Hmm hardly news, goes on a LOT and there are some honest ones that wouldn't take the deal (as an open disclaimer when they are paid for their review/work) and some that would and even when on an open disclaimer wouldn't tell the viewer

The only iffy bit was it was explicitly non disclosure of the offer, it's usually the other way round

And there was I thinking 'Youtube celebrity' was a synonym for '[LIFTED]'

Nothing untoward when you consider what they can get away with legally in adverts in the US.

Paid YouTube game endorsements are widespread, says Boogie2988

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/44 ... oogie2988/

I love that name

I do think that it makes sense for the companies to pay for good promotion of their products. Though most uploaders who get some sponsorship do try and give a fair representation of the product that they are commenting on. I have seen a number of such youtube videos for completely different products and they are basically fair, plus you can see for yourself how the product is used and handled. With game reviews I suspect that you will see segments of the game and the reviewer will be reasonably honest because otherwise there will be a pile of abusive comments below.

Also misleading, Microsoft didn't pay the youtubers. They paid a viral marketing company who acted unethically, and possible illegally (under FTC rules, the youtubers must state when their reviews are sponsored or they get review kit).

Being given kit to review is one thing but not the same as being paid to do so as well.

I believe the phrase is 'plausible deniabilty'? I can't imagine MS saying "Yes, here's a big pile of money to market xBox One for us. No, no, we don't care how you spend it, do whatever you like..." Not that any of the others are better of of course. This stuff goes on all the time and a range of companies do it, especially in sectors like technology where punters are likely to go to places like youtube for information on products they are thinking about buying. You, I and everyone on here probably own devices made by companies that have done this. It's just that this time, Microsoft/their marketing agency pissed someone off who went public about it.

Jon

YouTube endorsements don't break guidelines, says FTC

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/44 ... -says-ftc/

I'm sorry, but what are the chances of seeing a video with, for instance, 'Our agreement with Microsoft means we cannot say anything disparaging about them or their products' in text, never mind the presenter/uploader saying it! That's the only sort of disclosure these situations require, unless you're going to say 'This is an advert, not a review'.

US regulations about what can and cannot be said about a product are far weaker than what we have here.