This is also a major problem in the music synthesizer industry, and Benn Jordan (aka The FlashBulb, but also a major synthesizer reviewer) put out an extraordinary video detailing all the financial issues and incentives involved in being an influencer:
I think Benn is above reproach ethically here -- see how much Behringer dislike him -- but I also think he is wrong. The fundamental problem is that if an influencer reviews a product negatively, they'll stop giving him stuff to review, for free, on loan, or whatever, and he'll lose a monetization source. And if he makes a habit of this, vendors may stop sending him stuff out of fear of his reputation. This strongly encourages influencers to provide positive reviews.
Influencers think they get around this ethical conundrum by only reviewing stuff they like and refusing to post negative reviews. But as a result all we get are positive reviews. When synthesizer X has 10 positive reviews and Y has 20, is this because Y is better or because Y got in the hands of more reviewers? We cannot tell. All we have is a sea of thumbs up.
> This strongly encourages influencers to provide positive reviews.
The problem is conflating influencers and review outlets. These are two very different things although influencers do everything they can to blurry the lines.
It was deliberate - maybe you realize that, but "conflating" is something usually done by mistake. Review outlets are more akin to journalists, in that their job is to sort through the noise to help improve awareness for all.
Influencers are a new breed of advertisers and propagandists, which are far more appealing for commercial goals. Don't need all that "truth" and "integrity" getting in the way.
Personally I don't see most synth content creators as reviewers, but more like demonstrators who have taken the time to understand the device a bit and can show you around it. There are some examples where they are quite candid with criticism though (e.g. loopop). Edit: And also some that are a bit too enthusiastic some times (naming no names).
If you trust the source of your information because they've been credible in the past, the ecosystem of reviewers matters less than an individual's relationship with a specific publication (or influencer, etc.)
On an individual reviewer basis, it's all about trust. Drive by consumption does not do well in this model.
Sure but that's pretty unsustainable if your entire marketing spend is around getting a michelin star... i think if you lose a star and you go out of business it means you're probably not as good at marketing / product + market fit as most of the local coffee shops etc.
I've started down a new hobby that requires a specific and somewhat pricey bit of kit, and can see this while trying to make an informed choice between different models from different manufacturers of this kit
The closest some reviewers get to outright panning something is making a pros/cons list comparing a given model against an inferior model from a different manufacturer as if they were in the same class as the sponsored model (the other manufacturer usually has a more expensive model available that would compare more favorably, given the chance)
also, you can tell when a bit of kit came with a list of talking points in the box, and when a review i'm watching makes the same talking points as the others i've seen, that manufacturer has _less_ merit in my mind (the least their marketing team can do is personalize the talking points they send out...)
I didn’t know Benn was making content like this. I’ve known of him (also a fan of his music) from back in the day - from when he was active and uploading his own music on a certain now defunct well known music tracker. Great video with a lot of insights
To be clear, the FTC is warning all online influencers and not specifically those who receive free board games to review. It'd be wild if the FTC thought the problem of board game reviewers not disclosing this was big enough and egregious enough to warrant special action against them.
Of all the actual misaligned incentives out there, giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing. Someone gave you a $50 game and you created a free $500+ video about it encouraging others to take a break from screen time.
I hope no one tells the FTC about paid Amazon reviews, they'd probably have a heart attack.
It's great for the publisher, it's great for the reviewer, but it's not so great for the customer, who might buy the game thinking that the reviewer was speaking in an unbiased manner. That is why it's important to disclose if a reviewer gets free or sponsored stuff.
When searching for board games to buy recently, I read many reviews.
The problem I found was that all the games revewied were linked in an affilaite sales agreement.
This created a 'bubble' of games that many reviewers reviewed.
Searching further, I found that board games are so loved by millions that you can find quality reviews from peoplw who buy many games. You can even find views of the full contents of games so you can make a further informed decision.
None of this was on social media, just a good old fashioned web search.
There's certainly bubbles on BGG, but from game forums to random lists, this is an excellent resource to get (generally) quality reviews.
BGG does have a very clear bias against traditional games (see Clue, Monopoly, etcetera), due to it's roots, but that's changed a bit as board games have become big again.
Sure, and if that is what was actually happening it'd be fine. It's just hard to know if its actually an ad (make positive video we pay you $5k and give you game for free and review what you say before you can post) or just "hey we made a game here's a free one tell people what you think of it".
People who don't give glowing reviews don't get contacted the next time around.
In many of these niche communities I suspect it is far more about the perceived clout (Oh, hey, I get to play it months before you do!) than the actual financial incentives.
giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing.
Sure.
But if you don't reveal that they've given payment in the form of a free game, you are giving a dishonest review. Free stuff is payment. And everyone knows it is payment - Free meals and other benefits at a job are advertised to entice you. It might not be taxed, but is definitely part of your pay package.
I'm pretty sure the FTC knows about the Amazon reviews - they've taken action against some of them. They may or may not have the budget to go after more and may or may not have the power to go after all of them.
Well Lina Khan went after Meta for acquiring Supernatural for $500 million while Apple continues their trillion-dollar anticompetitive empire. So it wouldn't be that weird for the FTC to be focused on stuff that does not matter
> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product.
Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply.
I actually think it'd be great to have it obvious ad messaging be embedded in movies for different scenes where it pops up in your face that "this is an ad for Bose" or "this is an ad for Pepsi." Having that front and center, especially if it destroys the value of the media some would be great. Because maybe then there'd be a little more concern around what it means to make quality.
The Sony Ericson phone being in Bond is not the same as a phone review saying "you should buy this". I understand your general complaint, but I think here the FTC is basically trying to establish a line for the most egregious levels of "native" advertising that isn't being disclosed.
For what it's worth I have often seen stuff in credits pointing out what companies have provided things for a show on TV ("nobody watches the credits" well I do so your point is actually empirically false! Though I understand).
I think with this entire topic there are many knobs that can be turned. We might not have them set at the right level, and we can adjust. But it's totally not a binary thing. Though I would honestly be very up for much stricter disclosure rules on this point for things advertised to children.
My personal feeling is at one point in your life you learn that media is given access to stuff for advertising purposes, so every brand made visible is just "obviously" product placement. If there's an explicit endorsement really make it loud if it's an ad/all the conditions of the review. But I don't feel like watching Lydia Tar use a Macbook is really much of an endorsement of anything, and do not feel the need for this to be an ad (just like I don't need a disclaimer about Tar being an ad for the Berlin Philharmonic).
On the contrary, I think the psychological manipulation of a product Association is fair game because it's inherent in The World At Large and every product and person.
On the other hand, undisclosed sponsored reviews gravitate towards false advertising or deceit.
The point isn't to cut down on psychological influence. The point is to cut down on deceit AKA false advertising
James Bond using a Sony doesn't deceive anyone. James Bond doesn't exist and doesn't have opinions.
> Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right?
It certainly applies to movies and TV shows. Near the end of the credits (for US productions), there is almost always language like "Promotional consideration" and then a list of brands
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
What's your better solution? Stop the movie and have the actor playing Bond break the fourth wall and talk directly to the camera? Meanwhile, legal notices in the credits are expected. That's where they go and are negotiated.
As far as I can tell, if the reviewers want to include the disclaimer in their credits, that is also fine. They just cannot include it separately from the video.
"A Sony X is the kind of high end product a person with the fictional sophisticated background of James Bond would use, as picked by the scriptwriter/director to flesh out the character", as opposed to "Sony is the brand that paid us more to put their shit on his hands on the movie".
Movies are exempt. Viewers of a movie know that the movie is entirely created content; no one thinks that if an actor says "I love Red Bull" that this is their personal opinion or an endorsement thereof.
This isn't clear if an influencer says "I love Red Bull" on their Instagram feed; do they genuinely love it, or were they paid to say that? This is the distinction the FCC wants made clear.
I disagree that movies should get a pass here, but I do agree that influencers are a very different beast. Young kids especially are at risk since they can't tell the difference between advertising and content even when it's in the form of television commercial breaks now confuse influencers and youtubers for actual friends.
Pepsi can pay $10MM for the main character in a kid's movie to drink a Pepsi.
But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it.
Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious. At least with social media I know I can expect grift. Seeing someone drink Pepsi in a movie is more like seeing your friend drink Pepsi.
John likes Pepsi, and he's cool. Think I'll drink some.
