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.
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]
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.
>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 ...
"11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader
has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial). This is without prejudice to Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)"
So? It may well not be contrary to the ASA's rules but it appears to be contrary to European law. [Ratified in a UK Act of 2008 it seems]
If you're buying advertising in this manner how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements to prevent them being fraudulent, or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful).
No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products.
The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product.
Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are.
> how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements
I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial".
> or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful)
I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal.
In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S...
There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.
>then we aren't using them to "promote" the product //
Which budget are you paying them from, advertising. What profession are you in, marketing. What are you hoping to gain from this project, increased sales.
You are using them to promote the product. They're paid endorsements.
Not according to the people who enforce advertising rules. Sure, in terms of logical thinking that's why we're doing it. But I care about two things, legality and morality. I was careful to ensure we were being legal (see what I said about discussion with the ASA), and I don't consider this product placement to be misleading, yet alone immoral. When I said we don't use them to "promote" products I put it in inverted commas to indicate that I'm going by the authority's definition, not just talking in prose.
OK. So, if your aim is to be moral then why not have your advertisers include a note that they've been paid for their endorsement? Surely it's because you aim to deceive the viewer that the endorsement is organic rather than motivated by your client/employer - is that moral?
Take a look at the first 60 seconds of this video [1], I don't believe it's possible to watch this video without knowing that it's a sponsorship deal he has.
I view it the same way that nobody would look at a football (soccer) team's shirts and think "wow, those players must love that company!" despite there not being a "this is an advertisement" text on the shirts.
If I wanted to deceive viewers then I would change the terms of the deal to not show the 5 second clip or the floating 3D laptop, and to not have a link in the description of the video (or at least not one that can be seen to go through an adserver URL), then I would get him to make his comments about the laptop more subtle, but more frequent across all his videos. This would still be completely legal, despite having much more potential to mislead viewers, but certainly arguably less ethical.
Here [2] is an example of (non-YouTube) another thing I've done for a brand, to show that when it isn't already imminently obvious we do make sure that the paid nature is explicitly stated.
So: do you disagree with my judgement that there is no need for a specific note on such an obvious piece of activity? I would hope and assume you will once you see it, but if not then I'll certainly go get a few more opinions to see if I should change mine.
>Take a look at the first 60 seconds of this video [1], I don't believe it's possible to watch this video without knowing that it's a sponsorship deal he has. //
I'd certainly suspect it - but it's presented as "oh look, I'm your fried, I just found this deal online". Certainly those less jaded by life, than I, I think wouldn't realise.
You of course would know because you know that companies are doing this sort of marketing - I suspect many people don't realise such endorsements are paid. Those more savvy would assume that the link below the vid is an affiliate link but probably not that the presenter was paid for the actual placement.
thanks dude! would love to learn more about your company. maybe there are synergies worth exploring? hit me up on twitter @fireoneout and we can exchange info
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.
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
This is consistent. Every time a character uses a computer, there are several solid seconds of LET US SHOW YOU THE NEW WINDOWS.
When we notice Apple's branding and recognize it as product placement it is equally awkward because it breaks down the fourth wall without advancing the narrative or being symmetric with the themes of story. The cinematography is contrived, it is just that audiences have been conditioned to give Apple a free pass to the point that we expect every computer to be product placed by Apple and are shocked when it is not.
To put it another way, the frontal shots typically used to frame the Apple logo are from the conventions of dialog, not atmospherics. The Apple logo tells us about the executive producer and nothing about the character. It's not ironic, satirical, or editorial. Just cynical.
Complete nonsense. All product placement is awkward when it lingers on the product and tries to show off its features instead of just being the characters and camera acting naturally while using a particular product. It doesn't matter what brand it is.
Also, as for the Apple devices, you only see the device itself. Never a shot of the UI. I have yet to see someone on TV use a Mac and interact 1:1 with the regular version of OSX that is installed on there.
Of course, MS can't do that with the surface cause it is so unremarkable so they just have to show the UI which is what makes it awkward as they really like to linger and make sure you really see that this is the original UI the device comes with.
When you see people using a Mac, for example on "Bones", you will just a custom created UI they interact with. I hear these are mostly flash animation that are supposed to look "techy" while not being boring. Which, incidentally is why things like tracking an IP or similar is looking to hilarious as it is done in the most graphical, bells and whistles kind of way. Even when they just send an email out in a scene they will use a custom animation instead of having the character really interact with OSX and use the standard mail client.
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.
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.
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.
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.
By any practical measure Apple is indeed paying in that they gift the show with free iPads / iPhones / Computers / etc. Hence why the credits usually say that "promotional considerations" were provided by Apple.
However as others have said, Apple appearances do tend to be much more subtle, insofar as a big Apple logo is subtle.
And the fact is, Apple wouldn't really need to do that. I mean, how often have you seen scenes where the character was clearly using am iMac but the Apple logo was covered by a post-it or something?
In those cases, Apple is clearly not paying to have their merch being used and the show clearly didn't get approval to "officially" use the Apple logo which is why they had to cover it. But, in the end, it is still clear that this thing they use is an iMac.
You don't need approval to show a logo on a prop. The reason the post-it is there is to provide an incentive to the company to sponsor them. No money, no logo.
Apple (claims to) never pay for product placement. At this point their brand is so valuable that TV show producers put their products in when they want a certain feel.
Most of the time they cover their logo (because who doesn't keep stickers in the dead-middle of their laptop's screen), but there aren't a lot of manufacturers using aluminum for their machines, or have the iMac's back shape.
I have been having this trouble with all Tv shows lately. It's supposed to be the Golden Age of TV, and I have loved shows like Breaking Bad and Lost, but I can't shake the fact that the people producing the shows have no interest in anything other than ad views.
TV is just ads for ads. There's a reason Hulu sucks so much.
even worse with Apple and Sony placements in House of cards if you want. Personally I have been noticing awkwardness since the 80s mostly because directors don't have a clue about real IT use cases, mostly they try to impress, that's all.
That doesn't bother me so much, because if Sherlock were a modern figure, he'd carry some kind of mobile device and use it the way he does in the show. There isn't a lot of pomp and cirucmstance made about him unlocking his phone and carefully navigating the nanometer-engineered laser-etched icon menus, isn't this device amazing, you should buy one. You near a text message notification (which many of us hear, from our own devices, or our neighbors', on a daily basis), he looks at the phone, the shot shows the phone, and highlights the contents of the message as a storytelling device, rather than as an advertisement for how pretty Apple's software is.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not an Apple fanboy by any means - my mobile devices are all Android, and I primarily work on Windows machines. I don't have any issue with characters using modern technologies as part of a story, but when the storytelling detours for the sole purpose of advertising a product, it gets wonky.
On the flip side, Chuck did Subway's product placement very well - they just leaned into it and played it for laughs, rather than trying to oh-so-cleverly have Serious Characters eat Serious Lunch with Serious Nutritional Value. The show just owned the fact that Subway had shoved a crackload of cash at them and went overboard with it.
It's so noticeable to me because people don't use Windows Phone and Surface products in real life. It's actually possible that a typical person in a real situation would be using an Apple or Google device.
a typical person (does not)time travels (Fringe) or busts into high security research facilities (Sherlock). Of course the typical person does not drive Acura (Thor), so what is the point - Product placement is what it is. A company product trying to get eye-balls - for some reason if Microsoft does it - its a heinous crime. They are paying money for the shows - and you as a "freeware" consumer have to put up with it.
I have noticed that too, the most embarrassing was the product placement of Surface in Suburgatory. The lead starts blurting our the specs of the product like a used car salesman! It was cringe worthy. They should take a note or two from Nokia on marketing and ad, those are amazing!
Even worse were the ones by Toyota for Warehouse 13, in the show, everyone gifts a Toyota Prius, everyone rentals a Toyota Prius, heck they even had an episode where while other cars are melting down, they drive the Prius through the hot burning lava perfectly fine!
Nowadays marketers don't even care about subtlety, product placements are becoming more and more obvious to ignore!
That doesn't bother me at all. What's annoying is when the storytelling is interrupted for a Windows micro-commercial. It's like slamming into third gear on the freeway for a couple of seconds.
Artists have had their work paid for by patrons they didn't like for a long time.
Protesting silently is an old phenomenon. Frankly, if an artist was enthusiastic about every person who financed their work, I wouldn't consider them a professional.
I find that most people are not, when they believe that they can get away with it.
Professionalism is mostly about signalling to colleges, customers, bosses, etc. Similar to wearing pants. I wear pants in public and particularly to work because that is what professionalism looks like in my industry and society. When I'm at home, when nobody is paying attention to what I do, I kick off the pants and put on some gym shorts (even if I'm working from home).
