Microsoft to offer $3 per 1000 YouTube views if you promote Xbox One?

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Because its not Microsoft's fault if some people cop out to get their money. Its just paid advertising, plain and simple. YT isn't some holy land of people, its just another vessel for media that companies can pay to advertise their products on to whomever will take their money.

Now if Microsoft were paying people to ###### on the PS4, I'd be right next to you, but they aren't.

 

It is not your standard paid advertising at all, and if it were then there would be no problem. It'd be as controversial as OXM saying nice things about the X1.

 

If you're on MS' payroll and advertising, fair enough, but your not. Which is the major difference here.

 

We're going round in circles though and obviously not going to agree so I'm done with the topic.

 

 

Then I guess its just because its MS.

Nope, at least not for me it's not.

 

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1197123-microsoft-to-offer-3-per-1000-youtube-views-if-you-promote-xbox-one/?view=findpost&p=596222711

 

Or even more recent, Geoff Keighley and DoritosGate is another I have issues with.

[trooper11]

We're going round in circles though and obviously not going to agree so I'm done with the topic.

Well like I said, my example of the let's play caster that avoids pushing a personal opinion of games could participate in this without issue. There is no stipulation that they must offer a positive opinion/review.

I'm concerned about this stuff as much as you are. As long as we know the details and viewers will know what is going on, we can decide on a case by case basis what is acceptable.

[GotBored]

It will be marked and viewers can decide if it matters to them.

The guidelines there clearly make no mention of requiring a 'review' or even that the video can only have positive content.

 

A tag in a YouTube video isn't visible, its just used to search for videos. If you search Xbox One and click on a YouTube video you have no way of knowing if it were a payed-review or not unless you take additional time consuming steps and majority of people would not know of or do these.

 

 

Yeah usually you don't pay for crappy advertising. You and AB are really off the mark here. Its absolutely mind boggling.

 

Andrew G was just providing sources to people (Like the above post) that you did indeed need to give a positive review, I and I'm assuming Andrew G consider it mind boggling that some people thought otherwise but don't jump on Andrew G post just because he provided a source for people with problems understanding the fact.

 

Well like I said, my example of the let's play caster that avoids pushing a personal opinion of games could participate in this without issue. There is no stipulation that they must offer a positive opinion/review.

I'm concerned about this stuff as much as you are. As long as we know the details and viewers will know what is going on, we can decide on a case by case basis what is acceptable.

 

Guidelines to the offer clearly state you can not give a negative representation of the Xbox One or Xbox games, how is there no stipulation that they must give a positive opinion/review?

[trooper11]

Ah ok. In that case then, its on the caster to make it clear. I would hope any popular caster is going to be more than willing to not hide that fact.

Again, I've seen them do just that.

 

 

Guidelines to the offer clearly state you can not give a negative representation of the Xbox One or Xbox games, how is there no stipulation that they must give a positive opinion/review?

Umm, because there is no stipulation. What about a neutral representation? Is that denied in the rules?

My point is that a caster doesn't have to positively endorse the product based on these rules. What they must do is provide commentary for game footage and cannot be negative about it.

If the rules stated that positive opinions were required, then I would agree with you. The goal seems to be to get the word out about X1 games without negative commentary.

[Houtei]

Hmm I don't see why this had to be such a big thread.   They are not giving out that much anyways.  The whole thing is over once a collective 1.25mil views happens and that's only $3750 total that's given out.  lol stop being so dramatic

[DrunknMunky Veteran]

Topic cleaned.

 

No Personal Attacks or Retaliation
Personal attacks such as instigating "flame bait", verbal abuse, mocking or sexist remarks of members is not tolerated at Neowin. Such content will be deleted on sight or moderated accordingly.

As above, if you are a long standing member, act like one. Lead by example and assist other newer members rather than attacking them. Members that reply to simply instigate argument will be warned / suspended from forum areas.

