Meaning a bunch of people made videos for the campaign but because they have not officially signed up, they are not eligible to be paid for their efforts?
-
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.
Microsoft to offer 3$ per 1000 views if you promote XBO
- Thread starter UnluckyKate
- Start date
Meaning a bunch of people made videos for the campaign but because they have not officially signed up, they are not eligible to be paid for their efforts?
I suppose that's pretty much the opposite of nintendo's youtube strategy
...
I should start a youtube channel
WTF??]
...
I should start a youtube channel
Aquamarine
Member
Correct.
As seen here:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97617869&postcount=768
It's only open to eligible YouTube channels.
Microsoft / Machinima emailed a bunch of high-subscriber channels and asked if they wanted to be a part of this.
fastford58
Member
What's teh link to his Xbox1 youtube channel?
serversurfer
Member
I was wondering if there was a loophole, actually.
Technically, the vloggers aren't being paid by MS. MS are paying Machinima, who in turn hire the vloggers to produce XBone commercials. I don't know if the vloggers are required to report their endorsement was purchased by MS, because technically it was purchased by Machinima. I don't know if the vloggers required to report their endorsement was purchased by Machinima, because they aren't endorsing any Machinima products. =/
It's quite impressive how many ad impressions you can get with just $3750.
Osiris
I permanently banned my 6 year old daughter from using the PS4 for mistakenly sending grief reports as it's too hard to watch or talk to her
The guidelines cover this, the requirements go all the way down the chain.
Not even the FTC is silly enough to miss that trick, otherwise you would see advertising agencies hiring other agencies for campaigns in order to be immune to the requirements of the various advertising laws.
A Link to the Past
Banned
Good strategy. Especially because it encourages people to use footage from the Xbox One.
3rdamention
Member
Lol I don't think he is saying YOU always have a daily dose of Sony Too, just that today, you are the one that Sony Too'd. If you have followed this thread since the beginning, Sony continues to be brought up, even though it isn't really about Sony in this case and no matter what Sony had done in the past, if doesn't make this OK.....
Personally, I think the area of influence for individual YouTubers are smaller than gaming sites, such as Kotaku, and someone doing a story taking a magnifying glass to relationships between publishers and gaming media sites would do much more to root out the corruption in the industry than digging dirt on what could be seen as traditional media's competition for page hits on the web.
I'm sure you would stand to lose less professional friendships in the industry by going after bloggers than possibly putting colleagues in a negative light, since we all know the relationship with publishers and Youtubers/bloggers are not as intimate as those between big games media sites and publishers (as evidenced by how Machinima is the middleman between the channels and MS as opposed to the ad guys that likely work in the same building, if not on the same floor, as Kotaku editorial staff).
statham
Member
Gotcha. I was responding to a post that said Microsoft fell to a new low. I was responding Sony is already that low.
What exactly do you think is there to expose?
but that's not derrick
I guess MS is following 2006 sony ps3 to the dot.
................
Also both given free 360 and sony stuff at e3 conferences as I recall during the press.
Chobel
Member
And again, what does Sony have to do with this? This is not Sony vs MS.
la flama blanca
Banned
Microsoft has been trench tier since day 1. Don't be salty that Sony is dominating, maintain that newly humbled PR attitude you guys been rocking, it's a better look.
statham
Member
Maybe I'm reading this thread with major googles, but I wish this was true.
Codeblew
Member
Aquamarine
Member
All he needs is a bunch of childish screaming, rape jokes, a "Bro army," and a Swedish accent. You too can make millions out of mediocrity!
Chobel
Member
The guy you quoted didn't even hint about Sony.
Not necessarily expose but take an examination of the types of relationships between publishers and gaming sites. You mentioned in the post I quoted about how the issues are more subtle than "petty cash and parties" but those press events, the swag, that is what people focus on because that is what they see; that is all they are exposed to.
The issues you mention, the journalistic ethics you debate amongst your colleagues, those are the things the wider gaming public may suspect but they can only speculate on and hypothesize about. Those are the relationships and deals that happen behind closed doors and while they probably aren't as nefarious as people may assume, they are things that you yourself admit to having to be conscious of, especially if they are the types of things that people in the industry take for granted as normal but would look shady if looked upon from the outside in.
