12 ms·

FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

158 points by webmaven 3y ago

edwardsydney0 3y ago
[dead]
ennisdouglas88 3y ago
[dead]
productizeme93 3y ago
> 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.
- boondoggle16 3y ago
  This, more rules for thee but not for me. 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.
  - greenthrow 3y ago
    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.
    - k_roy 3y ago
      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
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > 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. [0] https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kd981j3 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kd981j3
      - TillE 3y ago
        The only reason people think smoking "looks cool" is because of decades of aggressive advertising from cigarette companies, which seeped into the culture.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Decades? Try a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
- manuelabeledo 3y ago
  > Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Don’t they disclose this in the credits?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - jxf 3y ago
    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.
    - autoexec 3y ago
      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.
- patmorgan23 3y ago
  Movies don't hold themselves out as an unbiased reviewer.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- rtpg 3y ago
  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).
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >The Sony Ericson phone being in Bond is not the same as a phone review saying "you should buy this" Yeah, it's worst, because it's a psychological manipulative tactic.
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      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.
      - pawelmurias 3y ago
- 8note 3y ago
  The relevant Tom Scott video: https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
- HWR_14 3y ago
  > 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
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >Near the end of the credits “But the plans were on display…” “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
    - s1artibartfast 3y ago
      They are entirely different concerns. What is the false advertising when James Bond uses a Sony?
      - coldtea 3y ago
        "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".
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      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.
- teej 3y ago
  Classic HN “what about” that’s completely wrong and voted to the top.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    That sounds like a shallow dismissal to me. We got rules against that around here, bud. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jallen_dot_dev 3y ago
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.
- Xeoncross 3y ago
  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.
  - phnofive 3y ago
    Yes, it's fine to do that; the videomaker just needs to disclose it.
  - satvikpendem 3y ago
    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.
    - dawnerd 3y ago
      And reviewers are afraid to lose their freebies so will hold back negative statements or soften them.
      - getwiththeprog 3y ago
        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.
mjfl 3y ago
[flagged]
langsoul-com 3y ago
I wonder if that also applies to game reviewers or let's play YouTubers.
- cwillu 3y ago
  (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.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorse...
- mkesper 3y ago
  Definitely. Look what Benn Jordan has to say about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw
tombert 3y ago
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.
- Xeoncross 3y ago
  > might be hard to trash-talk an entity that just gifted you... ...several grand Yes, especially if you want companies to follow suit.
  - tombert 3y ago
    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.
    - stOneskull 3y ago
      don't trash talk it. be honest. constructive criticism will be appreciated.
- izzydata 3y ago
  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.
gammarator 3y ago
Everyone’s getting payola from Big UNO: https://www.vulture.com/article/uno-taylor-swift-beyonce-why.html https://www.vulture.com/article/uno-taylor-swift-beyonce-why...
nocoiner 3y ago
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.
- nocoiner 3y ago
  One additional thought, on an item FTA: “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.
  - Operyl 3y ago
    Typically no, unless the item was of substantial value (1k+) it’s usually just left with the reviewing party.
  - chasontherobot 3y ago
    hard to donate a used steam key
coldtea 3y ago
>FTC warns influencers over failing to properly disclose free board games This is so partial and tip-of-the-iceberg of what things influencers don't "properly disclose", that it's beyond stupid to single out.
erik 3y ago
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?
- dagmx 3y ago
  You’re meant to disclose that you were sent samples for review or saw a movie at a pre screening or had an early game access as well. Many do fail to do so, but it varies how much people will go after it.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  One bellwether for a bad film that the studio knows is bad: not released to critics in pre-screenings. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotScreenedForCritics https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotScreenedForCr...
kregasaurusrex 3y ago
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.
- batiudrami 3y ago
  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.
- Broken_Hippo 3y ago
  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.
manicennui 3y ago
Now go after more impactful industries.
- stOneskull 3y ago
  step by step
Ekaros 3y ago
I would not be too vary of free games provided. I think that is so common already that it should not affect perspective between products. On other hand any sort of other monetary compensation or personal connections or involvement should be much more scrutinized and public. I think we should even start to implement system where the compensation paid for sponsorship spot and so on should be presented with the add.
SeanLuke 3y ago
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw 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.
- nicolaslem 3y ago
  > 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.
  - z3c0 3y ago
    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.
- Sosh101 3y ago
  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).
kriro 3y ago
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.
- n2dasun 3y ago
  I'm a fellow board gaming zealot and now I'm wondering which channel you're talking about
  - kriro 3y ago
    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. Sorry for being so cryptic :D
    - 3y ago
KrugerWolf 3y ago
[dead]
josephd79 3y ago
So if I post a picture online of a product it means i endorse it? wtf, am I reading that right? I get that there should be some disclosures, not saying that people shouldn't have to do that upfront.
sam345 3y ago
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-activision-antitrust-win-raises-m-a-revival-hopes#xj4y7vzkg 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.

158 points by webmaven 3y ago

edwardsydney0 3y ago

[dead]

ennisdouglas88 3y ago

[dead]

productizeme93 3y ago

> 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.

boondoggle16 3y ago
This, more rules for thee but not for me. 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.
- greenthrow 3y ago
  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.
  - k_roy 3y ago
    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
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > 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. [0] https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kd981j3 https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kd981j3
    - TillE 3y ago
      The only reason people think smoking "looks cool" is because of decades of aggressive advertising from cigarette companies, which seeped into the culture.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        Decades? Try a century: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Don’t they disclose this in the credits?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- jxf 3y ago
  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.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    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.
patmorgan23 3y ago
Movies don't hold themselves out as an unbiased reviewer.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
rtpg 3y ago
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).
- coldtea 3y ago
  >The Sony Ericson phone being in Bond is not the same as a phone review saying "you should buy this" Yeah, it's worst, because it's a psychological manipulative tactic.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    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.
    - pawelmurias 3y ago
8note 3y ago
The relevant Tom Scott video: https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w https://youtu.be/L-x8DYTOv7w
HWR_14 3y ago
> 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
- coldtea 3y ago
  >Near the end of the credits “But the plans were on display…” “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
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    They are entirely different concerns. What is the false advertising when James Bond uses a Sony?
    - coldtea 3y ago
      "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".
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    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.
teej 3y ago
Classic HN “what about” that’s completely wrong and voted to the top.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  That sounds like a shallow dismissal to me. We got rules against that around here, bud. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jallen_dot_dev 3y ago

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.

Xeoncross 3y ago
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.
- phnofive 3y ago
  Yes, it's fine to do that; the videomaker just needs to disclose it.
- satvikpendem 3y ago
  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.
  - dawnerd 3y ago
    And reviewers are afraid to lose their freebies so will hold back negative statements or soften them.
    - getwiththeprog 3y ago
      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.

mjfl 3y ago

[flagged]

langsoul-com 3y ago

I wonder if that also applies to game reviewers or let's play YouTubers.

cwillu 3y ago
(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.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorse...
mkesper 3y ago
Definitely. Look what Benn Jordan has to say about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw

tombert 3y ago

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.

Xeoncross 3y ago
> might be hard to trash-talk an entity that just gifted you... ...several grand Yes, especially if you want companies to follow suit.
- tombert 3y ago
  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.
  - stOneskull 3y ago
    don't trash talk it. be honest. constructive criticism will be appreciated.
izzydata 3y ago
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.

gammarator 3y ago

Everyone’s getting payola from Big UNO: https://www.vulture.com/article/uno-taylor-swift-beyonce-why.html https://www.vulture.com/article/uno-taylor-swift-beyonce-why...

nocoiner 3y ago

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.

nocoiner 3y ago
One additional thought, on an item FTA: “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.
- Operyl 3y ago
  Typically no, unless the item was of substantial value (1k+) it’s usually just left with the reviewing party.
- chasontherobot 3y ago
  hard to donate a used steam key

coldtea 3y ago

>FTC warns influencers over failing to properly disclose free board games This is so partial and tip-of-the-iceberg of what things influencers don't "properly disclose", that it's beyond stupid to single out.

erik 3y ago

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?

dagmx 3y ago
You’re meant to disclose that you were sent samples for review or saw a movie at a pre screening or had an early game access as well. Many do fail to do so, but it varies how much people will go after it.
NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
One bellwether for a bad film that the studio knows is bad: not released to critics in pre-screenings. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotScreenedForCritics https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NotScreenedForCr...

kregasaurusrex 3y ago

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.

batiudrami 3y ago
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.
Broken_Hippo 3y ago
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.

manicennui 3y ago

Now go after more impactful industries.

stOneskull 3y ago
step by step

Ekaros 3y ago

I would not be too vary of free games provided. I think that is so common already that it should not affect perspective between products. On other hand any sort of other monetary compensation or personal connections or involvement should be much more scrutinized and public. I think we should even start to implement system where the compensation paid for sponsorship spot and so on should be presented with the add.

SeanLuke 3y ago

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw 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.

nicolaslem 3y ago
> 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.
- z3c0 3y ago
  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.
Sosh101 3y ago
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).

kriro 3y ago

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.

n2dasun 3y ago
I'm a fellow board gaming zealot and now I'm wondering which channel you're talking about
- kriro 3y ago
  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. Sorry for being so cryptic :D
  - 3y ago

KrugerWolf 3y ago

[dead]

josephd79 3y ago

So if I post a picture online of a product it means i endorse it? wtf, am I reading that right? I get that there should be some disclosures, not saying that people shouldn't have to do that upfront.

sam345 3y ago

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-activision-antitrust-win-raises-m-a-revival-hopes#xj4y7vzkg 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.