Is It Fair For YouTube Content Creators To Receive Money From Publishers?

EGMR writes: "In what is perhaps unsurprising news, a recent survey carried out by Gamasutra revealed that almost a dozen YouTube stars admitted to accepting money from gaming publishers in exchange for coverage on their games. The survey asked 141 YouTubers questions regarding ethics and video game criticism. While the data is available for you to process as you see fit, I want to discuss the issues surrounding such a deal since it is something widely debated between gamers, content creators and journalists, and is still a bit of a gray area. In light of YouTubers admitting to “receiving money directly or indirectly from a game dev/publisher for recording videos of their games”, I want to address the core issues that surface once such a deal is in place. Strap in gentlemen, it’s time to debate."

[NYC_Gamer]

I can't really trust a person being paid to promote a product to be 100% truthful

[DeadRabbits]

The Adam Sessler Effect

[cleft5]

Honestly, people need to think for themselves and be sheep. Trusting some corporate tool to tell you the truth is a serious mistake. The moment money is exchanged, all credibility is compromised.

[CarlosX360]

When I read the article's title, I thought "Oh, shut up!" You'd do the same if you had the chance. Hey, author, NewsFlash: Companies bribe critics, journalists, and bloggers all the time, how is this different? Nothing!

[SilentNegotiator]

So long as there's 100% disclosure of who is sponsoring the content, I'm fine with it. Just don't expect me to view the content the same way if it's sponsored by the publisher/manufacturer of the game/console you're showing.
*COUGH* XB1M13 *COUGH*

[spoonard]

How is this any different than commercials on TV? The people who want to promote their product on TV pay the channel to show their commercial. Coverage doesn't have to mean review.

[FantasyStar]

I can see the rising issues. Back then, we originally saw Youtube as a bastion for purity when it came to gameplay coverage. We could watch VG content by gamers, for gamers. It took out the black politics that we all complained about from the shady FF13 360 footage, right down to the KZ4 fake-1080 footage. But if you start accepting the reality YT partners can/will accept money for coverage then the hero has become the villian and a huge exodus will begin again to find unfiltered content.

It's right there in the 2nd paragraph of the article. Assuming you've read it.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

The difference is we are not watching TV. People usually expect Tubers to be fairly honest due to lack of corprorate backing when it comes to reviews and impressions. The last thing we we need is even more people giving games high regards only to see them broken at launch......

Would you trust a judge being paid by the defendant's company to give a fair trial?

I do believe in disclosure to the public though like the latter responses to this article......

[stavrami-mk2]

i once watched a man pretend to be a dinosaur on you tube i didn't expect any honesty from it

anyone convinced to buy a product through advert or biased opinions is there own fault

TRUST NO ONE

[rdgneoz3]

Yep, if they're trying suppose to be giving their honest opinion and make no mention that they're being paid to promote it (when they are), they're not being honest at all.

If they come out and say they're being paid by the company for the video (which they should), then people would take it with a grain of salt. It basically becomes like watching a developer walk through or a trailer for the game.

[Kyosuke_Sanada]

Response to:
stavrami-mk2

It is wrong to buy something solely due to the opinion of another but I see no problem of comparing notes to have a better perspective,

Dinosaurs are extinct but money is very real and leagues more influential......

[stavrami-mk2]

your wrong because you talk sense

[TheSaint]

You don't look at a review for buying cola.

[DEEBO]

I like boogie,he really is a open book.

[InTheLab]

I stopped watching his videos the day he asked us to remove adblock and watch commercials. That's the day it stopped being about creating quality content for the love of it and became more about lining his pockets.

Also, it seems like he only became an open book after others were exposed. Perhaps he knew it was a matter of time before he's being exposed?

[JBSleek]

Sure why not.

[Roccetarius]

Anything you receive money for, even if it's promoting a TV show, game or something else, is a conflict of interest. You can't trust people doing it. Gaming sites also depend on that source of revenue, which is why you can't be 100¤ sure it's the truth.

[FantasyStar]

Exactly: taking money for ad-sense for Youtube was a tolerance. Knowing that YT people are being paid by publishers to promote their game crosses that line. Transparancy or not, it will always be a conflict of interest. We only need to look as far as Gamespot and Gerstmann for the worse case scenario.

[WeAreLegion]

Boogie has been completely truthful about his content. He will accept money to promote something, but only if he truly loves what he's promoting. There are several games he has been asked to promote, but did not. He's honestly the only YouTuber I currently trust for this stuff.

He has made several videos about the topic.

[Software_Lover]

I think that is a great point. If you truly like a product, I see nothing wrong with accepting money to promote it.

[FantasyStar]

If you truly like a product: you'll do it for free. Money is always a conflict of interest because there will always be a gap between what they want and what you want. Your love for the product will never be as ideal as the love for money the publishers pursue.

[WeAreLegion]

You can't spend that much time on something for free. It doesn't work like that. They're doing an actual job and getting paid for it. That's how reality works.