The public can only assume about reviews being swayed or previews being influenced. The access a site like Kotaku gets for example, and influence it has is way more than some random YouTuber, yet in this thread is is easy to point out the people taking money in this promotion and their content that may be effected, as opposed to a gaming site and a publisher's influence and relationships with a site at large and employees of that site on an individual level.
You have heard gossip about YouTube sites with people getting trips for videos which you have no qualms with hinting about the legitimacy of such rumors but are your concerns about story quotas and relationships between reviewers and publishers based on similar gossip stories in the industry you've also heard or witnessed first hand? I think it's a safe bet they are.
serversurfer
Member
Sony have had a lot of success recently, and they deserve every bit of it, but I wouldn't exactly call selling just over a million more units "dominating". Multiply that figure by 10, and you may have a point. How about that?
40% more already in month and half is pretty " dominating"
That 1 million happens to be 33% more than xbone. A substantial advantage by any measure.
edit: it's 1.2 million to be exact, and 40% more than xbone. Damnit, beast786
Meh, maths can make make too much sense.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Are the people doing these videos disclosing their relationship to MS/Machinima? If not that's just fucked up
Oh you're so smart
Before the inner fanboy comes out to defend to the death your beloved console think about wtf you're defending. And not everyone is like you. Some people care about shit bigger than MS vs Sony
I knew someone would say this, lol. True, Derrick wears the crown but if we go by "words per grievance" Ami is on the throne.
Is this a parody or unintentional irony?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
You should know that I was just joking around initially, but as far as I'm concerned my point still stands. Will Sony sell the most this gen? Almost certainly. But is 1.2 million more really dominating? Well, you can try and dress it up to be a lot more by using percentages, but no, I don't really think it is. As I said, when that figure reaches ten times that amount, we can start talking like that, but as it stands right now, to say that Sony is dominating just seems slightly hyperbolic.What are you talking about, exactly? You want a Kotaku story about writers possibly subconsciously feeling more positively about companies because of their personal relationships? Subtle influence is *subtle*, and I have no interest in writing some Forbes contributor-quality speculative article about how Reviewer X might be friends with people at Rockstar and that's why he gave GTA V a 10. That benefits nobody.
When Kotaku faces ethical questions, we tell our readers about them. (ex: http://kotaku.com/5985143/apologies-if-we-wasted-your-time-with-that-preview) We'll cover other outlets, too, when there's a story to be covered. (ex: http://kotaku.com/5960657/metacriti...that-gamespot-admits-was-factually-inaccurate) But we're not a media watchdog website, and although I find these conversations interesting, my job is to make my own outlet better, not to ensure that other writers are trustworthy. When I see shitty stories or regurgitated press releases on other websites, my job is to make sure we avoid the same mistakes, not to call out those outlets.
Anyway, the story of "YouTube personalities are growing increasingly popular, but are they doing shady things?" is much more interesting to me than "game writers might be friends with developers which could subtly influence their reviews and coverage" or "gaming news stories are driven by a PR-driven press release cycle."
Most the big youtube channels make money in one way or another and this most likely isn't the first time either of them has promoted anything. A shame list? Really? If you were against the monetization of youtube and promotion than avoid any big gaming channels, especially those with a partnership.
If monetization ever ends expect output to dramatically decline or stop all together for these channels.
There might be something against the board rules on promoting games in the forums themselves, but I doubt Neogaf is going to ban people that promote games on a completely different website.
Aquamarine
Member
I agree. YouTube personalities are definitely influential in adoption of a game. I've watched Let's Plays and decided to purchase the game just because my favorite LPers were having such a blast with it. It's definitely a factor.
So to see major YouTube channels essentially get paid to cover and endorse certain games without explicitly making clear their affiliation...is a huge deal. It's right in front of our noses with this story, yet it will just likely continue to happen again and again with no regulation and little outrage.
GAF is a magnifying glass for sure, but I fear this will just be swept under the rug and forgotten.
