Support NeoGAF

[TetraGenesis]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

Logic. Thank you.

 

[tkalamba]

The idea that Microsoft, Machinima or a PR firm would not be in the loop on, or check something so basic and obvious as the disclosure agreement just seems preposterous to me. Tkalamba, if it's that likely that in your PR firm something so rudimentary could go amiss, I can't say I have much confidence in your PR firm or the quality of work and organisation it adheres to, because that seems like something everyone involved would check or care about. It is after all, a matter of legality.



Agree with much of this post.

I've stated it a few times now, we're not a PR firm. We don't do PR. We're a media firm, we do banner ads, pre-roll. There is a difference, and the level of competence of employees is entirely different. This whole thing is a media problem, and we get an insertion order, not non-disclosure agreements.

 

[3rdamention]

UPDATE #2: Microsoft has asked Machinima to mark videos made as part of its paid-for Xbox One content deal as advertising, the company has told Eurogamer.

The move follows widespread disapproval at Machinima's marketing deals - where users are paid promote brands in their videos without stipulating that they had been paid to do so.

"Microsoft was not aware of individual contracts Machinima had with their content providers as part of this promotion and we didn't provide feedback on any of the videos," a spokesperson told us. "We have asked Machinima to not post any additional Xbox One content as part of this media buy and we have asked them to add disclaimers to the videos that were part of this program indicating they were part of paid advertising."

They are confusing me so much. It just appears Microsoft is just trying to pull some smoke and mirrors over our eyes. The promotion is over, they aren't accepting any more Xbox One videos as part of this promotion. Of course, it sounds great on paper "We have asked them to stop accepting videos as part of this promotion!"

However, the promotion has already reached its max payout, and the promotion is already over. So they wouldn't be accepting any more videos as part of this "media buy" anyways.


Oh Microsoft, how stupid do you think we really are?

 

[NoMoreTrolls]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

This is a great post. It gives a great step-by-step walkthrough of how MS can prove plausable deniability on these shenanigans. While I anticipate the outcome of any legal action (should one ensue) would follow this outline, this will only bolster the confidence of brand cheerleaders. Even if the company at the core of these events is truly at fault, so long as they cannot be found directly culpable for the actions of their chosen PR firm (directed or not), they'll remain unpunished for this behavior. This will buttress the impression that payola is just something that we have to accept, that disclosure is an unnecessary restriction on viral advertising. All the while, console warriors will rejoice at having their brand of choice vindicated, and the trustworthiness of the internet as a whole will die off--not with a whimper, but with raucous praise.

 

[tkalamba]

They are confusing me so much. It just appears Microsoft is just trying to pull some smoke and mirrors over our eyes. The promotion is over, they aren't accepting any more Xbox One videos as part of this promotion. Of course, it sounds great on paper "We have asked them to stop accepting videos as part of this promotion!"

However, the promotion has already reached its max payout, and the promotion is already over. So they wouldn't be accepting any more videos as part of this "media buy" anyways.


Oh Microsoft, how stupid do you think we really are?

Or simply, there is more to the buy than you know? Some agencies make their buys in full quarters, or 6 month blocks. Some do it on a campaign by campaign basis. Odds are IO's have already been signed for the next 5 months already with Machinima. This statement simply means any existing portion of the buy is being changed, and Machinima is screwed out of future media dollars.

This promotion, at the cost of $3750 is easily not the only portion of the Mediabuy, especially if this campaign is out of the US as mediabuys in the US are usually 10x that of Canada, and I don't remember the last time I signed an IO that small.

 

[Tsundere]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

Great post.

 

[woodypop]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

I like this post. It gets down to the fundamental question: Who stands to benefit?

 

[3rdamention]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

Hopefully this is what the FTC does when they investigate cases like this. Great post! It all basically all leads back to Microsoft, and even if they are insulated, its not like they are not guilty of being involved.

 

[Occam]

I like this post. It gets down to the fundamental question: Who stands to benefit?

 

[Neuromancer]

Burn the tapes, Microsoft!

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

 

[serversurfer]

Does it really make more sense to believe that MS strongarmed Machinima into altering their promotional contracts (and potentially making them illegal)?

Frankly, yes, given the alternative is to believe Machinima took their eminently legal contracts and made them illegal for no reason.

