PewDiePie and other YouTubers took money from Warner Bros. for positive game coverage (specifically Shadow of Mordor)

Well I guess it's a good thing PewDiePie doesn't review games. He also did disclose that he was paid to showcase the game, albeit in a way that even he admitted could have been more obvious. He has since promised to do better with disclosure and has been achieving that. As far as the other accused channels go, I have no idea what the cases are for them, but this "story" seems like a pretty clear attempt at clickbait by digging up a two year old (and already known) event and trying to attach a big name to it. Must be a slow news week.

I knew Polygon was slimy but even this is a bit much for them.

Pewdiepie really did lay the smackdown on people with that video, damn.

anything remotely involved with video games just comes off a shill.

I guess the distinction is that commercials are from the company themselves instead of being produced by the celebrity themselves?

The problem with the response video is it includes several factual inaccuracies, see http://venturebeat.com/2016/07/13/pewdiepie-denies-wrongdoing-in-warner-bros-youtube-game-scandal/ or some of the earlier posts here.

PewDiePie gets credit for having some form of a disclaimer, but the media coverage is accurate that he failed to meet FTC guidelines. His belief that the rules don't apply to him because he's not a reviewer is also inaccurate. And yes, he is going to get more attention because he's the biggest name there. Acting indignant and blaming the media because he feels others were worse than him is great, but it's the equivalent of a kid in the principal's officer whining "yeah, but at least I wasn't as bad as HE was."

Ohhhh the outrage!! How could he have said that he enjoyed a game that he only disclosed was sponsored in the description of the video!? Ohhh what a world we live in!! How can we trust anything ever again?! I can't go on knowing that a youtuber got paid to show a game and said he liked it! This is such a travesty! Mankind will never recover from the depths of depravity that this act has dragged us to! Despair! DESPAIR!!

I don't think it matters, and giving this any attention is blowing it out of proportion. But anyway that's just my opinion. I was obviously exaggerating for the above reasons. I guess I just wish people would scrutinise things that actually matter to the same degree they do with video games.

cav829: Pretty much agree with all of this.

Also his arguing that he was not required (at all) to disclose the video in any way but still put in a disclamer goes against the FTC complaint wherein it states that WB instructed the participants to put a disclamer in the video description instead of disclosing in the video itself.

And this shift of focusing the attention instead on news and article headlines is not convincing to me.

Consumer rights is important in individual cases, and as a guiding principle. The democratization of games and other product coverage is a great thing, but it has also made it a whole lot cheaper for companies to form the narrative surrounding their games by spending piddly amounts on many comparatively small influencers. At the same time the power of consumer groups to hold the media accountable is diminished by this decentralization, thus leaving consumers to be misled by PR campaigns instead of informed by an independent media.

That's troubling, and being indicative of the direction the world at large is moving in, it's even more so. But hey, whatever, we could instead just laugh at people for caring about things like some kind of chumps.

I find it easier to believe that PewDiePie didn't know in 2014 that he was supposed to follow the same guidelines mommy bloggers had to follow, than I find it believable that The Verge didn't know exactly how intentionally misleading they were being when they used the word "reviews" in their title to a story about PewDiePie. You know, a guy who doesn't review games.

I made that argument earlier in the thread.

If you tuber specific guidelines weren't created until 2015, posting in the description at all is good enough for me.

Also, while PewDiePie's response video may not have been completely accurate, it was pretty much perfect as a "fuck you" to the mainstream gaming press.

People who keep on trying to demean or otherwise insult Youtubers and/or their fan bases really need to take a moment of reflection and realize what site they are commenting on. Especially if there's a big dumb medal next to their avatar.

Outside of formal written reviews and interviews, 90% of 'traditional games media' very strongly resembles what the kids are doing on Youtube; producing content almost entirely based on personality. Whatever reasoning you might have for watching/listening to the duders would almost be the exact same reasoning why people watch Youtubers.

Edit: "I don't fucking need you", holy shit that was a great line.

@spaceinsomniac: YouTube specific policies aren't necessarily required if the failure to properly disclose already violates FTC standards.

Are users on this site about people playing video games and talking over them still complaining about people on youtube playing games and talking over them?