[Revolver_X_]

Exactly Legion. Ppl expect content weekly for free? They have bills just like we do. Totalbiscuit excepted money for a game preview, then critiqued the hell out of it. This whole conspiracy of corporations is getting out of hand. If you cant trust anyones word or have enough common sense to see through something phony, then stay off the internet.

[gamercologyst]

if you love something you can do it with Passion and not about that CA$$$H

[WeAreLegion]

So, he should do all this for free and be completely poor? He spends more time working on his content than either of us does at our jobs. I guarantee that.

[uth11]

IMO you should disclose it

[Software_Lover]

So it's okay for gaming sites to do it but not youtubers who are just trying to make ................. money?

If they are just showing themselves playing the game, I see no problem with them receiving money (although now I think they will have to pay some money out). If they are reviewing the game, understandably that is a conflict of interest, but I myself have never looked to youtube to decide if I'm going to purchase a game or not.

[TitanUp]

the only thing i don't agree with people posting full video games on youtube. those people shouldn't get payed.

payed youtubers should be like this

1.reviews
2.quick looks
3. previews
4. interviews
5. opinions/podcast

[_LarZen_]

"Is It Fair For YouTube Content Creators To Receive Money From Publishers?"

Yes, but it should be 100% clear to the viewer that the broadcast is sponsored by a publisher etc.

[BLAKHOODe]

I like Boogie and his Francis character is hilarious. I have no problem w/ him getting paid as long as he keeps bringing the fun and insight on the gaming industry as he sees it. Not only that, the dude is friends with Major Nelson, and still talks of blowing up an Xbox.

[FantasyStar]

And so the hero becomes the villain.

[EinRobot]

Its called biased journalism, that's why I pay no attention to it. Basically an advert pretending to be journalism.

[system22]

I think it's fair as long as it's made known that it's a paid advertisement or endorsement... Just like they've done with tv, since well... Th beginning of tv. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it any different.

[HappyWithOneBubble]

I wouldn't mine doing it. You have to pay them bills man.

[BillmadeAGate]

Off Topic: Remember when everyone thought Gamers looked like the dude above LMAO!! Stereotypes are enjoyable

[MadLad]

I don't like the practice, personally. That said, if it is a product you would support even if you weren't being paid, I see no issue there. Really though, there's no way to know that unless the creator was a long-time known supporter of the product.
There's really only a handful out there who I would trust not to abuse this sort of situation.
Best case scenario, they are paid to play a new or upcoming game for a few hours, let the audience know this and provide little in the way of personal opinion while doing so.

[SpiralTear]

Of course it's fair. It's the honesty and transparency that's the sketchy part.

[InTheLab]

Honestly, AngryJoe is the only one I can say I trust because I feel like he's always honest and upfront about whatever content he puts up.

And then I flip over to Ali-A and feel like the kid has been bought....

[Kidmyst]

The only time I view You Tube and game coverage is when I need help figuring out what to do to get a trophy/achievement. I have yet to use You Tube for a review or anything like that because I want to make my own judgement of a game. But in either way, if someone can get paid by a publisher themselves for the work, good for them, since it's the publisher themselves who are paying them.

[thejigisup]

As a consumer the issue comes down to trust. The sessler effect does come into play but that's also why he has lost a good portion of his following money or not if you don't like the way the reviews are going don't give them your clicks.

[Summons75]

Sure its there job to talk about games no matter how bad 99% of them are and publishers want people to talk about their games and fans love to listen to content providers. Its a win win.

[RuleNumber6]

Is it fair for written content creators (i.e."journalists") to receive money from publishers. Guaranteed everyone would say no, even though it's the exact same thing to me. Both shouldn't or all should. There's isn't a one or the other thing, no gray area here.

[HonestDragon]

Hm. That's a slippery slope to be sure. Content creators getting paid via advertisements is one thing, but directly from the publisher? I'm not so sure how valued their opinion would be should they preview or review a game. I think they would need a disclaimer at the beginning that explains they were being sponsored by the publisher; otherwise, all credibility would be questioned.

[Kingoftherodeo]

people actually listen to thess people rather than try it for them selfs? i mean only time i actually even watched any of these guys talking about video games was thanks to G4tv but idk how people youtube people who talk about games that they will be told that it sucks or doesn't without even trying.

[Mikeyy]

Why even bother watching you tube reviews anymore if their just being payed to give a certain opinion.

Might as well have Bobby Kottic make a video telling us how "awesome" call of duty 2015 is and that we need to buy it, 11/10.

[Mithan]

I don't mind at all, but it should be disclosed.

[il-JumperMT]

Nope, and no they shouldnt recieve any money from anyone for making silly videos.

Worst offenders are those females with "face" cam ranting videos earning thousands of money....WTF?

[Yui_Suzumiya]

Boogie2988 is da bomb!

[e-p-ayeaH]

and ready to explode...