What does their marketing has to do wth the awesome games coming out? Do Insomniac and Remedy deserve bad sales because of Microsoft? Lets stay reasonable and be mad at this particular case.

Microsoft is not a person. Persons screwed up, and they should be punished in bad press and word of mouth. I just think it would be unfair , if this leads to games and possible sequels would be denied sucess because of PR.

Seriously? You're basically saying that yes, MS is a terrible company, but we should buy XBones anyway, because otherwise it wouldn't be fair to Insomniac, who made the mistake of signing a deal with them?

Wow.

Even if I 100% agree with what I'm being paid to say? You and I have very different definitions of what is a lie.

Even if you agree 110%.

If me and Nathan Fillion tell you to buy a PS4, you know, without question, that our only motivation is making your life better. How do you know that? Because we don't stand to gain anything by telling you, apart from making the world a generally better place. How do you know we don't stand to gain anything? Because if we did, we'd be required to tell you. If Shu had payed Nathan $50 to tweet that pic, wouldn't you want to know that? Wouldn't knowing that lessen the effect of the endorsement in your mind? "Damn, Nate really loves his PS4!" vs. "Damn, Nate's such a whore!! lol"

That's the issue here.

Yep, Boogie's video is disappointing. It's hard to believe the people in charge at Microsoft did not know exactly what was going on (and approved of it); after all they signed off on it.

It seems likely they knew. As I pointed out earlier, it seems unlikely Hyrb's "Stop the hate" speech coincidentally dropped at the same time as this "unexplainable" groundswell of XBone love from regular joes.

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

And more to the point, they are the only entity involved who benefits from non-disclosure.

Excellent post.

 

[SwiftDeath]

Having 18 years experience in the same field as tkalamba, and having pitched/won/worked/been given awards on the launch of Xbox360 [but no longer work with a gaming client at a different agency ] - From personal experience - I can honestly say that it is highly suspect that no one knew what was going on.

Not only are there multiple levels of client involvement in the authorization of any media plan/buy, but our direct media clients are beholden to their superiors. Every step of the process, from 'selling' the media plan to laying out the timeline for implementation - the agency has to explain how the placement will work. Because we all work within (and in some cases around) the rules set in place - everyone is on the lookout for potential legal issues. Secondly, within the agency environment, multiple layers of people outside of our media department such as account managers, production folks etc - also do not want the agency to loose the client (or money) - and will call foul when someone proposes the type of agreement that we are seeing between Microsoft and Machinima.

Based on the above - In my opinion - this was either calculated: eg the legal issues would not outweigh the gains, and all parties agreed (agency/vendor/client). OR: a lot of people did not bother to ask how the YouTube program would work / read the legal documents.

Either way - this is a real shit storm for the parties involved

Great post. Really I find it very hard to believe that some aspect of MS was not aware of the contract stipulations and either simply misunderstood the ramifications or chose to go forward regardless

 

[woodypop]

It seems likely they knew. As I pointed out earlier, it seems unlikely Hyrb's "Stop the hate" speech coincidentally dropped at the same time as this "unexplainable" groundswell of XBone love from regular joes.

I hadn't even thought of that possibility: Two coordinated prongs from the same PR campaign. Interesting.

 

[_hekk05]

I hadn't even thought of that possibility: Two coordinated prongs from the same PR campaign. Interesting.

We will never be able to prove it, but it is a huge coincidence. The tinfoil detector in me is off the charts.

 

[Jeff-DSA]

Guys, what Microsoft did is typical, though that doesn't make it scummy. It's far too common that PR approaches a reporter or outlet and asks for a mutual backscratch agreement. I've had them offered to me in the past. I wasn't ever offered money, but I was offered exclusive reviews for higher scores or exclusive preview content in exchange for increased coverage. This happens all the time.

What is NOT typical, however, is for an outlet to agree to these terms. Machinima is ethically bankrupt. They made a deal that many others have learned to turn down out of reflex.

Machinima can't be trusted. This has been true for years. I know of their pay for coverage and pay for positive coverage agreements, and this isn't the first.

My take, if anybody cares (it's a thought ramble): http://gamertheory.com/story.aspx/4...ment+brings+to+light+Machinimas+ethical+void/

I doubt that it will have any lasting impact, but I wish people would avoid watching Machinima content in an effort to express that this is not ok. We don't want to be duped so that they can make an extra $0.003 from our video view.

