Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-microsoft-paying-youtubers-for-xbox-one-mentions/

by a_olt • 13 years ago

90 115 13 years ago

bpicolo4• 13 years ago

That's just standard marketing. Don't know why we need the word "stealth". There are tons of youtube channels with marketing. (See every make-up vlogger ever).

higherpurpose• 13 years ago

Exactly. Why the need for "stealth" if what they are doing is "normal"? It's because they're trying to make people believe Xbox One is more popular than it really is, and that the comments are really "natural" (when they aren't).

I find it that quite unethical. It's no different than paying Reddit commenters for mentioning it.

thisisdallas4• 13 years ago

" It's because they're trying to make people believe Xbox One is more popular than it really is"

Ignoring the fact that the Xbox One has been selling great, isn't that more or less the point of marketing? Make a product seem popular, generate buzz, make money?

bpicolo4• 13 years ago

They're not saying you have to lie about the Xbox, they're just saying to feature it. Nothing unethical about it.

gtirloni2• 13 years ago

I'm just thinking here in practical terms. If these bloggers/youtubers were in fact companies/portals, everybody would be fine with it. In this regard, I don't see how Microsoft can be blamed for playing the same game the whole marketing industry plays.

No, looking from the "what I expect" perspective, most people expect these bloggers/youtubers to reflect the "opinion of the crowds" and to reflect reality more accurate I guess. In this light, Microsoft's attempt to pay them could be seen as unethical.

Personally I never trusted of these bloggers/youtubers so I'm far from shocked with this news. I expect them to be doing that by the very nature of their "jobs", if not for direct profit from vendors, then for ad-click revenue.

I'd say don't be naive with anything, specially things involving products and revenue.

philfrasty• 13 years ago

The submission headline should be: „Marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions“. Nothing special here...

kordless• 13 years ago

The effects crypto currencies have on this particular type of marketing approach will be interesting, at the very least.

vezzy-fnord• 13 years ago

"Free market will fix this."

fleitz4• 13 years ago

Incorrect, advocates of the free market don't even think there's anything wrong with this, including myself.

This is on the level of finding out Santa Clause isn't real and politicians are generally liars.

interstitial2• 13 years ago

Crypto currencies are a standing bribe for all journalists and posters to HN, Reddit where the rubes hang.

josteink2• 13 years ago

Unlike Apple and its team of "insiders" and their "leaks", which coincidentally seems to always be people who get free goods from Apple's marketing department.

This is a complete sham!

CitationNeeded• 13 years ago

Do you have an example of that happening where the "free goods" were not a temporary review unit which was later returned?

valarauca1• 13 years ago

A former senior marketing official at apple talks about it.

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...

300bps• 13 years ago

Oh great, a reddit-style novelty account created 42 minutes ago.

arrrg3• 13 years ago

Do you have any evidence for that?

Due to Apple’s enormous success and many fanatical fans I don’t think it’s necessary for Apple to do things like that.

josteink2• 13 years ago

Man, I agree with fanatical, and you'd think that would be enough.

But just look at Gruber. While I still bothered to click the occasional Gruber link-bait I seem to recall he on several occasions mentioned equipment which he "had gotten from Apple". I'm assuming that means he didn't pay.

I'm sure I say stuff like that loads of places. Especially on the hipster SF blogs which for a period made this website almost unreadable.

neya• 13 years ago

Here you go:

http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/how_apple_does_contro...

...I don’t think it’s necessary for Apple to do things like that.

The problem with people (like you) is that they see things as 'black' or 'white' or 'good' or 'bad'. Any signs of the possibility of shades of grey are dismissed without second thought. Most if not all companies pay the media and do shady stuff under the radar while they can.

lowglow• 13 years ago

I've been friends with journalist on the Apple beat for major publications. Apple is notoriously picky about who it gives early product announcements too, and they never _ever_ purposefully "leak" anything.

