Are these Vloggers just a scam? SOL or Shmee etc? (Vol 2)
Discussion
The Competition and Markets Authority has launched an investigation this morning into whether ‘Social Influencers’ are properly disclosing their endorsements.
Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
RobDown said:
The Competition and Markets Authority has launched an investigation this morning into whether ‘Social Influencers’ are properly disclosing their endorsements.
Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
Does this mean that others will all have to admit whos actually paying for their cars?Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
RobDown said:
The Competition and Markets Authority has launched an investigation this morning into whether ‘Social Influencers’ are properly disclosing their endorsements.
Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
When he's being paid, Sam declares it. He's very good about that.Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
lordf said:
RobDown said:
The Competition and Markets Authority has launched an investigation this morning into whether ‘Social Influencers’ are properly disclosing their endorsements.
Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
Does this mean that others will all have to admit whos actually paying for their cars?Does that mean STG won’t be able to do those constant lingering shots of him filling up at Shell gas stations without disclosure in future?
jon- said:
When he's being paid, Sam declares it. He's very good about that.
I agree he does when its a main sponsorship thing, he's much better than most on that. But I'm curious about the Shell thing - both he and Mr JWW do these lingering petrol fill-up things (focusing on the V-Max signs) - something that you would normally expect to be edited out from one of their videos. It's very blatant product placement, pure and simple, and not disclosed as such (exactly the sort of thing the CMA are looking into).
Are they on a cash bonus for every video they have which shows them filling up at Shell? It feels like that
Don't get me wrong, sponsorship is clearly part of the business model and I have no objection to it. And we all understand that there's going to be a tendency to be positive about cars for fear of not getting to test the next one. But it should be clearer where there is a payment involved so the less cynical can be better informed
sagarich said:
We all know they’re financed... or am I missing something?
Yes - financing the car is one thing but the problem comes if the car is provided on the cheap by someone in order to get exposure for their business (ie Redline). If the vlogger is paying fair market value though there shouldn’t be a problem. NickCQ said:
sagarich said:
We all know they’re financed... or am I missing something?
Yes - financing the car is one thing but the problem comes if the car is provided on the cheap by someone in order to get exposure for their business (ie Redline). If the vlogger is paying fair market value though there shouldn’t be a problem. Raduno said:
NickCQ said:
sagarich said:
We all know they’re financed... or am I missing something?
Yes - financing the car is one thing but the problem comes if the car is provided on the cheap by someone in order to get exposure for their business (ie Redline). If the vlogger is paying fair market value though there shouldn’t be a problem. These instagram models proclaiming XYZ’s product is absolutely amazing and will turn you from a borderline 4 to the solid 8 out of ten really have to let on when that’s a paid promotion.
In vlog terms I guess if they’re waxing lyrical about how wonderful VPower is and it’s performance benefits they should declare paid promotion but if it’s just product placement then I don’t really see the need.
Edited by emicen on Thursday 16th August 15:51
It's an interesting topic - in most Hollywood movies these days there are loads of lingering product placement shots... and yet no formal "disclosure" as such. It's just that everyone basically knows it's paid advertising. Should the rules for YouTube be different? I would suggest perhaps not, but then the fact that they are sort of presenting in a "fly on the wall" / "real life" way does maybe give it a different context. I tend to agree with a previous poster that if they are obviously raving about a product then it should be disclosed, but otherwise not a big deal IMO.
emicen said:
Interestingly debate.
These instagram modes proclaiming XYZ’s product is absolutely amazing and will turn you from a borderline 4 to the solid 8 out of ten really have to let on when that’s a paid promotion.
In vlog terms I guess if they’re waxing lyrical about how wonderful VPower is and it’s performance benefits they should declare paid promotion but if it’s just product placement then I don’t really see the need.
Oh I fully believe they should declare paid promotions, I’m just referring to the finance aspect. These instagram modes proclaiming XYZ’s product is absolutely amazing and will turn you from a borderline 4 to the solid 8 out of ten really have to let on when that’s a paid promotion.
