2 ms·

I think you don't understand the difference between a press release and an advertisement. This is a press release, the FTC link is about endorsements (which ar

I think you don't understand the difference between a press release and an advertisement. This is a press release, the FTC link is about endorsements (which are advertising). YouTubers would not be required to disclose this.

Someone1234 6y ago
It is an advertisement distributed in the form of a press release (or more accurately a media packet with included script and video content). Using the term "press release" like it is some kind of legal shield is non sequitur. It doesn't matter if the ad is a billboard, graphic, sidewalk spinner, or press release it is still an advert designed to promote Amazon, and an undisclosed one at that. If a YouTuber wasn't required to declare it, that would be wrong too.
- Spivak 6y ago
  Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business without it being an ad by your standard? Like what would a hypothetical press release for the release of the Xbox 360 that isn’t an ad look like?
  - Someone1234 6y ago
    > Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business without it being an ad by your standard? I think you've lost sight of what we're discussing. We're not discussing the morality of press releases, what we're discussing is a THIRD PARTY media organization reading from a script and re-showing video footage sent to them from a company without declaring that they're doing so. It is the repetition without source-context that is the sin, not the original company's media publications. So are Microsoft's press releases about the XBox 360 ads? Yes. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. The "wrong" is a different media company taking that content and repeating it verbatim without declaration or contextualization (e.g. quotation marks). If money (or other benefits) changed hands between the company benefiting and the media company reporting, that only compounds the immorality of it.

Someone1234 6y ago

It is an advertisement distributed in the form of a press release (or more accurately a media packet with included script and video content). Using the term "press release" like it is some kind of legal shield is non sequitur. It doesn't matter if the ad is a billboard, graphic, sidewalk spinner, or press release it is still an advert designed to promote Amazon, and an undisclosed one at that. If a YouTuber wasn't required to declare it, that would be wrong too.

Spivak 6y ago
Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business without it being an ad by your standard? Like what would a hypothetical press release for the release of the Xbox 360 that isn’t an ad look like?
- Someone1234 6y ago
  > Can a company issue a press release talking about their products or business without it being an ad by your standard? I think you've lost sight of what we're discussing. We're not discussing the morality of press releases, what we're discussing is a THIRD PARTY media organization reading from a script and re-showing video footage sent to them from a company without declaring that they're doing so. It is the repetition without source-context that is the sin, not the original company's media publications. So are Microsoft's press releases about the XBox 360 ads? Yes. Is that wrong? Absolutely not. The "wrong" is a different media company taking that content and repeating it verbatim without declaration or contextualization (e.g. quotation marks). If money (or other benefits) changed hands between the company benefiting and the media company reporting, that only compounds the immorality of it.