Yes, but that's not what this seems to be saying.
Disclosing that you received an item for review is one thing. This seems to say that all reviews are now essentially ads if you received the product for free.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
FTC:Game journalists/influencers who get free stuff & post about it must specify #ad
- Thread starter Nirolak
- Start date
Yes, but that's not what this seems to be saying.
Disclosing that you received an item for review is one thing. This seems to say that all reviews are now essentially ads if you received the product for free.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
This falls under the 'All press is good press' type of advertising. People are sometimes interested in things that people call bad. I know I am. I checked out Freddy Got Fingered because it was being trashed by critics. If it wasn't for that advertising, I never would have purchased a copy of what is now one of my favorite comedies.
This is why you're not a critic. Putting aside that isolated examples of people being attracted to bad games are not representative of how people overall react to negative reviews (I doubt Sonic Boom, Ride to Hell: Retribution and Homefront: The Revolution made those titles the blockbuster hits they a-oh, right), a reviewer/critic's job is to inform their audience.of a game's quality or lack thereof based on their own experience. It is not specifically designed to get one to buy a given product outside of, again, isolated examples where coverage was intended to be a positive piece of media made to encourage one to buy a product (#XB1, Shadows of Mordor, etc.). Going by your logic, no one should ever be critical or thoughtful of a piece of media because someone might be interested in the content they describe.
Arthr2ShdsJcksn
Banned
My logic is that I agree that if you get given a copy of something, and produce content of any kind, you should divulge it, and it is advertising, regardless of your intent.
Now if you are actually producing critical or thoughtful content about that game/movie whatever, your work may have value on its own content, but it still functions as a type of advertising, and I think advertising critics should have to divulge if they got something for free. If your writing/criticism is good enough, people will learn to trust you regardless. I still adore the writing/criticism of Roger Ebert, and I doubt he paid for many movie tickets.
The bigger outlets will probably be protected and potentially raise some legal challenges.
YTers can probably forget it though.
Foxy the Fox
Member
Ehhh, as someone who does freelance reviews for various LATAM sites I get lots of games for free and still roast the ones I need the roast.
The free games are just a way to save us the hassle to buy them for the review, I don't think there is a reviewer new enough to give a score boost just because the got the game for free.
The free games are just a way to save us the hassle to buy them for the review, I don't think there is a reviewer new enough to give a score boost just because the got the game for free.
Shadowhaxor
Member
First off, what is LATAM? Secondly, there shouldn't be anyone who gets a game/item for free and gives it a positive review - just because. I don't know how many games I've flamed for being crap and I tell my team this constantly. If the game is bad, be honest and tell the readers this. If the company gets mad, they should learn to take the constructive feedback.
Back to the topic, here's where I stand. If I get said item for free and I review it, I feel obligated to inform that this was given to me for free. We already know that some think that getting stuff for free is an instant "must buy" and that's wrong. Hell, it's not even contained to small sites - bigger sites have been guilty of this in the past. Some still are. Being upfront about it and letting people see that you aren't giving a game "high marks" because you got it for free speaks volumes. Of course, when you do rate something positive, you can't stop those who think otherwise.
LATAM = Latin American, I think.
Couple things that are incorrect have been posted in this thread:
If someone buys a game to review and is reimbursed, it is only an ad if they are reimbursed by someone connected to the game company. If they are reimbursed by their company, that is a business expense -- their job is to review, so their company buys the game. Not the same thing.
Reputable restaurant critics do not get free food. They enter like a regular customer with a dinner party, order, and pay.
If someone buys a game to review and is reimbursed, it is only an ad if they are reimbursed by someone connected to the game company. If they are reimbursed by their company, that is a business expense -- their job is to review, so their company buys the game. Not the same thing.
Reputable restaurant critics do not get free food. They enter like a regular customer with a dinner party, order, and pay.
Quoting this again because it is incredibly clear that people in this thread are not reading it.
Nope. The bolded would actually help bigger outlets and reduce the number of hobbyists. It would be an advantage/protection for actual media outlets and it would be a downer for "influencers."
