get a drink and a sense of humour while you're at it, on me
This campaign caps at 1.25 million views.
Microsoft is paying $3750. Total. This is nothing.
Why would this be illegal?Wait so is this legit illegal?? And will anything come of it?
If not im going to bed.
He's not, but he is legally required to disclose that payment though.
Why would this be illegal?
"The FTC recently amended its Guides Concerning the Use of
Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising (the Guides), which
address endorsements by consumers, experts, organizations, and
celebrities in advertising. The amendments, which took effect on
December 1, 2009, clarify among other things how the Guides
apply in the context of social and other new media.
The amendments to the Guides add examples to illustrate how the
longstanding requirements that material connections
(e.g, compensation arrangements) between advertisers and consumer
endorsers must be disclosed. Under the Guides, a material
connection is one that consumers generally would not expect and
that may affect the credibility or weight of the endorsement.
In determining whether a disclosure is required, the threshold
issue is whether an endorsement was made. If a blogger was paid
to blog about the marketers product, the bloggers favorable blog
posts concerning the product will likely be considered an
endorsement under the Guides."
This campaign caps at 1.25 million views.
Microsoft is paying $3750. Total. This is nothing.
They are clearly labelled as ads?Really boggles my mind as to why people would have problem with this. How is it different from say MS, Sony or even publishers paying to advertise on a site like GiantBomb or IGN?
Wouldn't the tag be sufficient?For the new page:
Wouldn't the tag be sufficient?
These kind of promotions have been happening for awhile with what is referred to as "Mommy Bloggers." Starting blogs to solicit free products. This is a case of creating normal videos with endorsements in them without disclosure.So, lets see what the FTC have to say, in their own words:
Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising
Yep, look at Section 255.5, if they don't disclose that they have been materially compensated for the promotion, they have broken the law.
Interestingly, Example 7 is specifically about Video Games & Videogame hardware.
Oh, let the games begin.
Wouldn't the tag be sufficient?
Those are commercials made by the company. These are not made by Microsoft.Yea, I'm not a lawyer but I'm not buying that this is illegal. If a celebrity is paid to endorse a product, to what lengths do they have to go to disclose the agreement? I don't pay a ton of attention but it doesn't seem like Peyton Manning is required to say "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza, Papa John's paid me."
So at this point, it's up to people on Youtube to state that they're getting paid to promote the Xbox? As far as I can tell, it's still MS paying for advertising/paid testimonials. I don't get pissy when Giant Bomb promotes Stamps.com at the beginning of their podcast. In fact I hope they get different advertisers because they're killing it with those promotions.
The only thing I can see as being shady are the Youtubers who don't disclose that information. That's not really MS' fault tbh. That's on Machinima and the people promoting the Xbox One for the money.
Wouldn't the tag be sufficient?
Those are commercials made by the company. These are not made by Microsoft.
Yea, I'm not a lawyer but I'm not buying that this is illegal. If a celebrity is paid to endorse a product, to what lengths do they have to go to disclose the agreement? I don't pay a ton of attention but it doesn't seem like Peyton Manning is required to say "Better Ingredients, Better Pizza, Papa John's paid me."
Why do you blame the people when it's clearly that disclosing information isn't a mentioned at all?
Why do you blame the people when it's clearly that disclosing information isn't a mentioned at all?
Maybe, if it was SLRPWouldn't the tag be sufficient?
Why do you blame the people when it's clearly that disclosing information isn't a mentioned at all?
True story, the day after Christmas, I saw a man return two Xbox Ones at GameStop. I wish I took a photo, but we were just leaving the store.
Some details about the deal have surfaced,
Source,
http://www.igameresponsibly.com/201...personalities-good-money-to-promote-xbox-one/
I'm no legal expert and not from the US, but don't those FTC guidelines some are mentioning to make this appear illegal imply that they are just that - guidelines? That's a very flexible and soft term and a step below being a rule or a law.
I'm no legal expert and not from the US, but don't those FTC guidelines some are mentioning to make this appear illegal imply that they are just that - guidelines? That's a very flexible and soft term and a step below being a rule or a law.
That is already covered under the FTC's guidelines, as are the requirements and responsibilities of bloggers and other 3rd party endorsers. Read them for yourself.
FTC Endorsement Guidelines Section 255.5 Example 7 said:Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert
maintains a personal weblog or blog where he posts entries about his gaming
experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware
and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game
system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his
blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is
disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the
advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the
video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the
value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they
attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously
disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should
advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be
disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for
compliance.
Only thing smarter is Sony offering $3.01.
Wait, 1.25 million views TOTAL? Not per channel????
Is this even worth doing it?
I mean, common sense says that an acronym tag isn't real disclosure but I have a feeling that legally it counts, once again in my uninformed opinion.
Haha, I don't think any of the criticism here revolves around MS 'forcing people to talk good' about them, but thanks for pointing that out.So what if Microsoft is running a campaign through a network? They aren't forcing people to talk good about the Xbox One, only giving an reward to those who would.
And also the fact that people liken this to others ads, and can't see the difference between this and Microsoft's previous ad campaigns on Machinima's channel, is baffling.The fact that some people in this thread can't understand what is wrong with this is goddamn scary ...
smells of desperation
There is nothing out of the ordinary here. Many networks partner with many different companies to run campaigns like this and give their content creators higher CPM/payouts for mentioning a product in their video.
Ever watch a video where their sponsor is Audible? Maybe the creator opened with a clip of something else and talked about it for 30 seconds? Well, Audible and these other companies do this.
So what if Microsoft is running a campaign through a network? They aren't forcing people to talk good about the Xbox One, only giving an reward to those who would.
$3.60 would be funny.