YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else? [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
YouTubers have to declare ads. Why doesn't anyone else? [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-x8DYTOv7w
119 comments
Imagine what would happen if this became a thing for TV and movies. Whenever Iron Man would pull up to the Avengers head quarters, you'd get a message "This scene is sponsored by Audi AG". Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces".
And those are just the obvious ones. It would be super funny if they'd have to do it retroactively.
And those are just the obvious ones. It would be super funny if they'd have to do it retroactively.
> Every war movie would have a "Vehicles and props kindly provided by the US Armed Forces".
There's a whole bunch of war movies that are absolutely NOT approved by the US DoD, because they show things in an unfavorable light. Generally this means no access to actual equipment like M1 tanks or 'real' aircraft, which must be substituted using somebody else's b-roll, or CGI.
It is generally pretty easy to tell the difference between movies that were filmed with DoD filming office cooperation (Battleship), and ones that might show something about the military in an unflattering or unprofessional light (Three Kings).
One very famous example is Apocalypse Now, the helicopter scene and a lot of the rest of it was filmed in the Philippines, after making a large payment to their military for use of the Hueys.
There's a whole bunch of war movies that are absolutely NOT approved by the US DoD, because they show things in an unfavorable light. Generally this means no access to actual equipment like M1 tanks or 'real' aircraft, which must be substituted using somebody else's b-roll, or CGI.
It is generally pretty easy to tell the difference between movies that were filmed with DoD filming office cooperation (Battleship), and ones that might show something about the military in an unflattering or unprofessional light (Three Kings).
One very famous example is Apocalypse Now, the helicopter scene and a lot of the rest of it was filmed in the Philippines, after making a large payment to their military for use of the Hueys.
I watched “Kelly’s Heroes” (1970) for the first time last weekend. Turns out the film was made in Yugoslavia (Croatia today) because the Yugoslav army still used WWII-era Sherman tanks, which were part of the plot so could be cheaply accessed.
(There were also some tax or funding reasons I believe.)
(Side note - holds up well for a 50 year old movie; and one of the best Donald Sutherland performances, in the same year he did MASH.)
(There were also some tax or funding reasons I believe.)
(Side note - holds up well for a 50 year old movie; and one of the best Donald Sutherland performances, in the same year he did MASH.)
It would hopefully reduce the value of those ads, so it may turn at least a few away. That would be a great thing!
In some ways this was the case in Germany (and I'm sure other countries as well) until a few years ago. "Product placement", i.e. making sponsored content an integral part of a movie or article (as opposed to interrupting the media with ads or commercials) was illegal.
I believe at some time in the recent years, the rule got softened, so today, you're only required to show a rather useless warning before the movie. I have no idea why this was done, but I suspect studio pressure playing a role. Something like, the latest Bond movie will have sponsored content whether German government wants it or not, so the only choice is between allowing it or banning major blockbusters and pissing off a large part of the population.
I believe at some time in the recent years, the rule got softened, so today, you're only required to show a rather useless warning before the movie. I have no idea why this was done, but I suspect studio pressure playing a role. Something like, the latest Bond movie will have sponsored content whether German government wants it or not, so the only choice is between allowing it or banning major blockbusters and pissing off a large part of the population.
I would like to know which movies had to be edited to please US Armed Forces.
It's more along the lines - the US military only helped films if the story was good to the military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-entertainment_complex
I'm not aware of exactly what you ask for, probably because the military is that good at ensuring nothing bad would be filmed.
I'm not aware of exactly what you ask for, probably because the military is that good at ensuring nothing bad would be filmed.
Sounds like a disaster that would be completely unnecessary.
They'd just tack it on the credits at the end.
They already do, the video actually shows that. The video is arguing that they should have to do it the way social media "influencers" have to, either while the product is on screen, or clearly up font at the beginning (the way TV ratings are shown)
In BOTH the UK and US contexts, too! Pretty comprehensive
I get what he's trying to say but the fact is that the two mediums are different.
