Tag Archives: disclosure

Lack of Disclosure Strikes Video Games as Warner Bros. Settles with the FTC

FTC-logoI’ve written pretty extensively about the need for proper disclosure and transparency in the world of geek blogging. Transparency is one of the things this site was founded on and it’s something I take seriously. We probably over disclose in the other end. But, better to be honest and forthcoming than be caught later on. There are pretty clear guidelines the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has laid out as to what blogs/online personalities need to disclose when receiving goods or payments for endorsements, testimonials, and reviews.

It was announced Monday that the FTC has settled with Warner Bros. Home Entertainment over their promotion for the video game Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor. hey failed to adequately disclose that the company paid influencers. This added up to thousands of dollars to post positive gameplay videos on YouTube and other social media. The game has a score in the mid 80s on Metacritic. The game was released in 2014 and altogether the promotion was viewed about 5.5 million times.

Shadow_of_Mordor_cover_artWarner Bros. through Plaid Social Labs hired the “online influencers” to create gameplay video and post it on YouTube as well as promote it on Twitter and Facebook. Named in the announcement was YouTube personality PewDiePie. It should be noted that his video currently says “this video was sponsored by Warner Brother” in the info section but was not verbally said in the video I watched. However, that specific set-up is specifically mentioned in the FTC’s release. The disclosure was hard to find, if present at all, for the videos on YouTube, Facebook, or elsewhere. Some reviewers only disclosed they received early access and in at least one instance Warner Bros. approved the video itself.

Warner Bros. paid anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of dollars on top of a free advance release copy of the game and told influencers to promote it. They then used those paid promotions to further promote their game without disclosing they were indeed paid promotion.

Warner Bros. is now barred from failing to make sure disclosures in the future and can’t “misrepresent that sponsored content.” They must also educate influencers about sponsorship disclosures, monitor sponsored influencers for compliance, and if need be terminate or withhold payment for non-compliance.

The decision by the FTC is open for public comment for 30 days, through August 10, 2016. At that time the Commission will decide whether to make the proposed consent order final. Those who want to submit comments can do so here.

This is the second time within a year that video games have caught the eye of the FTC. Last year Machinima was busted for similar issues and not disclosing payments to promote the Xbox One.

Sunday Roundtable: Thoughts on Comic Sites Disclosing Conflicts and Being Transparent

JLA Roundtable disclosureOn Sunday, talking heads circle tables and pontificate on television about the hottest topics pressing our nation. We bring that tradition to our site as the Graphic Policy team gives our thoughts in each week’s Sunday Roundtable.

On tap this week?

There’s much discussion about comic websites disclosing conflicts and increasing their transparency. What are your thoughts on the issue.

Daphne: It depends on my own reaction to whatever it is being reviewed, frankly – if I think something is absolutely awful and some review has a completely out-of-nowhere, universally positive review with no criticism or negative points to address, and then I find out the reviewer was given access to the comic (or game, or movie, or whatever) for free, I usually do have an “well, OF COURSE they pretended to like it” reaction. As long as reviewers are realistic, constructive, and critical in a reasonable way or can argue as to why they absolutely adored or completely hated something, I think it’s totally fine to accept things for free – but transparency is an important part of being professional as a reviewer.

Brett: Oh yeah, I’m not questioning whether it’s OK to accept stuff for free. We do! What is the obligation of that reviewer to make that known?

Alex: Absolutely.

Brett: Succinct. To the point. I like it.

Daphne: Seconded.

Alex: Ha, well, I think that the cost of a [reviewed product] can be prohibitive to some, and so when we’re reviewing those things we have a duty to get people know when we got them for free. Our opinions can be formed (when we get a review copy) purely on the merit of the comic without having to factor cost in.

I can think of several comics where I’ve encourage people to pick them up simply because of the cost (or lack there of) .

Mr. H: I think it’s very important because a reader could think that us receiving screener copies might influence how we review the comic or may play favoritism.

Mr. H: Transparency is usual a good policy imo.

