contract. They claim it was miss worded and didn't mean "don't tell anybody we're paying you to tell people we're great". I swear after seeing this I lost even more respect for these assholes. Fuck them
Sword Of Doom
Member
Three months ago: There is a segment of GAF that hated that streamers got stripped of monitization. Claims of "why is Nintendo mad? Its free advertising!"
Now: there is a segment of GAF that hates that streamers got monitization. Claims of "Can't trust youtube streamers now, they are sellouts to the highest bidder!!!"
Really. So you're simplifying everything and putting it all under the monetization umbrella? That makes no sense
FallbackPants
Member
Just an aside that I'm sure will go unnoticed amongst the outrage here, but mist of the time advertising campaigns are thought up, sold and run by the publisher, so in this case machinima.
Their sales staff would have contacted Microsoft, said "We've got this amazing campaign, look at how great it worked for E3 etc."
I'm guessing with an ad buy of about $3000 microsoft wasn't crazy on the idea. And from the reaction I doubt they'd do it again.
What I'm saying is u doubt this was some master plan from Xbox HQ. Rather a bad idea from machinima sales
Their sales staff would have contacted Microsoft, said "We've got this amazing campaign, look at how great it worked for E3 etc."
I'm guessing with an ad buy of about $3000 microsoft wasn't crazy on the idea. And from the reaction I doubt they'd do it again.
What I'm saying is u doubt this was some master plan from Xbox HQ. Rather a bad idea from machinima sales
Dirtyshubb
Member
The thing that has really stood out for me with this whole mess is that before this all came to light, you had quite a big wave of games journalists making fun of forum dwellers/Gaf etc for suggesting that they took bribes to increase a score or to promote one brand over another etc, saying things like How do you think it happens, we get paid and tell everyone how to act in the office?.
Yet here we are, and now that it has all come out and there is no hiding from it, suddenly we have journalists coming out of the woodwork telling us these stories about the times they have been bribed or someone has attempted to bribe them. It just shows that there is a large amount of games journalists that ARE full of shit, because a week ago bribes in the industry didnt exist and we were all just console warriors who need to stop the hate and believing in these tin foil hat conspiracies!
Yet here we are, and now that it has all come out and there is no hiding from it, suddenly we have journalists coming out of the woodwork telling us these stories about the times they have been bribed or someone has attempted to bribe them. It just shows that there is a large amount of games journalists that ARE full of shit, because a week ago bribes in the industry didnt exist and we were all just console warriors who need to stop the hate and believing in these tin foil hat conspiracies!
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
Good one! Now just fix "payed"; it should be "paid".
Messypandas
Member
I really hope this leads to tighter and more transparent regulating of youtube monetizations. If a video has been incentivised directly from a game company, that should be clearly stated in a turn off-able annotation at the viewers discretion. They're shrewd enough to tag them with the that hashcode nonsense they can put up with that.
And that's why I don't buy the line of "read my content and judge for yourself." I can't read your mind. I don't know your intentions. If you're holding back knformation like that about the review process, then you aren't being honest.
No one has a lie detector. No one can tell the difference between bad bought Sessler and clean above-the-board Sessler. That kind of reply is something that takes the onus off the content-creator to actually self-examine their exposure and ethics when faced with these situations.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Business as usual
People on YouTube are just in it for a quick buck. Machinima's just trying to hide details from the people and law.
Sidewinder
Member
Come on GAF get this thread to 100 pages and my crystal ball will be ready for some lottery numbers:
lol, well done
MS just can't get a break, this will blow up in their faces all over the net and fast. 100 page thread is coming and maybe cboat will make an appearance.
enanogrande
Member
Your wish is
maybe?
Polygon: The FTC on paying You-tubers to endorse games
I think this is crazy.
The FTC (if I understand it correctly) is a body providing guidelines only - i.e. the guidelines aren't the law.
However, the guidelines are intended to make clear what would or wouldn't break the law in US - i.e. if you're not following FTC guidelines there is a fair chance you might be breaking the law and could face a fine if prosecuted under that law etc.
Now not being US citizen I don't know what is the legal enforcement body for laws around advertising or even where those laws are recorded - but they clearly exist if the FTC exists to provide guidelines as to what is (and isn't) legal.
TBH though unless it really proves to be endemic everywhere and provokes a larger reaction I expect US response to something like this to be minimal - hopefully I'm not being guilty of generalizing but the US market seems far more tolerant of intrusive and sneaky marketing than many other places.
If I was MS / Machima I'd be more worried about Europe - we just love fining big US companies over here and diverting their income into our economy and we also tend to be stricter (in my general perception) about advertising guidelines and adhering to them.
TBH though I doubt MS would care twice about a fine - they've faced bigger and heftier fines in Europe already. The issue is the spread of the story and the fact most are taking it as a sign of weakness and needing to fight underhand : that's probably of more concern to them than anything else as the story's perception seems to feed the idea they are losing to Sony and desperately trying to fight back - particularly in US.
Damn. ;-P Fixed.
enanogrande
Member
I'm actually going through the law mentioned here - The FTC Act - and have yet to see any mention of disclosure in advertising.
