Slashdot Mirror
New Rules Say UK Video Bloggers Must Be Clearer About Paid Endorsements
AmiMoJo writes: New guidelines for video bloggers who enter marketing relationships with brands have been published. Earlier this year the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) ruled that paid endorsements for Oreo biscuits on YouTube were not marked clearly enough. The new rules outline several scenarios where content must be clearly marked as an advertisement. One note from the linked article: However, the guidelines noted that when free items are sent to vloggers without any editorial or content control over videos exerted by the brand in question, there is no need for them to follow the Cap code.
where activision sends them all the free skylanders and my kids drive me crazy why they can't so many?
The "video game reviewer" segment is wholly bought and paid for unless proven otherwise.
Note how they said the company could not run the ads again in their current form. If this was a one-off it'd be ok, but the ASA lets companies break the rules regularly without sanction. The most obvious example of this is telecoms companies, they omit costs or call products unlimited when obviously they aren't. They drag their feet and tell them to take down the ads, but the ad campaign is usually already over. Rinse, repeat.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Now if only Slashdot video advertisements had such honesty.
Careful with calling oreos "biscuits" around Americans, lest they become tempted to start dipping them in gravy or eating them with bacon ;)
"99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
In other words the mindless cretins that constitute government in the UK are trying to treat the internet in the same way as TV.
We really need a new internet where the bar to entry keeps the riff raff out.
The only thing more retarded than the UK advertising regulations are the UK slander/liable laws.
I work for the ASA. So I am really getting a kick out of most of these replies. Some of you guys are very good at making it sound like you know what you are talking about. But trust me.... You don't. I think you just want to make yourself sound smart, when in reality you don't know what you are talking about. This is how bad info gets passed around. If you don't know about the topic....Don't make yourself sound like you do. Because some Slashdotters believe anything they hear.
Convene a meeting of the YouTube Vlogger Ethics Committee at once!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Here is what I'd like to see in the US. I'm American by the way.
When it comes to in-show ads of any kind, I'd like to see during the credits a mention of the sponsorship.
Period. Mostly just people lying for money.
It is disappointing that free items sent to the vlogger by the manufacturer are excluded from this requirement.
While the reviewer is free in these situations to slag off items sent to him gratis, there is still a greater likelihood he will overlook issues and give the item a better review rather than risk losing the opportunity to get more free items. In many ways, the reviewer is still in the employ of the manufacturer, except instead of being paid in cash he is being paid in merchandise. There is an unspoken expectation from the company that the vlogger will give the free item a good review, and if the vlogger fails to perform to expectations, he is "fired" and no longer receives any further "paychecks", e.g., free items from that company.
The audience should be made aware of this connection between the reviewer and the company behind the product, even if no actual cash or editorial direction has been given.
If you ignore the ASA or tell them to fuck off, they will do bad things, like ... um ... post on their website that you have told them to fuck off.
They might also take out an advertisement on Google so someone sees a message when they do a search for your blog/business/youtube channel indicating that you've told them to fuck off.
I think people should be clear when they show sponsored products, that's about basic integrity and ethics, but the ASA can make bad decisions. They aren't a government body. You can tell them to fuck off if you want to. The worst thing they'll do in many cases is tell people that you've told them to fuck off.
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
Sometimes you can deal with it even better. Fortunately in the US there was a grassroots customer revolt against the corruption so strong that the FTC stepped in in direct response to make it clear that, yes, disclosure of financial relationships is absolutely required.
And just this weekend the Society of Professional Journalists also publically stated that reviewers with relevant personal relationships must disclose them (or preferably just recuse themselves from those jobs).
Funny how none of that has been considered newsworthy . . .
I wish politicians had greater disclosure of their paid endorsements.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.