 

[Vizzeh]

Yesterday I tweeted the ASA (advertising standards agency) to ask their opinion on the legality, unfortunately they replied the legality itself has to be determined by trading standards (Ie their job is to investigate and report, Trading standards determine how legal it is)

What they did say was.

Their link :
http://www.cap.org.uk/News-reports/Media-Centre/2013/The-rules-of-social-engagement.aspx

Rules of social engagement and advertising by law.,

A couple of quotes from the site.

Read our rulings & guidance

ASA rulings must be followed by all advertisers, not just the company in the original case. Our rulings give clear guidance on how the rules are interpreted. As well as this we have a wealth of guidance notes on a range of specific topics to help you get it right.

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.

Example Nike Twitter – 20 June 2012

Advice Online: Social Media

Make sure user generated content is appropriate, if it’s part of your advertising

If you’re incorporating user generated content into your advertising, then make sure it’s responsible, and not misleading, harmful or offensive. You should also make sure it’s accurate, and you’ve got evidence to prove it is.

This also means that if you’re positively inviting a conversation, for example through a promotional question ‘How have you used [our product / service] today?’, then we’d expect you to monitor the user generated responses (on pages under your control), because those responses become part of your advertising.

This is so you can ensure that the content being added (that includes text, images and videos) by yourself, or your followers, is appropriate for the audience, and does not breach any of the advertising rules.

Example Hi Spirits Facebook-1 May 2013

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

 

[Saint Francis]

I think Microsoft wanted this advertising to be a bit on the down low which means they put it in the description but they make it have to be expanded to be seen but someone at Machinima thought well why don't we just have them not post anything.

Sorry, but this makes no sense to me. Reposting my comment from one of the other threads: (this was just before I read the C BOAT confirmation, and just after watching Boogie's 2nd video, which was kinda making excuses for MS.

MS has a HUGE reputation management task on their hands.

I find it naive at best for anyone to accept the idea that Microsoft Corp. did not have at least a few folks on their legal team (in conjunction with someone from marketing who was certainly MUCH higher up than a well meaning intern) know EXACTLY what was being done to manage the VERY, VERY IMPORTANT public perception of their product.

Sorry Boogie, I love your videos, and I believe you're sincere, but I think you may be having some (understandable) difficulty being objective here.
Just watched your most recent, and I gotta say it left me scratching my head.
whether there's ever a proper investigation or not, I'm not sure we'll ever get ALL the facts.
But in the meantime all affected parties are certainly motivated by more than an absolute quest for the facts.

Taking MS at their word means they're incompetent, they didn't manage their message well. Well that's been true for nearly a year now hasn't it?...

OTOH they are no strangers to deceitful, anti-competitive business practices.

So in this instance were they Stupid or Evil? With so much $ at stake, I'm going with evil.

 

[enanogrande]

I WONDER WHAT THAT IS

 

[Garcia]

I wasn't ever offered money, but I was offered exclusive reviews for higher scores or exclusive preview content in exchange for increased coverage. This happens all the time.

So much for those in GAF who still believe most professional reviewers are to be trusted at all.

 

[SwiftDeath]

I WONDER WHAT THAT IS

I'm curious what his take is on it. I often think he tries to be neutral for the sake of balance and not because it's what's correct

 

[Tsundere]

I'm curious what his take is on it. I often think he tries to be neutral for the sake of balance and not because it's what's correct

$3.00 to the Sess!

He'll probably talk about how Microsoft is getting all this undeserved "hate" and how that "hate" should be directed elsewhere... And then probably mention some thing Sony did a decade ago to justify something, somehow.

 

[Uno Venova]

I WONDER WHAT THAT IS

This is going to be awful.

 

[enanogrande]

I'm curious what his take is on it. I often think he tries to be neutral for the sake of balance and not because it's what's correct

$3.00 to the Sess!

He'll probably talk about how Microsoft is getting all this undeserved "hate" and how that "hate" should be directed elsewhere... And then probably mention some thing Sony did a decade ago to justify something, somehow.

This is going to be awful.

Judging by his tweets, he'll be negative on the story. Of course, I also saw him come out with the "this probably isn't just MS" line...

He's honestly been all over the place these last couple of months, I don't know what to expect from him anymore.

 

[atomsk]

I would hope that if he attempts to obfuscate or deflect the real issue here that he will get lambasted for that.