As a relative measure, the percentage gives context to an otherwise meaningless absolute figure. A 40% advantage is a significant advantage by any measure.
I don't really see how the two figures of 3 million and 4.2 million can be described as meaningless, but ok. With it being 5:30am where I am, I think I'm too tired to really dispute it at this point. Get back to me when that percentage is above 100 and we may begin to agree somewhat.
what do you find more dominating if we go by your 10x rule
1.2. Million lead in just a month and a half with 40% more?
Or
10 million lead in 7 years with 14% more?
The very reason you have two figures is to give context to the absolute difference between the two figures. This is what percentages are for. If 1.2 million was the difference between 30 million and 31.2 million, that would represent only a 4% difference.
A 40% advantage, on the other hand, is a significant advantage.
A 100% advantage would mean selling twice as much as the competition, which would be a rare scenario (but is nonetheless happening in some regions). Why do I need to get back to you anyway?
Really? I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out to me
That was kind of my point. And obviously I meant in worldwide combined sales.
As for the rest, well I understand that. Trust me, I do. My point was just that I think some people (yourself included) like to use the percentage as it stands right now to make it seem like a larger difference than it really is, when the difference (in my opinion) isn't a lot. It's interesting how percentages can work huh? They can be used in interesting ways.
Now please, let me get some sleep. If you want I can reply to you in about 8 hours.
Really? I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out to me
That was kind of my point. And obviously I meant in worldwide combined sales.
As for the rest, well I understand that. Trust me, I do. My point was just that I think some people (yourself included) like to use the percentage as it stands right now to make it seem like a larger difference than it really is, when the difference (in my opinion) isn't a lot. It's interesting how percentages can work huh? It can be used in interesting ways.
Now please, let me get some sleep. If you want I can reply to you in about 8 hours.
The percentage will not make a difference seem larger than it is. It gives context to an absolute difference, in exactly the way that 1.2 million out of a 30 million installed base (4%) is of less importance than 1.2 million out of a 3 million installed base (40%). The percentage does not lie.
If you want to duck and dodge questionable practices in your own lane, that's your prerogative but you seem more eager to spill the beans about gossip you've heard about in the Youtube world second hand than the stories you are more intimately involved with and obviously more uncomfortable about breaching. I mean, it isn't your job to call out other outlets for shady practices but it is your job to call out outlets on YouTube for shady practices? You don't think there is a disconnect there?
The YouTube/vlogger territory is newer and therefore has more amateurs as well as more gray area for ethical conduct than websites and more "traditional" news outlets. I agree that shining that spotlight on these sort of stories are interesting and important to bring to people's attention but frankly in the grand scheme of things I think it's low hanging fruit to target the YouTubers and disingenuous to single them out when it's companies like Microsoft and Machinima which are dangling that carrot in the first place, which isn't all that juicy when the numbers are broken down as has been done in this thread.
Now if your story was about how YouTubers have become influential and a more popular source of news, I'd say "obviously" but the thing is that they have become more popular at the cost of traditional sites losing traffic, which is why Microsoft would be trying out a method like this in the first place since it is an area they are losing traction. In fact, on the same token, it seems obvious why you'd want to target the vlogger specifically over the publishers since the vloggers are your medium's("traditional" sites) competition, and the publishers are your bread and butter.
Traditional gaming media sites are losing credibility and consumer trust, that's a big reason why people are going to get opinions from vloggers and possible corruption within that community does not appear to be as rampant (personally I don't see how it could be when they deal with publishers on a lesser, more infrequent scale in the first place) or as pertinent as possible corruption within the way more entrenched traditional outlets and publishers. The real story is in examining these publishers' tactics and a network like Machinima than the cogs like one or several YouTubers. That would be like calling out you specifically over some shady business revolving publisher access, game promotion, etc. that involved how all of Kotaku chooses to unethically do business and mix that influence with it's editorial side. You may be the one who gets their hand caught in the cookie jar but it would clearly be an issue that goes deeper than some writers at Kotaku being corrupted.