Christ

And full agreement there. I'm sure he broke FTC standards. My point is I can see PewDiePie not understanding that fact in 2014, and thinking that putting the sponsored video notice in the video description was good enough. Now that you tube specific standards have been created, it would be hard to believe a you tuber still not understanding the issue.

That's especially true for someone like Syndicate from the CSGO controversy, because I believe this is no less than the third time he's been told by the FTC that he violated the law. He probably thought he could get away with it, because he didn't think people would ever realize he was promoting a website that he owned. Unlike Tmartn, it's also probably why he realized immediately the need to keep his fool mouth shut.

Prior to release of any videos TB did a forewarning on Twitter about what he had found out about the brand deals for early copies, which caused a cascade of people opening up. His response to some of the audience's reaction seems rather reminiscent of the discussion recurring right now:

Reading a few forums (yeah I know my mistake) about this whole Shadow of Mordor brand deal thing boggles my mind. There are literally people saying "I don't know what he's complaining about, if he wants it early he has to give something in return". Ermm, the problem is that you can't review, first impressions, critique or whatever this game on PC prior to launch or even on launch (unless you weaseled your way in as we did) if you don't take a deal that specifically says "you can't say bad things". You don't see a problem with that? It is the worst case scenario in which a company withholds review copies to maximise potential exposure while keeping critique at bay, it's about as anti-consumer as it gets. I guess some people are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Of course I can buy it and cover it on release, by which point a bunch of people have already purchased it. Not only do we lose relevance the longer we have to wait but more importantly, consumers end up with less information. We live in a world where some consumers actually want less information it seems and are entirely ok with the first pieces of information to come out being bought and paid for. Heh, I sometimes think the biggest enemy in the battle to protect consumers, are consumers.

He probably spoke in a podcast at length about it (which I cannot find) but I was able to find a couple links to things he said: Kotaku have a pretty good article at the time collating the comments of people. Jim Sterling also made a video about it (which many people reference):

In reference to your last question: the only reason this has been brought up again is because this inquiry by the FTC was finally closed. This was brought up, and talked about extensively, then. It wasn't just found out about now; it's just that bureaucracy takes a very long time.

@grithor: Reminder that FTC policies do not oversee everyone. Having YouTube official requirements which collates the restrictions of many countries (e.g: the FTC in the US or the FCA in the UK) on the disclosure of promotional deals into a single easy-to-understand set of rules is incredibly important in reducing confusion (as well as making it even less valid to argue ignorance). Essentially, the rules someone has to follow are determined the by the country of which they are a registered working citizen, however, I doubt many people could even name the official ombudsman or regulating body they should be looking to for information on regulations where they live. Having it front-and-centre on YouTube also targets those that have the, incorrect, assumption that since the content is on the internet (and thus inherently global), it is independent of the same regulatory bodies which rule over TV, Newspapers, Film, Books etc... in their country.

The Bomb and the Beast. Now that's a pub name if I've ever heard one

@dixavd: That's fair.

@frostyryan: It's totally unfair to generalize the Youtube community for this but it's bound to happen especially when the the one at fault is as monolithic as Pewdiepie is. Also, I think there's a difference between what Giant Bomb does and what typical Youtube game related content is, the major one being that, while the site does feature personalities, the focus remains on games criticism not reactions or unboxings. Equating them to Youtubers is selling the GB crew short.

Such amateurs. At least mainstream site have the sense to hide it as advertising fees. Or speaking fees if you're a Clinton.

Equating you tube and giant bomb isn't selling the GB crew short, but suggesting that the focus of you tube is reactions and unboxings certainly is selling you tube short.

@adequatelyprepared: Except GB doesn't ask for money from publishers for coverage. People like Pewdiepie is just a new version of Billy Mays: Loud, annoying and people for some reason enjoy watching him. Although you could say that Billy Mays was more ethical since it was obvious he was taking money to show off a product.

@spaceinsomniac: As far as I can tell the most popular Youtubers ply their trade primarily as personalities. Reactions and humor are paramount in the clips I've seen of Youtubers like Pewdiepie and Markiplier. The most successful youtubers would provide a pretty decent sample of the overall body of gaming Youtubers wouldn't you say? I imagine there is quite a few imitators in said body. I've never engaged with these channels in any extensive fashion but the clips that I have come across seem to indicate that I'm at least not that off-base or am I completely wrong on this? Also, I have no doubts that there is quality, insightful games coverage on Youtube, but seeing as curation is a nightmare on there I will probably never find it, except for the occasional reference on other sites.