 

Please discuss topics respectfully. Attempts to bait others into flamewars will not be tolerated. The use of "fanboy" (or any similar derogatory term) when used against a specific member or group of members will be considered flame-bait and/or a personal attack.You also may not join a discussion for the purpose of destroying it by making lame and unhelpful comments. Such people will be dealt with accordingly. In summary, no flamebaiting, no trolling and no personal attacks.

[BajiRav]

They won't have to announce it. The video has to be tagged with XB1M13 along with the other criteria:

 

Does it say they can't announce it?

[trooper11]

Nope, at least not for me it's not.

 

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1197123-microsoft-to-offer-3-per-1000-youtube-views-if-you-promote-xbox-one/?view=findpost&p=596222711

 

Or even more recent, Geoff Keighley and DoritosGate is another I have issues with.

I wasn't referring to you. You were talking in general about the bad rep this could give popular YouTube casters.

I'm well aware of your stance regarding advertising and its not focused on any single group or company.

I just wasn't sure if this case rose to the level of outrage. I'm still not sure. I guess part of me does think its a little too shady even if its not meant to be that way. If MS or anyone else wants to do this, then it needs to be very open. Sponsoring someone on YouTube to post videos about their games isn't wrong in my opinion as long as the sponsoring is not covered up or it is somehow portrayed in a fraudulent way.

Does it say they can't announce it?

Well in the details of the agreement, it does say that the caster cannot discuss the details of the agreement such as payment amounts, etc.

However, it does not say anywhere that you cannot announce that you are doing sponsored videos in a general way. It also does not put any restrictions on how you title your video. So there seems to be ways for the caster to get the message across if they are going to be honest.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Found the agreement

:no:

That's what I thought, wouldn't be as bad if that weren't in play but I knew it would be. Lots of YTers are going to get blowback if they "shill out" for a few bucks. More so if they're in the camp of parading about their integrity/honesty when it comes to previews/reviews.

Can't wait for the "This is BF4 on the Xbox One, its amazing and the best MP game ever on XBL Gold."

*game crashes in background and wipes stats*

[George P Global Moderator]

Talk about overreacting to something that's not going to around in a few weeks. I'm shocked this thing is going for so many pages, I guess we just love to overinflate anything negative about the Xbox.  Other than NGF what other gaming site has even brought this up or made a big thing out of it?  Actually I'm somehow not surprised by this, now I won't be able to sleep at night with all the YT guys making $3 when talking about some XB1 game they like, oh the humanity! 

[Knife Party]

I find it hilarious that for all the Scroogled ads about Google, MS has the audacity to use Googles services to promote their products with this lowballing tactic. Youtube is now going to be flooded with people harping on about the 'glory and specialness' of XB1, which speaks to the sentiment of this : companies such as MS no longer honestly sell their products based on their merits, they have to appeal to those who are greedy and fanboys on media channels to push their agenda. Sad really. And then you have the sentiment of "its not bad , if others are doing it" - Its bad practice period.

[spenser.d]

I find it hilarious that for all the Scroogled ads about Google, MS has the audacity to use Googles services to promote their products with this lowballing tactic. Youtube is now going to be flooded with people harping on about the 'glory and specialness' of XB1, which speaks to the sentiment of this : companies such as MS no longer honestly sell their products based on their merits, they have to appeal to those who are greedy and fanboys on media channels to push their agenda. Sad really. And then you have the sentiment of "its not bad , if others are doing it" - Its bad practice period.

Scroogled is about search, not youtube.

Youtube isn't going to be flooded with anything because of this.

At the very least, Xbox One is selling on merit alone, or they wouldn't have the sales numbers they already have.

If paying for advertising is bad practice, it's probably a good thing you don't run a business.

Like George said, it's amazing this thread has gone on for so long for something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

[GotBored]

Scroogled is about search, not youtube.Youtube isn't going to be flooded with anything because of this.At the very least, Xbox One is selling on merit alone, or they wouldn't have the sales numbers they already have.If paying for advertising is bad practice, it's probably a good thing you don't run a business.Like George said, it's amazing this thread has gone on for so long for something so insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

Scroogled was about Google products, YouTube happens to be one.