I guess that's the point you're missing. A writer being subtly influenced by their relationships is not a shady practice, it is a reality of journalism in any field, and an ethical question that all reporters and critics have to deal with. YouTubers taking money in exchange for coverage is a shady practice. That's why I'm interested in the latter and not the former. Get it?
The point is not to target anybody. It's to tell this particular story, if there's a story to be told.
Dunno where this idea comes from. Kotaku's 2013 traffic was a record high.
I would love to hear exactly what you think we do that is unethical?
serversurfer
Member
Your focus on the million-unit gap, dismissing it as insignificant, and requesting to be awoken if it ever grows to 10M units makes it sound like you feel the million-unit gap will remain constant throughout the generation, giving Sony 80.5M and MS 79.5M.Really? I didn't know that, thanks for pointing that out to me
That was kind of my point. And obviously I meant in worldwide combined sales.
As for the rest, well I understand that. Trust me, I do. My point was just that I think some people (yourself included) like to use the percentage as it stands right now to make it seem like a larger difference than it really is, when the difference (in my opinion) isn't a lot. It's interesting how percentages can work huh? They can be used in interesting ways.
Now please, let me get some sleep. If you want I can reply to you in about 8 hours.
It's far more likely the 40% gap will remain constant, making for a 93M/67M split.
And given the facts that PS4 ended its launch holiday with massive supply constraints while XBone was freely available in the weeks leading up to Christmas in every market it launched and PS4 already has a 40% lead after only six weeks, the split will probably be more like 120M/40M.
Actually, given XBone's almost total lack of appeal outside the US, I'll be surprised if they even manage 40M this generation.
The shady practice isn't necessarily on the journalists side, depending on how deeply they are taking advantage of the perks of such relationships, since the journalists have to play ball just for access to do their job, but the publishers that set aside budgets for no other reason than to attempt to influence the journalists in a positive manner is what makes people uncomfortable when it comes time for said journalist to provide commentary on their product. Writers aren't made of stone and while the compensation may not be specifically in a few dollars of extra CPM payments, a limited edition figurine/collectors case/soundtrack/signed concept art is the type of thing that any fan would love to have. Throw in the fact that writers have incentive to from good relationships with publishers in possible community manager/PR/marketing/etc. job positions and that makes the influence a lot more direct and intentioned than you make it sound. That's not subtly influenced but directly influenced. I would consider scenarios like those unethical.
But the story you presented is certainly not the only story. That's your spin on everything that is being discussed in this very thread.
Anecdotal evidence. Reading YouTube comments. Reading comments on forums like GAF. My own personal opinion on why I choose to look to forums and YouTube for gaming opinions over most traditional sites.
Besides, record high numbers are likely tied to new consoles launching in 2013. In that case, the access Kotaku has over YouTubers is what keeps traditional sites relevant. Game opinions and reviews are arguably losing their relevancy in traditional formats. I don't have the numbers but I'd say it's reasonable to assume Let's Plays have increased in popularity the last couple years and gaming channels are some of the most popular channels on all of YouTube because people would rather listen to these personalities for their news and opinions over a roulette wheel of writers covering a story or games they might not even be passionate or sincere about.
You don't have to agree but it seems to me that a shift has been happening with game coverage and will only continue to evolve. Even Kotaku seems to have been birthed from the growth of blogging sites covering news stories as they break on the internet and now is closer aligned to a magazine or an IGN than a typical "fan site" blog as far as credibility goes.
In a world where a personality like Jim Sterling or Adam Sessler are more known for their opinions than what site they are affiliated with, I think many YouTube personalities will only grow in popularity and relevancy while traditional sites will struggle to keep their edge. But of course, that is just my opinion.
It's just a hypothetical since you are a writer for Kotaku but not being a avid reader of the site, I couldn't give you specific examples, especially on some behind the scenes stuff which is what I was referring to.
I will say that the click bait articles you guys would publish rubbed me the wrong way but I rarely see stuff like that from Kotaku these days. Maybe not quite unethical, but never the less pretty slimy.
more like 300m/20m, it's more realistic.