I know when I watch a TV show, large sums of money went into making the show I'm watching due to the history of television. Writers, actors, set builders, etc. were all paid during the production of a TV show and I know commercials and product placements paid for all of it.
When I watch something on YouTube, my first inkling is to think I'm watching some bloke with a webcam making a video in his basement. The history of YouTube causes me to think that the person on YouTube operates all by themselves just for the fun of it. While I know that that's not the case anymore the historic perception is still there, that's what the rules are meant to protect general public against.
YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive.
I know when I watch a TV show, large sums of money went into making the show I'm watching due to the history of television. Writers, actors, set builders, etc. were all paid during the production of a TV show and I know commercials and product placements paid for all of it.
When I watch something on YouTube, my first inkling is to think I'm watching some bloke with a webcam making a video in his basement. The history of YouTube causes me to think that the person on YouTube operates all by themselves just for the fun of it. While I know that that's not the case anymore the historic perception is still there, that's what the rules are meant to protect general public against.
YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive.
This argument would be valid if not for the rise of reality TV. There's a while genre of shows made to seem "unscripted" when in reality they're almost entirely artificial. Something like pawn stars is a great example of this[1]. Viewers are led to believe that it's actually organic content, and more naive viewers could easily fall for this falsehood.
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM
[1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z31G3Ct98EM
I thought about this as well but reality TV shows are still enough of a spectacle that it's clear that big money is involved.
Survivor placed the contestants on an island competing in elaborate challenges with camera's everywhere for a million dollar prize.
The Bachelor featured a wealthy suitor/suitress and a dozen attractive people of the opposite sex dressed in ridiculously expensive clothing again with camera's everywhere doing extravagant things.
Anyone can end up on YouTube, only certain people can end up on TV and viewers always have this in the back of their minds.
Survivor placed the contestants on an island competing in elaborate challenges with camera's everywhere for a million dollar prize.
The Bachelor featured a wealthy suitor/suitress and a dozen attractive people of the opposite sex dressed in ridiculously expensive clothing again with camera's everywhere doing extravagant things.
Anyone can end up on YouTube, only certain people can end up on TV and viewers always have this in the back of their minds.
On the contrary, I think that TV paid product placements are often way more subtle. On social media and YouTube it's really in your face full on ads.
> YouTube creates a different kind of relationship between viewer and content creator, one that's particularly intimate and consequently persuasive.
It may, but should that relationship be enforced? Letting well-backed productions get away with not disclosing while the less well-backed have extra rules they have to follow is just favoring incumbents. It's similar to the discussion surrounding "real journalism" and bloggers/youtubers.
It may, but should that relationship be enforced? Letting well-backed productions get away with not disclosing while the less well-backed have extra rules they have to follow is just favoring incumbents. It's similar to the discussion surrounding "real journalism" and bloggers/youtubers.
"You have to declare that"
Excuse me for my ignorance but why is this important? I usually assume any review from someone I don't know personally is potentially sponsored, so I don't really care if they declare it or not. If everyone were taught to make that assumption this wouldn't be an issue.
The way I see it, if people listen to influencer bullshit, they're going to get sold on shitty products and that's their problem. I don't listen to influencers, I listen to friends and coworkers who can give me an honest review that I trust.
The way I see it, if people listen to influencer bullshit, they're going to get sold on shitty products and that's their problem. I don't listen to influencers, I listen to friends and coworkers who can give me an honest review that I trust.
Please watch the video before arguing about something that he clearly explained.
Please also show how the parent might misunderstanding the article instead of just telling them off.
It’s against the rules here to accuse people of not reading the article (watching the video in this case.)
You assume that your friends aren't being paid off by advertisers? They aren't required to tell you
Depends on your country; I'm quite happy with the UK's restriction on adverts, including a ban on advertising prescription meds at all, and restrictions on product placement.
That the US allows ads for prescription drugs is totally indefensible. When I lived in Japan, it took me a while before I realized that all the drug ads were ending with the equivalent of “over the counter” because advertising prescription drugs was illegal. Once I figured it out, it made me wonder why the US would possibly have a different law. It’s crazy!
