Disclosure of Advertised Content

CrazKanuk

I was reading this whole developing story with Shadow of Mordor who apparently paid PewDiePie to give them some positive gameplay coverage. Now there is backlash from the FTC. I guess there is some legislation requiring that they disclose that information? It was under his "read more" but that's insufficient? What's the deal here? Is this a big deal? 

I think about things like my Doctor prescribing me a particular medication. I know that he's been given some sort of incentive to sell me a particular name brand medication. He never tells me that, though. What about golfers wearing certain sponsors? Celebrities wearing certain brands? I can think of hundreds of cases where I am coerced to buy a particular brand. What are the limitations surrounding this legislation? Anyone know off hand? 

scorpex-x

Youtubers have been doing this for many years, it's becoming more serious now because of just how much money they are making from it and how much sway these youtubers have over their very impressionable audiences.

Bigger Youtubers make huge amounts of money, they get ad revenue from youtube, they get patreon money, they sell shirts and they take advertising deals (many of which they don't disclose as to not hurt their view as being poor, since that could hurt patreon and tshirt sales).  People like Angry Joe are the absolute worst, that guy doesn't even try to follow the FTC guidelines now let alone years ago.

The FTC honestly needs to dish out some massive fines, some examples need to be set.  They have ignored these guys for way too long.

SEANMCAD

Frankieat1080P or whatever his name is got caught doing the same thing I am hurt his channel a great deal

mmoguy43

It's pretty common for youtubers to ask for and get free copies of games in exchange for an implied good review and greater publicity. Some developers even seek out these types of people and these deals are never disclosed, that they are essentially buying good reviews. I know of live streamers that get better treatment by a studio then their own staff. It's ridiculous

Vrika

CrazKanuk said:

 What about golfers wearing certain sponsors? Celebrities wearing certain brands? I can think of hundreds of cases where I am coerced to buy a particular brand. What are the limitations surrounding this legislation? Anyone know off hand? 

When someone is paid to give you information about a product by any party who'd get direct benefit from good success of the product, they need to tell it clearly enough that people who see it know that it's an advertisement or sponsored content.

That applies whether you're paid by a manufacturer, an importer, a reseller, or someone hired by them to do advertisements.

That limit also applies if you're owner of or employed by a manufacturer, an importer, or a reseller. Then you need to tell people of your relationship, or somehow other make sure that people know you're getting benefit from success of that product.

But it only applies when you're giving information: Speech, written info, infographics, etc. It does not apply to merely showing the product or its logo. It would be highly impractical to ask sports stars and celebrities dress in disclaimers telling people they're paid to wear their clothes and accessories, so just showing a product or its logo is ruled out. Only once you start giving people information about the product you need to tell that it's advertisement/sponsored content.

Advertisements (like the banners on this website) do not need to have any special disclosures that they're ads as long as they're made so that people recognize them as ads. Also in certain situations - like when visiting an official website, visiting a shop, or talking to a salesman over phone - you're assumed to know that you're not dealing with a neutral party. Advertisement and sponsored content only needs disclosures when it's not otherwise apparent what they are.

Reviewers and testers do not need to disclose that they've gotten a free copy of something for review. Most of them get free copies even if they don't tell us about it.

CrazKanuk

Vrika said:

CrazKanuk said:

 What about golfers wearing certain sponsors? Celebrities wearing certain brands? I can think of hundreds of cases where I am coerced to buy a particular brand. What are the limitations surrounding this legislation? Anyone know off hand? 

When someone is paid to give you information about a product by any party who'd get direct benefit from good success of the product, they need to tell it clearly enough that people who see it know that it's an advertisement or sponsored content.

That applies whether you're paid by a manufacturer, an importer, a reseller, or someone hired by them to do advertisements.

That limit also applies if you're owner of or employed by a manufacturer, an importer, or a reseller. Then you need to tell people of your relationship, or somehow other make sure that people know you're getting benefit from success of that product.

But it only applies when you're giving information: Speech, written info, infographics, etc. It does not apply to merely showing the product or its logo. It would be highly impractical to ask sports stars and celebrities dress in disclaimers telling people they're paid to wear their clothes and accessories, so just showing a product or its logo is ruled out. Only once you start giving people information about the product you need to tell that it's advertisement/sponsored content.

Advertisements (like the banners on this website) do not need to have any special disclosures that they're ads as long as they're made so that people recognize them as ads. Also in certain situations - like when visiting an official website, visiting a shop, or talking to a salesman over phone - you're assumed to know that you're not dealing with a neutral party. Advertisement and sponsored content only needs disclosures when it's not otherwise apparent what they are.

Reviewers and testers do not need to disclose that they've gotten a free copy of something for review. Most of them get free copies even if they don't tell us about it.

Thanks, yeah, I just found it to be an interesting case. I mean PewDiePie isn't a "reviewer" per se, is he? That's what kinda made me think it was odd. I know they note sponsored content here, but didn't know that people like YouTubers were required to do the same. Crazy. 

Vrika

CrazKanuk said:

Vrika said:

Reviewers and testers do not need to disclose that they've gotten a free copy of something for review. Most of them get free copies even if they don't tell us about it.

Thanks, yeah, I just found it to be an interesting case. I mean PewDiePie isn't a "reviewer" per se, is he? That's what kinda made me think it was odd. I know they note sponsored content here, but didn't know that people like YouTubers were required to do the same. Crazy. 

Correction to my earlier post: It appears that according to new FTC rules from 2009 reviewers do need to disclose when they got a product for free, unless they are an established professional reviewer in which case they don't need to.

http://www.wired.com/2009/10/ftc-bloggers/

But in PewDiePie's case it wasn't only about getting the product fee, he was paid to do the review. If you get a paid to do a review of product, then you always need to disclose it as sponsored content no matter whether you're an established professional reviewer or not.