It's true about advertising laws being stricter elsewhere - being born outside of the US, it always seemed a bit odd to me how US Advertisers regularly name and even disparage competitors products. I know this used to be a law in my country, since removed, but even without the law I don't really like it much. However, something like disclosure seems to me to be MUCH more important and grave an offense, and it not being typified in the law seems absurd to me, no matter wether or not the FTC has been able to get settlements out of companies that don't do it.
Yeah I have to idea as to the details involved - just pointing out that laws do exist and can be applied but the FTC guidelines aren't the actual laws.
In many ways I'd say damage has been done with the leak in terms of MS reputation - the question is has it been offset in any way by gains made in terms of altering market perception? I'm guessing not as the revelation and fallout has probably cut right across any potential gains MS might have seen if this hadn't blown up the way it has.
SwiftDeath
Member
Wow that sucks. So there is no real disincentive for a company to endorse youtube people while requiring no disclosure because the FTC doesn't care
Don't understand why
That seems odd
Neuromancer
Member
i still love that our Oracle is named, crazy buttocks on a train.
love it. I mean, Amar sounds mysterious, at least.. hehehe.
The fact MS are a US company is irrelevant to me, Machinima and MS are international and therefore bound by law internationally? Possibly more so if the person commiting the violation is within the country I reside (the UK) ie a UK blogger/Reviewer on the internet under Machinima/MS at the least should follow UK law, which are very much pro-consumer atleast a little more so seemingly than in the US.
I know for Sure as I have posted in this thread before about how the UK deals with advertising and what their guidelines are. I would expect them to nail the people in question.
The ASA and Trading standards are clear on social media/internet advertising.
They since replied to me with this Complaints link http://www.asa.org.uk/Consumers/How-to-complain/Online-Form/Step1.aspx (I havent the inclination to follow it, Id like to think they have atleast looked at it anyway)
Three months ago: There is a segment of GAF that hated that streamers got stripped of monitization. Claims of "why is Nintendo mad? Its free advertising!"
Now: there is a segment of GAF that hates that streamers got monitization. Claims of "Can't trust youtube streamers now, they are sellouts to the highest bidder!!!"
I think that the control that publishers have over the streaming rights of their games are a major reason to join a YouTube Mega-Network like Machinima. They negotiate these rights deals in bulk and have built relationships directly with publishers on the behalf of their partners.
This leverage enables and encourages the popularity of these deals among streamers. These deals are considered by outsiders to be ethically questionable, but are still able to manifest in the LP market because of forces exerted by powerful entities like Microsoft, EA, etc.
Metalingus5150
Member
So they're gonna get away with it?
Wow really? So they can just do this shit and get away with it? What exactly is the point of these guild lines if their not enforceable? I assumed that the guild lines followed along the same lines as the laws about the law does so how could someone violate the guild lines and not break the law.
Polygon said:
Now that is interesting especially the bolded part. They could still be investigating but be unable to speak about it until the investigation is done. So Machinima or MS could still be in some sort of trouble.
serversurfer
Member
That entire article is crazy. First, the article claims that both MS and EA required the participants to disclose the relationship. This is blatantly false. The MS campaign certainly made no such requirement. The article makes it sound like EA's mandate for compliance comes in the T&C's of the Ronku program itself, but I haven't seen those myself.
But yeah, the whole "Well, the guidelines aren't laws" bit seems really weasely. It also sounds like the FTC don't really have any teeth when it comes to enforcement anyway.
So now MS are claiming that not only did they not know the campaign prohibited disclosure, they didn't even know the campaign existed at all, and Machinima just came up with it on their own because they love MS so much? What a bunch of fucking bullshit.
The FTC: US
The guides are there to comply with Federal Law.... Okay so federal law is not enforceable if broken?
Am I reading that right? Or have they basically just green lighted internet media manipulation and legalized bribery and/or confirmed its not necessary to stipulate its an Advert your watching.
If that is correct, I guess the UK has something useful in the ASA.
Imperfected
Member
Machinima's modus operandi is to look for promising new content creators and pitch them a seemingly too-good-to-be-true contract. Their partners trend toward fairly young, and most of them are solo acts rather than groups. Their contracts often border on exploitative, and most successful Machinima partners honestly just want out of them as soon as possible.
I wouldn't go so far as to say they prey on innocence, but they certainly don't cultivate enlightenment as a matter of course, either.
They claim it was added value aka bonuses media. This happens quite a bit and is beyond the standard media buy. Usually thrown in if the publisher screwed up before, or if the initial media buy is rather large.
The underlying federal laws are enforceable. The guide itself is not enforceable. The guide is based off summaries and interpretations of the federal law applied to today's new emerging mediums. Crecente's interpretation of that as these tactics being immune to litigation or not answering to the underlying laws is confusing.
Also, Microsoft's line about being unaware of Machinima's TOS is absolute rubbish.
Also, Microsoft's line about being unaware of Machinima's TOS is absolute rubbish.
serversurfer
Member
In a broader set of community, people don't pay attention to a lot of the details. We've seen it in the research, we've seen it in a lot of the data points.
~ Yusuf Mehdi, Microsoft Xbox Chief Marketing and Strategy Officer
Sounds like a match made in Heaven.
Likely considering how common it is already.
Similar threads
- x2