But on the other hand there is certainly a vocal contingent of "it's just advertising" and "Sony Too!" that will agree with him

 

[Authority]

I am guessing Hyrb's "Stop the hate" speech is getting a new meme soon?

Anyway, I will be honest;

I used to think that Machinima would be able to gap the bridge between mainstream and alternative audience and satisfy both communities with their different way of doing things and reporting gaming news. I used to believe in that.

I am not angry, upset or hate them. There is something worse than that - I am disappointed and for me, for someone like me to be disappointed is just means that I am done, through with them.

God the guy that posted the advertisement on Twitter just like that, just in your face and expected no reaction is just so fucking stupid. How can you be so freaking stupid and openly advertise (sic) bribery? Blows my mind every time I think about it.

How does his brain work for fuck sake.

 

[gogosox8]

UPDATE #2: Microsoft has asked Machinima to mark videos made as part of its paid-for Xbox One content deal as advertising, the company has told Eurogamer.

The move follows widespread disapproval at Machinima's marketing deals - where users are paid promote brands in their videos without stipulating that they had been paid to do so.

"Microsoft was not aware of individual contracts Machinima had with their content providers as part of this promotion and we didn't provide feedback on any of the videos," a spokesperson told us. "We have asked Machinima to not post any additional Xbox One content as part of this media buy and we have asked them to add disclaimers to the videos that were part of this program indicating they were part of paid advertising."

This sounds like a bunch of nonsense. What do you mean you weren't "aware" of any contracts? Its hard to believe that you would agree to a deal and just let Machinima do whatever the fuck they wanted when they are in partnership with you since anything they would do would make you look shitty pr wise.

 

[gogosox8]

This doesn't make sense either, why would Microsoft want a PR disaster right before E3? What do they have to gain from something so shady? It's not even like they're paying out a lot to people. Did they honestly think they could keep something like this a secret from us? They've been working so hard on the public image that I honestly don't think they need something like this exploding in their face right now. Bad Press isn't always good press. So I don't think it's entirely on them.

If they don't get caught, they get good pr to millions of people and no one would know the difference and that would be good for them going into E3.

 

[serversurfer]

Right. They did the same thing at launch and didn't get caught, so they probably figured, "Triple the payout, triple the plausible enthusiasm!!"

 

[moggio]

Unit Lost give some nice insight into their experiences with this sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ocPuaruimYA

 

[gogosox8]

Don't think from Microsoft's perspective. Who has the most to gain from the NDA and who has the most risk from the NDA?

Machinima imposes the NDA in their promotion. If the FTC drops its hammer, Machinima is the one likely to be fined. They wouldn't voluntarily drop the disclosure - which is present in previous promotions, so obviously they aren't stupid - and impose a NDA to risk a fine.

The PR company Microsoft hired is next. All Machinima has to say is that said PR company wanted Machinima to impose said NDA. Maybe include it in a deal with the FTC offering co-operation for reduced penalty. If the FTC issues a subpoena for the contract between the PR company and Machinima, they are likely the ones to be penalised the heaviest. Why would they go out of their way to risk that?

Which brings us to Microsoft. They are the most insulated from this, as they have 2 entities they can pay to fall on the swords for them. They are the ones who wanted an ad buy in the first place. They are the ones who are most likely to request a non-disclosed ad campaign from their PR firm.

Great post. That's basically how I feel about this whole situation.

 

[Nafai1123]

The crazy part of all of this is how small this contract actually was. I mean, 1.25mil view/$3750 payout max? That's nothing compared to those EA contracts we saw. Why did they feel the need to make such an idiotic decision for such a relatively small marketing gain? Maybe that's why they thought they'd get away with it.

 

[enanogrande]

The crazy part of all of this is how small this contract actually was. I mean, 1.25mil view/$3750 payout max? That's nothing compared to those EA contracts we saw. Why did they feel the need to make such an idiotic decision for such a relatively small marketing gain? Maybe that's why they thought they'd get away with it.

I don't know if 3$ CPM is big or low (obviously compared to the EA deal it's peanuts, but no clue how it stacks next to more normal promotions) but the way the deal has a max payout of $3,750 seems BS to me. I understand the need for limits, but if that's the case shouldn't the sign up be stricter? ~11 Million subscribers got these ads. I don't know the ratio of subs to views on most of these videos, but anything higher than 10% is free publicity already.

