Article by Jason Schreier (http://kotaku.com/ftc-slams-youtube-group-for-deceptive-xbox-marketing-ca-1728237588)
Some excerpts:
FTC with emphasis by Schreier:
Mostly quotes by the FTC press release:
Check out the full article, as it also includes how such an "influencer program" is structured and what it entails.
-------------
Update #1 - If anyone wants to go through the original thread and see who was on the right side of history on that one. ;-)
Update #2 - Not a big fine:
Some excerpts:
Kotaku said:Around the launch of the Xbox One, the YouTube network Machinima held a special campaign for its clients: Make a positive video about Microsofts newest console, and youll get paid extra. Also, youre not allowed to talk about any of this.
[...]
In a press release today, the FTC announced that the two parties have come to a settlement that will prevent Machinima from pulling this sort of shadiness again. Writes the FTC: Under the proposed settlement, Machinima is prohibited from similar deceptive conduct in the future, and the company is required to ensure its influencers clearly disclose when they have been compensated in exchange for their endorsements.
FTC with emphasis by Schreier:
Respondent paid influencer Adam Dahlberg $15,000 for the two video reviews that he uploaded to his YouTube channel SkyVSGaming. In his videos, Dahlberg speaks favorably of Microsoft, Xbox One, and Ryse. Dahlbergs videos appear to be independently produced and give the impression that they reflect his personal views. Nowhere in the videos or in the videos descriptions did Dahlberg disclose that Respondent paid him to create and upload them. Dahlbergs first video received more than 360,000 views, and his second video more than 250,000 views.
Mostly quotes by the FTC press release:
In numerous instances, Respondent has failed to disclose, or disclose adequately, that the individuals who posted the reviews were compensated in connection with their endorsements, wrote the FTC. This fact would be material to consumers in their purchasing decisions regarding Xbox One and the Launch Titles. The failure to disclose this fact, in light of the representations made, was, and is, a deceptive practice.
Check out the full article, as it also includes how such an "influencer program" is structured and what it entails.
-------------
Update #1 - If anyone wants to go through the original thread and see who was on the right side of history on that one. ;-)
Ah yes, XB1M13, I had done a YouTube video about this at the time and got quoted by The Guardian.
Here's the original thread about it
Update #2 - Not a big fine:
I did a little dive through the FTC's relevant documents.
Some things worth noting:
The settlement order itself
"Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000." - I can't find it in writing, but I believe this would be leveled at Machinima. I think it's also worth noting that this is almost the same amount as Machinima paid YouTubers for the videos in the first place. Hard to see it as a stiff penalty, considering their likely profits.
The FTC waived Microsoft and Starcom of any responsibility in the matter. From the FTC: "while Microsoft and Starcom both were responsible for the influencers failure to disclose their material connection to the companies...staff considered the fact that these appeared to be isolated incidents that occurred in spite of, and not in the absence of, policies and procedures designed to prevent such lapses." - So the FTC holds Microsoft and Starcom responsible for the ethical breach, but appears to let them off the hook simply because they have a nominal policy against it.
The settlement is up for public comment for the next 30 days, electronically.