Getting games for "free" doesn't really save any expense for a company. And major outlets will just buy what they don't get sent.
Staff reviewers aren't paying for games anyway. The games are either bought or sent to the outlet, and then assigned to a reviewer to write up.
What is there to challenge?
"Free" games were always a timing thing for major outlets, because of the whole print lead time. Games were sent w/o retail packaging because they needed to be written up in advance so that reviews were timely.
When websites reduced lead time, retail copies were just sent instead because the lead time wasn't needed.
If anything, the requirement to purchase would be a hassle on the publishers rather than the media outlets. Media outlets care about access. They don't care about $50-70 a pop for game costs. Doubly so it if cuts down on the semi-pro competition that can't afford to pay for those costs.
I think folk are getting a bit caught up in semantic dissection. The FTC is obviously pushing an informational campaign regarding the dangers of sponsored online content posing as objective criticism - really great thing to see them taking the initiative on. The language they're using in related media is meant to convey those dangers as clearly as possible. You can trust that the actual written law and policy behind the FTC's actions is much more nuanced and specific than what they're saying in a Q&A, on Twitter, or briefly during a video.
So when they're saying "everything listed here is an advertisement and must disclose" you can trust that "advertisement" is a blanket term, a simplification, meant to address what can typically be a very complicated concept.
You've got to recognize that the FTC is only so big and policing this craziness is pretty far beyond them. Their enforcement focuses on legally actionable cases with measurable, provable punitive damages. For everything else, the FTC does its best job to inform consumers on what they should expect of Youtubers, Streamers, and yeah even reviewers. And the best way to do that is to keep it simple.
There's nothing to really indicate there's going to be a crackdown on Youtubers. There's no changes in policy. They're just doing an informational campaign to help everyone know when things are fishy so they can make smart decisions.
No need to google the legal definition of advertisment and what it means for IGN. Review sites should be disclosing review copies of games, travel and lodgings for review events, promotional goodies, and all that shit already. And if not, well, now you know that it's bad and maybe you should trust that outlet a little less. There are a lot of great sites that do the right thing and disclose that deserve your attention more. And frankly, review sites are the least of the issue when it comes to failure to disclose. Twitch and Youtube are the wild west when it comes to disclosure. It's like how TV channel shopping networks take advantage of the elderly, only marketing teams are using influencers to target your kids watching Minecraft and Five Nights at Freddy's videos.
So when they're saying "everything listed here is an advertisement and must disclose" you can trust that "advertisement" is a blanket term, a simplification, meant to address what can typically be a very complicated concept.
You've got to recognize that the FTC is only so big and policing this craziness is pretty far beyond them. Their enforcement focuses on legally actionable cases with measurable, provable punitive damages. For everything else, the FTC does its best job to inform consumers on what they should expect of Youtubers, Streamers, and yeah even reviewers. And the best way to do that is to keep it simple.
There's nothing to really indicate there's going to be a crackdown on Youtubers. There's no changes in policy. They're just doing an informational campaign to help everyone know when things are fishy so they can make smart decisions.
No need to google the legal definition of advertisment and what it means for IGN. Review sites should be disclosing review copies of games, travel and lodgings for review events, promotional goodies, and all that shit already. And if not, well, now you know that it's bad and maybe you should trust that outlet a little less. There are a lot of great sites that do the right thing and disclose that deserve your attention more. And frankly, review sites are the least of the issue when it comes to failure to disclose. Twitch and Youtube are the wild west when it comes to disclosure. It's like how TV channel shopping networks take advantage of the elderly, only marketing teams are using influencers to target your kids watching Minecraft and Five Nights at Freddy's videos.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Review copy provided by PlayStation - Jones
Just checked, this has been the case since October 2009, when the FTC revised their guides for endorsements:
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...al-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials
edit: so yeah, if a reviewer, streamer, youtuber, blogger or w/e received a free game it needs to be disclosed.
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/pre...al-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials
edit: so yeah, if a reviewer, streamer, youtuber, blogger or w/e received a free game it needs to be disclosed.