 

[Goldmund]

The crazy part of all of this is how small this contract actually was. I mean, 1.25mil view/$3750 payout max? That's nothing compared to those EA contracts we saw. Why did they feel the need to make such an idiotic decision for such a relatively small marketing gain? Maybe that's why they thought they'd get away with it.

This is the wrong perspective. That's where they stopped paying money; it's not where people stopped making/watching videos.

 

[oti]

Well guys I don't see the problem I mean it's just marketing and Sony does it too and oh wait I do have a brain this is horrible.

 

[SwiftDeath]

I don't know if 3$ CPM is big or low (obviously compared to the EA deal it's peanuts, but no clue how it stacks next to more normal promotions) but the way the deal has a max payout of $3,750 seems BS to me. I understand the need for limits, but if that's the case shouldn't the sign up be stricter? ~11 Million subscribers got these ads. I don't know the ratio of subs to views on most of these videos, but anything higher than 10% is free publicity already.

That's exactly why these types of promotions are incredibly attractive to publishers and the like. Pay less, get more literally. You will get far more responses than what you are legally required to pay out on and the videos will still be up long after the promotion ends and continue gaining views

 

[Zeth]

If anyone wants to have their blood boil, tune into live.twit.tv in a few minutes for Windows Weekly with Paul Thurott. Judging from his blog post this week, he will probably laugh the whole thing off as usual.

 

[RONA32767]

This is what I've been trying to tell people as someone who actually works in the advertising/media buying industry.

Most companies, MS, Nintendo, Sony. Apple, Dodge, P&G etc. do not buy their own ads and media. They have several agencies on record who do that for them. They can have several creative agencies split by different media, so one creative team works on online, another TV for example, and can have several that cover the buying of media space. usually a separate agency for Social, and a separate for buying online, print and TV. These are the agencies who deal with the likes of Machinima when it comes to this stuff.

Being someone who works for a media agency, and who has experienced campaigns like this (mommy blogs specifically, I don't have any of the videogame companies as a client) I can tell you media agencies, and their clients rarely if ever know the specific terms between a content creator (ie. blog writer, youtube content creator) and their respective publishers. We simply ask for a proposal on media plans (be it rich media, pre-roll, advertorials etc.) within a set budget, they promise us a certain amount of impressions and clicks based on that budget, and thats it. We don't see what happens after the sales rep sends us an Insertion order. All we get to see is that the IO has a set number of impressions for a set budget, for a certain time period, and creative specs required (300x250, 30 second preroll etc)

In no instance have I ever seen specifically what deals my sales reps and the content creators have between themselves and only a single one of my clients (autos) specifically mentioned they wanted it to be clear they were sponsoring a similar program to this.

Of course most people chose to either believe I'm defending MS specifically, or ignored what I said in this thread when attempting to clarify what happens in the industry. I firmly believe, based on my experience, that this is on Machinima.

You'll note how the majority of posters here refuse to accept your explanation, instead choosing to continue blaming Microsoft and crapping on you for even suggesting they may not have had knowledge of the situation. Being someone who works for a media agency, and is probably familiar with how social marketing works, I'm sure you'll find this behaviour very familiar.

 

[enanogrande]

That's exactly why these types of promotions are incredibly attractive to publishers and the like. Pay less, get more literally. You will get far more responses than what you are legally required to pay out on and the videos will still be up long after the promotion ends and continue gaining views

This part's the one that srikes me as sleazy. It's on thing to say we'll only pay you for the first X views of a certain video, but another thing entirely to say we'll pay for the first X views of a a collection of videos from many different users. I'm sure theres people who signed up for this deal at the very end who by the time they got the videos up the limit had been reached and they got no money for it.

 

[SwiftDeath]

You'll note how the majority of posters here refuse to accept your explanation, instead choosing to continue blaming Microsoft and crapping on you for even suggesting they may not have had knowledge of the situation. Being someone who works for a media agency, and is probably familiar with how social marketing works, I'm sure you'll find this behaviour very familiar.

Because Gaf is such a hivemind? There is far more than just one educated opinion on the matter.

Having 18 years experience in the same field as tkalamba, and having pitched/won/worked/been given awards on the launch of Xbox360 [but no longer work with a gaming client at a different agency ] - From personal experience - I can honestly say that it is highly suspect that no one knew what was going on.

