
Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions - a_olt
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/
======
corin_
I run some product placement / brand awareness stuff with big YouTube gamers
(also for gaming hardware, but not Microsoft), and I discussed this directly
with ASA (Advertising Standards Authority in the UK) to ensure we weren't
doing anything wrong.

We don't instruct our influences that they cannot be negative about our
product not instruct them to be positive. We agree how often the products need
to be shown, and include a few other things (link to product in description,
etc.)

ASA's guidance was that for this we do not need to disclose anything about
paying these influencers. I pointed out that although we don't specifically
give them these instructions, the reality is that if one of them was negative
we would kill the deal, and therefore were we essentially breaking the rules
and just not putting it in writing - they said that no, we were fine _until_
the first time we kill a deal because they said something negative. At that
point on we have set a precedent and will need to have all our influencers
disclose that they are being paid by us for these videos. But not until then.

Worth noting that our videos are fairly obvious - we generally have a 5 second
logo clip that they play, the link in the description goes through what is
obviously an adserver (though sometimes via bit.ly) - so we aren't trying hard
to hide the fact. Although this was not relevant to ASA's answer to us.

Edit: Worth noting I work in Europe only, nothing in the US. Have also checked
in Germany/France where we do the same thing, and there they don't seem to
care right now, so no issues.

~~~
eterm
That's interesting, I'm surprised ASA are so lenient given that product
placement isn't even allowed on UK tv. (Although they are phasing it in).

~~~
corin_
Actually it's been allowed since 3 years ago (early 2011), except on BBC
channels due to their publicly-funded status. There are Ofcom regulations
which need to be complied with, which includes preventing it in certain
program types (news, children's TV, etc.) I don't work with TV much so I don't
have full details on the tip of my tongue, but anyone interested will find it
somewhere within The Ofcom Broadcasting Code [1]

[1] [http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-
code...](http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-
codes/broadcast-code/)

~~~
ekianjo
> except on BBC channels

Mmmm... Isn't Top Gear all about product placement?

~~~
bri3d
Top Gear are pretty aggressive about not shilling for manufacturers (c.f.
their frequent off-color jokes associated with certain brands, rigged Tesla
and Leaf reviews, etc.)

Obviously some manufacturers get a preferential treatment (Land Rover!) in
order to keep the presenters in character, but given both the show's success
without promotional money and the certain scandal and cancellation of the show
(BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product
placement) if the producers were to be paid off I highly doubt there's any
product placement going on.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
> _BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product
> placement_ //

You've never seen the Graham Norton Show I take it. It's a thinly veiled
infomercial - someone's promoting a book, this persons promoting a movie, this
one's selling a new single.

When appearing on BBC though, at work, I was not allowed to wear my company
uniform tshirt - cause you know not allowed to advertise ...

------
cheald
Kinda related, I've been mind-boggled at the amount of product placement
Microsoft has been buying in TV shows lately. Everywhere you turn, characters
are making a VERY OBVIOUS POINT of using a Surface or something. It's
hilarious/awful.

~~~
brudgers
It's so noticeable only because viewers are conditioned to seeing Apple's
products placed prominently.

~~~
cheald
Not at all. It's noticeable because it's _awkward_. Shots will linger on the
Bing search page, or on the Metro Start Menu for a couple of seconds before
the character does something, and then the character taps an app and gets into
what they're doing. If it wasn't product placement, it would be bad direction.

I've been watching _Arrow_ lately and it's really obnoxious there (though not
really any more so than other shows that Microsoft has their marketing hooks
into). For example:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRZ03SFB68](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRZ03SFB68)

This is consistent. Every time a character uses a computer, there are several
solid seconds of LET US SHOW YOU THE NEW WINDOWS.

~~~
smackfu
Yeah, Apple is clever to have their logo on the back, lit up. So when they pay
for product placement, the laptop is just sitting on the desk, with the actor
using it and facing the camera, with the logo nicely framed on screen.

~~~
jonhohle
I've read in the past that Apple does very little product placement (that may
have changed) and that the primary reason that Apples are so predominant is
that is what they have available on set. This may be more true for photo
shoots than TV/Movie production.

~~~
smackfu
I'm not certain, to be honest. I know that 30 Rock includes Apple in the
product placement credits at the end. But I've also seen stories that say that
Apple doesn't pay for product placement beyond giving the product away for
free. And of course none of this is public knowledge, so who knows.

~~~
nitrogen
_And of course none of this is public knowledge, so who knows._

Part of me _really_ wants this kind of information to be recorded somewhere
and made public some number of decades into the future. It would be
_absolutely fascinating_ as a student (in the broader sense) of technology and
business to read all the confidential agreements, product placements, and
back-room deals that facilitated the outcomes of technological history, even
if it's after a very long delay.

------
josteink
Unlike Apple and its team of "insiders" and their "leaks", which
coincidentally seems to always be people who get free goods from Apple's
marketing department.

This is a complete sham!

~~~
CitationNeeded
Do you have an example of that happening where the "free goods" were not a
temporary review unit which was later returned?

~~~
300bps
Oh great, a reddit-style novelty account created 42 minutes ago.

~~~
prawn
Play the ball, not the man.

~~~
nitrogen
Sounds like a good way to let the man get past you with the ball.

~~~
prawn
Yes, quote works for argumentative purposes, not as actual strategic
basketball advice!

------
bpicolo
That's just standard marketing. Don't know why we need the word "stealth".
There are tons of youtube channels with marketing. (See every make-up vlogger
ever).

~~~
higherpurpose
Exactly. Why the need for "stealth" if what they are doing is "normal"? It's
because they're trying to make people believe Xbox One is more popular than it
really is, and that the comments are really "natural" (when they aren't).

