6 ms·

I run some product placement / brand awareness stuff with big YouTube gamers (also for gaming hardware, but not Microsoft), and I discussed this directly with A

by corin_ 13y ago

I run some product placement / brand awareness stuff with big YouTube gamers (also for gaming hardware, but not Microsoft), and I discussed this directly with ASA (Advertising Standards Authority in the UK) to ensure we weren't doing anything wrong. We don't instruct our influences that they cannot be negative about our product not instruct them to be positive. We agree how often the products need to be shown, and include a few other things (link to product in description, etc.) ASA's guidance was that for this we do not need to disclose anything about paying these influencers. I pointed out that although we don't specifically give them these instructions, the reality is that if one of them was negative we would kill the deal, and therefore were we essentially breaking the rules and just not putting it in writing - they said that no, we were fine until the first time we kill a deal because they said something negative. At that point on we have set a precedent and will need to have all our influencers disclose that they are being paid by us for these videos. But not until then. Worth noting that our videos are fairly obvious - we generally have a 5 second logo clip that they play, the link in the description goes through what is obviously an adserver (though sometimes via bit.ly) - so we aren't trying hard to hide the fact. Although this was not relevant to ASA's answer to us. Edit: Worth noting I work in Europe only, nothing in the US. Have also checked in Germany/France where we do the same thing, and there they don't seem to care right now, so no issues.

zackbigdog 13y ago
Yup - we encountered the same stuff (great explanation) -- here is an example of something we did for a major brand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAfHi5wF1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAfHi5wF1o
- corin_ 13y ago
  Looking forward to seeing the film come out, and nice job working with Razer on it :)
  - zackbigdog 13y ago
    thanks dude! would love to learn more about your company. maybe there are synergies worth exploring? hit me up on twitter @fireoneout and we can exchange info
eterm 13y ago
That's interesting, I'm surprised ASA are so lenient given that product placement isn't even allowed on UK tv. (Although they are phasing it in).
- corin_ 13y ago
  Actually it's been allowed since 3 years ago (early 2011), except on BBC channels due to their publicly-funded status. There are Ofcom regulations which need to be complied with, which includes preventing it in certain program types (news, children's TV, etc.) I don't work with TV much so I don't have full details on the tip of my tongue, but anyone interested will find it somewhere within The Ofcom Broadcasting Code [1] [1] http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/ http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-code...
  - ekianjo 13y ago
    > except on BBC channels Mmmm... Isn't Top Gear all about product placement?
    - bri3d 13y ago
      Top Gear are pretty aggressive about not shilling for manufacturers (c.f. their frequent off-color jokes associated with certain brands, rigged Tesla and Leaf reviews, etc.) Obviously some manufacturers get a preferential treatment (Land Rover!) in order to keep the presenters in character, but given both the show's success without promotional money and the certain scandal and cancellation of the show (BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product placement) if the producers were to be paid off I highly doubt there's any product placement going on.
      - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
        >BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product placement // You've never seen the Graham Norton Show I take it. It's a thinly veiled infomercial - someone's promoting a book, this persons promoting a movie, this one's selling a new single. When appearing on BBC though, at work, I was not allowed to wear my company uniform tshirt - cause you know not allowed to advertise ...
pbhjpbhj 13y ago
Isn't this equivalent to covert paid reviews which were specifically outlawed by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive IIRC. ... Actually I just looked and in the text of the journal entry in which the UCPD is written out there is at Annex 1 this statement, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:EN:PDF http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2... : "11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial). This is without prejudice to Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)" So? It may well not be contrary to the ASA's rules but it appears to be contrary to European law. [Ratified in a UK Act of 2008 it seems] If you're buying advertising in this manner how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements to prevent them being fraudulent, or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful).
- corin_ 13y ago
  > Isn't this equivalent to covert paid reviews No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products. The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product. Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are. > how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial". > or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful) I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal. In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Section-5-Children.aspx http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S... There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.

by corin_ 13y ago

zackbigdog 13y ago

Yup - we encountered the same stuff (great explanation) -- here is an example of something we did for a major brand https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAfHi5wF1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGAfHi5wF1o

corin_ 13y ago
Looking forward to seeing the film come out, and nice job working with Razer on it :)
- zackbigdog 13y ago
  thanks dude! would love to learn more about your company. maybe there are synergies worth exploring? hit me up on twitter @fireoneout and we can exchange info

eterm 13y ago

That's interesting, I'm surprised ASA are so lenient given that product placement isn't even allowed on UK tv. (Although they are phasing it in).

corin_ 13y ago
Actually it's been allowed since 3 years ago (early 2011), except on BBC channels due to their publicly-funded status. There are Ofcom regulations which need to be complied with, which includes preventing it in certain program types (news, children's TV, etc.) I don't work with TV much so I don't have full details on the tip of my tongue, but anyone interested will find it somewhere within The Ofcom Broadcasting Code [1] [1] http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-codes/broadcast-code/ http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/broadcasting/broadcast-code...
- ekianjo 13y ago
  > except on BBC channels Mmmm... Isn't Top Gear all about product placement?
  - bri3d 13y ago
    Top Gear are pretty aggressive about not shilling for manufacturers (c.f. their frequent off-color jokes associated with certain brands, rigged Tesla and Leaf reviews, etc.) Obviously some manufacturers get a preferential treatment (Land Rover!) in order to keep the presenters in character, but given both the show's success without promotional money and the certain scandal and cancellation of the show (BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product placement) if the producers were to be paid off I highly doubt there's any product placement going on.
    - pbhjpbhj 13y ago
      >BBC especially is definitely not allowed to do that kind of product placement // You've never seen the Graham Norton Show I take it. It's a thinly veiled infomercial - someone's promoting a book, this persons promoting a movie, this one's selling a new single. When appearing on BBC though, at work, I was not allowed to wear my company uniform tshirt - cause you know not allowed to advertise ...

pbhjpbhj 13y ago

Isn't this equivalent to covert paid reviews which were specifically outlawed by the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive IIRC. ... Actually I just looked and in the text of the journal entry in which the UCPD is written out there is at Annex 1 this statement, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2005:149:0022:0039:EN:PDF http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2... : "11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial). This is without prejudice to Council Directive 89/552/EEC (1)" So? It may well not be contrary to the ASA's rules but it appears to be contrary to European law. [Ratified in a UK Act of 2008 it seems] If you're buying advertising in this manner how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements to prevent them being fraudulent, or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful).

corin_ 13y ago
> Isn't this equivalent to covert paid reviews No, because we aren't paying anyone to review products, we are paying people to use products. The ASA's logic is that if we haven't asked people to be positive, or asked them not to be negative, then we aren't using them to "promote" the product, all we're doing is getting them to use the product. Regarding other elements which are more obviously advertisements (e.g. the 5 second clip I mentioned, or the tracked link) these are considered standard and obvious advertising, treated the same way banner adverts are. > how do you control the content of the company sponsored statements I don't pay them to make statements, other than that they are using a certain product. They could say in the video "I'm using product X and it's incredibly shit" without breaching any contract with me. The only sponsored statements we ever work with are on content websites, where we require (and most publishers would insist even if we didn't) that such content be marked as an "advertorial". > or for example being direct advertising to children (also unlawful) I'm no expert in this area as I've never represented a brand that was purposefully targeting children. My target audience is usually 18-35yo men. That said, I believe you are incorrect in saying it would be unlawful - apart from anything, you've surely seen adverts directly aimed at children (toys, etc.), these clearly couldn't be shown if they were illegal. In the UK there are lots of regulations on how you an advertise to children, mostly around ensuring their safety but also making sure advertisers don't take advantage of their under-developed minds. You can read the CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice - sister organisation to the ASA) rules at http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/Section-5-Children.aspx http://www.cap.org.uk/Advertising-Codes/Non-broadcast-HTML/S... There are also products that have stricter rules, for example alcohol - you cannot in the UK advertise on a medium where 25% of more of the audience is under 18 (for example teen magazines, children's TV). I remember once having a client who was advertising spirits across gaming websites, and the solution here was to only show adverts after a self-imposed watershed of 9pm, as this ensured that during the times at which the adverts were shown, the sites had a low percentage of under-18 visitors.