FTC Endorsement Guide Now Includes Game Reviews, YouTubers, Affiliate Links


#GamerGate had a campaign last year to target various video game and media websites and bring some of what they felt were unethical practices to the doorstep of the FTC. The FTC acknowledged those complaints and launched an investigation into online media outlets, including Gawker and their subsidiaries. Recently, the FTC updated their guidelines on paid endorsements, affiliate links and video game and YouTube promotion, specifically targeting the Let’s Play and live-stream culture.

Reddit user The Chief Lunatic has been keeping abreast and in contact with the FTC official in charge of addressing the issues and guidelines for paid endorsements. The history of getting in contact with the FTC and the guidelines relating to affiliate links, video game reviews and YouTuber culture is chronicled in a recent post on Kotaku in Action.

The actual FTC guidelines that were updated regarding endorsements and what people have been asking about have been let loose to the public on the FTC.gov website.

Some of the new guidelines include addressing multi-channel corporations operating on YouTube, specifically in regards to Let’s Play videos and commentary-based impression videos. This comes a year after the infamous XB1M13 campaign that saw YouTubers signing contracts to promote games, get paid for the coverage and not disclose it. You can check out how the FTC advises YouTubers and channel affiliates to address disclosures.

Even if you’re live-streaming on YouTube, Hitbox or Twitch.tv, it’s important to address disclosure. You can check out what the FTC advises video content makers to do when they receive a free copy of a game they’re promoting or playing on their channel.

If you finished a stream and uploaded the content to YouTube or DailyMotion, the FTC advises content creators to include disclosures at the beginning of the video, noting that disclosures at the end of the video will likely go unseen, stating…

“It’s more likely that a disclosure at the end of the video will be missed, especially if someone doesn’t watch the whole thing. Having it at the beginning of the review would be better. Having multiple disclosures during the video would be even better. Of course, no one should promote a link to your review that bypasses the beginning of the video and skips over the disclosure. If YouTube has been enabled to run ads during your video, a disclosure that is obscured by ads is not clear and conspicuous.”

It’s also mentioned that disclosures in the YouTube description box may not be adequate enough. They suggest adding it to the start of the video, stating…

“The disclosure has the most chance of being effective if it is made clearly and prominently in the video itself. That’s not to say that you couldn’t have disclosures in both the video and the description.”

Some YouTubers like TotalBiscuit have already begun doing disclosures not only in descriptions but also in the videos themselves.

Others have been adding disclosures in ways similar to the way television stations do it, such as Inside Sim Racing, a prominent YouTube outlet that covers racing video games.

I reached out to Darin Gangi from Inside Sim Racing to address the topic of disclosures, particularly in response to some users feeling as if the disclosures were not made entirely clear when some of the content was paid content and other content was standard. This came to a head over a recent discussion involving Project CARS and potential undisclosed endorsements, as reported on Pretend Racecars.

According to Gangi…

“In the video [for iRacing], the sponsors of iRace4Life are all listed at the head of the video. The only sponsors in that list that are also sponsors for ISRTV are SimXperience and Thrustmaster. I was asked to include those sponsors in all the iRace4Life videos as part of our agreement and to have the videos available on our channel.

 

“We don’t have any “written disclosure policies” with any of our sponsors. We don’t hide the fact that any of those companies are sponsors and as a matter of fact have banner ads for all of our sponsors at our website. Some do promotional plugs and have product placement in our videos as well.”

Speaking of websites. Gawker was one of the websites that was quick to update their privacy policy and affiliate link disclosures following an e-mail campaign by #GamerGate, followed shortly thereafter by The Verge who also updated their affiliate link disclosures as well. So what did the FTC have to say about affiliate links and disclosure? According to the updated FTC guidelines…

“When the review has a clear and conspicuous disclosure of your relationship and the reader can see both the review containing that disclosure and the link at the same time, readers have the information they need. You could say something like, “I get commissions for purchases made through links in this post.” But if the product review containing the disclosure and the link are separated, readers may lose the connection.

 

“As for where to place a disclosure, the guiding principle is that it has to be clear and conspicuous. The closer it is to your recommendation, the better. Putting disclosures in obscure places – for example, buried on an ABOUT US or GENERAL INFO page, behind a poorly labeled hyperlink or in a “terms of service” agreement – isn’t good enough. Neither is placing it below your review or below the link to the online retailer so readers would have to keep scrolling after they finish reading. Consumers should be able to notice the disclosure easily.”

Oh that’s beautiful.

This also coincides with a current investigation that the FTC has launched into Gawker media, which has been ongoing since December of 2014.

Additionally, game reviewers from traditional websites also aren’t off the hook. Remember, it was Kotaku and the like that started #GamerGate so they’re also beholden to some of these new guidelines that the FTC will hope enforce major media outlets to follow. If you get any kind of free content from a product manufacturer be prepared to spread your cheeks and let everyone know that you lent your butt to them for an early copy of the game, as pointed out in the FTC’s FAQ.

Now, there are some game journalists out there who feel as if #GamerGate has been invasive and nitpicky, decrying that now they feel as if they should have to disclose everything. This is not the case and even the FTC acknowledges this, stating that…

“As long as your audience knows the nature of your relationship, it’s good enough. So whether you got $50 or $1,000 you could simply say you were “paid.” (That wouldn’t be good enough, however, if you’re an employee or co-owner.)”

So if you were paid, given something for free or had some sort of compensation for your coverage… just let the audience know. It’s really that simple.

You can check out the full tips and advice about the FTC’s rules and guidelines on paid endorsements and disclosure by visiting the official FTC website.



About

Billy has been rustling Jimmies for years. The GJP cried and their tears became his milkshake. Contact.

  • Mistah J.

    It’s truly a thing of beauty.

  • Smug Life

    In the paragraph starting with “Additionally, game reviewers from traditional websites also aren’t off the hook.” I think there is a bit of mischaracterization as they would only need to disclose if they were specifically paid for the coverage right according to the subsequent screenshot? Is there another part that classifies receiving swag, etc as being paid?

    • Smug Life

      Otherwise great read, thanks!

    • Well, they say it right there in the screenshot

      “Getting early access doesn’t mean that you got paid. Getting a “sneak peak” of the game doesn’t even mean that you get to keep the game. If you get early access, you can say that, but if you are paid, you should say so.”

      They’re saying that even if you aren’t paid you should still disclose or say that you got early access to a game or product or swag that may have played a part in the coverage of the company’s product.

    • Also, just in case, there’s another section that also covers swag, it’s not specifically related to games which is why I didn’t include it but it covers the topic generally anyway:

      https://i.imgur.com/JXdlTNp.png

  • LenLovecraft

    God damn it feels good to be ethical.

  • C G Saturation

    Good. But I still think it’s sad that so many people need regulations to keep them from being corrupt as shit. What a disgusting bunch of immoral assholes.

  • Gamer

    This is great. More FCC changes directly because of Gamergate.

    No way anyone can hand-wave this off like they tried to with Steam curators or IGN’s first ever ethics policy. Not to say anyone believed their hand-waving.

  • Benjamin Peters

    We are all going to be taken to the Valhalla of Ethics when our time comes to stop posting on the internet. Taken by beautiful winged Gamer Valkyries.

  • Pingback: CBC Ombudsman Admits Journalist Misrepresented #GamerGate Information | One Angry Gamer()

Skip to toolbar