EA Paying for YouTube Love ?

Ven0m

2014-01-23 09:51

Can anyone tell me what is so bad with this? It is business, marketing, media presence... the more your product is talked about or showed - the better for you. I fail to see anything extraordinary bad in it.

News sites looking for a sensation blame distributors for unfair/illegal advertisements, while in fact it's the fault of Youtube uploaders. Let's make it clear - Microsoft paid Machinima for marketing campaign, Machinima paid for comments. Also, we can't blame EA for Youtubers not complying to FTC / other product placement laws. While agreement details may be secret, and it's ok, it doesn't make other aspects of the content upload invalid. Over here, in Poland, if you advertise something indirectly in TV, you are required to show "This video contains product placement" sign at the beginning. If I remember correctly, it doesn't apply to YouTube, but I'm not sure. Anyway, you are not supposed to publish any contract details, and if you fail to comply, you're breaking the law, not the product distributor.

#4749173

lucidus

2014-01-23 09:52

They hide the fact that the vids are sponsored or place gag orders on them.

#4749196

lucidus

2014-01-23 10:09

Id rather they do this, pay youtubers etc a snippet to markert games for them or what have you and then in turn and ideally, cut costs on in-house advertising which would hopefully free up money for the developing process. As it is, i know more about a game before launch, than after.

Wow. Such optimism. Much positivity.

#4749241

chanw4

2014-01-23 11:01

I think it is not the fact that they do it that get people attention, but the fact that they do it and put a gag order or NDA to hide it. It is the fault of content uploader fault to do it. For a let's player? its fine, its an advertisement. For a reviewer, then the line is getting blurry as that is like, borderline bribery.

#4749281

H83

2014-01-23 12:20

Why the surprise, every company does this, every one!!! This is common practice everywhere. Much worse is the fact that more than 90% of games reviews are paid by gaming companies and are nothing more than a game advertisement disguised as a professional review.... So move along, nothing to see here...

#4749351

lucidus

2014-01-23 13:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

#4749393

H83

2014-01-23 14:45

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ

Funny ****!:D

#4749424

DesGaizu

2014-01-23 15:34

News just in Company's pay people to advertise their ****. More at 10.

#4749487

Brasky

2014-01-23 17:39

90% pay youtube for love, youtube pays 10% for love.:banana:

#4749541

JJayzX

2014-01-23 18:56

You guys don't understand the bad part of this is when popular gamers on yt are getting paid to make there game look good (bf4) when in fact there are issues and they know it. Then other people essentially waste money on false advertising. Its not right because you are bribing someone's opinion and the money they save they will just put in their pockets. People just keep going "shut up and take my money", like with nvidia, and they're just gobbling it up and laughing to the bank.

#4749559

sykozis

2014-01-23 19:25

You guys don't understand the bad part of this is when popular gamers on yt are getting paid to make there game look good (bf4) when in fact there are issues and they know it. Then other people essentially waste money on false advertising. Its not right because you are bribing someone's opinion and the money they save they will just put in their pockets. People just keep going "shut up and take my money", like with nvidia, and they're just gobbling it up and laughing to the bank.

That's no different from the commercials we see on TV in the US. Companies are permitted to market products that they know for a fact don't work or don't work as described and make them sound like they're the greatest products ever released. This is actually standard practice in the US and is openly promoted....

#4749730

JJayzX

2014-01-23 23:56

That's no different from the commercials we see on TV in the US. Companies are permitted to market products that they know for a fact don't work or don't work as described and make them sound like they're the greatest products ever released. This is actually standard practice in the US and is openly promoted....

But on TV we know its an advertisement while on YouTube it should be people's personal opinion. Now it makes it tougher to trust anything and it wasn't even great to start with. now how do I know if I should buy a game if even personal opinions are bought and hides problems. I know there are other ways but not everyone does and listen to these people.

#4749757

sykozis

2014-01-24 00:26

But on TV we know its an advertisement while on YouTube it should be people's personal opinion. Now it makes it tougher to trust anything and it wasn't even great to start with. now how do I know if I should buy a game if even personal opinions are bought and hides problems. I know there are other ways but not everyone does and listen to these people.

But even in the TV advertisements, you don't know whether or not the product being advertised even works.

#4749762

JJayzX

2014-01-24 00:34

But even in the TV advertisements, you don't know whether or not the product being advertised even works.

That's why people look to reviews and such online cause we know tv is bs but now we see were losing personal opinions.

#4749775

sykozis

2014-01-24 01:04

Reviews have never been completely trust worthy. This isn't something that just recently started. This has been going on as long as the internet has.... Every major corporation has done it at one time or another, including Intel and NVidia. Look at reviews on Amazon and Newegg..... Hell, look at PCMag reviews....

On proper ads we all learn quickly to put our mental guards up against the hype because we know that it's meant to hype up the product in question... or I hope most of us do so anyway. That and not mentioning that a paid sponsored ad is an ad is illegal in some places, like USA I think and probably EU too.

PCMag should finally come out and admit that Symantec pays them for favorable reviews of Norton products.....but there's nothing in their articles admitting such.

#4749799

chanw4

2014-01-24 01:58

That's no different from the commercials we see on TV in the US. Companies are permitted to market products that they know for a fact don't work or don't work as described and make them sound like they're the greatest products ever released. This is actually standard practice in the US and is openly promoted....

Its different for advertisement on the tv and paid review because 1. you know money are involved. 2. they did not hide the fact that they are contracted to do it on the tv ad. 3. For review site on youtube, that is getting shady and illegal when they decided it is okay to hide that they are under contract to promote said stuff.

#4749808

DesGaizu

2014-01-24 02:28

Its different for advertisement on the tv and paid review because 1. you know money are involved.

Money is ALWAYS involved.

#4749826

sykozis

2014-01-24 03:23

If that's the case then they are scumbags.

They do admit that a Norton employee was involved in the creation of one aspect of their "testing method".....which invalidates their testing methodology as employees from a company who's products you supposedly test and provide an "unbiased" review of should never be involved in developing testing methods.

My boot time test, devised years ago with some help from a Norton engineer, measures the time elapsed between the start of the boot process (as reported by Windows) and the time when the system is ready to use.

Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2424575,00.asp 2 of the most commonly recommended antivirus/security solutions from PCMag, are Norton and Webroot, both of which were found to have exceptionally high false positive rates by AV-Comparatives. Norton was found to have an exceptionally low detection rate by AV-Comparatives, being beaten by even Windows Defender. Of course, Norton claims that file detection tests aren't a viable measure of an antivirus/security solution's ability to protect a system......which should make all of their customers wonder about the product.

#4749832

Loobyluggs

2014-01-24 03:45

I think YouTube should shut down. I'm a hardliner. Plenty of websites and companies should embed their own videos directly, showing videos related to them. The tech for creating your own website and embedding videos has been around for decades, so YouTube is kinda irrelevant. Think about it.

#4749834

sykozis

2014-01-24 04:06

Then where would everyone else post stupid videos?