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

61–70 of 104 posts

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

#61

Post by autoexec »

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…

This has also been a huge problem with hardware reviewers since very few people can afford to buy a new top of the line video card or laptop every week. If the reviewers want to keep getting free goodies to pull ad impressions they can't say anything too mean about the companies giving them free stuff.

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

#62

Post by Ekaros »

I would not be too vary of free games provided. I think that is so common already that it should not affect perspective between products.

On other hand any sort of other monetary compensation or personal connections or involvement should be much more scrutinized and public.

I think we should even start to implement system where the compensation paid for sponsorship spot and so on should be presented with the add.

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

#63

Post by dawnerd »

satvikpendem wrote: post #44
Xeoncross wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And reviewers are afraid to lose their freebies so will hold back negative statements or soften them.

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

#64

Post by mjamesaustin »

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…

For board games, the shipping cost is often significant enough that it's better for the publisher to just let you keep the game than it is to pay for it to be shipped back.

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

#65

Post by pawelmurias »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #45
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 any…

If James Bond is using a Sony because they paid the movie makers 200k$ it's a different thing than seeing some random dude use it himself.

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

#66

Post by SeanLuke »

This is also a major problem in the music synthesizer industry, and Benn Jordan (aka The FlashBulb, but also a major synthesizer reviewer) put out an extraordinary video detailing all the financial issues and incentives involved in being an influencer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Q7usuG2Cw

I think Benn is above reproach ethically here -- see how much Behringer dislike him -- but I also think he is wrong. The fundamental problem is that if an influencer reviews a product negatively, they'll stop giving him stuff to review, for free, on loan, or whatever, and he'll lose a monetization source. And if he makes a habit of this, vendors may stop sending him stuff out of fear of his reputation. This strongly encourages influencers to provide positive reviews.

Influencers think they get around this ethical conundrum by only reviewing stuff they like and refusing to post negative reviews. But as a result all we get are positive reviews. When synthesizer X has 10 positive reviews and Y has 20, is this because Y is better or because Y got in the hands of more reviewers? We cannot tell. All we have is a sea of thumbs up.

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

#67

Post by coldtea »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #45
coldtea wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 any…

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

Psychological influence is also a deceit.

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

#68

Post by coldtea »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #46
coldtea wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

"A Sony X is the kind of high end product a person with the fictional sophisticated background of James Bond would use, as picked by the scriptwriter/director to flesh out the character", as opposed to "Sony is the brand that paid us more to put their shit on his hands on the movie".

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

#69

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> But if a small board game company sends an influencer a free board game, an influencer is not allowed to review it.

Yes, they are, they aren’t allowed to fail to disclose the fact of the donation when reviewing it.

> Personally, I think having "background" props is much more insidious.

The FTC has power to deal with deceptive, not with insidious (the latter is dubious as a power of government at all under the First Amendment, but its clearly not, whether or not within the power of government broadly, not something Congress has by statute assigned to the FTC the way they have dealing with deceptive trade practices.)

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

#70

Post by dragonwriter »

k_roy wrote: post #37
greenthrow wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Let's be fair though, that actually happening in movies has dropped dramatically

It has dropped somewhat from the peak in 2005 to a little below the 1991 level by 2016. And we know from comparison of internal tobacco firm documents on product placement with their reports to the FTC that almost half of what the companies internally documented spending on product placement between 1978-1994 (that’s the latest the internal records that have been subject to outside examination go) were not reported to the FTC as spending on paid endorsements as required, and that that includes 100% of product placement spending in that period after 1988. [0]

And, we know that recogbizable branding is still displayed on screen and that with every other categort of goods that invariably, outside of news/documentary context, involves direct or in-kind payment for promotional purposes.

[0] https://escholarship.org/uc/item/7kd981j3

Post reply on HN