Warner Bros. Paid Popular YouTubers To Post Positive Reviews

[HardOCP News]

It seems that Warner Bros. has come to an agreement with the FTC over paying popular YouTubers for positive reviews. Warner Bros. neither admitted or denied the allegation but did promise to disclose any material connection between anyone promoting its games in the future.

As part of the FTC settlement [PDF], Warner Bros. neither admits nor denies any of the violations alleged in the complaint. The company also avoids any financial penalty. However, the company has agreed to not misrepresent that any gameplay videos disseminated as part of a marketing campaign are independent opinions. Warner Bros. must also clearly and conspicuously disclose any material connection between it and any influencer or endorser promoting its products.

 

[azuza001]

So many comments possible.

 

[Derangel]

Yeah, the PR company WB hired for promotion with Shadows is pretty notorious for being shitty. It would be nice if YTers would stop being equally shit though, it's already hard enough to find people worth a damn on Youtube this just makes it harder.

 

[EvilWays]

Par for the course, sadly.

 

[StryderxX]

Shadow of Mordor was an awesome game so I'm not sure why that PR company had to pull those shenanigans. WB has been on a crash course for a while now. They need to stop all the bad press and get their shit back in order.

 

[westrock2000]

Relatively speaking, I don't see that they did anything wrong here. Deceiving? Yes. But the article gives no example where they actually lied. The complaint was that the YouTube authors placed disclaimers in places that were unlikely to be seen, especially if the video was embedded like here in a forum or on a seperate website.

My problem here is that if the FTC is going to go after Warner Bros for this type of marketing, the FTC really needs to examine modern marketing as a whole. The industry has changed wildly due to the consumer model changing and so called "native ads" or "sponsored content" has become common practice online, in print, on the radio, and on TV.

It even gets worked in seemingly harmlessly where a host will segue into something like how financial times are tough, but they have put their long term stability into gold and then give the name of a very specific company. Make no mistake, these are ads too and they are designed to deceive you just the same.

 

[Derangel]

Relatively speaking, I don't see that they did anything wrong here. Deceiving? Yes. But the article gives no example where they actually lied. The complaint was that the YouTube authors placed disclaimers in places that were unlikely to be seen, especially if the video was embedded like here in a forum or on a seperate website.

My problem here is that if the FTC is going to go after Warner Bros for this type of marketing, the FTC really needs to examine modern marketing as a whole. The industry has changed wildly due to the consumer model changing and so called "native ads" or "sponsored content" has become common practice online, in print, on the radio, and on TV.

It even gets worked in seemingly harmlessly where a host will segue into something like how financial times are tough, but they have put their long term stability into gold and then give the name of a very specific company. Make no mistake, these are ads too and they are designed to deceive you just the same.

It is WB's responsibility to make sure people follow the FTC's guidelines when they hire someone to do promotional work. Every single video also had to be approved by WB, meaning they saw that the disclaimer was violating the standards. In some cases they allowed videos to go out with no disclaimer or pushed down even further in the list, attempting to hide that the video was paid content. The FTC "went after" WB due to numerous complaints from people otherwise they probably wouldn't even have known about it or bothered. It's not like they were even hard on WB. WB basically got scolded and had to promise to do better.

 

[westrock2000]

It is WB's responsibility to make sure people follow the FTC's guidelines when they hire someone to do promotional work. Every single video also had to be approved by WB, meaning they saw that the disclaimer was violating the standards. In some cases they allowed videos to go out with no disclaimer or pushed down even further in the list, attempting to hide that the video was paid content. The FTC "went after" WB due to numerous complaints from people otherwise they probably wouldn't even have known about it or bothered. It's not like they were even hard on WB. WB basically got scolded and had to promise to do better.

Is there a stipulation that says that disclaimers MUST be present in the video itself? The disclaimer was there. Obfuscated, sure, but there none-the-less. That's what I didn't see in the article, that they violated some mandate. If the video is embedded into another webpage, it's out of their hands if the viewer doesn't follow up on it. Kind of like (EXAMPLE) if the New York Times writes a misleading article that someone said something (something taken out of context, etc) and then CNN quotes NYT as their source. So now the CNN viewer sees a referenced source and takes it as true, but both NYT and CNN can wash their hands of any wrong doing because CNN can say well we just quoted what NYT said, and NYT can say well people should have followed up if there was any confusion.

Again if the FTC has a mandate stating that intentions must be stated in the video and I just missed that then I will fully acknowledge their wrong doing.

Yes it's shitty, but people have grown comfortable and assumed that other people would be honest and nice. Warner Bros and this PewDiePie guy are all just trying to make a living and that money has to come from you. Don't forget that.

 

[Derangel]

Is there a stipulation that says that disclaimers MUST be present in the video itself? The disclaimer was there. Obfuscated, sure, but there none-the-less. That's what I didn't see in the article, that they violated some mandate. If the video is embedded into another webpage, it's out of their hands if the viewer doesn't follow up on it. Kind of like (EXAMPLE) if the New York Times writes a misleading article that someone said something (something taken out of context, etc) and then CNN quotes NYT as their source. So now the CNN viewer sees a referenced source and takes it as true, but both NYT and CNN can wash their hands of any wrong doing because CNN can say well we just quoted what NYT said, and NYT can say well people should have followed up if there was any confusion.

Again if the FTC has a mandate stating that intentions must be stated in the video and I just missed that then I will fully acknowledge their wrong doing.

Yes it's shitty, but people have grown comfortable and assumed that other people would be honest and nice. Warner Bros and this PewDiePie guy are all just trying to make a living and that money has to come from you. Don't forget that.

I believe the rule is that the disclaimer has to be clearly stated somewhere that a user would see, so before the "Show More" or stated in the video itself. PewDiePie's isn't that bad, but apparently some people had them way down the list or stuffed into other bits of information where it would be hard to see and some apparently had none at all.

 

[Armenius]

Is there a stipulation that says that disclaimers MUST be present in the video itself? The disclaimer was there. Obfuscated, sure, but there none-the-less. That's what I didn't see in the article, that they violated some mandate. If the video is embedded into another webpage, it's out of their hands if the viewer doesn't follow up on it. Kind of like (EXAMPLE) if the New York Times writes a misleading article that someone said something (something taken out of context, etc) and then CNN quotes NYT as their source. So now the CNN viewer sees a referenced source and takes it as true, but both NYT and CNN can wash their hands of any wrong doing because CNN can say well we just quoted what NYT said, and NYT can say well people should have followed up if there was any confusion.

Again if the FTC has a mandate stating that intentions must be stated in the video and I just missed that then I will fully acknowledge their wrong doing.

Yes it's shitty, but people have grown comfortable and assumed that other people would be honest and nice. Warner Bros and this PewDiePie guy are all just trying to make a living and that money has to come from you. Don't forget that.

If I upload a video to YouTube and that video requires a disclosure, can I just put the disclosure in the description that I upload together with the video?
No, because it’s easy for consumers to miss disclosures in the video description. Many people might watch the video without even seeing the description page, and those who do might not read the disclosure. The disclosure has the most chance of being effective if it is made clearly and prominently in the video itself. That’s not to say that you couldn’t have disclosures in both the video and the description.

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking | Federal Trade Commission

 

[westrock2000]

If I upload a video to YouTube and that video requires a disclosure, can I just put the disclosure in the description that I upload together with the video?
No, because it’s easy for consumers to miss disclosures in the video description. Many people might watch the video without even seeing the description page, and those who do might not read the disclosure. The disclosure has the most chance of being effective if it is made clearly and prominently in the video itself. That’s not to say that you couldn’t have disclosures in both the video and the description.

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides: What People Are Asking | Federal Trade Commission

Those appear to be best practices, which are fine. I'm just not convinced that its law*. My son watches EvanTube and HobbyKids videos all the time on YouTube and I am 100% convinced that they are commercially produced and supported. There is no disclosure in those videos either. So therefor as a consumer I am left to believe that they buy all the stuff on their own dime and doing it just for the funsies.

It's good that Warner Bros. was called out on this, my point was that this type of behavior is rampant in American reviews and advertising right now and it should be addressed on a much broader spectrum.

*Specifically it sounds like a gray area where they did in fact say it was a sponsored product, but maybe not in the best way possible. It's that gray area where the law is questionable. And the fact that Warner Bros wasn't actually penalized in any way makes me think it was borderline legal. Although some might think because they are big label, they get their way.....which is also a valid concern.

 

[Derangel]

Those appear to be best practices, which are fine. I'm just not convinced that its law*. My son watches EvanTube and HobbyKids videos all the time on YouTube and I am 100% convinced that they are commercially produced and supported. There is no disclosure in those videos either. So therefor as a consumer I am left to believe that they buy all the stuff on their own dime and doing it just for the funsies.

It's good that Warner Bros. was called out on this, my point was that this type of behavior is rampant in American reviews and advertising right now and it should be addressed on a much broader spectrum.

*Specifically it sounds like a gray area where they did in fact say it was a sponsored product, but maybe not in the best way possible. It's that gray area where the law is questionable. And the fact that Warner Bros wasn't actually penalized in any way makes me think it was borderline legal. Although some might think because they are big label, they get their way.....which is also a valid concern.

There is some leeway. A company can give product for review without the reviewer needing to disclose it. Ethically they should disclose it, but they are not legally required to. The point at which something goes from providing a product for review and paid advertising isn't really well defined. However in situations like this, the channels were specifically asked to do videos to endorse the product in exchange for a direct payment and being told what they can and cannot do.

 

[westrock2000]

totally totally agree with you. I am just wondering if there was gray area because Youtube is not a traditional single kind of media like TV or radio. You have both the video itself and the descriptive text, both of which are used to convey the purpose of the video (with the emphasis that the entire presentation of the page is the product). It would be good for the FTC to clarify that.

 

[Armenius]

Those appear to be best practices, which are fine. I'm just not convinced that its law*. My son watches EvanTube and HobbyKids videos all the time on YouTube and I am 100% convinced that they are commercially produced and supported. There is no disclosure in those videos either. So therefor as a consumer I am left to believe that they buy all the stuff on their own dime and doing it just for the funsies.

It's good that Warner Bros. was called out on this, my point was that this type of behavior is rampant in American reviews and advertising right now and it should be addressed on a much broader spectrum.

*Specifically it sounds like a gray area where they did in fact say it was a sponsored product, but maybe not in the best way possible. It's that gray area where the law is questionable. And the fact that Warner Bros wasn't actually penalized in any way makes me think it was borderline legal. Although some might think because they are big label, they get their way.....which is also a valid concern.

They were found to have violated the "clear and conspicuous" rule for disclosing endorsements in the Federal Trade Commission Act, which is law. The FAQ I quoted above was part of a guide the FTC put together to specifically aid people and businesses in following the law put forth. The FTC in these guidelines is basically saying that if you don't follow the outlines of the best practices put forth in response to those questions, you could be in violation of the law.

 

[nightfly]

The disclosure has the most chance of being effective if it is made clearly and prominently in the video itself.

Yet, aren't most 'disclosures' always done at the very end, in a low pitch voice, reduced volume level, spoken at, oh, about 10 words a second so no one can understand them? That is the American way of business disclosures, after all. Although, I have heard some buried into the narrative so that it's incomprehensible as well. I've never listened to anything by pewdiepie so I'm not familiar with his rants.

Edit: OK, went to watch his review. Holy crap. This guy is 26 years old? Sounds like he's 13. And he has 46 million people who think he's interesting? Wow has this world turned into crap.