Looks Like EA Has Also Been Paying Off YouTubers
Yesterday it was revealed that Microsoft had entered a deal with several Machinima partners and representatives, offering the YouTubers money in exchange for good publicity for the Xbox One. The software giant offered additional income per 1000 views, and it seems like they weren’t the only ones hoping it would stay quiet.
According to a thread on NeoGAF, EA has also been paying YouTubers for positive publicity on their products, going to far as to offer $10 per 1000 views for any video that fit their description and followed their guidelines. Unlike Microsoft’s 1.25 million view cap, EA was prepared to continue paying video creators for content that reach up to 6 million views, which is quite a lot of money for anyone who took it.
- You’ll Be Able To Play (Expensive) PS2 Games On Your PS4 Now | 2 months ago
- Jessica Jones Disempowers Its Male Characters And The Effect Is Refreshing | 2 months ago
- Hell Is 30 000 Deathclaws Tearing Through Boston And It’s Glorious | 2 months ago
- Sony Santa Monica Is Teasing Something Truly Strange | 2 months ago
Problem is, again, the guidelines that had to be followed. First, video creators had to use specific footage from EA titles, such as footage from the PC, Xbox One and PS4 versions of Need for Speed Rivals. On top of that, creators could not mention any “major bugs” and while smaller ones could be thrown out here and there, the video was not allowed to focus on them. And, of course, none of the details surrounding this agreement were allowed to be discussed.
Now something I didn’t make exactly clear yesterday is that all the blame can’t really be shifted to companies like Microsoft and EA. In a sense, this is how they market. They offer money to those willing to sacrifice their journalistic integrity and in return get positive coverage. The manner in which they go about it is extremely shady, but this deal essentially takes two to tango. Content creators that accept this deal are no less guilty than the ones offering it.
That said, these deals do violate some FTC (Federal Trade Commission) guidelines, which stipulate that the deal or agreement must be disclosed to the public. Machinima has already responded to this, stating that the agreement prohibited detailing the entire contract itself, rather than the existence of it.
Either way, it’s just the right amount of bad publicity for all of those involved. But is there really such thing as bad publicity? Especially when it’s technically legal?