Not only are there multiple levels of client involvement in the authorization of any media plan/buy, but our direct media clients are beholden to their superiors. Every step of the process, from 'selling' the media plan to laying out the timeline for implementation - the agency has to explain how the placement will work. Because we all work within (and in some cases around) the rules set in place - everyone is on the lookout for potential legal issues. Secondly, within the agency environment, multiple layers of people outside of our media department such as account managers, production folks etc - also do not want the agency to loose the client (or money) - and will call foul when someone proposes the type of agreement that we are seeing between Microsoft and Machinima.

Based on the above - In my opinion - this was either calculated: eg the legal issues would not outweigh the gains, and all parties agreed (agency/vendor/client). OR: a lot of people did not bother to ask how the YouTube program would work / read the legal documents.

Either way - this is a real shit storm for the parties involved

This part's the one that srikes me as sleazy. It's on thing to say we'll only pay you for the first X views of a certain video, but another thing entirely to say we'll pay for the first X views of a a collection of videos from many different users. I'm sure theres people who signed up for this deal at the very end who by the time they got the videos up the limit had been reached and they got no money for it.

Eh it is getting more than what you paid for and since it's advertising I dislike it but I don't find it too bad. My real problem with this is the idea of not being allowed to disclose the endorsement.

 

[enanogrande]

Eh it is getting more than what you paid for and since it's advertising I dislike it but I don't find it too bad. My real problem with this is the idea of not being allowed to disclose the endorsement.

Of course - this is just a tangent I'm going on. It's best left for another thread.

 

[gogosox8]

You'll note how the majority of posters here refuse to accept your explanation, instead choosing to continue blaming Microsoft and crapping on you for even suggesting they may not have had knowledge of the situation. Being someone who works for a media agency, and is probably familiar with how social marketing works, I'm sure you'll find this behaviour very familiar.

He also said he had no knowledge about how pr and media add buys works at MS which means he was just assuming like most of us. The was another poster who said he had worked with ms and he thinks its highly doubtful that they didn't know anything.

 

[TetraGenesis]

I think it is a bit of both. I think Microsoft wanted this advertising to be a bit on the down low which means they put it in the description but they make it have to be expanded to be seen but someone at Machinima thought well why don't we just have them not post anything.

You are trying so hard to defend your brand right now.

 

[verbum]

From some FTC info:
If these videos can be defined as consumer endorsements (All endorsements must reflect the honest experience or opinion of the endorser) then the FTC could take action because:

Advertisers also must disclose any material connection between a person endorsing a product and the company selling the product. A "material connection" is defined as a relationship that might affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement. For example, if an endorser is an employee or relative of the advertiser, that fact must be disclosed because it is relevant to how much weight a consumer would give to the endorsement. Similarly, an advertiser must disclose if a consumer has been paid for giving an endorsement.

.
http://www.business.ftc.gov/documents/bus35-advertising-faqs-guide-small-business

Seems someone broke the rules.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

If anyone wants to have their blood boil, tune into live.twit.tv in a few minutes for Windows Weekly with Paul Thurott. Judging from his blog post this week, he will probably laugh the whole thing off as usual.

Paul Thurlott has defended every single Microsoft controversy over the past year and a bit. He was one of the first to talk about always online and how its not a bad thing, even before the orth incident.

What surprises me is that he doesn't even strike me as someone normally interested in the game industry. Pre Xbox one, he barely acknowledged the existance of the Xbox brand.

 

[Jomjom]

I WONDER WHAT THAT IS

Haha 100% chance that he will defend MS and blame Machinima, inept ad firms, and most of all the rabid internet trolls.

Also to see him tweet the "________ too" defense is horrible. I don't know why I ever thought he was actually an intelligent personality in the industry. Next time I go to trial, I wonder how my opening statement is going to come across to the judge or jury if I just open with "well, you know my client is probably not the only person who's ever done so and so bad act."

 

[Imperfected]

Machinima can't be trusted. This has been true for years. I know of their pay for coverage and pay for positive coverage agreements, and this isn't the first.

(...)

I doubt that it will have any lasting impact, but I wish people would avoid watching Machinima content in an effort to express that this is not ok. We don't want to be duped so that they can make an extra $0.003 from our video view.