CamHostage
Member
Also, unless you are an independent entity, if the company doesn't provide the game free, your business will expense it, so it's not coming out of your pocket that way either. And even if you are self-employed, you write off games you buy as business expenses (though it still hurts.)
So I've never been clear what audiences believe the difference is to a reviewer? (Bad writers may potentially take it out on a company if it doesn't provide copy, but not because they have to pay for it, instead because not getting a copy early screws up the review plan and causes the content to go up late.) But it's good practice, even if to me it's a null issue as far as what the press should be criticized/scrutinized on.
If not on the review itself, I believe many if not all professional review sites have a blanket disclaimer in their Review Policy or Ethics Statement or somewhere stating, "Companies send us stuff for free to work with."
Though that's on their site; I'm not sure if I've seen disclaimers (either from pro or am reviewers) on Youtube? When it's written, it's easy to write it somewhere it can be found, but it's an easy thing to neglect in video and not something a site would put in its About page. YT doesn't have much disclaimer functionality that I know of, it might be smart to add it since even the pros may skirting FTC violations and not even be thinking about it.
When I was involved with reviews at a site, we started posting these citations, and instead of clearing the air, we saw on boards and comments an increase of complaints about privilege and influence. There might also have been more respondents quoting the citation text to try and say, "Hey dude, they JUST told you exactly what's going on, why you acting like they're hiding and shady?", but in general, bringing to light the business practices made people more likely to complain about those business practices, not less, whether they were fair practices or otherwise. Try to explain yourself and you only dig your grave deeper.
But complainers are going to complain. The problem is, gauging contentment is much harder. If there was a larger value in the community being informed and secured by the knowledge from these citations, it's not something that would show up in any metrics, so I'm not sure if anybody knows if they work or not on a macro level. Ideally, it does more good than harm.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
As I understand it from the FTC's site, when it was first rolled out #ad was just a suggestion or example of a way to denote a promotion. Handy since it didn't take up much space in a tweet's character limit.
Noting that the review copy was furnished by the company that made it would accomplish the same thing.
Foxy the Fox
Member
Latam is Latin America.
And I agree with you, usually the ones that gets kinda mad at bad reviews are the newbies in the PR business. A couple of times I didn't get invited to some events because I gave a bad review to another game from the same company.
Yes they should. It's the same stuff. It's still an advertisement.
Yes. You are being offered a gift in exchange for your review. Is ethics really that hard? This needs to go beyond gaming and fall under movies, books, food etc.
Some of these posts are just getting...embarrassing in terms of the ignorance on display.
It's called "being able to do your job without having to rush out a hot take the instant you see the film/play the game/use the latest L'Oreal shampoo". Getting that review copy or attending that press screening isn't just a "free game" as many people have described it in this thread, it allows reviewers the opportunity to work on their piece without worrying about competition from other writers/sites due to a shared embargo date (assuming no one breaks it of course, or that the embargo conditions aren't inherently restrictive about what can/can't be discussed).
Oh, and one more thing: Not all game companies let you keep your review copy. Ex: Nintendo, up until recently (at least NoC) would have you either return the game or pay the MSRP to keep the game.
It's called "being able to do your job without having to rush out a hot take the instant you see the film/play the game/use the latest L'Oreal shampoo". Getting that review copy or attending that press screening isn't just a "free game" as many people have described it in this thread, it allows reviewers the opportunity to work on their piece without worrying about competition from other writers/sites due to a shared embargo date (assuming no one breaks it of course, or that the embargo conditions aren't inherently restrictive about what can/can't be discussed).
Oh, and one more thing: Not all game companies let you keep your review copy. Ex: Nintendo, up until recently (at least NoC) would have you either return the game or pay the MSRP to keep the game.
CamHostage
Member
Well, I do think if there was some weird way of purchasing product ahead of release by flashing credentials, major sites would do that and scratch off this aspect of the ethics debate.
