Stealth marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions
- Thread starter daze23
- Start date
CurrencyChase
Banned
The arrangement as described might go against the FTC's guidelines for the use of endorsements in advertising, which demand full disclosure when there is "a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement." The document offers a specific example of a video game blogger who gets a free game system that he later talks about on his blog. That blogger would need to disclose that gift, the FTC says, because his opinion is "disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious." That same reasoning would seem to apply to the opinions expressed by the video makers participating in this promotion.
They're telling people to not say anything negative about it and telling them to not say they were paid for talking about it. That's why it's fukked up
Sounds like any other endorsement/commercial
Proactive didnt pay Puffy to talk bad about their shyt
Once again it's up to the person making the video to be honest with their viewers.
CurrencyChase
Banned
Example 7 even gives an example of how a video game blogger would have to disclose their relationship to a console manufacturer.
Yeah, this isn't just shady as fukk.
It's downright illegal.
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.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...ises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines
Yeah, this isn't just shady as fukk.
It's downright illegal.
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.
http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pres...ises-online-advertising-disclosure-guidelines
Sounds like any other endorsement/commercial
Proactive didnt pay Puffy to talk bad about their shyt
Once again it's up to the person making the video to be honest with their viewers.
No it's not the same. Proactive made it known that Puff was a paid endorser of the product. MS was telling their paid endorsers not to tell people they were paid. There's a huge difference
its an FTC violation of advertising rules. we have a major company paying people to advertise a product and they want the people they're paying to hide the fact that they're being paid to advertise it. its deceptive marketing.Don't see the big deal here. That's how these dudes make money, somebody pays them to say something about a product.
Most youtube videos have stuff in them that you wouldn't necessarily know they are getting paid for.
Thats how these people make money. Once again the blogger doesn't have to make a video saying Xbox is the best shyt ever. They could just make a funny video with an Xbox in it to make money. And keep their serious opinions in the non paid videos.
CurrencyChase
Banned
CurrencyChase
Banned
FTC Example 7:Says who
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.
So if getting goods counts as requirement to disclose, money counts as well.
says the FTCSays who
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/fi...stimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf
Here we have a connection between an endorser of a product and the seller of the product and the seller is telling the endorser to hide that fact and positively endorse the product.
How can anyone defend a company so hard? It's been posted numerous times how this is illegal, even in the op yet you still won't say a bad thing about MS.
Maybe you one of the people MS is paying off to not speak negatively about them
Let it go breh, you have no leg to stand on.Says who
It's straight up illegal.
I was paid by Microsoft about 5 years ago and had the full rundown in a contract I had to sign and had to deal with SAG-AFTRA bullshyt on top of that