I chuckled, but honestly anyone calling for 40m for MS for the entire Gen...I just can't take them seriously. After roughly 3 decades I've at least learned that nothing is written in stone 2 months from launch. Not saying that it won't be 40m, or even less, just saying that it's too early to hang my hat on any number.
I would actually like to know how something like this is brokered.
http://www.ign.com/wikis/gta-5/GTA_V_Week_on_IGN'
These week events by sites like IGN with coverage with nausea-inducing praise on the surface looks like a media buy.
A few weeks before launch, IGN is writing previews and putting together interviews that lack any kind of criticism what so ever. They were called out when it happened, but these kinds of articles are why people are skeptical of whether major outlets like IGN are interested in doing fair and honest coverage or are they more interested in getting their wheels greased and being a cheerleader for "their industry."
Another example would be the IGN AMA leading up to the Xbox One. IGN seems perfectly content with their interview coverage to consist of Microsoft picking and choosing questions from a list that they crowd-sourced and publishing whatever is written with very little editorial control at all. I don't know how you could look at these articles as anything less than an exchange of clicks and announcements for complete editorial control of IGNs feature.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/08/05/ask-microsoft-anything-about-xbox-one
It may not be corruption, but even if a benefit of the doubt is given, this could easily be described as a laissez-faire attitude that exists at different levels of intensity throughout the industry of games coverage. Some outlets take it more seriously than others, but there is little public derision for these kinds of practices. It's almost as if there is a culture that exists within the industry to not rock the boat too much, because you're either jumping onto the development ship or waiting to be rescued by another media outlet.
I've said some of these things in the past, and I realize you individually and probably a lot of the people at Kotaku are doing their best to shake things up in a safe, PR-controlled coverage area, but I think these kinds of discussion cannot exist without actual tangible proof or interest from within or outside the beast in finding out what is going on.
We can all pontificate and talk about how things work as outsiders or as insiders who benefit from the success and survival of these outlets, but you cannot dismiss or affirm our suspicions without making an earnest effort to not only examine your own practices, but also the practices of the industry at large. These questions may never be dismissed, but there are very few articles out there that are willing to take a chance to burn bridges within the games writing community.
Something like this. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/129966/pr_and_the_game_media_how_pr_.php?print=1
I'm not sure if you read that article, but these stories do exist and impact the coverage that gamers do receive. These stories shouldn't be suppressed. They should be exposed with extreme vigor. Rockstar or any other publisher shouldn't be able to blackball an outlet or screw over another outlet with complete cooperation from the rest of the writers. It shouldn't be viewed as a "score" or a "cover" that someone else won't be able to get.
These incentives and pressures that publishers applied back then in 2007 and certainly apply now, are without a doubt, a problem that the industry and its followers should care about. It should be something that is of interest. Not just as a form of catharsis in affirming a position or pointing out "bad seeds," but as a way to actually make everyone think critically about the system they exist in and whether it is worth continuing to live press release to press release.
These kinds of stories are about bringing substance to affirming or dismissing malfeasance and general carelessness within an industry that influences the purchasing and consumption behavior of a billion dollar market. These stories shouldn't be discarded or examined only on a surface level, because they do not seem like something your readership asks for. Sometimes writers should try to inform people of things that they may not even be aware of or care about. Stories shouldn't be picked based on poll results or Marketing data.
serversurfer
Member
What was the US split for Gen7? 40M/25M? Given the fact that Amazon are still taking pre-orders for PS4 shipments while Best Buy have thousands of XBones collecting dust in their distribution centers, it's not hard to imagine them swapping places in Gen8.
So if MS do ~25M in the US this generation, where in not-US do you think they'll sell an additional 15M+ units?
Well said and thanks for sharing that Gamasutra article.
There is no need to speculate. An IGN editor said here on GAF that Microsoft felt they took a hit from the hardcore fanbase, so they approached IGN to set the record straight.
(Which is a reversal in how interviews are usually set up in the naive world that I live in. Someone wants to know something, so they ask to interview someone instead of the interviewing asking the interviewer to set up a meeting.)
Similar threads
- Poll
- x2