7 ms·

PewDiePie and other YouTubers took money from Warner Bros

89 points by reimertz 10y ago

eganist 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      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 10y ago
        There's a difference between equal and equitable.
  - michaelt 10y ago
    the fines are always less than the gain It's still surprising, because you can buy positive coverage without breaking the letter of the law. You simply don't explicitly say that good coverage = more money, but make sure everyone knows that's how it works. For example, you take out a monthly deal for some standard normal advertising, and if their coverage is negative you stop renewing it. Or you call a press conference at an exotic location and provide free flights and accommodation for select journalists. Who happen to have given you consistently positive coverage in the past.
  - AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
    Reminds me of the rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Coke willingly lies about its calorie count and simply opts to repeatedly pay the fine than correct their label: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/1calorie.asp http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/1calorie.asp
  - mbesto 10y ago
    And almost entirely irreversible.
- kp1234321 10y ago
  That's not what begging the question means.
fhood 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    "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.
epoxyhockey 10y ago
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/warner-bros-settles-ftc-charges-it-failed-adequately-disclose-it https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/warne...
- baldfat 10y ago
  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.
  - Kurtz79 10y ago
    "Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims." Please. Youtubers have only to put "sponsored stream" in the title to remove all doubt and be honest about it. It is a common practice, and many fans are not bothered when it happens, or think less of the youtuber since it is understood their need to monetize. If they purposely accepted a contract that told them to hide the fact that they were being sponsored, they are as reprehensible as WB.
  - lawless123 10y ago
    Poor victims getting their money.
    - baldfat 10y ago
HyperLinear 10y ago
To be honest, kinda strange this news only broke recently. TotalBiscuit/CynicalBrit mentioned this months ago.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Zikes 10y ago
  It made the rounds before, and it's only making the rounds again now due to the FTC's investigation reaching a conclusion.
  - makomk 10y ago
    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.
shiftoutbox 10y ago
No SHIT! I just figured they were reaaally cool and I was super out of touch with kids these days.
whamlastxmas 10y ago
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.
valarauca1 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    >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 10y ago
      So ... the problem integrity. No one ever said that the problem was easy
qwertyuiop924 10y ago
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 10y ago
  As he was formerly a lawyer (in the UK) I find TotalBiscuit's commentary to be particularly informative about such things.
  - qwertyuiop924 10y ago
    About the legality, yes. But Jim covered the actual issues in a lot more depth, as he could actually disclose what the contract said.
derek80t 10y ago
The main question is another one. YOU, in the same posizione, what kind of behavior would you have? Please be honest :)
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
- DanBC 10y ago
  There are, however, rules against them taking the money and not disclosing it adequately, which is what this case is about.
jknoepfler 10y ago
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 10y ago
  > 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.
lisa_henderson 10y ago
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.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- makomk 10y ago
  It already has been - GamerGate were the ones who originally broke this story almost two years ago. (More specifically, TotalBiscuit broke it and was officially a GG supporter, and most of the initial coverage came from GG circles. The mainstream gaming press only noticed a week or two later.) Though I think a lot of the interest was in an aspect that isn't mentioned here: Warner Bros also refused to give review codes to YouTubers outside of the paid promotional scheme, so essentially all of the initial YouTube coverage was by people with paid contracts that forbade them from saying or showing anything negative.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  Please don't post flamebait like this on HN.
  - lisa_henderson 10y ago
    How is this flamebait? This is a legitimate question.
    - mzw_mzw 10y ago
      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.
interdrift 10y ago
That's totally inaccurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8
- hokkos 10y ago
  The pew die pie video is more misleading and inaccurate than this article : >THE FTC SAYS DISCLAIMERS IN THE YOUTUBE DESCRIPTION WERE NOT ENOUGH
notsorelevant 10y ago
Companies paying "influencers" to promote their product without disclosure that they are being compensated is all over social media. I have friends in the fashion world and they often get solicitations from beauty bloggers that ask for free product samples and some monetary compensation to post images and reviews of the product to their large follower base on Instagram or Snapchat. One food blogger I've talked with gets upwards of $2k for an Instagram post of their meal from restaurants that are attempting to attract customers. I have no problem with this arrangement as long as their is disclosure that the "influencers" are being paid for reviews and posts.
benten10 10y ago
This issue seems OK-ish important, but beware the incoming "but it's about ethics in game journalism" brigade!
reimertz 10y ago
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.

89 points by reimertz 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  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 10y ago
    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 10y ago
      There's a difference between equal and equitable.
- michaelt 10y ago
  the fines are always less than the gain It's still surprising, because you can buy positive coverage without breaking the letter of the law. You simply don't explicitly say that good coverage = more money, but make sure everyone knows that's how it works. For example, you take out a monthly deal for some standard normal advertising, and if their coverage is negative you stop renewing it. Or you call a press conference at an exotic location and provide free flights and accommodation for select journalists. Who happen to have given you consistently positive coverage in the past.
- AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
  Reminds me of the rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Coke willingly lies about its calorie count and simply opts to repeatedly pay the fine than correct their label: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/1calorie.asp http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/1calorie.asp
- mbesto 10y ago
  And almost entirely irreversible.
kp1234321 10y ago
That's not what begging the question means.

fhood 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  "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.

epoxyhockey 10y ago

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

baldfat 10y ago
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.
- Kurtz79 10y ago
  "Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims." Please. Youtubers have only to put "sponsored stream" in the title to remove all doubt and be honest about it. It is a common practice, and many fans are not bothered when it happens, or think less of the youtuber since it is understood their need to monetize. If they purposely accepted a contract that told them to hide the fact that they were being sponsored, they are as reprehensible as WB.
- lawless123 10y ago
  Poor victims getting their money.
  - baldfat 10y ago

HyperLinear 10y ago

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

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Zikes 10y ago
It made the rounds before, and it's only making the rounds again now due to the FTC's investigation reaching a conclusion.
- makomk 10y ago
  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.

shiftoutbox 10y ago

No SHIT! I just figured they were reaaally cool and I was super out of touch with kids these days.

whamlastxmas 10y ago

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.

valarauca1 10y ago

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 10y ago
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 10y ago
  >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 10y ago
    So ... the problem integrity. No one ever said that the problem was easy

qwertyuiop924 10y ago

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 10y ago
As he was formerly a lawyer (in the UK) I find TotalBiscuit's commentary to be particularly informative about such things.
- qwertyuiop924 10y ago
  About the legality, yes. But Jim covered the actual issues in a lot more depth, as he could actually disclose what the contract said.

derek80t 10y ago

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

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

DanBC 10y ago
There are, however, rules against them taking the money and not disclosing it adequately, which is what this case is about.

jknoepfler 10y ago

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 10y ago
> 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.

lisa_henderson 10y ago

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.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
makomk 10y ago
It already has been - GamerGate were the ones who originally broke this story almost two years ago. (More specifically, TotalBiscuit broke it and was officially a GG supporter, and most of the initial coverage came from GG circles. The mainstream gaming press only noticed a week or two later.) Though I think a lot of the interest was in an aspect that isn't mentioned here: Warner Bros also refused to give review codes to YouTubers outside of the paid promotional scheme, so essentially all of the initial YouTube coverage was by people with paid contracts that forbade them from saying or showing anything negative.
mzw_mzw 10y ago
Please don't post flamebait like this on HN.
- lisa_henderson 10y ago
  How is this flamebait? This is a legitimate question.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    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.

interdrift 10y ago

That's totally inaccurate. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8

hokkos 10y ago
The pew die pie video is more misleading and inaccurate than this article : >THE FTC SAYS DISCLAIMERS IN THE YOUTUBE DESCRIPTION WERE NOT ENOUGH

notsorelevant 10y ago

Companies paying "influencers" to promote their product without disclosure that they are being compensated is all over social media. I have friends in the fashion world and they often get solicitations from beauty bloggers that ask for free product samples and some monetary compensation to post images and reviews of the product to their large follower base on Instagram or Snapchat. One food blogger I've talked with gets upwards of $2k for an Instagram post of their meal from restaurants that are attempting to attract customers. I have no problem with this arrangement as long as their is disclosure that the "influencers" are being paid for reviews and posts.

benten10 10y ago

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

reimertz 10y ago

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.