Elana: People should always say if something was given for free. I think that it makes more of a difference the more value something has but there’s no reason not to disclose any price level.

Alex: I agree. Sometimes the cost of something as a customer is prohibitive. There have been a few occasions where my recommendation was Buy verses Read simply because of the cost, or lack there of.

Alex: How important do you guys feel that disclosure statements are when it comes to potential conflicts, reviews, and affiliate links?

Should they be included in both the article/post/column and on a website or just one or the other?

Brett: Depends what the conflict is. For a review, I think it should be stated at least at the bottom of the review, same with affiliate links. If a website is owned by a publisher, it absolutely should be every time they do anything involved with the parent company, and preferably also somewhere on the site itself.

When it doubt disclose, and it’s better to disclose too much than not enough.

Brett: How do folks like to see disclosures done?

Katherine: I think the way we’re doing it is just fine. Just a note on the bottom as to whether or not this was provided to us free of cost for review.

Daphne: I like to at least see them at the bottom of reviews below or following the overall scores given to the review subject. A simple “Marvel Comics flew Daphne to Los Angeles for the Captain Marvel premiere” works just fine.

Katherine: If only, Daphne.

Basically all this. Transparency is just good journalism. I don’t think getting a product free to review influences the review, or at least, it doesn’t for me. It *might* influence others, but I think any journalist worth their salt won’t really be swayed by it, and I think most people know that.

Also, I think it’s important to note that there’s a huge difference between getting material to review for free and getting paid to review it, and by stating that we received it for free lessens the view that the review might be biased.

Alex: Especially if we give a favourable review to a product without disclosing whether the product was free or not.

Disclosing something is never a bad thing if it alleviates the doubt as to a writers integrity.

Brett: So, I started the whole “free” thing because at the time a lot wasn’t and I thought there should be a distinction. Was I over thinking things?

Katherine: I don’t think so. I honestly doubt that many people pay attention to that kind of thing, and like what was said before, it’s better to be over transparent than under.

Alex: I agree with Katherine. More transparency with this kind of thing isn’t a bad thing

Brett: One last question. What do folks think about sites running ads for companies or comics they have to cover?

Alex: In theory, so long as disclosures are in place, it should be fine. That being said, the ads being set as the background to a site, rightly or wrongly, imply to me that a site endorses the product that’s being advertised. So when a favourable review of that product is written, I often equate the review as a piece of PR that won’t be worth reading.

Brett: And that’s a good place to wrap up! So, you the readers, what do you think? We throw it out to you our community. Sound off in the comments!

Yes, Transparency and Disclosure Do Matter in Comics Journalism

Ethics049webIVIf you haven’t been living in a cave, the issue of transparency and disclosure in comics journalism/blogging kicked up over the weekend. I’m not going to link and recap everything, because by focusing on one incident we risk derailing the greater discussion. By narrowing our focus on one, we somehow let the many off. I had been planning on writing this post looking at how various comic sites handle their disclosure and transparency, but due to some leaked emails from a private listserv, and folks asking when this post is going to be done, I actually feel some pressure to say something profound.

What I am about to write and say might not be profound or visionary, but it needs to be said.

Transparency and disclosure in comics journalism and blogging does matter.

That sums up everything below, but if you want to know why it matters, and how we as bloggers, journalists, and comic fans should expect more, then please keep reading.

For those who think this is a new discussion, it’s been going on for quite some time. One of the early things I focused on when founding this site was making it transparent and disclosing conflicts or relationships that if found out might have people questioning our objectivity. I made sure to differentiate when an item was given for free for review versus ones I purchased myself, thinking that as a reader, knowing that would help me weigh the review better for bias or motive. The statement about this value is at the bottom of every page on the website, and that has been there I think, since the beginning (in various locations). I have also posted what I feel are the core values of this site and the community we’re attempting to build.

When reading through the comments on the various articles concerning the shitstorm this past weekend, many individuals said “who cares it’s just comics.” Well, we should all care, and expect more of those who bring us news, reviews, commentary, and “human interest” pieces. We should care because, if we didn’t we might as well just read the press releases published directly on the various publisher’s websites. We should care because we should expect sites to be more than mouthpieces for PR professionals. We should care because, we should expect our news to push back and not take everything at face value, soaking up soundbites for facts.

