FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#2> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product.
Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply.
I actually think it'd be great to have it obvious ad messaging be embedded in movies for different scenes where it pops up in your face that "this is an ad for Bose" or "this is an ad for Pepsi." Having that front and center, especially if it destroys the value of the media some would be great. Because maybe then there'd be a little more concern around what it means to make quality.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#3> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
This, more rules for thee but not for me.
Pepsi can pay $10MM for the main character in a kid's movie to drink a Pepsi.
But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it.
Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious. At least with social media I know I can expect grift. Seeing someone drink Pepsi in a movie is more like seeing your friend drink Pepsi.
John likes Pepsi, and he's cool. Think I'll drink some.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#4> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
This, more rules for thee but not for me. Pepsi can pay $10MM for the main character in a kid's movie to drink a Pepsi. But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it. Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious. At least with social media I know I can expect grift. Seeing someone drink Pepsi in a movie is more like seeing yo…
More than Pepsi; cigarettes. This is the only way tobacco is really allowed to advertise anymore. This is why you see scenes of characters enjoyint cigarettes prominently even though it does nothing to move the story forward.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#5> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
This, more rules for thee but not for me. Pepsi can pay $10MM for the main character in a kid's movie to drink a Pepsi. But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it. Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious. At least with social media I know I can expect grift. Seeing someone drink Pepsi in a movie is more like seeing yo…
I'm pretty sure the "influencer" is allowed to review it, it just needs to be clearly disclosed. I'm not sure what would be actually prohibited.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#6> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
> Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right?
Don’t they disclose this in the credits?
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#7To be clear, the FTC is warning all online influencers and not specifically those who receive free board games to review. It'd be wild if the FTC thought the problem of board game reviewers not disclosing this was big enough and egregious enough to warrant special action against them.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#8[flagged]
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#9> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
Movies don't hold themselves out as an unbiased reviewer.
Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships
#10> The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, and should be prominent on each piece of media which contains that product. Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? Every once in awhile I see the 4th wall broken to make light of it being sponsored product placement, but it doesn't happen enough that I suspect the same sort of rules don't apply. I actually think i…
The Sony Ericson phone being in Bond is not the same as a phone review saying "you should buy this". I understand your general complaint, but I think here the FTC is basically trying to establish a line for the most egregious levels of "native" advertising that isn't being disclosed.
For what it's worth I have often seen stuff in credits pointing out what companies have provided things for a show on TV ("nobody watches the credits" well I do so your point is actually empirically false! Though I understand).
I think with this entire topic there are many knobs that can be turned. We might not have them set at the right level, and we can adjust. But it's totally not a binary thing. Though I would honestly be very up for much stricter disclosure rules on this point for things advertised to children.
My personal feeling is at one point in your life you learn that media is given access to stuff for advertising purposes, so every brand made visible is just "obviously" product placement. If there's an explicit endorsement really make it loud if it's an ad/all the conditions of the review. But I don't feel like watching Lydia Tar use a Macbook is really much of an endorsement of anything, and do not feel the need for this to be an ad (just like I don't need a disclaimer about Tar being an ad for the Berlin Philharmonic).