I think there is a slight difference between industry veterans that regularly converse with game developers and have a lot of inside knowledge about the industry as compared to your typical YouTuber. There is no difference between Jeff stating his opinion on a game and me stating my opinion on a game - neither of us would be more right than the other. At the same time there is a huge difference between Jeff's knowledge of the video game industry and my own, and that is something that cannot be understated.

As much as it sucks, the reality is that there are far fewer TotalBiscuits out there than there are channels dedicated to unboxings or putting your face in a corner while watching a trailer of the newest Game of Thrones episode. You need to wade through an incalculably larger volume of pure garbage on YouTube before you hit a good channel than you do in the mainstream games press by virtue of there being so few professionally run media outlets right now. And I mean professional outlets, not GamerZone.fun blogs that basically copy news releases from other sites and post them as their own. Polygon might be a trash site and Arthur Gies should never be paid to write about video games, but Justin McElroy is a treasure.

This is important. When you hear some of the sneering expressed toward "YouTube influencers" from some members of traditional media, it doesn't really strike me as (at least from most) an attempt to say YouTube has no validity as a journalistic medium. For instance, I think we'd all agree Jim Sterling's opinion is held in extremely high regard by members of the gaming press. The thing though is Sterling has earned that trust over time from the way he conducts himself. And just because a Jim Sterling or a Total Biscuit has earned that trust through their own actions doesn't mean YouTube isn't vulnerable to similar issues that have plagued journalism since the beginning of the medium.

A lot of what is going on out there with this discussion is unfortunately ye ol' attempts to reduce complex issues to simplistic talking points so people can pick a side, often whichever one they were predisposed to take based on if you are a fan or not of PewDiePie, if you're a fan or not of Shadow of Mordor, and if you're a fan or not of traditional media. And granted, it's difficult to avoid that trap. Like I've stated I wasn't impressed by PewDiePie's response. I'm not a fan of his videos. The whole "LPers/influencers aren't reviewers" discussion is weirdly obsessed with nomenclature. Remember, Giant Bomb's idea of Quick Looks was to replace in some cases a more formal written review. Just because videos are not labeled reviews doesn't mean they're not a form of review. I've watched plenty of LP videos, and the majority have elements of reviews in them even if the chief goal is entertainment.

With all that said, it's absurd to put him on the same level as GameSpot during Gerstmann-gate or the publications involved in the Driv3r fiasco. I think he did make an attempt to disclose the relationship, and has since gotten better about that. It was an early case of trying to best understand how to disclose these relationships. It is not a Get Out of Jail Free card, but the need for context is there.

Where the response rings tone deaf to me is instead of offering intelligent discourse about why this is a complex issue, PewDiePie pulled a bit of a political misdirection tactic in sending his followers after publications for clickbait reporting. And there's enough of an element of truth about what he said, so if you're looking to justify your previously held opinions about gaming media and PewDiePie, that you can empty your head of the nuance of the discussion and latch on to a more convenient truth. I mean, just look at the comments on that video where his followers thing this is a Hulk Hogan-esque case of slander.

At the end of the day, anyone who looked at gaming media, decided it was corrupt, and went on to believe YouTube personalities would replace the need for professional critics through a more direct, pure experience simply need to be aware that these complex issues will always exist.

What a massive waste of money. That game was good enough that nobody needed paying off.

FYI, Austin Walker just put up his thoughts on the issue.

From Austin's article:

The FTC requires that the video makers include what they call "clear and conspicuous" disclosure of any material connection between the YouTuber and any involved party. This commonly appears as text in a video title or as a spoken or textual display in the video itself.

Instead of demanding steps like these from its sponsored YouTubers, Warner Bros. merely required them to include mention of the sponsorship in the bottom half of the video's info box, appearing "under the fold," where the vast majority of viewers wouldn't see the disclaimer. In some cases, the FTC found that YouTubers only disclosed that they'd received early access to the game, entirely leaving out that the video was paid content. Since Warner Bros. pre-approved each video before it went live, the company can't even plead ignorance.

He makes it sound like the FTC guidelines released in May of last year were in effect in September of 2014 when Pewdiepie made his video.