As fans and readers, we should have confidence in those who are reporting. And that confidence is boosted by providing information that helps us fans evaluate posts by news sites. Graphic Policy was founded to be Transparent, Open, and Progressive. That’s who we are, and we have never shied away from those three principles (at least I hope we haven’t).

I did not go to school for journalism, poli-sci here, so I can’t say what other “professional” sites do, I just know what feels right for me, and what I want to see as a reader of other sites.

who watches the watchmenDisclosure and transparency are key. The Comics Journal is owned by Fantagraphics. Bleeding Cool is owned by Avatar. Comic Vine is owned by CBS Interactive. This isn’t to single out these three sites, if there are other examples please let me know. But, these are three sites that are owned by publishers/creators in the industry they cover. If you go to their sites you probably wouldn’t know this fact. TCJ and Comic Vine have mentions of Fantagraphics and CBS all the way at the footer of the site. The two sites don’t disclose (or consistently disclose) this fact when covering their owners (not in the articles I clicked). In the case of Bleeding Cool they are hit and miss with disclosure when posting about their parent company Avatar. It’d be as if an automaker owned a car site that gave reviews. As a consumer, it’s good to have this information so that you can decide if coverage is biased or has a motive. I’m not saying a comic site can’t be owned by a publisher, or these sites are biased in their coverage, but perception is key and in the case of this past weekend’s events, perception was everything.

Our site has been around for 8 years, and in that time I’ve met many folks in the industry that I’d consider friends. It’s hard to not make friends, especially when there’s so many awesome people to interact with. The fact is we’re all comic fans in the end, so have something to easily connect with each other. Those friendships have absolutely gotten me access to things, and also has let publishers and creators know what type of person they’re dealing with (hopefully a professional one). But to me, friendship and schmoozing is a part of networking to get the scoop and being able to better cover the industry. There’s no one in the industry I’m regularly hanging out with, and I mostly see folks on the convention circuit, so 4 or 5 times a year. I’m not the only comics blogger/journalist where this is the case. It falls into a gray area of whether we can objectively cover these individuals. And if we as journalists even question if we can, we probably shouldn’t. In some cases those personal relationships add flavor and fun to interviews, and actually help bring the news. In others, they can bring tainted and one sided reporting. For a lot of the time, this site was just me, but with a team now, it’s easier to ask others to cover something if/when that gray area turns up. I can’t think of a time when I personally haven’t been objective in my reporting (it may have been my perspective, but that’s a different thing). It sucks giving someone you know a bad review, but honesty is usually best, right?

There’s outright abuse of the above though. Not here, but elsewhere. Reviewers and journalists review and promote/cover comics they have had a hand in creating or for publishers they work for without mentioning it at all. This Storify has numerous examples of this issue including panel reports from folks who wrote the panel press release, individuals covering comics they had a hand in creating, and more. It’s not that you can’t work for a publisher, or create a comic, it’s just you probably shouldn’t cover your own without saying it’s your own, and covering the folks who give you a paycheck… objectivity might be difficult. It can be done, it’s just not easy. I have done work for comic companies, and in that time I didn’t cover who I worked for (because it was a one man shop at the time and no I won’t reveal it due to NDA). Today, I’d have other contributors cover a story if it involved something I profited from personally, and we’d still disclose that I had a relationship. In the instances were we did cover something where my “day job” bled over, that was disclosed. You can search for our coverage about SOPA/PIPA where I worked for an advocacy organization on the issue. It just so happened the issue also was appropriate to cover here.

make-it-rain-dollarsHey free stuff! A lot of the comics (and other items) we get for review are free. Most are digital. Some are physical. But, not all of it is free. When we started out, all I received were review copies from Top Cow, but over these 8 years we’ve grown and expanded so that in some way most publishers send us something regularly or irregularly for review. But, not everything is free, and to me, there’s a massive distinction there.

For me, the comics have value in most cases (I can’t think of a publisher every giving me anything else). And when considering what to disclose, the FTC in their guidelines state you should disclose what has “effect on the weight” of the review. They make a distinction about a professional site and an amateur, but in this day and age, anyone can quickly become a professional, so I personally think it’s best we all disclose with hat in mind. To me, the free copy might weigh my review, because I have less cost than readers who purchase. At $3 to $5 a copy, comics aren’t cheap. And since we don’t purchase everything, or get everything for free, to me it’s important to distinguish between the two. I don’t think it’s common knowledge what comic sites do and don’t receive from publishers or PR folks. We here make that as transparent as possible (see the bottom of reviews for that disclosure, or lack of one if purchased, as an example).

FTC-logoStep 1. Step 2. Step 3. Profit! There’s a thing called affiliate links. That’s different than outright being paid for a post (which I don’t believe we’ve ever done, but we have been approached). Affiliate links track who clicks and if a purchase is made, we receive a cut of that purchase, often it’s about 10% of the purchase, but can vary. In cases where there are affiliate links I think it’s vital to disclose they exist, and the FTC agrees with me on that one.

We disclose this fact in our posts at the end of such posts. For products the products or services where we have including not just a link, but an affiliate link, there isn’t one where I wouldn’t have still posted it if the affiliate link wasn’t available.

The amount that comes in is miniscule, but affiliate links allow us to keep on doing Nerd Block/Loot Crate/geek box of the month unboxings, and helps keep the lights on. We’re not talking rolling in cash here, the site breaks even right now (actually a loss if you count convention trips which I’d probably take anyways). I have a day job that pays well, and my goal isn’t for the site to be profitable. My long term goal is to pay my contributors. We’re comic/movie/television/toy fans, but they deserve to be paid, and eventually I hope we’ll get to a point where I can. The pennies I currently would be able to pay would be an insult for the hard work they do. Got a bit off track there. Again, I disclose the affiliate links because you deserve to know if we stand to make money off of something.

So here’s what we here at Graphic Policy have, and will continue to do.

  1. Disclose all FREE product when writing reviews or promoting items. Free is considered to be something the average person would have to pay for. An example of something not free is a product that the average person can get, like a comic tied into a movie with movie ticket purchase, or a television show. An example of not free are many of the weekly comics released that we get to read and review. Look for this disclosure, or lack of one for paid items, at the end of reviews
  2. I pride myself on being open, and honest. This site will give our honest opinion and/or break news, no matter who it might piss off. Being blacklisted is a badge of honor to me. I have offered feedback on how to make posts better, but can’t think of outright censoring anything.
  3. All affiliate links/paid posts will be identified. That one is pretty simple. Look for the disclosure at the end of posts and/or spoken in video.
  4. We will disclose when we receive direct advertising payment while running stories during the advertising period. We are currently blind as to what’s being run as ads on our site. I have no idea what’s shown, so there is no way for conflict. If at a point we sell advertising directly, we will mention it if we cover the company directly and for a time period after.
  5. If we review/report on something/someone that there is a financial tie, we will disclose it.
  6. We will not review a comic for anyone that is a current contributor. We will disclose past contributors. We will post previews though without disclosure (since we’re here to promote comics and we’ll run anyone’s preview and not like a preview post involves opinions).
  7. When covering conventions we will NOT disclose if we receive press passes, unless we are actually commenting on the convention itself as opposed to events at the convention.
  8. We are currently not owned by a publisher, media company, or creator. If that changes we’ll let you know and disclose it after the fact.

We won’t always be perfect, and there are times even I forget to note things. But to me, for Graphic Policy this isn’t about ethics, it’s about trust between us the contributors and you the readers who make up our community. I want to earn your trust, and keep it. I can’t control what other sites do, I can only control what we do here, and these values are ones I think are important, and ones I do my best to stand up for and stand by.

 

 

For other bloggers who want to learn about Ethics in Journalism, there is a free online course I plan taking to learn more myself and help make sure we do this right.