In vlog terms I guess if they’re waxing lyrical about how wonderful VPower is and it’s performance benefits they should declare paid promotion but if it’s just product placement then I don’t really see the need.
Robert_F said:
It's an interesting topic - in most Hollywood movies these days there are loads of lingering product placement shots... and yet no formal "disclosure" as such. It's just that everyone basically knows it's paid advertising. Should the rules for YouTube be different? I would suggest perhaps not, but then the fact that they are sort of presenting in a "fly on the wall" / "real life" way does maybe give it a different context. I tend to agree with a previous poster that if they are obviously raving about a product then it should be disclosed, but otherwise not a big deal IMO.
Watched Ant Man 2 last week and there’s no disclosure that it was sponsored by Hyundai but given every featured car was one it was pretty obvious. 
RobDown said:
jon- said:
When he's being paid, Sam declares it. He's very good about that.
I agree he does when its a main sponsorship thing, he's much better than most on that. But I'm curious about the Shell thing - both he and Mr JWW do these lingering petrol fill-up things (focusing on the V-Max signs) - something that you would normally expect to be edited out from one of their videos. It's very blatant product placement, pure and simple, and not disclosed as such (exactly the sort of thing the CMA are looking into).
Are they on a cash bonus for every video they have which shows them filling up at Shell? It feels like that
Don't get me wrong, sponsorship is clearly part of the business model and I have no objection to it. And we all understand that there's going to be a tendency to be positive about cars for fear of not getting to test the next one. But it should be clearer where there is a payment involved so the less cynical can be better informed
No brand deal has ever been subliminal or discreet (in the sense that all they have to do is wear a t-shirt or stand by a pump). Nearly all brands want a key message placed in the video, sometimes obviously placed sometimes not.
Most YouTubers finance their own cars and then have press cars next to this for shorter periods. Maybe 1 or 2 YouTubers have a car paid for by third party (that they have to give back) in the last few years but never a car finance company and these examples are not hidden but made clear at the time.
RobDown said:
jon- said:
When he's being paid, Sam declares it. He's very good about that.
But I'm curious about the Shell thing - both he and Mr JWW do these lingering petrol fill-up things (focusing on the V-Max signs) - something that you would normally expect to be edited out from one of their videos. It's very blatant product placement, pure and simple, and not disclosed as such (exactly the sort of thing the CMA are looking into). Are they on a cash bonus for every video they have which shows them filling up at Shell? It feels like that
Don't get me wrong, sponsorship is clearly part of the business model and I have no objection to it. And we all understand that there's going to be a tendency to be positive about cars for fear of not getting to test the next one. But it should be clearer where there is a payment involved so the less cynical can be better informed
In addition, a lot of social media influencers give free exposure to brands in the hope of a hook up in the future, some rather blatantly. You only have to look at the Love Island contestants covering nandos. Some of them even say in their videos 'have I done enough to earn my black card yet'. I mean... so my wife tells me etc...
Good insight from MrJWW in his Q&A about gumball3000 - basic costs being £60k to enter this year per car and that “every entrant this year is a millionaire” (13 mins in for those that want to hear it direct - https://youtu.be/rwvBsuIbf1U).
ReaperCushions said:
have a feeling Sam gets his petrol paid for by Shell on a long-term agreement.
99% of the time I fill up with Shell and I only drive a Volvo diesel. It’s my preference; I prefer Starbucks to Costa. If I were making videos, Starbucks and Shell would feature in my videos quite often. That doesn’t mean that some secret agreement would have been arranged. It’s just what I like and I would imagine that these brands are what Sam prefers.
Edited by TorqueR on Thursday 16th August 19:54
Well, the MCM guys used Ryobi tools for quite some time, fairly prominently, and people started asking if they were sponsors. Turned out they just liked them, and Ryobi later did a deal with them to get them using more (not sure it counts as 'sponsorship', as the arrangement appears to often involve them donating the value of what they receive to charity).
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff