5 ms·

The joy is, the guys with sponsored videos likely got $100s ($1000s?) of dollars to do their shill review. The guy doing the good review maybe made 10 cents off

The joy is, the guys with sponsored videos likely got $100s ($1000s?) of dollars to do their shill review. The guy doing the good review maybe made 10 cents off the views of his video. Any time the financial incentives of a system encourage negative behavior, it is at least a hint that more regulation is needed. In other media forms, the guy giving the shill would need to say up front "I was paid for this review". On youtube and instagram, I don't think this is the case.

GhostVII 8y ago
The people pushing the gambling site were offered around $100k for the sponsored video. Lots of money to be made when you have millions of subscribers.
wil421 8y ago
I spoke with a guy at a leather shop in Florence. He said all he had to do was give a few leather jackets to instragam or social media models. They would share his name, keep the nice leather products, and he said he could get 100s of orders. The models didn’t even ask for payment. I can’t imagine what the Instagram models and YouTube superstars demand.
- swarnie_ 8y ago
  Other Youtubers have reported being contacted for the Gambling website this thread is based on. Each one reported being offered between 10k and 20k to push this scam. It's speculated the biggest Youtubers pushing this are being paid up to 6 figures.
  - sebtoast 8y ago
    Keemstar said he was offered 100000$ but turned it down. Ricegum said in his followup video that he was offered more since he has more subscribers.
    - swarnie_ 8y ago
      Because of you i know who Ricegum is, you owe me.
      - sebtoast 8y ago
        Very sorry but know you know what kind of individual are popular on the site. Keep that in mind if/when you have kids.
icebraining 8y ago
The regulation exists, at least in the US; the FTC has sent notices to dozens of "influencers" on that regard[1]. I don't think they've fined anyone yet, though. EDIT: I was wrong, they've already charged and settled with two: TmarTn and Syndicate[2]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-s... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/csgo-lotto-owners-settle-ftcs-first-ever-complaint-against https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/csgo-...
- notyourday 8y ago
  Notices are irrelevant. What relevant is the kind of a wine that wipes out 5-10 years of the money influencer made for a single violation. Get a dozen of those and suddenly every infuencer would make 100% sure he or she is playing within the rules.
- whymauri 8y ago
  TmarTn had a crazy good lawyer on that case. The defense was 1) CSGO Lotto was never a gambling site to begin with because you could play for free simply by emailing support, akin to McDonalds Monopoly [0] 2) It was public knowledge that the owners of the corporation were TmarTn and Syndicate. [0] www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2017/12/18/16782124/csgo-lotto-lawsuit-gambling-terms-of-use-tmartn
  - gizmo385 8y ago
    > It was public knowledge that the owners of the corporation were TmarTn and Syndicate. So was the argument here that they expected children and teenagers who were primarily consuming their content to look up the public ownership records of CSGO Lotto? Since they weren't particularly open about their ownership in the videos that they advertised the site in.
    - whymauri 8y ago
      Unironically, it seems so. As disingeneous as it sounds. Pretty horrible people all around.
perfmode 8y ago
How can we increase agreement around what constitutes negative behavior? This is the biggest blocker to effective regulation.
- r00fus 8y ago
  Well we can start with disclosure. If a product was given or money changed hands and it’s not clearly stated on the placement video then if they get caught, massive fines.

GhostVII 8y ago

The people pushing the gambling site were offered around $100k for the sponsored video. Lots of money to be made when you have millions of subscribers.

wil421 8y ago

I spoke with a guy at a leather shop in Florence. He said all he had to do was give a few leather jackets to instragam or social media models. They would share his name, keep the nice leather products, and he said he could get 100s of orders. The models didn’t even ask for payment. I can’t imagine what the Instagram models and YouTube superstars demand.

swarnie_ 8y ago
Other Youtubers have reported being contacted for the Gambling website this thread is based on. Each one reported being offered between 10k and 20k to push this scam. It's speculated the biggest Youtubers pushing this are being paid up to 6 figures.
- sebtoast 8y ago
  Keemstar said he was offered 100000$ but turned it down. Ricegum said in his followup video that he was offered more since he has more subscribers.
  - swarnie_ 8y ago
    Because of you i know who Ricegum is, you owe me.
    - sebtoast 8y ago
      Very sorry but know you know what kind of individual are popular on the site. Keep that in mind if/when you have kids.

icebraining 8y ago

The regulation exists, at least in the US; the FTC has sent notices to dozens of "influencers" on that regard[1]. I don't think they've fined anyone yet, though. EDIT: I was wrong, they've already charged and settled with two: TmarTn and Syndicate[2]. [1] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-staff-reminds-influencers-brands-clearly-disclose https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/04/ftc-s... [2] https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/csgo-lotto-owners-settle-ftcs-first-ever-complaint-against https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2017/09/csgo-...

notyourday 8y ago
Notices are irrelevant. What relevant is the kind of a wine that wipes out 5-10 years of the money influencer made for a single violation. Get a dozen of those and suddenly every infuencer would make 100% sure he or she is playing within the rules.
whymauri 8y ago
TmarTn had a crazy good lawyer on that case. The defense was 1) CSGO Lotto was never a gambling site to begin with because you could play for free simply by emailing support, akin to McDonalds Monopoly [0] 2) It was public knowledge that the owners of the corporation were TmarTn and Syndicate. [0] www.polygon.com/platform/amp/2017/12/18/16782124/csgo-lotto-lawsuit-gambling-terms-of-use-tmartn
- gizmo385 8y ago
  > It was public knowledge that the owners of the corporation were TmarTn and Syndicate. So was the argument here that they expected children and teenagers who were primarily consuming their content to look up the public ownership records of CSGO Lotto? Since they weren't particularly open about their ownership in the videos that they advertised the site in.
  - whymauri 8y ago
    Unironically, it seems so. As disingeneous as it sounds. Pretty horrible people all around.

perfmode 8y ago

How can we increase agreement around what constitutes negative behavior? This is the biggest blocker to effective regulation.

r00fus 8y ago
Well we can start with disclosure. If a product was given or money changed hands and it’s not clearly stated on the placement video then if they get caught, massive fines.