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.
I've been friends with journalist on the Apple beat for major publications. Apple is notoriously picky about who it gives early product announcements too, and they never _ever_ purposefully "leak" anything.
Apple does play favorites. If you are in Apple's good graces and play by their rules, their team will give you early access to you have more time to write in-depth reviews about their devices (But don't EVER think about prematurely releasing the story). If you get on their bad side, you're pretty much stuck and have to wait like normal people for launched product releases.
>...I don’t think it’s necessary for Apple to do things like that.
The problem with people (like you) is that they see things as 'black' or 'white' or 'good' or 'bad'. Any signs of the possibility of shades of grey are dismissed without second thought. Most if not all companies pay the media and do shady stuff under the radar while they can.
Man, I agree with fanatical, and you'd think that would be enough.
But just look at Gruber. While I still bothered to click the occasional Gruber link-bait I seem to recall he on several occasions mentioned equipment which he "had gotten from Apple". I'm assuming that means he didn't pay.
I'm sure I say stuff like that loads of places. Especially on the hipster SF blogs which for a period made this website almost unreadable.
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).
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.
I'm just thinking here in practical terms. If these bloggers/youtubers were in fact companies/portals, everybody would be fine with it. In this regard, I don't see how Microsoft can be blamed for playing the same game the whole marketing industry plays.
No, looking from the "what I expect" perspective, most people expect these bloggers/youtubers to reflect the "opinion of the crowds" and to reflect reality more accurate I guess. In this light, Microsoft's attempt to pay them could be seen as unethical.
Personally I never trusted of these bloggers/youtubers so I'm far from shocked with this news. I expect them to be doing that by the very nature of their "jobs", if not for direct profit from vendors, then for ad-click revenue.
I'd say don't be naive with anything, specially things involving products and revenue.
" 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?
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.
And then they realized how herd mentality works and how it's much more profitable and efficient then actually making people think. In this, marketing is the ultimate exploiter of our flaws...
The whole point is kinda for people to review Xbox one things, i.e. tell them about things that are good. It's not about trying to convince people it's popular.
Edit: I am a bit shocked to see so many people (well, accounts) arguing astroturfing is OK, it used to be despised and big news when Microsoft did it then. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing#Incidents I will assume that is more astroturfing. Otherwise, goodbye Internet as an information source....
Perhaps the poster is capable of evaluating products on their own, or paying for independent reviews.
If you're dumb enough to believe 'free' advice you pretty much deserve what you get. Remember when the service is free, the product is you.
Our entire society is astroturfed whats possibly more sad is that people can get genuinely caught up in these campaigns and start spreading them for free.
I did not say I do not have a problem with the marketing agreement Microsoft has set up. Be that as it may, I also understand this type of marketing is not solely taken advantage of by Microsoft. I don't anyone is arguing it's ok. People are pointing out that Microsoft is by no means the first company to take advantage of this type of marketing.
Maybe you don't have to explicitly lie, but "video creators "may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One, or any of its Games"
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...
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.
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).
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.
Nobody is "okay" with it but everyone is influenced by it and there's nothing you can do. If there's a company with a large marketing budget then you can bet a good portion of that budget goes towards making themselves look good and their competition bad, because that's what everybody is doing.
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.
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."
I did read the article. I am not saying I agree with the practice or I see no negative aspects to the practice. I'm just surprised at the recent uproar over this when Microsoft is by no means the first company to do this. Sure their agreement states you can't say anything negative about the X1 but how is that different from publishers sending free games for people to review? Do you not think those people realize negative comments will most likely persuade publishers to stop sending them free games?
Why would I pay someone to trash talk my product or recommend another product? Coke would never have their polar bears drinking a Pepsi. Even Chevy ads don't talk about Cadillac.
I'm not sure whether you're joking or serious. Of course, a company won't praise a competitor in their ads. However, the money Microsoft hands out is for videos that are not presented as advertising at all. Instead they want regular users to do "stealth advertisement", when it is NOT clear to the viewer that those guys were paid by Microsoft. I would have no problem with Microsoft paying for ads that are clearly identified as such. You know, the stuff you see on the web or on TV.
The part I was highlighting is that Microsoft has a clause saying if you receive money from Microsoft, you can't talk bad about them. That's pretty natural, they don't want to pay detractors to keep disparaging them.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.