It’s specifically endorsement they care about. Reviewing can be an endorsement if you say what you liked about the product. A critique wouldn’t need an ad placement.
If you watch e.g. Masterchef, they are very coy with how they phrase their product placements. They don’t endorse, they say something like “X contestant will have no problem getting up to temp on their stove” as the camera pans over the logo. They don’t spend longer than maybe 3 seconds featuring it. As far as I can tell, TV and movies play by the same rules, they just know what boundaries to not cross.
I doubt product placement falls under the same rules as endorsement, because there's no actual claims about the product, or preference towards it. They're just showing the object in use/place.
Even if a character states "monster is their favorite drink" that wouldn't constitute an endorsement, because it's simply the mark of a fictional character.
But influencers/actors/etc saying "monster is their favorite" is an altogether different thing, because a viewer would assume that's actually their opinion being stated -- that it's being endorsed "in fairness". [0]
The fundamental problem is deception, and product placement isn't deceptive (it's just hoping you see it enough you'll think it's "common"), but paid endorsements definitely can be.
Example 6 is about an actor who says a home fitness system is “the most effective
and easy-to-use home exercise machine that I have ever tried.” One commenter asserted
this would only be deceptive if the actor had not used the machine. The example is
intended to illustrate why this statement is an endorsement and is not intended to address
all the ways the statement could be deceptive or who could be liable for any such
deception. The Commission notes, however, there are multiple ways in which the
statement could be deceptive, including not representing the actor’s actual opinions or
misleading consumers as to the machine’s effectiveness or ease of use.
> But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it.
Yes, they are, they aren’t allowed to fail to disclose the fact of the donation when reviewing it.
> Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious.
The FTC has power to deal with deceptive, not with insidious (the latter is dubious as a power of government at all under the First Amendment, but its clearly not, whether or not within the power of government broadly, not something Congress has by statute assigned to the FTC the way they have dealing with deceptive trade practices.)
Nobody considers a theatrical movie an unbiased review of the products the fictional characters are using.
Half the comments in here are some version of "what we can't review board games now?!?!1" when that's the opposite of the case. The problem is that "content creators" don't want to disclose what they're legally required to.
More than Pepsi; cigarettes. This is the only way tobacco is really allowed to advertise anymore. This is why you see scenes of characters enjoyint cigarettes prominently even though it does nothing to move the story forward.
Plenty of creative people smoke, drink, and engage in other vices. I'm not confident that any significant number of cases that people smoke in media is due to funding from big tobacco. When I would light up on stage and drink some beer during house shows, as a musician, I know I wasn't getting any funding for it. Do you have any articles about big tobacco paying authors, screenwriters, game designers, etc to include cigarettes in their content?
What about capnolagnia (smoking fetish) films and photos -- is the smut industry getting paid off by big tobacco?
> I'm not confident that any significant number of cases that people smoke in media is due to funding from big tobacco.
I’m fairly confident that much of it is, that spending on it is systematically not properly disclosed to the FTC, and that approximately 100% of the cases outside a documentary or newd cobtext involving a recognizable brand are paid (in cash or otherwise) product placement, the last bit the same as with non-tobacco brand placement, and the rest as has been documented through 1994 by internal tobacco documents compared to FTC reports, with no sudden shift after 1994 that would indicate a behavior change.
Let's be fair though, that actually happening in movies has dropped dramatically. So many people I know vape now, and there is basically no way you can make vaping look cool onscreen
> Let's be fair though, that actually happening in movies has dropped dramatically
It has dropped somewhat from the peak in 2005 to a little below the 1991 level by 2016. And we know from comparison of internal tobacco firm documents on product placement with their reports to the FTC that almost half of what the companies internally documented spending on product placement between 1978-1994 (that’s the latest the internal records that have been subject to outside examination go) were not reported to the FTC as spending on paid endorsements as required, and that that includes 100% of product placement spending in that period after 1988. [0]
And, we know that recogbizable branding is still displayed on screen and that with every other categort of goods that invariably, outside of news/documentary context, involves direct or in-kind payment for promotional purposes.
The only reason people think smoking "looks cool" is because of decades of aggressive advertising from cigarette companies, which seeped into the culture.
