
PewDiePie and other YouTubers took money from Warner Bros - reimertz
http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/12/12157310/pewdiepie-youtubers-sponsored-videos-ftc-warner-bros
======
valarauca1
This is really par for the course with anything involving games media. The
studios who can afford work their butts off to control the narrative, and
reviewers who go against the grain quickly lose preview access.

The bribes aren't cash. They'll fly you to a hotel to play, carter the whole
weekend, give speeches about the game. And send you home with a lot of swag.
Also these function as industry events since so many reviewers are there. You
also sign an NDA about the event because it would be trouble some if the
public got word how this systems works.

I guess we should be shocked it was a raw cash deal, but that's just the next
logical step. Generally you can't assume a game review is _fair_ unless it was
produced post release.

~~~
k-mcgrady
The problem is integrity. None of these reviewers have it. In the past
journalists either would not have accepted that kind of treatment from the
companies they were reviewing or they would not let it sway their opinion.
Unfortunately if these one man YouTube reviewers did give an honest review the
company wouldn't work with them again and some other YouTube star enjoying
their 15 mins of fame would do it instead.

~~~
valarauca1
>The problem is integrity

Not really. The issue is market size.

So many _wanna be_ reviewers will happily sell out for 15minutes of fame.
Changing/discarding people is commonly done by the audience AND reviewers at a
whim.

Furthermore game sales are done as impulse buys on the strength of a
franchise, or studio. Look at the market for pre-orders. People don't purchase
escapism rationally, as escapism isn't a rational experience.

Demanding integrity out of this system is the battle cry of naive. Studio's
don't allow, profit motive doesn't push for it, and those demanding it are a
minority. The only choice is to stop buying games by large publishers
_period_. If you don't have the integrity to do this, you aren't in a position
to demand it from others.

~~~
Angostura
So ... the problem integrity.

No one ever said that the problem was _easy_

------
epoxyhockey
This article (probably intentionally) left out some detail from the official
FTC source [1] stating:

 _Instead, according to the complaint, Warner Bros. instructed influencers to
place the disclosures in the description box appearing below the video.
Because Warner Bros. also required other information to be placed in that box,
the vast majority of sponsorship disclosures appeared “below the fold,”
visible only if consumers clicked on the “Show More” button in the description
box. In addition, when influencers posted YouTube videos on Facebook or
Twitter, the posting did not include the “Show More” button, making it even
less likely that consumers would see the sponsorship disclosures._

[1] [https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2016/07/warne...](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-
releases/2016/07/warner-bros-settles-ftc-charges-it-failed-adequately-
disclose-it)

~~~
baldfat
Looks like the YouTubers followed the contract that was vetted by Warner
Brother Lawyers and other Warner Agents. Sadly the YouTuber should have placed
the information first but I see them more as a victims. They should have seen
the need to help their viewers and their channel more by fully disclosing in
the video and with graphics.

~~~
lawless123
Poor victims getting their money.

~~~
baldfat
Their most valuable thing is entertainment and credibility.

Their credibility took a hit which could destroy your whole enterprise.

PewDiePie was the Click Bait Name

Added Video (Never saw a video of him before) Here is his reply
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8)

~~~
makomk
They were the ones who chose to tank their own credibility by taking money to
produce paid promo videos that looked like ordinary non-promotional content.
They're not the victims here; the viewers they deceived for profit are.

~~~
baldfat
Well I actually watched a PewDiePie video of it. He just played the game which
he would have probably done anyways. There wasn't even a review just fun game,
which it was to the vast majority of people.

------
whamlastxmas
Dupe:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078958](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12078958)

This headline is misleading. It suggests that this is news. It isn't -
PewDiePie disclosed that he was paid to promote WB's game and did so from the
start when he made the videos. The FTC investigation was over whether the
existing disclosure was _enough_ , and it was determined it wasn't.

------
eganist
What surprises me more is how blatant it was. These rules were around for at
least a few years before the initial charge in 2014, and it's not like WB had
a fresh marketing team. They didn't give products, licenses, free showings of
films, or anything of the sort (which I believe under the rules is still
wrong). They actually gave cash. They should've known this would have been
wrong.

Which begs the question: how much was the fine? If it was trivial, that would
explain why WB did it; the marketing benefit would've more-than-offset the
costs, fines included.

~~~
pc86
I think the problem is that when you're dealing with numbers like these the
fines are always less than the gain from disobeying the regulations in
questions.