Search for XB1M13 in YouTube, there is already hundreds of videos taking Microsoft up on their paid-reviews offer.

If Xbox One is selling on merit alone why pay for positive reviews? and yes they have good sales numbers but their main competitor is outselling them. Paying for advertisement isn't bad practise but the way they did it is. I don't remember Kaa-Ching stating he does or does not run a business, I think it's kind of obnoxious to say he isn't able to possibly run a business based off some forum comments which don't agree with your stand-point on the issue.

I wouldn't call it insignificant since most people whom have posted seem to have strong opinions on the matter. (Including yourself)

[BajiRav]

Scroogled was about Google products, YouTube happens to be one.

Search for XB1M13 in YouTube, there is already hundreds of videos taking Microsoft up on their paid-reviews offer.

If Xbox One is selling on merit alone why pay for positive reviews? and yes they have good sales numbers but their main competitor is outselling them. Paying for advertisement isn't bad practise but the way they did it is. I don't remember Kaa-Ching stating he does or does not run a business, I think it's kind of obnoxious to say he isn't able to possibly run a business based off some forum comments which don't agree with your stand-point on the issue.

I wouldn't call it insignificant since most people whom have posted seem to have strong opinions on the matter. (Including yourself)

You don't get anything just by adding that tag. You need to sign up with MS and then only you get paid. They are not paying for positive reviews. Stop twisting facts.

Youtubers have no obligations to sign up with MS if they don't to.

[JonnyLH]

Advertising =/= Desperate

 

That's all I have to say on the matter.

[Eric Veteran]

[Thread cleaned]

Stay on topic, obey the rules or be warned.

[spenser.d]

Scroogled was about Google products, YouTube happens to be one.

Search for XB1M13 in YouTube, there is already hundreds of videos taking Microsoft up on their paid-reviews offer.

If Xbox One is selling on merit alone why pay for positive reviews? and yes they have good sales numbers but their main competitor is outselling them. Paying for advertisement isn't bad practise but the way they did it is. I don't remember Kaa-Ching stating he does or does not run a business, I think it's kind of obnoxious to say he isn't able to possibly run a business based off some forum comments which don't agree with your stand-point on the issue.

I wouldn't call it insignificant since most people whom have posted seem to have strong opinions on the matter. (Including yourself)

So what?

Hundreds? Of all the youtube videos out there, they get a couple hundred and that counts as flooded :laugh:

It's not paying for positive reviews, it's paying for advertising. It's the same as when they pay Viacom to run ads on their networks.

And I said probably.

And just because I state an opinion doesn't mean it's not insignificant. In the grand scheme of things, it is very insignificant, which is why its baffling as to why you and a few others are making such a big deal out of it, but to each his own I guess. Have fun.

[trooper11]

That's what I thought, wouldn't be as bad if that weren't in play but I knew it would be. Lots of YTers are going to get blowback if they "shill out" for a few bucks. More so if they're in the camp of parading about their integrity/honesty when it comes to previews/reviews.

Can't wait for the "This is BF4 on the Xbox One, its amazing and the best MP game ever on XBL Gold."

*game crashes in background and wipes stats*

Read the details of the agreement. As I tried to point out to others, there is nothing in there that demands a caster post a positive review of the content. They say don't post anything negative, but that doesn't bar you from not giving any opinion at all. So someone could put up a video, playing an X1 game without posting a personal review at all, just giving direct commentary to demo a game. Also, that caster is not blocked from making it known that MS is sponsoring them for these videos.

Look, I get that you guys feel passionately about this and feel that anything like this must be shouted down because maybe its a slippery slope. I can see your side of it. But is there no room in there for a third option?