This is the inexorable mean to which heavy government regulation inexorably regresses: The fantasy that large evildoers will lose some of their ill-gotten gains (for the IRS, billionaires privatizing gains and socializing losses... for the FTC, Pepsi being forced to disclose product placement) faces the brick wall of lawyers and lobbyists. So they aim at "softer targets": hassling middle class tax payers and businesses who don't have those lawyers and lobbyists.
Somehow, at some point in the last few months, I found myself reading a portion of a mid-1960s Federal Register that included capsule summaries of various small-bore enforcement actions the FTC took against misleading advertisers in the prior year - stuff like (and I’m making up illustrative examples here), say, a department store in Kansas City that put out an advertisement that omitted key information about a sale, or a hat-maker in Miami who lied about the origin of the materials he used.
I loved it! I thought it was great that there was a federal agency focused on pro-consumer stuff like this that otherwise falls between the cracks of modern life. I’m glad to hear the mission of the agency remains intact.
“I’d like to see Instagram offer more accurate tags/labels, as there is a literal difference between getting a cardboard box and receiving money to express an opinion, but it will do for now.”
Is it no longer customary to send back or donate a review copy of a product? When I reviewed video games many decades ago, we normally sent back the review copy we (the publication) were provided. For smaller ticket items, like music CDs, I don’t think were were ever required to send those back, but we either donated them or kept them on the publication’s shelves, but individual reviewers were definitely prohibited from keeping any of those as their personal property.
I agree that there’s a distinction between a paid endorsement and reviewing something made freely available, but if there’s any personal benefit accruing to the reviewer, I do think that should be disclosed. And that why I think the absolutely best avoidance of conflicts of interest is to not accept even a review copy that must be later be returned or given away, but to pay for the item like any other consumer, though I acknowledge this is not always practical given publication budgets these days.
For board games, the shipping cost is often significant enough that it's better for the publisher to just let you keep the game than it is to pay for it to be shipped back.
You can look at their website and see some of what they've been up to recently and a lot of it is really good stuff. I just wish they were more aggressive about going after companies ripping people off and that the penalties were actually meaningful. No company should be allowed to get caught over and over again pulling some kind of scam while only getting a slap on the wrist each time.
I'm a pretty big board gamer with a collection somewhere north of 300 games and I feel by and large the influencer community isn't as bad as in other niches. Most people will state very clearly if they got a review copy or have other relations (sometimes they'll review a game from a publisher were they are also publishing a game soon etc.).
Mostly, the good creators are still people who like board games and there's not so many that have more of the "pro influencer" vibe. Not surprisingly, there was a pretty big shitstorm around one of the channels that always seemd super influenc-y recently (don't want to explicitly name it but the channel name related to the typing in Python).
However, I'd argue that board gamers tend to be overly enthusiastic in reviews in general and focus mostly on the positive. We (I'm not a content creator just a player of games) want to like games as a default :D
I'd also say that written text is still quite valuable in board gaming circles with boardgamegeek as the obvious example. At least I tend to research there and get my first contact with new games from Geeklists and the likes rather than from videos.
Apart from review videos, another kind of video is rules explaination (or playthrough) type of videos. These are somtimes payed for because (frankly speaking) the publishers couldn't do it themselves at these price points. To me this is a perfectly fine source of income for youtubers. Some content creators also do this for free anyways but typically these videos are very neutral just focusing on the rules. From a customer's point of view they tend to be quite good to get an impression of the games without any review content.
I think if you search for youtube + (sound of the animal that gave the name to python's "typing"...if it walks like a...) a channelname starting with said sound and ending in "ope" should come up as one of the top channels along with many videos about a certain bag building game named after a city.
While I hardly think it's a "bribe" in the case of board games, I think it's a perfectly reasonable line in the sand to require people to disclose if they've received any compensation for reviewing a product, even if that compensation is just getting a free copy of the game.
I mean, it seems a bit silly to focus on board games, since they're generally pretty cheap, but I've seen videos on YouTube where people review multi-thousand-dollar TVs or computers, and it's unclear if they purchased the item or the company sent it to them.
Even if it's subconscious, I think it might be hard to trash-talk an entity that just gifted you something that you could easily re-sell for several grand.