Apple does play favorites. If you are in Apple's good graces and play by their rules, their team will give you early access to you have more time to write in-depth reviews about their devices (But don't EVER think about prematurely releasing the story). If you get on their bad side, you're pretty much stuck and have to wait like normal people for launched product releases.

thisisdallas4• 13 years ago

I know the gaming world is making a big mess about this but as others have mentioned, it's nothing other than marketing. Doing promotions like this for Machinima partners/affiliates is nothing new. I also don't see how it differs from publishers sending free games to people to review on YouTube.

gu2• 13 years ago

Maybe read the linked article to get some food for thought:

"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."

bpicolo4• 13 years ago

That's not uncommon with marketing agreements at all.

thisisdallas4• 13 years ago

I did read the article. I am not saying I agree with the practice or I see no negative aspects to the practice. I'm just surprised at the recent uproar over this when Microsoft is by no means the first company to do this. Sure their agreement states you can't say anything negative about the X1 but how is that different from publishers sending free games for people to review? Do you not think those people realize negative comments will most likely persuade publishers to stop sending them free games?

freehunter2• 13 years ago

Why would I pay someone to trash talk my product or recommend another product? Coke would never have their polar bears drinking a Pepsi. Even Chevy ads don't talk about Cadillac.

fleitz4• 13 years ago

This is what happens when you cut the PR middlemen out of the equation. OMG the horror MS is directly paying average joes instead of paying PR people.

corin_6• 13 years 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.

eterm• 13 years 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_6• 13 years 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-code...

zackbigdog2• 13 years 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

corin_6• 13 years ago

Looking forward to seeing the film come out, and nice job working with Razer on it :)

pbhjpbhj6• 13 years 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: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_6• 13 years 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/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.

cheald4• 13 years ago

Kinda related, I've been mind-boggled at the amount of product placement Microsoft has been buying in TV shows lately. Everywhere you turn, characters are making a VERY OBVIOUS POINT of using a Surface or something. It's hilarious/awful.

schenecstasy• 13 years ago

"Let's Bing it"

brudgers2• 13 years ago

It's so noticeable only because viewers are conditioned to seeing Apple's products placed prominently.

cheald4• 13 years ago

Not at all. It's noticeable because it's awkward. Shots will linger on the Bing search page, or on the Metro Start Menu for a couple of seconds before the character does something, and then the character taps an app and gets into what they're doing. If it wasn't product placement, it would be bad direction.

I've been watching Arrow lately and it's really obnoxious there (though not really any more so than other shows that Microsoft has their marketing hooks into). For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyRZ03SFB68

This is consistent. Every time a character uses a computer, there are several solid seconds of LET US SHOW YOU THE NEW WINDOWS.

dublinben• 13 years ago

It's so noticeable to me because people don't use Windows Phone and Surface products in real life. It's actually possible that a typical person in a real situation would be using an Apple or Google device.

DanBC2• 13 years ago

I love the windows logo badges that appear on laptop lids or the back of monitors.

cheald4• 13 years ago

That doesn't bother me at all. What's annoying is when the storytelling is interrupted for a Windows micro-commercial. It's like slamming into third gear on the freeway for a couple of seconds.

Crito2• 13 years ago

I like to think that directors do that as a form of deniable protest. Probably not, but thinking that makes it less irritating.

pc86• 13 years ago

I seriously doubt that, as I would hope most of them are professional.

eigenvector• 13 years ago

I have seen more Windows Phone devices in Parks & Recreation than I have in real life.

adamors• 13 years ago

The Windows devices in the last season of P&R was really jarring. I live in Europe and never actually seen a Windows Phone in person, haha.

tsurantino• 13 years ago

I don't understand how it could be any more brutal than how Apple took over House of Cards. From devices to even the sounds...

nivla• 13 years ago

I have noticed that too, the most embarrassing was the product placement of Surface in Suburgatory. The lead starts blurting our the specs of the product like a used car salesman! It was cringe worthy. They should take a note or two from Nokia on marketing and ad, those are amazing!

Even worse were the ones by Toyota for Warehouse 13, in the show, everyone gifts a Toyota Prius, everyone rentals a Toyota Prius, heck they even had an episode where while other cars are melting down, they drive the Prius through the hot burning lava perfectly fine!