~~~
jackmaney
That's why we need fines that are based upon a percentage of revenue or profit
within, say, the past year. A fine of, eg, 15% yearly revenue over FY2015
would make any company sit up and pay attention.

~~~
pc86
IANAL but that sounds an awfully lot like Apple can break the same regulation
CompuTechSoft, LLC can break and Apple gets nailed with a 9+ figure fine just
because they have a lot of revenue. I can't see that holding up in court.

~~~
jackmaney
There's a difference between equal and equitable.

------
HyperLinear
To be honest, kinda strange this news only broke recently.
TotalBiscuit/CynicalBrit mentioned this months ago.

~~~
Zikes
It made the rounds before, and it's only making the rounds again now due to
the FTC's investigation reaching a conclusion.

~~~
makomk
I don't think it made it into the non-gaming press last time, which it seems
to have done now. Even getting the gaming press to cover it was an uphill
struggle for TB if I remember correctly.

------
jknoepfler
So, if I'm reading this article right:

1\. YouTube streamers are getting paid to play games on stream by content
creators / publishers. That's great, and much more interesting than an ad
(it's nearly impossible to the product to actually be terrible and have this
make it look good). The company, the streamer, and the consumer all win to a
certain degree here.

2\. A company was punished for breaking the law and lying. Great!

The only thing missing, for me, is a disclosure from the streamer that they
are being paid to play a particular game. Just be honest, it'll make for a
more compelling review.

~~~
pdkl95
> disclosure from the streamer

Last year, when this problem started to get attention from the FTC and other
regulators, TotalBiscuit posted a detailed explanation of proper disclosure.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSvHhDmIe6Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSvHhDmIe6Q)

It really is that simple in most cases; just be very clear that you were paid
(a free copy of the game counts), and let the viewer decide what they want to
watch. I suspect their view-counts will stay about the same if the streamer is
careful to put the same effort into paid videos as they do for their normal
content. People watch the better streamers to see the character the streamer
is creating and/or the show they produce. A good entertainer should be able to
work with - or around, if necessary - paid demonstrations.

------
qwertyuiop924
Jim Sterling, TB, etc. covered this in much more detail months ago. I'd
reccomend watching their videos to find out how it worked, why it was legal,
and why it was absolutely dispicable anyways.

~~~
Zikes
As he was formerly a lawyer (in the UK) I find TotalBiscuit's commentary to be
particularly informative about such things.

~~~
qwertyuiop924
About the legality, yes. But Jim covered the actual issues in a lot more
depth, as he could actually disclose what the contract said.

------
fhood
This would bother me more but Shadow of Mordor is a very good game. Now if the
game in question was "The Division", then I would be pissed.

~~~
Zikes
You should be more bothered because it is something you consider to be a very
good game. A publisher of a franchise you like has knowingly participated in
anti-consumer practices, and for relatively little gain. It should reflect on
them and their opinion of you as their customer.

~~~
fixermark
"Nope, game is good, don't care."

It does make me wonder how many people in the early 20th century were pretty
comfortable with Standard Oil's business practices because they also created
kerosene that didn't blow up in your face and kill your loved ones.

------
reimertz
I published this article a couple of hours ago, but after looking add
PewDiePie's
reply[[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8)],
I feel that it was unfair to copy-paste verges headline and link to it,
because it's inaccurate.

I wish I could change the title, but sadly, it's to late.

------
benten10
This issue seems OK-ish important, but beware the incoming "but it's about
ethics in game journalism" brigade!

------
interdrift
That's totally inaccurate.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8)

~~~
hokkos
The pew die pie video is more misleading and inaccurate than this article :

>THE FTC SAYS DISCLAIMERS IN THE YOUTUBE DESCRIPTION WERE NOT ENOUGH

------
derek80t
The main question is another one. YOU, in the same posizione, what kind of
behavior would you have? Please be honest :)

------
lisa_henderson
The question "Was GamerGate driven by misogyny?" can now be answered. How many
people raise the issue of ethics, regarding this situation, will clarify how
many people really did care about ethics when Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita
Sarkeesian were under attack.

~~~
mzw_mzw
Please don't post flamebait like this on HN.

~~~
lisa_henderson
How is this flamebait? This is a legitimate question.

~~~
mzw_mzw
Bringing those particular people into a discussion -- especially with a tone
of "see? see? I was right! X is God/X is the devil!" that almost dares people
to take issue with it -- leads to nothing but endless, unproductive fights
between entrenched political positions.

