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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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.

giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing.

Sure.

But if you don't reveal that they've given payment in the form of a free game, you are giving a dishonest review. Free stuff is payment. And everyone knows it is payment - Free meals and other benefits at a job are advertised to entice you. It might not be taxed, but is definitely part of your pay package.

I'm pretty sure the FTC knows about the Amazon reviews - they've taken action against some of them. They may or may not have the budget to go after more and may or may not have the power to go after all of them.

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

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

robobro wrote: post #43
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.

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…

> I'm not confident that any significant number of cases that people smoke in media is due to funding from big tobacco.

I’m fairly confident that much of it is, that spending on it is systematically not properly disclosed to the FTC, and that approximately 100% of the cases outside a documentary or newd cobtext involving a recognizable brand are paid (in cash or otherwise) product placement, the last bit the same as with non-tobacco brand placement, and the rest as has been documented through 1994 by internal tobacco documents compared to FTC reports, with no sudden shift after 1994 that would indicate a behavior change.

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

#73

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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…

often it isn't their primary source of income, and the item value (

Neither of these things magically make your review more trustworthy.

Getting free stuff taints your review, and it doesn't matter if it is low value or not. And to be fair: People get their utilities turned off for these amounts. These amounts keep folks from affording medicine. Some of them simply wouldn't be able to review so many games if they didn't get them for free.

People are more likely to view the company favorably if they are getting the product for free - and are likely to review games they wouldn't otherwise review. They should reveal this sort of bias. And it doesn't matter if you are "low stakes" or not.

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

#74

Post by kriro »

I'm a pretty big board gamer with a collection somewhere north of 300 games and I feel by and large the influencer community isn't as bad as in other niches. Most people will state very clearly if they got a review copy or have other relations (sometimes they'll review a game from a publisher were they are also publishing a game soon etc.).

Mostly, the good creators are still people who like board games and there's not so many that have more of the "pro influencer" vibe. Not surprisingly, there was a pretty big shitstorm around one of the channels that always seemd super influenc-y recently (don't want to explicitly name it but the channel name related to the typing in Python).

However, I'd argue that board gamers tend to be overly enthusiastic in reviews in general and focus mostly on the positive. We (I'm not a content creator just a player of games) want to like games as a default :D I'd also say that written text is still quite valuable in board gaming circles with boardgamegeek as the obvious example. At least I tend to research there and get my first contact with new games from Geeklists and the likes rather than from videos.

Apart from review videos, another kind of video is rules explaination (or playthrough) type of videos. These are somtimes payed for because (frankly speaking) the publishers couldn't do it themselves at these price points. To me this is a perfectly fine source of income for youtubers. Some content creators also do this for free anyways but typically these videos are very neutral just focusing on the rules. From a customer's point of view they tend to be quite good to get an impression of the games without any review content.

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

#75

Post by HWR_14 »

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…

What's your better solution? Stop the movie and have the actor playing Bond break the fourth wall and talk directly to the camera? Meanwhile, legal notices in the credits are expected. That's where they go and are negotiated.

As far as I can tell, if the reviewers want to include the disclaimer in their credits, that is also fine. They just cannot include it separately from the video.

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

#76

Post by getwiththeprog »

dawnerd wrote: post #63
satvikpendem wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

When searching for board games to buy recently, I read many reviews.

The problem I found was that all the games revewied were linked in an affilaite sales agreement.

This created a 'bubble' of games that many reviewers reviewed.

Searching further, I found that board games are so loved by millions that you can find quality reviews from peoplw who buy many games. You can even find views of the full contents of games so you can make a further informed decision.

None of this was on social media, just a good old fashioned web search.

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

#77

Post by nicolaslem »

SeanLuke wrote: post #66

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 fu…

> This strongly encourages influencers to provide positive reviews.

The problem is conflating influencers and review outlets. These are two very different things although influencers do everything they can to blurry the lines.

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

#78

Post by frozenlettuce »

pawelmurias wrote: post #65
s1artibartfast wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, filmmakers put extra effort I hiding a brand if it is not paying (eg. laptop stickers)

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

#79

Post by Jochim »

chasontherobot wrote: post #54
nocoiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

hard to donate a used steam key

They can be revoked though.

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

#80

Post by coldtea »

HWR_14 wrote: post #75
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…

What's your better solution? Stop the movie and have the actor playing Bond break the fourth wall and talk directly to the camera? Meanwhile, legal notices in the credits are expected. That's where they go and are negotiated. As far as I can tell, if the reviewers want to include the disclaimer in their credits, that is also fine. They just cannot include it separately from the video.

>What's your better solution? Stop the movie and have the actor playing Bond break the fourth wall and talk directly to the camera?

Forbid product placement.

Post reply on HN