Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post - XBone Vs PS4 Vs PC - VIDEOGAME POLITICS THUNDERDOME - PS4:900p-XBone:720p-PC::smug:

chemgear · 01-20-2014, 02:17 PM

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/0...-one-mentions/

The line between traditional, paid advertising and organic editorial content on the Internet can sometimes be hazy. A recent stealth promotional campaign between Microsoft and Machinima highlights just how hazy that line has become, and how behind-the-scenes payments can drive ostensibly independent opinion-mongering on by users on services like YouTube.

This weekend, word started leaking of a new promotion offering Machinima video partners an additional $3 CPM (i.e., $3 per thousand video views) for posting videos featuring Xbox One content.

These kinds of payments aren't inherently suspect in and of themselves. If the video makers disclosed that Microsoft was paying extra for these videos, and if they were allowed to say whatever they wanted in those videos, then the whole thing could be seen as merely an unorthodox way to increase exposure for the Xbox One on YouTube.

That's not the case, however. According to a leaked copy of the full legal agreement behind the promotion, video creators "may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One, or any of its Games" and must keep the details of the promotional agreement confidential in order to qualify for payment. In other words, to get the money, video makers have to speak positively (or at least neutrally) about the Xbox One, and they can't say they're being paid to do so.

The arrangement as described might go against the FTC's guidelines for the use of endorsements in advertising, which demand full disclosure when there is "a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement." The document offers a specific example of a video game blogger who gets a free game system that he later talks about on his blog. That blogger would need to disclose that gift, the FTC says, because his opinion is "disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious." That same reasoning would seem to apply to the opinions expressed by the video makers participating in this promotion. Neither Microsoft nor Machinima responded immediately to a request for comment on the matter, but we'll let you know if and when we hear from them.

01-20-2014, 02:17 PM	#1912
chemgear Franchise Player Join Date: Feb 2010 Exp:	http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/0...-one-mentions/ The line between traditional, paid advertising and organic editorial content on the Internet can sometimes be hazy. A recent stealth promotional campaign between Microsoft and Machinima highlights just how hazy that line has become, and how behind-the-scenes payments can drive ostensibly independent opinion-mongering on by users on services like YouTube. This weekend, word started leaking of a new promotion offering Machinima video partners an additional $3 CPM (i.e., $3 per thousand video views) for posting videos featuring Xbox One content. These kinds of payments aren't inherently suspect in and of themselves. If the video makers disclosed that Microsoft was paying extra for these videos, and if they were allowed to say whatever they wanted in those videos, then the whole thing could be seen as merely an unorthodox way to increase exposure for the Xbox One on YouTube. That's not the case, however. According to a leaked copy of the full legal agreement behind the promotion, video creators "may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One, or any of its Games" and must keep the details of the promotional agreement confidential in order to qualify for payment. In other words, to get the money, video makers have to speak positively (or at least neutrally) about the Xbox One, and they can't say they're being paid to do so. The arrangement as described might go against the FTC's guidelines for the use of endorsements in advertising, which demand full disclosure when there is "a connection between the endorser and the seller of the advertised product that might materially affect the weight or credibility of the endorsement." The document offers a specific example of a video game blogger who gets a free game system that he later talks about on his blog. That blogger would need to disclose that gift, the FTC says, because his opinion is "disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious." That same reasoning would seem to apply to the opinions expressed by the video makers participating in this promotion. Neither Microsoft nor Machinima responded immediately to a request for comment on the matter, but we'll let you know if and when we hear from them.