In the original version of this article, I mentioned an example in the context that perhaps it’s actually fine for creators to get paid for the immense amount of time and effort they spend on their content, even for opinions, as its impossible to completely avoid bias whether or not money is involved. However, that content creator alerted me that they no longer offer to form and broadcast their opinions in exchange for monetary compensation, so I removed that example as materially irrelevant to the current state of the industry.
I recently became aware of some accusations floating around the gaming community that some publishers are paying prominent reviewers to express positive opinions about their games, which–if it were true–would be incredibly unethical.*
Underneath this conspiracy theory is a much bigger and more relevant discussion about reviews, previews, compensation, bias, and ethics. Let’s start with the primary area of the gaming industry where money actually does exchange hands, and then we’ll explore the ethicality of paying the media to form and broadcast opinions.
Opinion-Free Content
There is an abundance of content in the game industry that is free of opinions, and creators are frequently compensated for the time they spend on this content. Some examples are:
- How-to-play videos: This is a paid service, and is entirely opinion-free. Rodney at Watch It Played is perhaps the first creator in the game industry to do this (10 years and running now), though there are others who provide a similar service now.
- Previews: A preview is a brief overview explaining the core concepts of a game (a summary of the rules instead of a full rules-replacement video). Among other things, The Mill does this for Stonemaier Games ($250/month).
- Unboxings: These videos focus purely on opening the game and showcasing the components.
- Playthroughs: This format lets the viewer watch the content creator play a few turns or even a full game (e.g., Before You Play). Creators sometimes do this live for more audience engagement, posting the video on YouTube afterwards for anyone to find (e.g., Gaming Rules).
- Advertising: Some content creators sell ad space on their website or channel.
- Giveaways and Contests: On Instagram, it’s fairly common to pay a content creator to use their platform to give away a game in an effort to increase awareness. (I discuss my thoughts on this here.)
- Promotions: Some creators showcase content (photos, descriptions, etc) on Instagram, leveraging the audience they’ve built. One price I’ve heard quoted is $10 per 1000 followers.
- Sizzle reels: Dan at Game Boy Geek creates videos mostly directed at retailers that feature an overview of components and core concepts. We paid Dan $375 for our sales & marketing video.
- Strategy Guides: Creators like Jackie at Show Me How to Win and the folks at Legendary Tactics focus on unique and powerful strategies for other players to learn from.
Even for opinion-free content, it’s still standard practice for the content creator to transparently say that the publisher supplied a free copy of the product and/or financially compensated them. Many content creators purchase the content they discuss on social media–anyone can start an Instagram account, blog, podcast, or YouTube channel and simply start talking about the games they own.
I’ll talk about reviews later in the article, but it’s important to note that there are numerous cases where a content creator is paid for non-opinion content and then choose to offer their opinions. I consider an ethical approach to this to be that the creator makes it clear throughout the video/article/podcast (particularly in the description and when they transition to their opinion) that they were paid to create the non-opinion content. Rahdo does a good job of this, as do many others.
Bias
I’m going to insert the topic of bias as a bridge between opinion-free content and reviews, because bias is almost completely unavoidable in content creation. Even if you have a private Instagram featuring only games you’ve purchased and have never engaged directly with a publisher or designer, you’re still human, and you’re still biased.
Alex recently delved into this topic in a BoardGameCo video in which he highlighted various types of bias experienced by content creators. I’ve added a little to his list:
- Not wanting to be negative (for many people it simply doesn’t feel good to spread negativity; one reviewer told me that if they don’t enjoy the game, they’d rather share that feedback privately with the publisher than publicly)
- Not wanting to be positive (there’s something about negative headlines that generate more curious clicks than positive ones)
- Self-selection (not spending time on things you don’t enjoy or that you think you won’t enjoy)
- Friendships and relationships (it’s inevitable in the gaming community that you will end up connecting on a human level with the same people you may rely on to grow your business, or you may have simply had good experiences with a particular publisher)
- Financial risk/reward (if your revenue stream comes from publishers, you may be hesitant to share when you don’t enjoy a certain game)
- Receiving free games from publishers (finding something nice to say about the game in the hopes the publisher will send you other games in the future)
- Confirmation bias (buying a game or learning a complex game, then convincing yourself the money/time was well spent)
- Size and scope (you might have a blast playing a small, inexpensive, streamlined game 50 times, but are you going to rate it higher than the massive 50-campaign game that you only play twice?)
- Cult of the new (being more excited about shiny new games over timeless classics)
- Groupthink (we’re more likely to play and enjoy games that our friends are also excited to play with us; the opposite is also true)
- Hype and contrarianism (when thousands of other people rave about a product that you aren’t as excited about)
While there are some ways to mitigate or decrease bias, I think the most important thing is to acknowledge that we’re all at least a little biased. That’s okay as long as publishers aren’t seeking to manipulate the bias of content creators; in fact, my hope is that publishers go out of their way to avoid bias. For example, as I noted in the comments of Alex’s video:
At Stonemaier Games, “we promise reviewers that we (me in particular) do not read, watch, or listen to reviews of any games we’ve sent for free to reviewers. The core idea behind that is to remove bias both ways: The subconscious bias by the reviewer to say nice things because they think it might impact whether or not we send them something in the future and our own subconscious bias about whether or not we send a reviewer games in the future. Whenever those reviewers share a link to their review with me, I post it on our website to provide unbiased opinions to people who are considering our games–it’s quite possible that there are a number of negative reviews among those links as a result, and I wouldn’t know otherwise.”
Reviews
Okay, now that we know that no one is paying for positive reviews, plenty of publishers are paying for non-opinion content, and bias exists throughout all forms of media, where does that leave reviewers?
Most reviewers either play games they own or games they receive for free from publishers. Regardless of how a reviewer gets a game, the game is required for them to form an informed opinion about it. This is legally considered payment/compensation even though a reviewer can’t go to a restaurant and pay for their meal with a copy of Ticket to Ride, so it must be disclosed.
One way that publishers support reviewers financially while retaining a bit of distance is to sponsor their channels, blogs, and podcasts (directly or via Kickstarter/Patreon). Another is to pay for non-opinion content (i.e., a playthrough) but not the review content.
Reviewers like spend a ton of time and energy on their content. Even a single-take unedited video requires a creator to learn the game, play the game at least a few times, process their thoughts in advance, film and upload the video, and reply to comments after it posts (and most content takes much more time and effort than that). And that’s just the value of their time–there is also the value of the audience they’ve spent years cultivating. It does not seem unreasonable to me that a reviewer would charge for the value they added, particularly if they’re transparent about it both publicly and privately. But perhaps there’s just too fine of a line between normal bias and a true conflict of interest?
Ethics
If bias is unavoidable regardless of whether or not money changes hands and we can all agree on the immense value that reviewers add to the gaming community–as as marketing for publishers–why don’t publishers pay the media to form and broadcast opinions?
I’m not looking for an excuse to pay reviewers–our marketing budget to make and ship thousands of free products to reviewers around the world each year is already stretched thin. It’s just that previously my answer would have involved some argument about the bias involved in a paid review, but if we trust reviewers to put aside those other examples of bias, why don’t we trust them to do the same if they received an up-front payment as well?
Also, any bias that could be associated with a paid review is irrelevant if the publisher commits to sharing the review without reading, watching, or listening it. Then the reviewer has complete freedom to say what they want, focusing solely on adding value to their audience instead of to the publisher.
That said, I do have one major concern about the concept of paid reviews: They heavily favor publishers who can afford them. There are so many tiny, one-person publishing companies. If the industry standard changed to a publisher having to pay $500+ for any large reviewer to consider their game, the variety of games we’d see on those major channels would greatly decrease. Perhaps it would help to have an industry-standard fee, or a tiered system based on audience size with a cap?
Federal Trade Commission (US)
I added this section after originally posting thanks to a very helpful comment from Ray!
The FTC offers these requirements (for full clarity, these are exact quotes from their social media influencers page):
- You can’t talk about your experience with a product you haven’t tried.
- If you’re paid to talk about a product and thought it was terrible, you can’t say it’s terrific.
- Financial relationships aren’t limited to money. Disclose the relationship if you got anything of value to mention a product. The disclosure should be placed with the endorsement message itself.
- If you have no brand relationship and are just telling people about a product you bought and happen to like, you don’t need to declare that you don’t have a brand relationship.
Conclusions and Suggestions
Regardless of whether paid reviews become more common, I have a few suggestions for reviewers and publishers as we strive to best serve the gamers of the world.
- Publishers: Consider a commitment to blindly sharing reviews. Find ways to anonymously support reviewers. On occasion when you’re sending out review copies, randomly select the reviewers instead of intentionally selecting them–this can remove the impact of selection bias and potentially improve the diversity of the reviewers receiving the products. And remember–just as reviewers aren’t entitled to free games, you’re not entitled to having any specific person review your games.
- Reviewers/Media: Be transparent about receiving free products, sponsorships, and payments; you may even need to spell out that you were paid for your opinion, not a positive opinion. Consider a commitment to buying some percentage of the games you review, keeping in mind the balance of free vs confirmation bias. Also, if you’re seeking to use your platform to generate funds, focus on revenue streams that aren’t dependent on publishers.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic, both in the comments and the poll below. Thanks!
*There is no documented evidence of this conspiracy theory in the tabletop game industry (no, a positive review of a game you didn’t enjoy isn’t “proof” that a publisher has paid the reviewer for a good review). I can’t imagine any tabletop game publisher attempting to bribe a reviewer in this way, nor can I imagine any tabletop game reviewer considering such an offer. There’s just too much to lose and too little to gain, and it would be incredibly unethical.
A few content creators posted videos on this topic after this article was released:
***
If you gain value from the 100 articles Jamey publishes on this blog each year, please consider championing this content!
80 Comments on “Is It Unethical to Pay the Media to Form and Broadcast Their Opinion?”
Leave a Comment
If you ask a question about a specific card or ability, please type the exact text in your comment to help facilitate a speedy and precise answer.
Your comment may take a few minutes to publish. Antagonistic, rude, or degrading comments will be removed. Thank you.
Hey Jamey, I appreciate the levelheaded influence you have on the hobby. Between that, the production quality of your games, and your customer service, I’m becoming a fan!
As a relatively new reviewer but someone with 12+ years in web publishing, this topic is a tough one. I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I also understand those who oppose.
Ultimately I think it’s a matter of trust. Being paid to review a game isn’t itself unethical; presenting disingenuous opinions for whatever reason, whether paid or not, is the issue. Can you trust someone to keep those separate? If yes, being paid shouldn’t matter. If no, you probably shouldn’t give much weight to their reviews anyway.
[…] We Don’t Charge Reviewers for Our Review Products, Nor Do We Pay Reviewers: Creating substantial content takes time, effort, energy, and passion. To enable content creators to feature our products, the very least we can offer is a free copy of the product. Paying reviewers is a complicated subject, and while we don’t do that, I discuss it in this article. […]
[…] topic of paid reviews has reared its ugly head once more, as it does every few months. I have zero desire to prop up […]
[…] Is It Unethical to Pay the Media to Form and Broadcast Their Opinion? […]
[…] We Don’t Charge Reviewers for Our Review Products, Nor Do We Pay Reviewers: Creating substantial content takes time, effort, energy, and passion. To enable content creators to feature our products, the very least we can offer is a free copy of the product. Paying reviewers is a complicated subject, and while we don’t do that, I discuss it in this article. […]
[…] Is It Unethical to Pay the Media to Form and Broadcast Their Opinion? […]
[…] We Don’t Charge Reviewers for Our Review Products, Nor Do We Pay Reviewers: Creating substantial content takes time, effort, energy, and passion. To enable content creators to feature our products, the very least we can offer is a free copy of the product. Paying reviewers is a complicated subject, and while we don’t do that, I discuss it in this article. […]
I want to raise a couple of points here. Firstly, the idea that the bias that results from liking roll and writes or not wanting to be nasty is comparable to the bias that comes from being paid $500 by the creator of the game, and knowing that they have another game that they’re willing to pay $500 for a comment on, but only if the current comment ends well for them, seems bizarre. Its little more than whataboutism to suggest that the two are realistically comparable. It is possible for responsible journalists and reviewers to recognize and respond to their own bias and, importantly, in the case of normal bias they are motivated to do so. The big difference is that when directly paid for a review there is no motivation to either recognize or correct that bias, in fact, quite the opposite.
Secondly, I’m not sure that the line of “opinion free content” is as clean cut as this suggests. There is an inherent assumption of endorsement to anything that a content creator makes, to feature a product without making a negative comment is to endorse it. If anything “opinion free content” is possibly more problematic rather than less since its not like such content is made monotone and deadpan, they are actually created with visible enthusiasm and enjoyment which it is hard to argue isn’t intended to be seen as active endorsement. Just because they skirt the line of actually saying a direct opinion it doesn’t remove the ethical question.
Lastly, I’ve heard several times the argument that creators deserve to be paid so they should get money from creators, which I think falls down on two points. Particularly with Patreon there are many creators who are being paid, and paid well, to create content and yet they still take further money from creators, as Jamey says pressuring out smaller independent creators. The idea that the only possible source of revenue for content creators is publishers is just false. Additionally, the idea of “deserving” to be paid is one that itself seems to imply a rightness or wrongness, an ethical point. If its ethically questionable to be paid for opinions then the response that someone needs to be paid for the content creation to itself not be some form of unethical sweating really doesn’t seem to make much logical sense.
I think one of the simple solutions to help with this issue is supporting free independent reviewers by clearly stating that reviews on Kickstarters are unpaid with things such as banners on pages.
Spiel des Jahres has just handed down its gongs for 2021, awarding Micro Macro, Paleo, and Dragomino.
For all those who are OK with cash for comment, how do you feel about buying accolades? There’s no suggestion SdJ was compromised in any way or that these games do not deserve their awards, nor should any imputation be inferred.
But considering one’s attitudes to such an edge case may be an illuminating intellectual exercise.
The SdJ is the Oscars of boardgames but a galaxy of organisations and reviewers distribute gongs every year.
Potentially millions of dollars in sales ride on those outcomes.
If your view is it’s OK for a games company to buy a reviewer’s opinion — and hence their imprimatur — why not an award?
Broadly, my instinct is to agree with Mr. Stegmaier here (that publishers paying content creators to form and publish an opinion of a game) is not, in and of itself, unethical, but I read your other comments throughout this discussion, and I would hazard a guess that you are better-read on the legal substrate of the issue than I. In considering how I would answer your question, then, I wonder if I can ask you to clarify it for me just a little, and I hope you will bear with me if I am inadequately precise.