I find it that quite unethical. It's no different than paying Reddit
commenters for mentioning it.

~~~
thisisdallas
" It's because they're trying to make people believe Xbox One is more popular
than it really is"

Ignoring the fact that the Xbox One has been selling great, isn't that more or
less the point of marketing? Make a product seem popular, generate buzz, make
money?

~~~
lmm
In the dim and distant past marketing was about telling people why your
product was good, not convincing them it's popular.

~~~
fleitz
You may want to let the diamond people know about that... exactly how far in
the past are we going... I'm pretty sure marketing has always been about
moving product for the lowest cost possible.

------
Aaronontheweb
This is pretty standard marketing stuff in 2014... If I were running the Xbox
marketing department I'd start firing people if they WEREN'T doing this.

There are entire startups whose job it is to set up advertisers and YouTubers
with this type of arrangement - look no further than FullScreen, BigFrame, et
al...

~~~
noodle
I'd say two things:

One is that you're correct, it has been happening for years within the
industry, so it's kind of weird to see an article almost in the style of an
"expose" on the practice.

Two is that it really isn't getting huge market traction. Or it wasn't at the
time when I was working more closely with it. It was considered more like a
value-add or diversification strategy alongside other media buys and not a
primary strategy.

------
cdash
It is quite amazing that so many people on here are very ok with astroturfing.

~~~
belgianguy
Well if you want to go down that rabbit hole, if MS is willing to do unethical
advertising for its gaming console, how much of an extra effort would it be
for them to pay people to defend its dubious practices on the internet?

It's not the first time this has come up, and I bet they've done similar
things for their other software in the past. As you could read in the article,
they know how to cover their butts quite well, as such it's immensely hard to
prove, but iirc, Mark Penn used to run a company called Burston-Marsteller
that went quite far in the Microsoft evangelism (shilling).

Some notable examples: [http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-
marketing-micr...](http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-
microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/?comments=1&post=26068393)

It's downright disgusting and misleading. Market your stuff until the cows
come home, but don't try to act as if it's organic interest while it's
actually a paid product placement, which is exactly what's happening here.

That's intentional misdirection, bribery wrapped in an NDA. I hope the FTC
takes interest in such blatant disregard of ethics in marketing. Microsoft may
be big, but it has to play by the rules too.

And no, it's not okay because some other firm does it.

I don't get how Microsoft tries to play the angel of ethics when throwing mud
at other companies, but doesn't really respect its (potential) customers when
it comes to their own PR.

------
fleitz
This is what happens when you cut the PR middlemen out of the equation. OMG
the horror MS is directly paying average joes instead of paying PR people.

------
philfrasty
The submission headline should be: „Marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for
Xbox One mentions“. Nothing special here...

------
thisisdallas
I know the gaming world is making a big mess about this but as others have
mentioned, it's nothing other than marketing. Doing promotions like this for
Machinima partners/affiliates is nothing new. I also don't see how it differs
from publishers sending free games to people to review on YouTube.

~~~
gu
Maybe read the linked article to get some food for thought:

"These kinds of payments aren't inherently suspect in and of themselves. If
the video makers disclosed that Microsoft was paying extra for these videos,
and if they were allowed to say whatever they wanted in those videos, then the
whole thing could be seen as merely an unorthodox way to increase exposure for
the Xbox One on YouTube.

That's not the case, however. According to a leaked copy of the full legal
agreement behind the promotion, video creators "may not say anything negative
or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One, or any of its Games" and must keep
the details of the promotional agreement confidential in order to qualify for
payment. In other words, to get the money, video makers have to speak
positively (or at least neutrally) about the Xbox One, and they can't say
they're being paid to do so."

~~~
bpicolo
That's not uncommon with marketing agreements at all.

~~~
Ogre
Maybe it's not uncommon, but it is against FTC guidelines. (I claim that
because it's in the article too)

I don't know if being "against FTC guidelines" is equivalent to "illegal" or
not. But let's hope so.

------
Jehar
There's one key point that I haven't seen discussed here much. If this were a
simple case of Microsoft contacting content producers directly and offering
these things, then it'd be more acceptable. However, these are partners of
Machinima, which has a relationship with YT and advertisers (fox, adotube,
cbs, etc) to provide a revenue share to content producers. The fact that
Machinima is mandating these terms to the content producers is what makes
everything a bit shady, and poses several conflicts of interest for them.

------
pstack
Don't we all just assume this is going on? Also, if it's alright to pay major
gaming sites and magazines and personalities to talk about your product, why
not some knucklehead with a bunch of youtube followers? It's no less sleazy.

The great thing about modern society is that most consumers have evolved
enough savvy to be suspect of almost all brand-encounters. Even to the point
of alerting to a lot of sure false-positives.

------
trekky1700
In related news, comapnies pay for ads on TV and Brad Pitt was paid to drink
Pepsi in WWZ. World shocked.

------
fishbacon
I feel like a Machinema channel could simply make a review of the Microsoft
Squared Square and the Sony Fun-VCR, and still be within the boundaries of the
contract right?

Comparing the good points of the two Glossy Blu-Ray Players would make a good
comparison of the two I believe.

------
erbo
I have long assumed that, whenever someone posts any good mention of any
Microsoft product or service, the standard response should be, "How much did
Microsoft pay you to say that?"

------
undoware
How did the rapgenius pitch to 'affiliates' go?

"That shit will BLOW UP!!!"

Here's hoping they're right. Again.

------
kordless
The effects crypto currencies have on this particular type of marketing
approach will be interesting, at the very least.

~~~
vezzy-fnord
"Free market will fix this."

~~~
fleitz
Incorrect, advocates of the free market don't even think there's anything
wrong with this, including myself.

This is on the level of finding out Santa Clause isn't real and politicians
are generally liars.

