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

41–50 of 104 posts

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

#41

Post by tombert »

izzydata wrote: post #39
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 conc…

Yeah I remember the Kane and Lynch Gamespot controversy back in 2007.

There's always going to be conflicts of interest; people should at least be aware of them.

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

#42

Post by Operyl »

nocoiner wrote: post #36
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…

Typically no, unless the item was of substantial value (1k+) it’s usually just left with the reviewing party.

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

#43

Post by robobro »

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.

Plenty of creative people smoke, drink, and engage in other vices. I'm not confident that any significant number of cases that people smoke in media is due to funding from big tobacco. When I would light up on stage and drink some beer during house shows, as a musician, I know I wasn't getting any funding for it. Do you have any articles about big tobacco paying authors, screenwriters, game designers, etc to include cigarettes in their content?

What about capnolagnia (smoking fetish) films and photos -- is the smut industry getting paid off by big tobacco?

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

#44

Post by satvikpendem »

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.

It's great for the publisher, it's great for the reviewer, but it's not so great for the customer, who might buy the game thinking that the reviewer was speaking in an unbiased manner. That is why it's important to disclose if a reviewer gets free or sponsored stuff.

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

#45

Post by s1artibartfast »

coldtea wrote: post #30
rtpg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the contrary, I think the psychological manipulation of a product Association is fair game because it's inherent in The World At Large and every product and person.

On the other hand, undisclosed sponsored reviews gravitate towards false advertising or deceit.

The point isn't to cut down on psychological influence. The point is to cut down on deceit AKA false advertising

James Bond using a Sony doesn't deceive anyone. James Bond doesn't exist and doesn't have opinions.

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

#46

Post by s1artibartfast »

coldtea wrote: post #32
HWR_14 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

They are entirely different concerns.

What is the false advertising when James Bond uses a Sony?

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

#47

Post by TylerE »

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.

That isn't what the FTC is saying, at all.

It isn't saying that they can't do that, just that if they do they most disclose that they received compensation.

Sounds immanently reasonable to me.

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

#48

Post by kregasaurusrex »

Doesn't this seem a bit "low stakes" to want more disclosures about? I view it in the same light as say someone who posts makeup reviews or video game reviews on YouTube- often it isn't their primary source of income, and the item value (<$100) seems notional. Maybe it can be treated as more of a deal if a company were to attach stipulations or keywords for the reviewer to mention, at which point it should be treated as a partnership rather than a less-than-impartial review. I subscribe to independent creators on Patreon because bias is nearly impossible to avoid when there's a quid pro quo of getting a stream of free things from companies.

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

#49

Post by batiudrami »

kregasaurusrex wrote: post #48

Doesn't this seem a bit "low stakes" to want more disclosures about? I view it in the same light as say someone who posts makeup reviews or video game reviews on YouTube- often it isn't their primary source of income, and the item value (<$100) seems notional. Maybe it can be treated as more of a deal if a company were to attach stipulations or keywords for the reviewer to mention, at which point it should be treated…

Many board games are funded through crowdfunding, which regularly reach 7 figures, so there is big money here. There has been controversy recently about YouTube “reviews” of active kickstarters which are actually undisclosed paid promotion, and in one case attempting to extort sponsored videos to prevent release of negative videos instead. So there’s a bit more in this than a free board game.

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

#50

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #30
rtpg wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN