May the fines come in large numbers.
"Left out" DrEvil.jpg
Thanks for sparing people from giving them views.
wasn't sure if I should put the Machinima video as Update 6 or not. let me know guys.
need to watch the Sess thing now that I'm back home.
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
I wonder how many unsubscriptions have they amassed so far. I did my part and unsubscribed this morning.
wasn't sure if I should put the Machinima video as Update 6 or not. let me know guys.
need to watch the Sess thing now that I'm back home.
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
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!!!"
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
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.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?
I guess YouTube videos will start to have super tiny,super fast scrolling credits at the end so they can slide in a 'product sponsorship provided by X'. That's usually enough for TV shows, and saying it out loud is too in your face.
Can't it be buried deep into their description?
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.
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!!!"
Maybe it sticks in gif-form.
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.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?
Wait so not even once Youtuber asked Machinima "Is this NDA like illlegal?" and Machinima didn't check what exactly they wrote in contract and always answered "No it's fine,don't worry about it"?
Wait so not even once Youtuber asked Machinima "Is this NDA like illlegal?" and Machinima didn't check what exactly they wrote in contract and always answered "No it's fine,don't worry about it"?
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.
Come on GAF get this thread to 100 pages and my crystal ball will be ready for some lottery numbers:
"The guides are guidance to help advertisers and endorsers comply with federal advertising law," said Betsy Lordan, with the FTC Office of Public Affairs. "They are not legally enforceable, and there are no monetary penalties or penalties of any kind associated with them."
Your wish ismy command:maybe?
Polygon: The FTC on paying You-tubers to endorse games
I think this is crazy.
Good one! Now just fix "payed"; it should be "paid".
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.
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.
Your wish ismy command:maybe?
Polygon: The FTC on paying You-tubers to endorse games
I think this is crazy.
Lordan declined to comment on whether the disclosure in these cases met that requirement.
He already didCome on GAF get this thread to 100 pages and my crystal ball will be ready for some lottery numbers:
Your wish ismy command:maybe?
Polygon: The FTC on paying You-tubers to endorse games
I think this is crazy.
Make clear that it’s an ad
Make it clear when you’re advertising. Essentially, that means making it easy for the average consumer to be able to judge whether or not they are seeing an ad. If you’re getting a celebrity to endorse your brand, then they too have to adhere to this rule.
On Twitter we’ve suggested that advertisers use #spon or #ad to make it obvious.
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!!!"
Your wish ismy command:maybe?
Polygon: The FTC on paying You-tubers to endorse games
I think this is crazy.
Polygon said:The FTC isn't conducting any research into the use of their guidelines for endorsements, Lordan said. She declined to say if the FTC had any active investigations into game publishers over breach of the federal advertising law. Under FTC rules, the commission does not confirm investigations until they are complete and then, only if there are wrongdoings found.
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.
So they're gonna get away with it?
"The guides are guidance to help advertisers and endorsers comply with federal advertising law," said Betsy Lordan, with the FTC Office of Public Affairs. "They are not legally enforceable, and there are no monetary penalties or penalties of any kind associated with them."
Wait so not even once Youtuber asked Machinima "Is this NDA like illlegal?" and Machinima didn't check what exactly they wrote in contract and always answered "No it's fine,don't worry about it"?
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.
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.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.
So they're gonna get away with it?