If casters don't disclose to their viewers that they are being sponsored on certain videos, then those casters should get blow back from viewers. Casters do this and most viewers end up being fine with it. Disclosure is what its all about. If this agreement bared any kind of disclosure, I would have more of a problem with it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Read the details of the agreement. As I tried to point out to others, there is nothing in there that demands a caster post a positive review of the content. They say don't post anything negative, but that doesn't bar you from not giving any opinion at all. So someone could put up a video, playing an X1 game without posting a personal review at all, just giving direct commentary to demo a game. Also, that caster is not blocked from making it known that MS is sponsoring them for these videos.

Look, I get that you guys feel passionately about this and feel that anything like this must be shouted down because maybe its a slippery slope. I can see your side of it. But is there no room in there for a third option?

If casters don't disclose to their viewers that they are being sponsored on certain videos, then those casters should get blow back from viewers. Casters do this and most viewers end up being fine with it. Disclosure is what its all about. If this agreement bared any kind of disclosure, I would have more of a problem with it.

 

Even if you can offer up the perfect scenario/situation the issue you still have is convincing those who have a sinister outlook at business decisions like this, full stop. And people aren't necessarily doing your favourite gaming company hard done by, by scrutinizing and worrying about every cash influenced decision/proposal they make. Things start small (horse armour DLC) and amount to larger scenarios, or attempts at testing the water (season passes/online passes).

 

Lets not forget what industry we are dealing with here, it's plagued with immature journalism, cash greed, an obsession with controlling every single thing the gamer can/can't do and is at the same time sky rocketing in popularity every day (whether it's people being introduced to mobile gaming, or mobile gamers moving to dedicated platforms - PC/consoles).

[trooper11]

Even if you can offer up the perfect scenario/situation the issue you still have is convincing those who have a sinister outlook at business decisions like this, full stop. And people aren't necessarily doing your favourite gaming company hard done by, by scrutinizing and worrying about every cash influenced decision/proposal they make. Things start small (horse armour DLC) and amount to larger scenarios, or attempts at testing the water (season passes/online passes).

 

Lets not forget what industry we are dealing with here, it's plagued with immature journalism, cash greed, an obsession with controlling every single thing the gamer can/can't do and is at the same time sky rocketing in popularity every day (whether it's people being introduced to mobile gaming, or mobile gamers moving to dedicated platforms - PC/consoles).

Well to those that have a sinister outlook at business decisions, any sponsorship or endorsement of any company is going to be a bad thing. A popular caster being sponsored by Nvidia would be in the same boat as someone participating in this program. If you feel like this, then that's fine, there are plenty of reasons you might feel that way and its a legitimate discussion.

But I'm talking from experience seeing the reaction that viewers can give. The larger majority of viewers seem willing to put the issue of sponsorship or support aside as long as the caster is upfront about it. If they hide that fact, viewers will not forgive them. Just look around at popular YouTube casters in gaming. There are popular names that also do sponsored reviews/previews/demos.

Your exactly right that the industry has issues, including in the user community itself. The key is for everyone that follows the scene to be alert. You and I need to track down this stuff and find out which cases are clearly over the line, and which are ok.

My criteria are pretty simple:

1. If you take an endorsement/sponsorship deal, then you as the caster have the responsibility to disclose that when posting videos that are part of that deal.

2. The company that offers the deal should not bar the caster from disclosing that fact to their viewers (if they want to bar disclosing the specifics like dollar amounts, fine, but not completely).

3. The company should not include wording in the deal that explicitly forces the caster to post a positive personal opinion

(the only exception I have here is if the caster is going to become an official part of that company, then of course that company will only be paying them to post about things they feel positively about)

So for me personally, I'm ok with this particular deal because it does not keep the caster from disclosing the relationship and while it does not apply to videos that content a negative slant towards the product, it does not require the caster to make a positive slant, allowing the third option of no slant at all.

I guess for me its just not black and white. I'm willing to bend a little under the conditions I listed above. If MS or any company pushes it farther and breaks those pieces, I'm completely against it.

[+Audioboxer Subscriber²]

Well to those that have a sinister outlook at business decisions, any sponsorship or endorsement of any company is going to be a bad thing. A popular caster being sponsored by Nvidia would be in the same boat as someone participating in this program. If you feel like this, then that's fine, there are plenty of reasons you might feel that way and its a legitimate discussion.

But I'm talking from experience seeing the reaction that viewers can give. The larger majority of viewers seem willing to put the issue of sponsorship or support aside as long as the caster is upfront about it. If they hide that fact, viewers will not forgive them. Just look around at popular YouTube casters in gaming. There are popular names that also do sponsored reviews/previews/demos.

Your exactly right that the industry has issues, including in the user community itself. The key is for everyone that follows the scene to be alert. You and I need to track down this stuff and find out which cases are clearly over the line, and which are ok.

My criteria are pretty simple:

1. If you take an endorsement/sponsorship deal, then you as the caster have the responsibility to disclose that when posting videos that are part of that deal.

2. The company that offers the deal should not bar the caster from disclosing that fact to their viewers (if they want to bar disclosing the specifics like dollar amounts, fine, but not completely).

3. The company should not include wording in the deal that explicitly forces the caster to post a positive personal opinion

(the only exception I have here is if the caster is going to become an official part of that company, then of course that company will only be paying them to post about things they feel positively about)

So for me personally, I'm ok with this particular deal because it does not keep the caster from disclosing the relationship and while it does not apply to videos that content a negative slant towards the product, it does not require the caster to make a positive slant, allowing the third option of no slant at all.

I guess for me its just not black and white. I'm willing to bend a little under the conditions I listed above. If MS or any company pushes it farther and breaks those pieces, I'm completely against it.

 

The thing is, smartly from a business decision, MS essentially wash their hands here and leave it up to the easily corrupted to make such decisions to chase after money. No guns are pointing at heads, but cmon, you know what people will do or say for a quick buck.

 

"Dirty dealings" go on behind the scenes all the time, the issue MS have caught flak for here is in making such a business proposal public, it has caught the eyes of all the onlookers. Where as some, not all, of the "bribery" or if that's too harsh a word for you, "buttering up" that goes on with actual journalists does remain behind the scenes. But boy, in recent years have some sites/individuals been caught with their pants down. I think the Jeff Gerstmann/Gamespot Kane and Lynch scenario was one of the first/biggest to get aired out publicly. Keep in mind though we're talking about YTers here, not real journalists, so again, it's catching the attention from onlookers as until now it's a fairly new way of business for most of us to learn about. Sure it's been happening for a while, but as I've written a lot of it goes on behind the scenes.

 

The Gamespot example (one of many) just allures to why people have issues, or concerns with things like this, and again I feel you can't really walk away from this saying those on the other side of the fence from you (if you're proclaiming nothing is wrong) don't at least have some valid pointers to share. Even if the pointers are "what ifs" for the future, our industry has shown time and time again quite a lot of what ifs do actually come true, especially those about money/control.

[GotBored]

Well to those that have a sinister outlook at business decisions, any sponsorship or endorsement of any company is going to be a bad thing. A popular caster being sponsored by Nvidia would be in the same boat as someone participating in this program. If you feel like this, then that's fine, there are plenty of reasons you might feel that way and its a legitimate discussion.

But I'm talking from experience seeing the reaction that viewers can give. The larger majority of viewers seem willing to put the issue of sponsorship or support aside as long as the caster is upfront about it. If they hide that fact, viewers will not forgive them. Just look around at popular YouTube casters in gaming. There are popular names that also do sponsored reviews/previews/demos.

Your exactly right that the industry has issues, including in the user community itself. The key is for everyone that follows the scene to be alert. You and I need to track down this stuff and find out which cases are clearly over the line, and which are ok.

My criteria are pretty simple:

1. If you take an endorsement/sponsorship deal, then you as the caster have the responsibility to disclose that when posting videos that are part of that deal.

2. The company that offers the deal should not bar the caster from disclosing that fact to their viewers (if they want to bar disclosing the specifics like dollar amounts, fine, but not completely).

