Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

boardgamewire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 104 posts

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#21

Post by eropple »

dccoolgai wrote: post #14
boondoggle16 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the inexorable mean to which heavy government regulation inexorably regresses: The fantasy that large evildoers will lose some of their ill-gotten gains (for the IRS, billionaires privatizing gains and socializing losses... for the FTC, Pepsi being forced to disclose product placement) faces the brick wall of lawyers and lobbyists. So they aim at "softer targets": hassling middle class tax payers and business…

Middle-class taxpayers doing payola marketing for very large companies to poison the well towards other middle-class taxpayers, yes.

Nobody thinks a movie is a representative endorsement or review. There is no such distinction for content creators.

This really isn’t hard to understand.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#22

Post by setr »

boondoggle16 wrote: post #3
productizeme93 wrote: post #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 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 doubt product placement falls under the same rules as endorsement, because there's no actual claims about the product, or preference towards it. They're just showing the object in use/place.

Even if a character states "monster is their favorite drink" that wouldn't constitute an endorsement, because it's simply the mark of a fictional character.

But influencers/actors/etc saying "monster is their favorite" is an altogether different thing, because a viewer would assume that's actually their opinion being stated -- that it's being endorsed "in fairness". [0]

The fundamental problem is deception, and product placement isn't deceptive (it's just hoping you see it enough you'll think it's "common"), but paid endorsements definitely can be.

[0] From the endorsement guide: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p204500_endorse...

Example 6 is about an actor who says a home fitness system is “the most effective and easy-to-use home exercise machine that I have ever tried.” One commenter asserted this would only be deceptive if the actor had not used the machine. The example is intended to illustrate why this statement is an endorsement and is not intended to address all the ways the statement could be deceptive or who could be liable for any such deception. The Commission notes, however, there are multiple ways in which the statement could be deceptive, including not representing the actor’s actual opinions or misleading consumers as to the machine’s effectiveness or ease of use.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#23

Post by Xeoncross »

jallen_dot_dev wrote: post #7

To 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.

Of all the actual misaligned incentives out there, giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing. Someone gave you a $50 game and you created a free $500+ video about it encouraging others to take a break from screen time.

I hope no one tells the FTC about paid Amazon reviews, they'd probably have a heart attack.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#25

Post by tombert »

While I hardly think it's a "bribe" in the case of board games, I think it's a perfectly reasonable line in the sand to require people to disclose if they've received any compensation for reviewing a product, even if that compensation is just getting a free copy of the game.

I mean, it seems a bit silly to focus on board games, since they're generally pretty cheap, but I've seen videos on YouTube where people review multi-thousand-dollar TVs or computers, and it's unclear if they purchased the item or the company sent it to them.

Even if it's subconscious, I think it might be hard to trash-talk an entity that just gifted you something that you could easily re-sell for several grand.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#26

Post by Xeoncross »

tombert wrote: post #25

While I hardly think it's a "bribe" in the case of board games, I think it's a perfectly reasonable line in the sand to require people to disclose if they've received any compensation for reviewing a product, even if that compensation is just getting a free copy of the game. I mean, it seems a bit silly to focus on board games, since they're generally pretty cheap, but I've seen videos on YouTube where people review…

> might be hard to trash-talk an entity that just gifted you... ...several grand

Yes, especially if you want companies to follow suit.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#28

Post by nocoiner »

Somehow, at some point in the last few months, I found myself reading a portion of a mid-1960s Federal Register that included capsule summaries of various small-bore enforcement actions the FTC took against misleading advertisers in the prior year - stuff like (and I’m making up illustrative examples here), say, a department store in Kansas City that put out an advertisement that omitted key information about a sale, or a hat-maker in Miami who lied about the origin of the materials he used.

I loved it! I thought it was great that there was a federal agency focused on pro-consumer stuff like this that otherwise falls between the cracks of modern life. I’m glad to hear the mission of the agency remains intact.

Re: FTC warns board game content creators, publishers to disclose relationships

#30

Post by coldtea »

rtpg wrote: post #10
productizeme93 wrote: post #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 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 watch…

>The Sony Ericson phone being in Bond is not the same as a phone review saying "you should buy this"

Yeah, it's worst, because it's a psychological manipulative tactic.

Post reply on HN