Nowadays marketers don't even care about subtlety, product placements are becoming more and more obvious to ignore!

ekianjo2• 13 years ago

I was recently watching the first season of Homeland, and that's true, it had very obvious Windows/Microsoft product placement. A bit toooo much.

Aaronontheweb• 13 years ago

This is pretty standard marketing stuff in 2014... If I were running the Xbox marketing department I'd start firing people if they WEREN'T doing this.

There are entire startups whose job it is to set up advertisers and YouTubers with this type of arrangement - look no further than FullScreen, BigFrame, et al...

noodle• 13 years ago

I'd say two things:

One is that you're correct, it has been happening for years within the industry, so it's kind of weird to see an article almost in the style of an "expose" on the practice.

Two is that it really isn't getting huge market traction. Or it wasn't at the time when I was working more closely with it. It was considered more like a value-add or diversification strategy alongside other media buys and not a primary strategy.

pstack• 13 years ago

Don't we all just assume this is going on? Also, if it's alright to pay major gaming sites and magazines and personalities to talk about your product, why not some knucklehead with a bunch of youtube followers? It's no less sleazy.

The great thing about modern society is that most consumers have evolved enough savvy to be suspect of almost all brand-encounters. Even to the point of alerting to a lot of sure false-positives.

cdash• 13 years ago

It is quite amazing that so many people on here are very ok with astroturfing.

belgianguy• 13 years ago

Well if you want to go down that rabbit hole, if MS is willing to do unethical advertising for its gaming console, how much of an extra effort would it be for them to pay people to defend its dubious practices on the internet?

It's not the first time this has come up, and I bet they've done similar things for their other software in the past. As you could read in the article, they know how to cover their butts quite well, as such it's immensely hard to prove, but iirc, Mark Penn used to run a company called Burston-Marsteller that went quite far in the Microsoft evangelism (shilling).

Some notable examples: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/01/stealth-marketing-micr...

It's downright disgusting and misleading. Market your stuff until the cows come home, but don't try to act as if it's organic interest while it's actually a paid product placement, which is exactly what's happening here.

That's intentional misdirection, bribery wrapped in an NDA. I hope the FTC takes interest in such blatant disregard of ethics in marketing. Microsoft may be big, but it has to play by the rules too.

And no, it's not okay because some other firm does it.

I don't get how Microsoft tries to play the angel of ethics when throwing mud at other companies, but doesn't really respect its (potential) customers when it comes to their own PR.

mikelat• 13 years ago

Nobody is "okay" with it but everyone is influenced by it and there's nothing you can do. If there's a company with a large marketing budget then you can bet a good portion of that budget goes towards making themselves look good and their competition bad, because that's what everybody is doing.

The best thing you can do is not play their game.

undoware• 13 years ago

How did the rapgenius pitch to 'affiliates' go?

"That shit will BLOW UP!!!"

Here's hoping they're right. Again.

trekky1700• 13 years ago

In related news, comapnies pay for ads on TV and Brad Pitt was paid to drink Pepsi in WWZ. World shocked.

erbo• 13 years ago

I have long assumed that, whenever someone posts any good mention of any Microsoft product or service, the standard response should be, "How much did Microsoft pay you to say that?"

Jehar• 13 years ago

There's one key point that I haven't seen discussed here much. If this were a simple case of Microsoft contacting content producers directly and offering these things, then it'd be more acceptable. However, these are partners of Machinima, which has a relationship with YT and advertisers (fox, adotube, cbs, etc) to provide a revenue share to content producers. The fact that Machinima is mandating these terms to the content producers is what makes everything a bit shady, and poses several conflicts of interest for them.

fishbacon• 13 years ago

I feel like a Machinema channel could simply make a review of the Microsoft Squared Square and the Sony Fun-VCR, and still be within the boundaries of the contract right?

Comparing the good points of the two Glossy Blu-Ray Players would make a good comparison of the two I believe.

Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions

Related Stories