3. The company should not include wording in the deal that explicitly forces the caster to post a positive personal opinion

(the only exception I have here is if the caster is going to become an official part of that company, then of course that company will only be paying them to post about things they feel positively about)

So for me personally, I'm ok with this particular deal because it does not keep the caster from disclosing the relationship and while it does not apply to videos that content a negative slant towards the product, it does not require the caster to make a positive slant, allowing the third option of no slant at all.

I guess for me its just not black and white. I'm willing to bend a little under the conditions I listed above. If MS or any company pushes it farther and breaks those pieces, I'm completely against it.

I'm not sure how you expect people to be neutral in these videos. They need to get views to make more money from Microsoft and posting a game trailer and just saying this is 'so and so' on the Xbox One and then not talking for the rest of the video isn't going to happen. They could just mention the features they like but then that's a positive review when you only mention the things you like and none of the negatives.

Most casters would not disclose that they are being paid to review a product and are not able to say anything negative about it, if they did Microsoft could see it as a negative thing and not pay them because saying 'I'm being forced to give a positive review for cash from Microsoft' isn't really a positive or neutral thing is it? (It gives a negative image of Microsoft).

[MorganX]

There's nothing wrong with MS Paying for this. But they way they are going about broadcasting it does have a hint of desperation, though it's a little early for either to feel any real desperation.

 

Another angle, if XB1 is currently behind PS4, doing this devalues or puts in doubt, all positive promos. People will disregard them figuring they're all shills. This only benefits whoever is currently trailing, lol.

[trooper11]

The Gamespot example (one of many) just allures to why people have issues, or concerns with things like this, and again I feel you can't really walk away from this saying those on the other side of the fence from you (if you're proclaiming nothing is wrong) don't at least have some valid pointers to share. Even if the pointers are "what ifs" for the future, our industry has shown time and time again quite a lot of what ifs do actually come true, especially those about money/control.

I didn't say people like yourself didn't have valid points. Read my response to you. I said I in fact understand your points.

I then spelled out what my opinion is and what my criteria are when evaluating these things. You can't walk away from this and say that those on 'the other side' (if your saying you are against anything of this nature) don't have some valid points as well.

If your going to claim that the casters, as all human beings can be, are going to be corrupted by this, then MS making it public is a good thing. It means that any casters that don't make it clear to its viewers will take a hit. Personally, I prefer disclosure.

 

I'm not sure how you expect people to be neutral in these videos. They need to get views to make more money from Microsoft and posting a game trailer and just saying this is 'so and so' on the Xbox One and then not talking for the rest of the video isn't going to happen. They could just mention the features they like but then that's a positive review when you only mention the things you like and none of the negatives.

Most casters would not disclose that they are being paid to review a product and are not able to say anything negative about it, if they did Microsoft could see it as a negative thing and not pay them because saying 'I'm being forced to give a positive review for cash from Microsoft' isn't really a positive or neutral thing is it? (It gives a negative image of Microsoft).

Watch some let's play/walkthrough casters to get an idea about what I mean by being neutral. It does happen, a lot.

As far as not saying they are being sponsored, if they don't share it, they will get in trouble, that's all I'm saying.

I can think of several ways to let your viewers know you are doing sponsored videos without giving away the specific that MS or any company might not allow you to disclose. In fact, I have seen some popular casters do it.

 

There's nothing wrong with MS Paying for this. But they way they are going about broadcasting it does have a hint of desperation, though it's a little early for either to feel any real desperation.

 

Another angle, if XB1 is currently behind PS4, doing this devalues or puts in doubt, all positive promos. People will disregard them figuring they're all shills. This only benefits whoever is currently trailing, lol.

This has to be a console wars thing. I swear people don't react like this when youtube casters get sponsored or endorse products they are sent for things like pc hardware companies, etc.

[MorganX]

This has to be a console wars thing. I swear people don't react like this when youtube casters get sponsored or endorse products they are sent for things like pc hardware companies, etc.

 

Of course it is.