Yes and no. Machinima definitely did something wrong, and they definitely knew they were doing something wrong. You would have to talk to Machinima partners to say for sure, but I know most other major channels (including The Game Station/Polaris) sent out mass notices to their partners back when the FTC ruling pursuant to new media was added/clarified about half a year ago. To be specific, they outlined the meaning of the law as it pertains to content creators, gave guidelines for how to be in compliance with the law, and mandated that compliance as part of their contractual obligation with the channel. I'm assuming Machinima did something similar - I'd be interested to hear from any of their partners if that's true, though with the sheer number they have I think it's safe to say a lot of them gloss over the legal information.

Machinima is unquestionably in the wrong and undoubtedly should be punished.

As far as not watching content, though? Unfortunately, Machinima's got their hooks in a lot of content creators for flat-out abusive contractual terms (usually demanding 3-year minimum contracts). There are a lot of Machinima partners who have realized the company is a scam and are frankly just marking time until they can get out of their awful contracts. They have it bad enough without people refusing to watch their content because it's associated with Machinima.

So: Punish Machinima, definitely. Punish Machinima partners... well, maybe actually look into which ones are participating in these programs, rather than all of them?

I don't know if 3$ CPM is big or low (obviously compared to the EA deal it's peanuts, but no clue how it stacks next to more normal promotions) but the way the deal has a max payout of $3,750 seems BS to me. I understand the need for limits, but if that's the case shouldn't the sign up be stricter? ~11 Million subscribers got these ads. I don't know the ratio of subs to views on most of these videos, but anything higher than 10% is free publicity already.

It's very low, especially with the cap put on payouts. The likely case is that Machinima themselves made far more - likely as a lump sum payment for the promise of a certain quantity of media, rather than in CPM form - and decided that passing whatever smaller percentage of that payment on to the content creators in this way was their best method for achieving the required media presence.

So, you might have had a situation where Microsoft said, "Machinima, here's $10,000,000," and Machinima (or to be more accurate in this case, Poptent) said, "If we pay out a paltry $3 CPM we can probably still hit the quota pretty easily due to all the rabid X-Box fans in our partners list. Just cap it off nice and low so we aren't overpaying."

As far as who decided to do the NDA... well, as I noted above, there is no way in hell Machinima/Poptent was not aware that the NDA was unethical and if not illegal, then at least legal only by the slimiest of technicalities. They did not remove a mandatory legal disclaimer that had seen blanket use across other programs on a whim, they were not unaware of why it was there in the first place, this was not a JV legal team error. That supposition is ridiculous.

The question then becomes, why would they have such an NDA?

The obvious answer is that Microsoft requested it. The only other possible answer I can think of - which seems far less likely - is that they enforced it themselves because they didn't want people to know they were associating with Microsoft. That would be absolutely hilarious if it were the case, but I seriously doubt they decided to break the law and risk an enormous public backlash against their entire business model just because they were worried people might think they were in bed with Microsoft.

 

[la flama blanca]

Haha 100% chance that he will defend MS and blame Machinima, inept ad firms, and most of all the rabid internet trolls.

Also to see him tweet the "________ too" defense is horrible. I don't know why I ever thought he was actually an intelligent personality in the industry. Next time I go to trial, I wonder how my opening statement is going to come across to the judge or jury if I just open with "well, you know my client is probably not the only person who's ever done so and so bad act."

Um, it's obvious Sessler made a deal with MS, so painfully obvious, but most people would call me crazy or be ignorant to it. It's part of the industry and the dude needs steady income.

 

[Zeth]

If anyone wants to have their blood boil, tune into live.twit.tv in a few minutes for Windows Weekly with Paul Thurott. Judging from his blog post this week, he will probably laugh the whole thing off as usual.

live now, Paul says it's a non-issue. Surprise, surprise.

 

[Coxy]

Machinima + PAX = Disclosure
Machinima + E3 = Disclosure
Machinima + Comic-Con = Disclosure
Machinima + Xbox = Non-disclosure

Yeah I'm not buying that Machinima randomly decided to put that clause in without Microsoft saying anything

 

[tkalamba]

Machinima + PAX = Disclosure
Machinima + E3 = Disclosure
Machinima + Comic-Con = Disclosure
Machinima + Xbox = Non-disclosure

Yeah I'm not buying that Machinima randomly decided to put that clause in without Microsoft saying anything

I'm pretty sure EA had non-disclosure too

Edit: Nevermind, I'm wrong, I havent dived into the EA thread yet