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

31–40 of 104 posts

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

#31

Post by tombert »

Xeoncross wrote: post #26
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.

Yeah, exactly! If Sony gave a free review copy of their new TV, and I spend my entire review trash-talking it, then Samsung might say "oof, let's not give this guy any review copies".

I think stuff like this is inevitable to some extent, humans gonna human, but I think that the viewers of the video have the right to know about these potential conflicts of interest.

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

#32

Post by coldtea »

HWR_14 wrote: post #17
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…

> Doesn't apply to movies, TV shows, and music videos right? It certainly applies to movies and TV shows. Near the end of the credits (for US productions), there is almost always language like "Promotional consideration" and then a list of brands

>Near the end of the credits

“But the plans were on display…”

“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”

“That’s the display department.”

“With a flashlight.”

“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”

“So had the stairs.”

“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”

“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

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

#33

Post by phnofive »

Xeoncross wrote: post #23
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.

Yes, it's fine to do that; the videomaker just needs to disclose it.

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

#34

Post by cwillu »

langsoul-com wrote: post #24

I wonder if that also applies to game reviewers or let's play YouTubers.

(Edited from a short “Yes, absolutely” to a direct quote from the ftc document that basically answers this question)

    Q: A year ago, I was given a free $60 video game (and
    nothing else) in exchange for live streaming my 
    game play. I still love the game and stream it. Do 
    I still need to disclose that I got the game for free?


    A: How long it would be reasonable for you to make 
    disclosures really depends on the expectations of 
    your fans. After some period of time, it probably 
    wouldn’t matter to them that you got the game for 
    free. If you’re choosing to play a game a year 
    after you got it for free, it probably means you 
    truly like it. The analysis would likely be 
    different if, instead of a $60 video game, you got 
    a free $50,000 car and continued to post about it 
    over the life of the car.”
-- https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/ftcs-endorse...

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

#35

Post by erik »

Is it just me, or is this applying a very different standard to influencers compared to traditional media?

> The new guidance makes it clear reviewers and other media creators should clearly disclose when they receive free products or other perks from a company, even if they aren’t specifically asked to mention those products.

...

> 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.

By this standard, if a movie critic for a newspaper watches a pre-release screening of a movie for free, then their review article should state "This is an ad for Paramount Pictures"?

Free copies of games / albums / books / etc for reviewers has been a standard practice for ages as far as I know. Is the FTC challenging this generally? Or is this somehow specific to reviews done via social media?

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

#36

Post by nocoiner »

nocoiner wrote: post #28

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,…

One additional thought, on an item FTA:

“I’d like to see Instagram offer more accurate tags/labels, as there is a literal difference between getting a cardboard box and receiving money to express an opinion, but it will do for now.”

Is it no longer customary to send back or donate a review copy of a product? When I reviewed video games many decades ago, we normally sent back the review copy we (the publication) were provided. For smaller ticket items, like music CDs, I don’t think were were ever required to send those back, but we either donated them or kept them on the publication’s shelves, but individual reviewers were definitely prohibited from keeping any of those as their personal property.

I agree that there’s a distinction between a paid endorsement and reviewing something made freely available, but if there’s any personal benefit accruing to the reviewer, I do think that should be disclosed. And that why I think the absolutely best avoidance of conflicts of interest is to not accept even a review copy that must be later be returned or given away, but to pay for the item like any other consumer, though I acknowledge this is not always practical given publication budgets these days.

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

#37

Post by k_roy »

greenthrow wrote: post #4
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…

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.

Let's be fair though, that actually happening in movies has dropped dramatically. So many people I know vape now, and there is basically no way you can make vaping look cool onscreen

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

#38

Post by dagmx »

erik wrote: post #35

Is it just me, or is this applying a very different standard to influencers compared to traditional media? > The new guidance makes it clear reviewers and other media creators should clearly disclose when they receive free products or other perks from a company, even if they aren’t specifically asked to mention those products. ... > The FTC says disclosures should be kept simple, such as “This is an ad for BRAND”, an…

You’re meant to disclose that you were sent samples for review or saw a movie at a pre screening or had an early game access as well.

Many do fail to do so, but it varies how much people will go after it.

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

#39

Post by izzydata »

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…

I think it is still basically a bribe. Like all video game journalists and influences they will receive early copies to make their content. Video game studios don't actually give them money, but early access is what allows these people to make money by having their videos up before the release of the game. If you don't say nice things about them then they stop doing this and your income is cut off.

As far as I'm concerned these reviews are effectively worthless so I don't know how they stay in business.

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

#40

Post by pc86 »

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…

Nobody considers a theatrical movie an unbiased review of the products the fictional characters are using.

Half the comments in here are some version of "what we can't review board games now?!?!1" when that's the opposite of the case. The problem is that "content creators" don't want to disclose what they're legally required to.

Post reply on HN