There were guidelines released in 2009 that were the issue. They were further updated in 2015. Even though the 2015 version of the guidelines does a much better job clarifying and extending upon what they were looking for, Warner, and by extension PewDIePie., was already guilty of violating the basic guidelines established in 2009/2010.

I get that there is a lot of confusion over this as the FTC has been slow to implement, clarify, and rule on early examples of this issue. That just goes back to what I was saying that this is a very complex discussion, and I wish more were looking it as a discussion worth having than trying to assign blame/pick sides. Like for example, Austin brings up the fact content producers like PewDiePie are expected to understand these types of legal issues, whereas with a larger publication like Giant Bomb, they have a legal department or advisor they can go ask if they need clarification on something. Warner did mislead the content producers on YouTube to some degree when they told them "do this" in terms of properly labeling the videos as paid advertisements.

I read through the 2009 guidelines that you linked to, and they merely said that paid endorsements should be clearly disclosed, but it doesn't say how with regard to YouTube videos. The 2015 guidelines do. Pewdiepie didn't obviously violate the 2009 guidelines as he did disclose that it was paid for, but until the 2015 guidelines, the FTC had not said whether or not written disclosure in the description was adequate.

Just a reminder: The FTC action was against Warner Bros., not Pewdiepie. He was mentioned by the FTC, but they haven't accused him of anything.

There are examples of how they were supposed to be disclosed back when they put them out in 2009 (the first link I had like a page ago had some of them), but the 2015 guidelines did clarify them. What PewDiePie did wrong was failing to adequately and properly disclose it because it was not viewable outside of the confines of YouTube. That said, Warner did instruct the various content providers to incorrectly disclose it, and thus the FTC went after them (also PewDiePie is a foreign citizen and thus there are issues with that as well). If PewDiePie and other producers "did nothing wrong," Warner wouldn't have been sanctioned. Who the FTC ultimately held responsible for it is only a part of the issue, thus everyone involved did something wrong, but the FTC only sanctioned Warner.

Again, I think we're too caught up trying to make PewDiePie seem completely guiltless or to roast him, when the reality is it's somewhere in the middle. There's such a thing as an accidental or innocent mistake. There's a reason the FTC gave Warner more of a slap on the wrist, which is they themselves are still figuring this out and the more descriptive guidelines came later. The segment on the Bombcast this week kind of covered this pretty well.

Edit: Here's the analogy I'd offer: an officer pulls you over for speeding and only issues you a warning. You still did something wrong, but the officer made a judgement call based on circumstances not to punish you.

@cav829: I never said that Pewdiepie "did nothing wrong," so I have no idea who you are quoting. I also never said that he is "completely guiltless." I said that the FTC action was against Warner Bros., which is not the same thing as saying that Pewdiepie did nothing unethical.

My bad! Intent sometimes gets lost in text. My apologies.

That's also the downside of these complex conversations. It's so easy to lose context and nuance over text.

@cav829: No worries. We pretty much agree already.

It's a shame because Shadow of Mordor is a great game and really didn't need such shady marketing gimmicks in order for people to talk about it.

Advertising should be disclosed. Clearly. Especially on places like Youtube where it's already so unclear what is someone's genuine opinion, what is entertainment or what is a straight up commercial. People can debate what constitutes an advertisement but in this case I think it's crystal clear. Warner's marketing department paid people to say nice things, disallowed them from saying bad things, and to top it all off barred anyone who wouldn't agree to these terms from covering the game in advance.

Also, what the fuck is up with Warner Bros. Interactive as of late? Seriously, it's become a clearinghouse for Lego games, Batman rehashes and utterly non-functional PC releases.

Shadow of Mordor is quite easily one of the worst games in recent memory. Not exaggerating. I am still thinking that this is all a very elaborate ploy to test me if I'd say something terrible is good if everyone else does. The game has nothing going for it. The world is one of the most bland and empty you can find for a relatively recent game, it lacks any atmosphere whatsoever, has nothing to do in an open world except fight dudes, the combat is downright terrible as it's way too easy, and the most unique feature of the game - the Nemesis system - is virtually nonexistent because you'll never die enough for it to matter at all.

I'll go as far as to say that not only YouTubers were bought, everyone was. This game is so terrible. I've seen games get trashed for literally the same problems. The only problem is that I trust Giant Bomb to not have been bought, so it's a mystery I'll never understand.