Would that work? I don't know (plus it's an imaginary plan outside of the digital market.) It'd remove the benefit of getting the game for "free", but you're still "privileged" to the early access and the benefit of profiting off of the product. In the hardware space, reviewers often have to return the unit after review, but that still doesn't eliminate the wow-factor of having a $300,$800, $1000, maybe even more-costing product show up in your mailbox, before anybody else in the world can touch it. And to a professional reviewer, everything is "free" because either the company sends it or his company expenses it, either way it's not affecting their paycheck (in the corporate world, at least, whoever those guys still are,) so then the question becomes whether the "company" become compromised because Gamespot's CEO sees the bill or IGN's AP department has to write off the business expenses or Polygon's Marketing department must drum up enough business to pay those bills, does that ultimately trickle down to the Reviewer? Are we worried about the ethics of a company or of a person?
There's plenty to the job of a reviewer where it all is "just a job". Where you get old and jaded enough that a product gamers are craving shows up and you go, "eh fuck, now I gotta play this damned thing for hours and hours...". Where you scoff at how the outside world sees you as enjoying the spoils of free software and hardware and swag and drinking nights out and handshakes with famous creators/stars and such, because you're looking at it all as just work to do and time eaten out of your homelife and brickabrak in your pile and just all stuff you don't attach such value and emotion to... But on the flip side, these companies wouldn't give this stuff away (free or otherwise) if they didn't believe it pays off for them in the end.
Bottom line in this whole thing, for me, is that you cannot remove the human element from journalism and reviewing product.
You can train reviewers, you can establish practices that establish safeguards, you can have watchdogs shame those for ugly behavior, but some utopian idea of unbreachable ethics just doesn't exist. Even homespun user reviewers have influences and practices that could be questioned. Concerned reviewers simply must lay out their approach, become aware of pitfalls, consider what's respectful of their audience, and approach their material with honesty and personal integrity; if consumers find you to be below their standards in this, they are free to leave and you are responsible for your failure. I don't believe there is a "do it right", only "do it the best you can", and let those with the best methods and best product rise to the top. Hopefully...
Sounds weird to me that review games but still
I have no issue is specifying if the review copy was sent out for free
A streamer I watch recently agreed to do three one-hour-long sponsored streams of H1Z1 and was required to put #ad in the stream name.
He said he could not disclose what the terms of the agreement were beyond that they were sponsored and he was required to put #ad in the stream title.
I now understand why he was required to do this, but I am still curious what kind of kickback he was getting since he was already a well known H1Z1 player so it's not like he got a free copy of the game.
He said he could not disclose what the terms of the agreement were beyond that they were sponsored and he was required to put #ad in the stream title.
I now understand why he was required to do this, but I am still curious what kind of kickback he was getting since he was already a well known H1Z1 player so it's not like he got a free copy of the game.
Haunted
Member
This would only apply to you if you were a influencer, so no worries.
News flash: No job that requires applying critical thought (reviewer, lawyer, auditor, etc.) is free from "the human element" that is one's bias, but that doesn't mean that we can't take measures to reduce it and disclose to a given consumer of any potential influences on their opinion like letting them know a publisher, developer, etc. supplied them a review code (this is what I do in every review i've ever done where a review copy/code was provided so that people are aware of that when considering my review in informing them on a particular game) instead of reducing the already low level reputation of critique in video games to be seen even more like a mere extension of marketing for a given game. Having developers or publishers handing out review copies based on monetary compensation is an inherently awful idea (and not just because you're paying the publisher for the purposes of critique) for video game critique because it reduces the amount of potential reviews to a small number of people based not on their skill, but on whether they have the monetary resources and time required to form a critique and thus will reduce the amount of variety of voices speaking about various aspects of a game i.e. which critical lens with which to view a piece of art.
Also, to your last point: If the people wanted the best, most informative critiques that influencers have to offer, then a Swedish Nazi wouldn't be the poster boy for YouTube gaming personalities.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
I like what Timedog likes.
He doesn't like pineapple pizza does he?
Well, what they're getting out of it is coverage. When I was reviewing games, that was the most I got from the companies in terms of "pressure" some stuff just showed out unasked for like Disgaea and Samurai Western. That kinda stuff just showed up with a brief press release and a review copy. No instructions on how it should be reviewed, no "good score please?!?" requests etc.
And I usually spent the bulk of my time wishing I could go play games I actually wanted to play instead.