In a previous post, you write,
// “In Australia, this is called, ‘Cash for Comment’. The central tenet is Boardgame Vendor A pays Reviewer B expecting RoI C. It’s sophistry to suggest otherwise.” //
By your definition of “Cash for Comment”, what is the role of Vendor A’s expectation? That is, we presume that Vendor A is expecting a return-on-investment which represents an increase in the market value of their product, but is there any value in considering the path which leads to that increase?
I am imagining here three different scenarios which share a common beginning (Vendor A pays Reviewer B) and a common ending (Vendor A receives a return on their investment), but which diverge in between, and might therefore be philosophically argued to have different ethical implications.
Scenario One: Vendor A has produced a mediocre, or even substandard, product, and knows it. They pay Reviewer B to produce an opinion, expecting that the nature of this exchange will result in that opinion being positive, irrespective of the product’s shortcomings. Despite misgivings, Reviewer B feels some obligation to say nice things, or to de-emphasize negative conclusions. An overall positive review is delivered, public confidence in the product’s quality rises, and value increases.
Scenario Two: Vendor A has produced a product that they believe some people will like, and others will not. They pay Reviewer B to produce an opinion, expecting that as long as the reviewer is fair in their judgement, the result will be an increase in the number of people who are aware of (and perhaps interested in) the product. A mixed review is delivered, but some segment of that reviewer’s audience remains intrigued, and resolves to buy the product and decide for themselves. Public confidence in the product’s quality neither rises nor falls, but awareness of the product rises, and value increases.
Scenario Three: Vendor A has produced a product which they sincerely believe to be excellent. They are sure that people who try their product will be happy with it. They pay Reviewer B to produce an opinion, expecting that if they can thereby ensure that the product reaches the reviewer’s attention, any honest opinion will redound to their benefit. A positive review is delivered, public confidence in the product’s quality rises, and value increases.
I understand how the “appearance of impropriety” applies equally in all three scenarios, as does the potential for the introduction of bias, and thus the importance of transparency. Is it your contention, though, that all three scenarios are equally unethical? I do not know how these things are reckoned by the law, but it would not seem so to my intuitive reading of the morality at play.
I seek clarification on that point so that I may then understand the assumptions which underlie your second framing of the question:
// “If your view is it’s OK for a games company to buy a reviewer’s opinion — and hence their imprimatur — why not an award?” //
The comparison implies that the publication of the Reviewer’s opinion is comparable to the winning of, or at least nomination for, an award; as it has been my experience that awards are almost exclusively given to recognize positive qualities, I am inclined to take your meaning to be that no publisher (or vendor) would ever pay for a review if they were not certain it would be positive. To concede that a review for which the Vendor has paid is, unequivocally and unexceptionably, a “bought opinion”, it would first be necessary to concede that every instance of Vendor-to-Reviewer remuneration leads to the publication of a review which is aligned with the Vendor’s wishes.
What have I overlooked, or what have I misconstrued, which should lead me to concede this?
“If your view is it’s OK for a games company to buy a reviewer’s opinion”
I don’t think that’s anyone’s view–it would be unethical for a publisher to pay for a positive opinion, as would be the case for an accolade. That said, there are *many* award competitions (not Spiel) that require the publisher to pay an entrance fee. That’s the corollary here–they’re paying to be considered, not to win. While I don’t like that as a publisher and do not pursue awards as a marketing strategy, I also don’t think an entrance fee is unethical.
I personally have no problem with content creators being paid for any and all content they create, mostly because their opinion doesn’t really influence me all that much. I watch because I enjoy their personality, and they should be paid for that. I do understand, though, that viewers who are influenced by creator opinions would want to limit bias.
Adding a link to the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics. FYI: Board game reviewing IS journalism. https://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
To be honest I consider Free review copies especially ahead of a games retail availability a giant bias and dislike how it is just widely accepted. That said I have no idea how a creator could survive doing it for a living without all these things that make them bias. Perhaps it just isn’t meant to be understood. Apart from the largest following amassed by select few no one would be able to earn a living.
I would think that retailers should be interested in honest reviews, since they could avoid the bad games that way.
Ryan and koningwoning, you state some great examples and as a former economics minor, I’ve clearly written in a form of what I’d like to see vs. how things often are in the world. I greatly appreciate the insights.
Jamey, interesting post as usual. I have come a long ways in my thinking here, so bear with me. First, I am 100% against payment to content creators for anything outside of how to play preview/commercial stuff that is stated as such. After that, regardless of whether there is disclosure or not, I think that anything in the way of reviews should never provide compensation. I come from the world of “don’t do anything that even gives the impression of impropriety” which to me, the appearance can be more damning that the actual activity.
The easiest way to keep all of this in the light, is for this practice to not exist. I think content creators need to find ways to monetize their content through their viewers and not through publishers. Quite frankly, there are so many folks trying to be content creators now that it has really diluted the institution. On top of this you have content creators who don’t want to be called content creators. I think we are just reaching a point where some of the channels need to move on. Or perhaps I need to find new channels. Many of the places I have gone to for years for content have become a bit stale. Some places I don’t need to watch a review as I know how the content creator will feel about the game just based on their preferences. Perhaps I am just getting old and need to consume less content.
Hi Jamie – though not being paid directly for review which I couldn’t find… I did find a price list for promoting a game in various other ways on a YT channel (see below). The problem being that the same people who review also do paid previews/run throughs of games – making it even harder not to be biased + making it harder for the audience to distinguish between paid and non-paid content.
https://www.tantrumhouse.com/promo-package.html
Sure, those are all examples of opinion-free content, which is commonly done for pay. I would say that Tantrum House is one of the leaders in that space, and they’re always transparent about it. I also applaud them for being so publicly transparent about how much they charge for their preview content–not many content creators do that.
I think the thing they do best is actually go out of their way NOT to give an opinion.
That being said – they do also do their best to make a game seem fun….
I find it a very slippery slope.
BUT like you said – at least they are very open about what they are being paid for.
I have been reviewing games for a few years now and work with most major publishers. Most of them have said with their words that they prefer truthful and honest reviews of their products (even if negative) and then followed up with their actions confirming their stance by continuing to send games even after a negative review I’ve written about one of their games goes live. I would be lying if I didn’t admit that when I publish a negative review for a game and it’s the first negative review of a product for a given publisher I’m a bit anxious they are going to get upset and punish me by withholding games in the future. But I always push through that anxiety and publish anyway. So far only 1 publisher has ever lost their mind after a negative review and tried to push me to rewrite the review (I don’t work with them anymore) or otherwise got angry. I also had one publisher up front tell me when they sent a game that if my review turned out to be negative they do not want me to publish it “or else”. That was a difficult conversation since I otherwise respected the publisher and owner tremendously. Most of the issues and pushback I get is from drive by “purists” on BGG who jump on reviewers who disclose in their review text or video that they are provided a complimentary review copy of the game. They decry any reviews that state this as being slanted and untrustworthy; they are a tiny but very loud and feisty contingent of BGG membership. I try to not let them rattle me. :)
I think paying someone to review a completed product is oily if disclosed, and unethical if not. However, that just isn’t something that happens regularly. The two SM games I have received to review have never come with a check to influence my take on the game.
Paying for a preview. Sure that happens. Is it unethical? No. It’s a commercial is what it is. As long as that is clear, then great. If a pub sees the value in paying x dollars in the hopes that it will move y units go for it. Now I personally have no use for those previews when it comes to making a decision.
I do see great value in paid how to play videos and playthroughs, which are the only paid services I offer at Hungry Gamer coincidentally. Those have value to me because it’s not the opinion I’m after it’s the reviewer showing me something and interacting with it and I can decide how I feel about it, or even how I think they feel about it. So even if they are saying “this game is so fun” that’s not what I’m paying attention to.
Regarding getting games as “payment” I don’t see it like that, just like when I produce plays at my theatre company and give away a ticket to a reviewer. That’s not payment, that is me requesting them to give me a service, and then providing them the tools to do it.
Just FYI: The FTC does consider receiving games to be a form of “payment” (and therefore by law, has to be disclosed). In their examples guide:
https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking#ftcactapply
“I’m a blogger. I heard that every time I mention a product on my blog, I have to say whether I got it for free or paid for it myself. Is that true?
No. If you mention a product you paid for yourself, there isn’t an issue. Nor is it an issue if you get the product for free because a store is giving out free samples to its customers.
The FTC is only concerned about endorsements that are made on behalf of a sponsoring advertiser. For example, an endorsement would be covered by the FTC Act if an advertiser – or someone working for an advertiser – pays you or gives you something of value to mention a product. If you receive free products or other perks with the expectation that you’ll promote or discuss the advertiser’s products in your blog, you’re covered. Bloggers who are part of network marketing programs, where they sign up to receive free product samples in exchange for writing about them, also are covered.”
In the second part of the guide’s response to the question, they make it very clear that even if you receive a free product, if it is expected that the product will be promoted/discussed, then you are covered by the FTC Act and must disclose it.
Another relevant example:
“I have a YouTube channel that focuses on hunting, camping, and the outdoors. Sometimes I’ll do a product review. Knife manufacturers know how much I love knives, so they send me knives as free gifts, hoping that I will review them. I’m under no obligation to talk about any knife and getting the knives as gifts really doesn’t affect my judgment. Do I need to disclose when I’m talking about a knife I got for free?
Even if you don’t think it affects your evaluation of the product, what matters is whether knowing that you got the knife for free might affect how your audience views what you say about the knife. It doesn’t matter that you aren’t required to review every knife you receive. Your viewers may assess your review differently if they knew you got the knife for free, so we advise disclosing that fact.”
One key point is that with the increase in social media, the “clarity” of what is an advertisement/commercial has become more ambiguous. The goal of commercials is really to spread awareness first and foremost. So even though “how to play” videos are really helpful and are neutral in the way they present the game, they are also ways to raise the public awareness of the game, which is effectively a form of marketing. As such, if a how to play video was sponsored in any way (even if it’s just a free copy of the game), it should and needs to be disclosed.
Jamey, first of all, we would appreciate it if you would stop trying insinuate that OFPG operates in an “unethical” manner. Nothing could be further from the truth. You tried this before on Twitter when you wanted us to review Pendulum and it didn’t work. We reviewed your game and you did not pay us. As you well know from the email exchange we had last year, that we were new to the idea of receiving compensation for our work and had zero knowledge of how to do that. We did not know at that time that reviewers didn’t get paid for reviews, maybe you forgot my response to you, sent via email on 7/12/20 “Thank you for sharing your perspectives on the hobby, as we are new to the business side of this industry.” For the record, OFPG DOES NOT GET PAID FOR REVIEWS! Please stop talking about us as if you have knowledge of how we run our channel because you don’t. Sincerely, OFPG
Thank you for your comment, and I think something may have been misconstrued here, as this post is about how I think your offer is perfectly reasonable. You work hard to create your reviews, and I’m positing that it’s reasonable for reviewers to request payment (as long as they’re transparent about it).
I’ve apologized publicly and privately about my post on Twitter (which was about timing, not payment). I continue to feel terrible about that–it’s simply not my place to publicly call out a reviewer if they haven’t reviewed a game I sent them. I’m really sorry about that.
You’re absolutely right that I have no idea how you currently run your channel–as noted above, the information I have is from last summer when your channel was around 6 months old. At the time, I received what seemed to be a form letter from you regarding your rates–if I inaccurately noted anything from that letter, please let me know and I’ll update the post. I’ll also update the post with your comment, and if you have any updated version of that letter that you currently use to share your rates and services to publishers, I’m happy to share that information in the post. Also, if you’d simply like me to remove any mention of your channel from the post, I can do that too. Thanks!
Thank you Jamey. We would sincerely appreciate an update to your post.
I’ve updated it based on your comment, but I can further update it in the morning if there’s anything you’d like me to change or add. I truly meant no disrespect to you in mentioning you here–while this article is many things, it was partially my attempt (poorly, apparently) to extend an olive branch after last summer. I honestly do think that you and other reviewers could reasonably be compensated (as long as it’s transparent) for creating reviews–my opinion was once different, but your emails to me last summer really struck a chord, and my opinion has changed. I agree with you now! :)
Given my understanding of how your rates and services have changed, the below paragraph no longer makes sense to include in the post, so I’ve removed it: “There are also some reviewers who accept financial compensation for reviews. For example, in exchange for $750, the excellent YouTube channel Our Family Plays Games says that, “we would love to review the aforementioned game and any other games you publish that you think will benefit from the OFPG treatment, as we have the platform and followers to make a positive difference in the success of your game.” (This offer was from last summer, and OFPG has continued to grow, so the rate may have increased since then.)”
Well said, Jamey. The only thing I’d add is that I think a bit of specificity in the board-game review space would solve a lot of the problems people attribute to bias. What I mean by that is, I think too many board-game reviewers are too general in their board-game reviews. Often times, a review comes down to something like “The game was fun,” or “I enjoyed the game,” etcetera.
One of my favorite board-game reviewers is Dan Thurot (a.k.a. Space Biff). And what I like about his reviews is that, regardless of whether he enjoyed the game he’s reviewing, I feel like his reviews are specific enough that I can usually get tell whether I’d personally enjoy the game. And that’s something I can’t say for most other board-game reviewers.
as a journalist major i find it extremely unethical to receive payment for reviews.
there are no unbiased reviews as objectivity is something that cannot exist – reviewers are like a prism through which light shines through, refracted and changed by them. their opinions are their opinions, subjective and shaped through years of their own personal development, and could be different 5 or 10 years down the line as reviewers change and their tastes change. but this is why we listen to them, and why we read their content – cause they bring their personality to the table. matt and quinns from susd are different people than alex from boardgameco, and jesse from quackalope and because of that they are different reviewers. what i’m expecting from them is to let their personalities shine through their reviews, to talk about their opinions freely, to not take anything back.
once money exchanges hands this is impossible. even if the boardgame company states that they will not watch/read the review and that reviewers don’t have to hold back punches. as soon as you get payed by someone to do something you are being payed, you have an obligation, and money will force you, consciously or unconsciously, to change, even slightly, your review. i understand why board game companies would love to argue that this isn’t the case, that they just want to make sure their product is reviewed by opinionmakers and that they don’t want to shape their reviews, but deep down i do believe they are aware this happens. it’s unavoidable.
i do hope one day hobby will grow so much that reviewers will be able to divorce themselves from people in companies. these days that’s still impossible. people see each other at conventions, companies send promo copies favoring those with bigger reach, and everybody is in cahoots, in one way or the other which is understandable. both reviewers and publishers have the same goal – to expand. and it’s much easier to do that when everyone is on the same page. but from a journalistic point of view it would be much better if that wasn’t so. and in the long run that would be better for reviewers, consumers and publishers.
what we are lacking are negative reviews. especially of big, expensive projects. cause some of them should be trashed, for this reason or that, and that doesn’t happen cause reviewers either don’t want to “waste” their time on negative reviews (and i believe these are as important as positive reivews) or, which is worse, they don’t want to step on any toes with the publishers. and that’s bad. as late philip seymour hoffman said to patrick fugit in “almost famous”, portraying great rock critic lester bangs: “be honest and unmerciful.” that’s good advice for any journalist, and any reviewer. paying for reviews undermines both.
and sorry for bad grammar, english is not my native tongue
Thanks for sharing your perspective. I would say that just because a review isn’t negative doesn’t mean it isn’t honest (or dishonest). And just because a review is negative doesn’t make it more honest than a positive review. There are plenty of reviewers who primarily speak negatively on games, whether that’s their real opinion, their desire to get more clicks, or their enjoyment of contrarianism.
that is a good point, and i agree completely. but right now there’s no denying that positive reviews are far more prevalent, and some reviewers directly spoke about being reluctant to publish negative reviews because they want the hobby to grow. and to me that is understandable, both out of love and out of personal interest, but i feel like it’s a disservice in the long run, as it was in other entertainment industries. if you really love something praise it to high heaven, but if you dislike something, or think that distribution model/production etc. is ethically dubious speak about that too, and don’t hind behind “i don’t like to talk about negative stuff” claims. that’s what gives reviewers credibility. and receiving money affects that even more and turns some reviewers into shills for the industry.
Only wanting to publish positive views and shying away from honest critiques when they are unfavourable is called ‘boosterism’ and it’s a cancer. It’s also a sure-fire way to turn people off the hobby.
Really? What reviewers primarily speak negatively on games for reasons other than that they don’t like the game? I’ve heard this claim from others, and I’m genuinely curious who is meant. I watch probably 30-40 reviews a week as an avid fan, and I’ve never come across a review from a reviewer that I thought wasn’t springing from a genuine dislike of the game or its mechanics; sometimes I’ve seen reviews that may be passionate bucking of the hype train, but I don’t think that makes the reviews dishonest or simply performative. I think that generalization is something apt to lead one to only seek out adoring and fawning reviews without getting criticism that can lead to improvement. Just my $.02
Transparency is king. Say it’s paid up front; that’s all I require. I attempt due diligence when making my purchase decision, and a single review will never be the single reason for a purchase. I also start with the basic assumption that my fellow hobbyists are not stupid and are capable of making their own decisions.
I want content creators to be able to keep creating, and getting better… that’s not free and I doubt most are independently wealthy enough to have the time and money to do it with no support.
I can’t imagine a creator surviving very long if they constantly got paid, didn’t disclose, and gave 100% glowing reviews. Things like that usually catch up with people, and it’s not a long term policy for success.
I hope more publishers in the industry continue to pay people like Rodney Smith and others to do how to videos. Also, for me, the more good content creators the better chance more and more games get exposure… and maybe I’ll find a game I wouldn’t have know about if it were not for these content creators.
So, pay them, I don’t care, just tell me so. It’s really that simple for me.
RE WATCH IT PLAYED “We paid $3,600 for our Red Rising rules video.”
Worth every penny. I often make purchase decisions after watching Rodney’s videos. He does an amazing job showing off the games and I have never been disappointed with my purchases that I buy based on watching his videos.
For additional feedback for Stonemaier, for RED RISING, the push to a final purchase decision was 100% based on the play through video I saw from BEFORE YOU PLAY (Monique and Navin). Truly engaging and compelling video that was easy to follow and understand. They were very honest about what they did/ didn’t like, which perfectly set expectations and convinced me to buy the deluxe version regardless of some comments about the challenge of differentiation of a couple of the little square block colors.
I absolutely love the game (and the book series… thanks for the introduction!) and am very grateful for skilled reviewers who are such an enormous help to me in making informed choices of games I want to invest in. Thanks for this article (and many others.) Much appreciated.
Steven from Finland
Thanks for that input, Steven! I should note that we didn’t pay Monique and Naveen at Before You Play, but they have since joined the Watch It Played team, and I think at least some of their playthroughs are now paid (they’re transparent about it).
Thanks for writing this up. My view of this is skewed as I’m unable to separate my time as a reviewer from my thoughts on the topic but I think it’s completely unacceptable to charge for a review.
I don’t have any problems with other types of sponsored content, but ultimately we viewed our audience as our customer, not the publishers of the games we cover. While I understand the ‘they have to make a living’ argument, as well as the ‘time-spent creating content ‘ argument there is also the reality of the size of the board game audience, and the industry as a whole. Considering the size of many tabletop companies I simply can’t make an ethical argument for charging for a review.
I do admit that I was fully in the ‘self-selection’ boat for a few years before we grew big enough to support a roster of writers. When I started writing, and for quite a few years afterwards, I was the only reviewer on staff and I had an uphill battle to not only prove that my reviews had merit to my mostly video game player audience, but also to publishers. With the selection of games, on top of my time, being so limited I specifically sought out games that I thought would appeal to my gaming group and our site’s audience.
Even getting a review copy proved incredibly difficult at first. We actually received our first ever review copy from Stonemaier, which went a long way in showing the rest of the industry that our site had value in the tabletop space. Doubly frustrating was knowing that many of the ‘big’ sites out there were blatantly charging for reviews. I certainly don’t blame the publishers for seeking exposure on those channels and sites, the more eyes the better, but we actually had companies turn us down because we didn’t charge for reviews. There were publishers who didn’t even see us as relevant because we didn’t ask for money, which is mind-boggling.
We’ve always insisted on being completely transparent about where our review copies (both video game and tabletop) came from, and it’s surprising how often our audience expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that we would even accept ‘free’ review copies. The site still accepts and discloses when a copy of a game is provided but, all of that plus the grind of writing reviews for years added on to what I know about the inner workings of the industry leave me with my current perspective:
I believe that accepting money for a review is unethical, regardless of the amount of work you put into the review, how many games you have available to review, and regardless of the size of your audience.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Travis, particularly this: “we viewed our audience as our customer, not the publishers of the games we cover.”
You also mentioned, “Doubly frustrating was knowing that many of the ‘big’ sites out there were blatantly charging for reviews.” Do you have hard evidence or examples of this? Feel free to share them privately with me so I can fact-check them.
I just re-read my comment and I don’t feel I was as clear as I want to be regarding the size of the tabletop industry and ethics.
It’s not simply the size of the industry that makes paying for a review unethical in my eyes, we’d never accept pay to cover a videogame either, but I think it’s even worse to demand money from an industry with profit margins so thin, budgets so tight etc.
Asmodee was acquired for $US1.2b (PAI Partners), had €550m revenue in 2019 (Bloomberg), and employs ~750 people (Asmodee).
WotC had revenue last year of $US816m – up 23% YoY. “Wizards’ first quarter revenues grew to $242 million in 2021, up 15% from the same period in 2020, while it’s operating profit grew to $110 million … an operating profit margin of 45.4% for the quarter.” (Hipsters of the Coast, 27 April 2021)
Hasbro’s FY20 earnings were $US5.5b — with a ‘B’ (Hasbro 4Q20 financial results).
Games Workshop half-year earnings to November 2020 were £186.8m — up 26% YoY (GW January 12 investor release).
These aren’t small businesses. And they have generally done well in 2020 when many others faltered.
And while there are plenty of indie boardgame makers, the bigger question is: Are ethics (of both the content creator and boardgame vendor) dependent on how much free cashflow either has?
If you do not watch reviews of your game as a publisher, then wouldn’t you be missing opportunities to improve it, if they had some valid criticisms of it?
Sure, I listen to an immense amount of feedback about our games from the gaming public and our many blind playtesters around the world. Our shareholders do consume reviews of our games, and while they know to keep the reviewers anonymous, if there’s something I need to know to improve our products that I’m somehow not hearing from thousands of other people on the internet, they tell me. :) But for the sake of bias, I’m definitely sticking with our commitment to provide reviewers a completely safe, unbiased space to offer their opinions without feeling like I’m looking over their shoulder.
100% agree that compensating content creators for their audience, time and opinion makes sense. Im tired to death of these creator sitting on a high horse proclaiming that they’re unpaid and therefore their opinion is truly pure and “real” and if you want “honest” reviews then please support them on patreon. The reviewers that are compensated have nothing to gain by lying and a whole lot to lose.
The one thing i really don’t like about the publisher/media ecosystem is that smaller publishers simply do not have access to larger media. SUSD, NPI for example, are so large they don’t reply to email inquiries and becuase they’re audience is so large, they only cover largely funded games that break 6 figures, becuase, they likely see no value in covering a game that was backed by 500 people, regardless of how good it is.
John: That’s a really interesting point. I wrote earlier this year about how we (and other publishers) support small creators (https://stonemaiergames.com/do-you-support-small-content-creators/); there’s no obligation to do so, but it seems like a good thing to do. So can/should we hope the same of the bigger reviewers? That said, I’m not entirely sure your claim about SUSD is true. Yes, they recently reviewed Oath, but that was preceded by a review of Dream Crush and MicroMacro: Crime City, as well as RATS: High Tea at Sea and The Red Cathedral. While I typically find their content more entertaining than helpful for me (different gaming tastes), I think they do a pretty good job of picking random games they’re curious about and featuring them on their channel. I haven’t watched NPI in years, but a quick glance at their video list largely confirms your assertation.
This is one area that the DT really shines. Tom, alone, does more than a couple of hundred reviews per year by himself.
Then, there is Zee and the other team members who add additional content to their channel.
Tom talks regularly about his process of how he prioritizes smaller publishers. Essentially, he attempts to (1) do one “hot” game per week and (2) mix in 4-6 lesser known games per week.
I know that I have waited weeks for them to review some “hot” game because of how he prioritizes smaller publishers and spreads “the big games” out.
But, he also is upfront that it is the publishers job to make their game look appealing enough for him to want to play it. IIRC, they can have a couple of hundred games at times in queue to review. If a publisher didn’t make their game look interesting enough, it will continue to get passed until it is either (1) reviewed, or (2) sat on their “to review” shelf until is “ages out”.
Tom has even sent boxes of review games to his more tenured contributors (Bryan, for example) to even give a game another shot if everyone at the DT passed / didn’t have time to review it. That seems rarer but it does happen.
So, I think if a smaller publisher has a half way interesting looking game, it stands a good chance of getting reviewed by the DT.
The problem is that has to look interesting among the huge crowd of games being published annually.
As a small publisher (2tomatoes games) we’re finding it hard, if not impossible, to access “big” reviewers without having to pay high fees (+$1000) for a review of our games. Being a small publisher, we do mostly 1k print-runs, so this means adding +1$ to the cost of each game. This cost increase may not seem much, but it is – if we’d like to cover cost on the MSRP, it would mean adding $3-5 to the MSRP.
So for our last kickstarter, we decided we didn’t want to burden the production of the game with paid reviews, and we went on to do only unpaid reviews. Hence, as mentioned before, we only had reviews from “small” reviewers. Despite all being good reviews, we think that their reviews had a small impact, since their audience and reputation is relatively small (despite the quality of the content produced by the vast majority of them).
In my honest opinion, it would be better if the reviewers charged their audience instead of the publishers. Why?
-> Being financially independent to the producer of the items that you review gives you complete freedom of opinion.
-> Being financially dependent on the consumer of your content makes you strive for better quality of said content (in both form form and substance).
I mean, at the end of the day, we pay for reviews, opinion and content in many other fields (newspapers, books, subscriptions, etc) so why not also on board games?
Jordi: Thanks for your comment. I’d like to get some clarity on your statement. A review of a game is specifically someone’s opinion about a game (not a preview, playthrough, etc). It’s rare that a reviewer would charge money specifically to form and broadcast their opinion, so could you clarify that’s what you meant by “review” and provide specific examples of reviewers who are charging you to form and express their opinion about your game?
Hi Jamey,
Yes, happy to clarify. When I say review I do mean review, with the caveat that it is a review of a non-finished product (since the game was not produced before the Kickstarter campaign, obviously). The reviewers we consulted also charged for previews, playthroughs, top Xs, etc, and their rates and available services vary depending on the reviewer – not all reviewers do all types of content, and the relative prices of the different services are different depending on the reviewer.
But I would also like to clarify that to me, there is not much of a difference between a review or any other content. Let’s put an example: Reviewer “X” has the choice of doing a playthrough of game “Z” (which they really like, but it is not sponsored in any way by the publisher), or doing a playthrough of game “Y” (which they’re not that hot on, but is sponsored by the publisher). Reviewer “X” may go for the playthrough of game “Y”, since that’s going to make it worth their while in economic terms, despite not being their preferred game. This choice is bad for their audience, since we can safely assume that their audience shares their taste in games.
Regarding pricing and the names of the reviewers, I’d rather not disclose that information. Main reason being that if the reviewer himself/herself doesn’t publicize that information, I don’t think it is my place to do so. After all, that could be considered as private business information, and I would be in infringement of trust by disclosing it. However, if anyone wants that information, it is very easy to obtain by contacting them – most of them have a pretty clear grid of services/prices.
For the record, despite personally being against content paid by the publishers (for the reasons mentioned in my previous post), I do 100% agree on your closing thoughts, both regarding publishers and reviewers. In our company we do our best to blindly share reviews (and even go to the length of sometimes avoid reading them), and on each game that we launch we assign a percentage of the review copies to small, budding reviewers. We all have to start somewhere :)
Thanks for your detailed response, Jordi, and I think it’s great that you support smaller, budding reviewers.
I think if reviewers are going to maintain the trust of their audiences, being transparent about their practices and fees is pretty important. If you’re open to privately sharing with me those reviewers who are charging for reviews, I can contact them about their fees and permission to share that information here. I’m at jamey@stonemaiergames.com
Most of my beloved reviews turned into “I say anything ypu want if you pay men” robots. Literally any game they receive compensation for is THE BEST GAME EVER CREATED
This is a pretty big accusation, so could you be very clear about what you’re saying, with evidence of the “compensation” that the reviewers you’re talking about received? My best guess from what you’re saying is that there are reviewers who received payment for non-opinion content, and it’s your perspective that the compensation created a bias for the reviewer such that when they got around to offering their unpaid opinion on the game, they liked it more than you thought they should. Is that correct?
Interesting idea Jamey. I chucled at the comment “A reviewer can’t go to a restaurant and pay for their meal with a copy of Ticket to Ride.”.
Jokes aside, I think that the community is slowly opening to the idea that a review should not be paid with “tips” (i.e., YouTube ads) only.
I have to admit I feel much more at ease when the publisher has paid for non-review content (i.e., how to play, unboxing, etc) over reviews. I am not against publisher paying for a review, but this is the moment in which transparency is very important (knowing publisher’s and/or reviewer approach to the review).
I personally prefer the model where viewers pay reviewers (say, via Patreon)…but I understand that living only from subscriber support it only possible for well-established reviewers.
I feel is is perfectly acceptable to pay a content producer to “form” an opinion and “broadcast” that same opinion. The key here is that the funding is not assumed to be “influencing” the opinion or “controlling/editing” the broadcast.
What becomes challenging in transactions like this are many of the inherent biases that people struggle to avoid. I enjoy rating beer and as much as I attempt to check all my biases, I am, as stated above, as bias in ways I cannot fully mitigate. The best I can hope to do is make every effort to mitigate my biases and be as transparent as possible in the areas that I am able to do so.
Stonemaier has a great policy in place to try and prevent bias and this is more or less approaching the ideal of how everyone should approach this issue. Sadly, for both reviewers, and producers, there is generally less ethical behavior among the masses. Living in Texas where the ‘good ol’ boy’ attitude prevails. It’s one of the many assumed attitudes among many industries down here that frustrate me.
That being said, I think the best we can do is make wise choices to the best of our ability regarding who we trust to review our games and our integrity when reviewing games. Currently, I only review my own personal games (save one exception) but I would love, one day to make a living playing and reviewing games. Obviously, no compensation outside of ads could make this more challenging. If I set myself up as an “honest” reviewer or an an “influenceable” reviewer, either way, will push and pull business away.
Thankfully, it feels like the industry has quite a few quality producers with guys like Rodney Anderson, Rahdo, SUSD, Actualol, Heavy Cardboard, and No Pun Included.
Excellent topic and certainly one with widely varying opinions :)
It’s odd to me that you don’t list the quoted prices of ANY creator aside from one. Where’s the listing of Rodney or Dan’s prices?
Oh sorry, good point! I’ll add them tonight after dinner.
I think a better idea would be not to post the prices you were quoted unless the creator is fine with that.
I think it’s worth noting also that this is an article about paying for members of the media to form and broadcast opinions, hence the example about OFPG (I don’t have another example of a creator quoting a fee for a review). But I like your suggestion about posting Rodney and Dan’s prices, so I’ve done that (listing examples of payments quoted specifically to Stonemaier Games). Transparency is important in this industry, and these creators are all very open about their fees. I would be concerned if they had something to hide about their prices.
Also, if you have any thoughts about the topic covered in the article, I’d love to hear them! You’ve covered a few of our games in your channel’s “Learn & Play” series, though my recollection is that you just played the games you wanted (there was no fee involved that I can recall). I actually distinctly remember discovering Honshu from your channel before most people had played it, and I scrambled to find a copy. :)
I’m quite ok with any payment or free game etc that may be provided to reviewers. At the end of the day…
1. They have to make a living, or supplement their income.
2. They provide a service of entertainment
3. There are a sufficient number of reviewers out there that the have a loyal fan base (subscribers). If their opinions were influenced too much the content would be false or reflected in negative opinions, falling subscriber numbers and general talk on social media etc.
Basically, the review industry would be self-regulated or affected by supply and demand so that only the informative and impartial reviewers would survive long term.
Also, have to realise that they are only a single (or 2-person) view on the game. People do have different opinions, so a positive review may be true for 75% of gamers, and the other 25% might think the review inaccurate… but really it’s just a difference of opinion.
Lastly, opinions can an do change. I’ve bought and played quite a few games that I initially really enjoyed, but my tastes change and I’m not that keen on them any more.
Hi Jamey. I want to make a clear distinction between publishers paying to get an important service out, as you list in your opinion free items and channels that are becoming more coin operated. Either way, the publisher should invest into whatever they feel increases their revenue. I look at a paid for opinion as a bad choice, not an unethical one, as it will ultimately come back on the publisher. In the end, it is the quality of the product or customer service that will open or close doors to future sales for the publisher, not the lack of credibility of the reviewer.
The opinion free content providers are fair game and should be strongly encouraged. I know that a well presented rules teach or play through will convince me to back a crowdfunding project or buy a new game over any other activity. Unless I am invested into a particular channel enough to learn their preferences, the “opinion style review” does little, to be honest. There are precious few of those.
Even the coin operated channels perform a service, though trusted advisor is rarely one of them :-) It is exposure and that is valuable to both the producer and consumer.
I think you are getting into dangerous waters not considering the game as payment. I also suspect you could be wrong on the compensation portion of review copies of games. If a publisher doesn’t get the game returned, I’m pretty sure the IRS would consider that as payment, whether or not currency changed hands. As a publisher you are giving the reviewer a copy of the game, or goods, in exchange for a service. That service is that the reviewer will provide a review of your product, with the hope the reviewer will provide a positive review. In any case the game is given specifically to generate review data for the game.
Not all compensation, pay, purchases are done with currency and the IRS definitely holds that view. Sure I’m guessing nearly all reviewers get away with not reporting the games as income, but if a reviewer were to get audited I think an auditor would definitely ding them for not claiming them. I don’t see how you can’t view that as being paid for the review.
100% Agree. We also have to consider the (perceived) value of the game. If I was sent a $40 game and I’m earning $80k+ from a full-time job, the impact is potentially different than if I got sent a $120 dungeon crawler (or sometimes, publisher send all-in pledges) and I normally earn $40k from my job. Its all a matter or biais and perceived value.
Also, we shouldn’t minimize the perceived value of getting a copy of a specific game months before everybody else and the effect it can have on a reviewer. This exclusivity is one of the keys of many Youtube channel’s growth and content creator wouldn’t want to lose that just because their review was perceived as not positive enough by the game company.
I think content creators should do a better job of disclosing their potential conflicts of interest. To this day, we still see too many “reviews” where the content creators don’t say what they didn’t like/see others not liking in their videos. That also contributes to the confusion around the topic of paid reviews and consumer confidence.
Jim and Eric are definitely on to something with their comments.
In Australia, this is called, ‘Cash for Comment’. The central tenet is Boardgame Vendor A pays Reviewer B expecting RoI C. It’s sophistry to suggest otherwise.
The other factor is audience perception. It’s not enough to avoid actual compromise but also the perception of compromise.
There are well worn models (codes of conduct/ethics) for managing these conflicts in other media. Perhaps look to them for guidance; there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
Bottom line: If the boardgame audience believes the industry is corrupt — and let’s not sugar-coat it, this is what we’re discussing — then the sector has a problem that it must address.
I’d also add, that absent a defined code of conduct, there can be no ethical breach. Although other people may feel it’s “wrong” for a creator to accept money for content, this is a moral judgment not an ethical one. It’s then up to each individual creator to decide if accepting cash for comment breaches their own ethical framework (and since AFAIK none of them publish what that is, we can’t know if there was an ethical breach).
Were content creators continually to breach community standards of morality — however nebulous and ill-defined those standards may be — then lawmakers may take an interest. In these instances, industries tend to write codes of conduct to create commonly accepted ethical standards before laws are written and enforcement undertaken. There may already be such laws on statute books that cover this eventuality, derived from examples in other media and elsewhere.
And because the content publication and the board game industries are both global, laws enacted in one jurisdiction may have effect or be influential in other jurisdictions. Although it was a defamation case, Gutnick v Dow Jones offers guidance for how jurisdiction may be asserted.
So it behoves the board game industry to write, or at least adapt, a code of conduct for the ethical publication of board game content with which all of its participants are comfortable and will conform. This would guide consumers, be a ‘blue tick’ of trust for content creators, and codify rules of the road where the lines are currently blurred.
The FTC and the EU specifically call out that you are not allowed to make paid for content without putting a disclaimer at the start of said content in which you disclose having received payment (in whichever form, monetary or product)
It is NOT specific to reviews. It is ALL content. Recently there have been many a case where influencers were fined for such behaviour.
The board game community seems to take this lightly. They should not.
It is literally illegal.
@Koningwoning, we are in furious agreement. However, I was laying out a framework by way of illustration.
As I tried to explain, it’s important to be clear about definitions because they’re becoming muddied in this conversation yet they are discrete and nuanced. There are ethics, morals, and the law — and they’re not the same thing. I’m talking about ethics, which are a personal guide for aspirational behaviour; you were talking about the law, which is a minimum standard applied over a broad jurisdiction.
This story lays out why they’re not the same thing: “Ethics and the law are not identical. Typically, the law tells us what we are prohibited from doing and what we are required to do. It is said that the law sets minimum standards of behaviour while ethics sets maximum standards.”
https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/04/01/why-ethics-and-law-are-not-the-same-thing
Also, Jamey’s question was posed at game makers as actors, not the content creators: “Is It Unethical to Pay the Media to Form and Broadcast Their Opinion?” So although this discussion has veered to the latter, rightly he was asking us to consider whether it was ethical to pay them not if it was ethical for them to receive payment.
As I’ve said elsewhere in this discussion, the sector is a huge, global money-spinner and if there’s even a whiff of corruption, then it behoves its participants to act to lift its standards. Perception becomes reality and should the sector’s participants’ individual ethics fail to meet norms of community morality then the law will step in to set minimum standards of behaviour.
The issue becomes, I think, if the industry continues to grow. Videogames are a really interesting example of this. There are some heavy overlaps between those who buy advertising and reviews that appear to be paid for are a common concern. And as a result some content creators don’t get advertising or review copies from video game publishers.
And, honestly, this is because reviewers are part of the larger media sphere including newspapers, journalists, etc, and for those the scent of impropriety should mean something, even if no impropriety is actually present. A newspaper undeniably has a financial incentive to not investigate those who are their heaviest advertisers. The history of media is filled with this, and most people who study the topic have come to the conclusion that it is bad.
None of this is to impugn specific individuals, but more to note that paying for reviews is a thing in a lot of industries. More to note that the market won’t magically fix this – we are seeing the problems in a lot of other industries. The model for reviews, historically, was advertising & maybe affiliate compensation. Direct compensation muddies the water, and we already have a recurring issue of unethical actors and the like skating through in the industry.
I think it’s quite clear-cut: paid content is advertising. So, no, it’s not right to pay someone to publish their opinion of something. Sure, someone may have published the review, whether or not they got paid for it and would have published it without any edits, but if it’s paid for, it’s an advert.
Regulations do vary from country to country and region to region. So in the United Kingdom it is clear-cut and you can breach advertising regulations if you don’t announce that you were paid for a review, while in other countries this may be different.
However, irrespective of regulations, if I was watching or reading someone’s review of a game, I’d expect them to be independent. If I later found out that they got paid for their review, but never disclosed the fact, then I would feel deceived. So in that sense, yes, it’s unethical to get paid or to pay for reviews.
Just call it an advert or marketing or whatever and be open about it, and then everyone can decide for themselves how much they trust someone’s “opinion” or not.
In the US the FTC has 3 points that jump out at me. 1. Getting money, free games, or even given on an associated video (free game for unboxing then later a review is made) all qualify as being paid and thus require a disclaimer in the content. 2. Your not allowed to pretend you played something when you haven’t. 3. You aren’t allowed to say you liked something when you didn’t.
Thanks for sharing, Ray! I was aware of #1 (I agree that a free game is compensation and that it must be noted on the content), and while I agree with 2 and 3, I didn’t know they were actual rules. Do you have a link to where you found that information? I’d like to add it verbatim to the post.
this article at Forbes has an aim at publishers and what they should know about this new field of influencer marketing. (With lots of links) https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesagencycouncil/2020/12/02/influencer-marketing-and-ftc-regulations
Awesome, thank you!
See https://www.ftc.gov/influencers
Thanks for the pointer to the FTC page, Ray – very comprehensive, crisp and easy to understand guidance for anyone in any jurisdiction.
The equivalent agency Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has guidance for brands on social media at http://www.accc.gov.au/business/advertising-promoting-your-business/social-media
And more discussion/guidance at:
Social influencer news story — http://www.businessinsider.com.au/australia-influencers-sponsored-content-disclosure-2020-8
Advertising Council Legal update for social influencers — advertisingcouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/2015/COMMUNICATION-%20COUNCIL-SOCIAL-INFLUENCERS-JAN-2015.pdf
Australian Association of National Advertisers Clearly Distinguishable Advertising Best Practice Guideline — aana.com.au/content/uploads/2017/01/AANA_Distinguishable-Advertising-Best-Practice-Guideline__Final.pdf
Australian Influencer Marketing Council code of practice — static1.squarespace.com/static/5f741c44029c373fe632e647/t/6086291e459fe342811ca536/1619405087615/AIMCO_Code_of_Practice_July_1_2020.pdf
What is clear is, however the boardgame industry and its client community of influencers prefer to distinguish different forms of content, rightly or wrongly regulators and industry bodies may have very different views. What form enforcement takes is another matter entirely.
Good points Info Nate. The FTC makes this comment about outside the US:
If posting from abroad, U.S. law applies if it’s reasonably foreseeable that the post will affect U.S. consumers. Foreign laws might also apply.
This was a much lager topic, it seems about 18 months ago and I’ve heard it raised on a number of occasions since then. Personally, I have no issue with a reviewer receiving compensation for performing a valuable service to the industry and specifically to gamers who are spending their hard-earned money on titles which are $40, $60, or more.
Like an artist, graphic designer, or my role as a developer, the compensation is a publisher’s way of valuing your time and talent. As you aptly point out, Jamey, a 1-hour production for a review could take five, six, or even eight hours when you consider everything that goes into it. Without compensation, we’ll find fewer and fewer people performing the function. Few are making a living doing it, so there’s still quite a bit of passion that fuels the industry, not just the dollars. Water finds its own level…disreputable or unethical actors will not receive games and they’ll disappear from view. The market has a way of working things out.
Sorry for the brief tangent, but I have to mildly rebut “the market has a way of working things out.” Ideally, yes, a free market will get rid of bad actors, but as we’ve seen in America, free markets don’t always go according to plan. Large companies can, and do, suffocate small ones due to sheer size, even if the small companies are better. As it relates to reviews, this means that the publisher has to be active in which reviewers to support. If they just go for the biggest audience every time, which as a strict business decision might make sense, then soon the smaller reviewers won’t be able to compete, and there will be fewer of them, leaving even more competition for the limited time of the big reviewers. So free market…yes…BUT it has to be responsibly looked after too.
I’d even go as far as to say a free market always works towards an Oligopoly and from then on the players involved tend to work towards working together to keep the market as is with slight market increases over time and heightening barriers to entry in the process.
This is how markets actually work instead of when you have automatons (homo economicus) with perfect information on which the free market system is actually based.