I think it is still basically a bribe. Like all video game journalists and influences they will receive early copies to make their content. Video game studios don't actually give them money, but early access is what allows these people to make money by having their videos up before the release of the game. If you don't say nice things about them then they stop doing this and your income is cut off.
As far as I'm concerned these reviews are effectively worthless so I don't know how they stay in business.
This has also been a huge problem with hardware reviewers since very few people can afford to buy a new top of the line video card or laptop every week. If the reviewers want to keep getting free goodies to pull ad impressions they can't say anything too mean about the companies giving them free stuff.
Yeah, exactly! If Sony gave a free review copy of their new TV, and I spend my entire review trash-talking it, then Samsung might say "oof, let's not give this guy any review copies".
I think stuff like this is inevitable to some extent, humans gonna human, but I think that the viewers of the video have the right to know about these potential conflicts of interest.
Is it just me, or is this applying a very different standard to influencers compared to traditional media?
> The new guidance makes it clear reviewers and other media creators should clearly disclose when they receive free products or other perks from a company, even if they aren’t specifically asked to mention those products.
...
> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product.
By this standard, if a movie critic for a newspaper watches a pre-release screening of a movie for free, then their review article should state "This is an ad for Paramount Pictures"?
Free copies of games / albums / books / etc for reviewers has been a standard practice for ages as far as I know. Is the FTC challenging this generally? Or is this somehow specific to reviews done via social media?
The FTC has too much time on their hands. they're losing left right and center and are risking irrelevancy. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-07-21/microsoft.... They need to focus on the basics of what their agency is about. In addition there are other enforcement mechanisms including state regulation, private lawsuits, marketplace. We don't need the centralized control of the feds involved in everything.
Doesn't this seem a bit "low stakes" to want more disclosures about? I view it in the same light as say someone who posts makeup reviews or video game reviews on YouTube- often it isn't their primary source of income, and the item value (<$100) seems notional. Maybe it can be treated as more of a deal if a company were to attach stipulations or keywords for the reviewer to mention, at which point it should be treated as a partnership rather than a less-than-impartial review. I subscribe to independent creators on Patreon because bias is nearly impossible to avoid when there's a quid pro quo of getting a stream of free things from companies.
often it isn't their primary source of income, and the item value (<$100)
Neither of these things magically make your review more trustworthy.
Getting free stuff taints your review, and it doesn't matter if it is low value or not. And to be fair: People get their utilities turned off for these amounts. These amounts keep folks from affording medicine. Some of them simply wouldn't be able to review so many games if they didn't get them for free.
People are more likely to view the company favorably if they are getting the product for free - and are likely to review games they wouldn't otherwise review. They should reveal this sort of bias. And it doesn't matter if you are "low stakes" or not.
Many board games are funded through crowdfunding, which regularly reach 7 figures, so there is big money here. There has been controversy recently about YouTube “reviews” of active kickstarters which are actually undisclosed paid promotion, and in one case attempting to extort sponsored videos to prevent release of negative videos instead. So there’s a bit more in this than a free board game.
(Edited from a short “Yes, absolutely” to a direct quote from the ftc document that basically answers this question)
Q: A year ago, I was given a free $60 video game (and
nothing else) in exchange for live streaming my
game play. I still love the game and stream it. Do
I still need to disclose that I got the game for free?
A: How long it would be reasonable for you to make
disclosures really depends on the expectations of
your fans. After some period of time, it probably
wouldn’t matter to them that you got the game for
free. If you’re choosing to play a game a year
after you got it for free, it probably means you
truly like it. The analysis would likely be
different if, instead of a $60 video game, you got
a free $50,000 car and continued to post about it
over the life of the car.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw
I think Benn is above reproach ethically here -- see how much Behringer dislike him -- but I also think he is wrong. The fundamental problem is that if an influencer reviews a product negatively, they'll stop giving him stuff to review, for free, on loan, or whatever, and he'll lose a monetization source. And if he makes a habit of this, vendors may stop sending him stuff out of fear of his reputation. This strongly encourages influencers to provide positive reviews.
Influencers think they get around this ethical conundrum by only reviewing stuff they like and refusing to post negative reviews. But as a result all we get are positive reviews. When synthesizer X has 10 positive reviews and Y has 20, is this because Y is better or because Y got in the hands of more reviewers? We cannot tell. All we have is a sea of thumbs up.