Prescription ads to consumers were legalized in the US in 1985. "Deregulation", it was called.
Only the US and New Zealand allow this.
Only the US and New Zealand allow this.
It didn't really take off in the USA until the FDA loosed side-effect notification rules in 1997. Literally overnight a huge number of TV commercials started playing.
Yep, I remember when this happened. Viagra seemed to be the main driver "little blue pill."
Don't forget Prozac.
> the FDA loosed side-effect notification rules in 1997
It's not the side effects that mattered. It's that before the rule change they weren't allowed to talk about what the drug did at all.
It's not the side effects that mattered. It's that before the rule change they weren't allowed to talk about what the drug did at all.
It's interesting to go elsewhere in the world and see advertisements for say hard alcohol.
The US has ads for hard alcohol. They were never illegal, but it took until 1996 until the booze industry decided that they weren't going to trigger a return to Prohibition by advertising on TV.
I haven't seen any, where would you look?
I see ads like that all the time. Never see anyone drinking the product, just sophisticated looking adults mingling intercut with shots of liquors being poured into glasses.
And then a voice at the end saying "please drink responsibily"
And then a voice at the end saying "please drink responsibily"
[deleted]
I don't know. Ads for monoclonal antibody therapies against COVID would probably save lives - by convincing doctors to use them. Smoking cessation products (they are prescribable for insurance reimbursement purposes) definitely save lives. Lots of smokers in Japan. What about PReP? It's prescription only. Lofexidine? It's not so black and white. If your conclusion is, make stuff over the counter, I feel like you're missing the point. Of course promoting drugs that work are a great outcome. Like what are we even talking about?
> by convincing doctors to use them.
I don't think it's patients the ones that need to convince the doctors of what to use. If anything, patients demanding solutions without any knowledge of whether they're useful or not would make treatment much more difficult.
> Smoking cessation products
A lot of smoking cessation products are over the counter. Here in Spain I see ads about them, and we have the same prohibition of adverts of prescription meds.
> What about PReP? It's prescription only
Sexual education covers this, no need to monetize ads. Not to mention that the return on investment on an anti-HIV medication is probably not ideal
> Lofexidine
Again, I doubt the market for opioid withdrawal meds is high enough.
> Of course promoting drugs that work are a great outcome. Like what are we even talking about?
Doctors are the one that prescribe drugs, not patients. Why would you need to market a prescription drug that one takes only after a doctor visit to patients? They are not the ones making the decision on the drug. They do not have the information required to evaluate whether the drug is appropriate or not.
At best, ads for prescription drugs will be useless because it's the doctor that makes the decision. At worst it encourages self-medication and forces doctors to make non-optimal choices due to patient pressure. The only ones that stand to benefit from prescription drugs ads are pharmaceutical companies and ad agencies.
I don't think it's patients the ones that need to convince the doctors of what to use. If anything, patients demanding solutions without any knowledge of whether they're useful or not would make treatment much more difficult.
> Smoking cessation products
A lot of smoking cessation products are over the counter. Here in Spain I see ads about them, and we have the same prohibition of adverts of prescription meds.
> What about PReP? It's prescription only
Sexual education covers this, no need to monetize ads. Not to mention that the return on investment on an anti-HIV medication is probably not ideal
> Lofexidine
Again, I doubt the market for opioid withdrawal meds is high enough.
> Of course promoting drugs that work are a great outcome. Like what are we even talking about?
Doctors are the one that prescribe drugs, not patients. Why would you need to market a prescription drug that one takes only after a doctor visit to patients? They are not the ones making the decision on the drug. They do not have the information required to evaluate whether the drug is appropriate or not.
At best, ads for prescription drugs will be useless because it's the doctor that makes the decision. At worst it encourages self-medication and forces doctors to make non-optimal choices due to patient pressure. The only ones that stand to benefit from prescription drugs ads are pharmaceutical companies and ad agencies.
> Of course promoting drugs that work are a great outcome. Like what are we even talking about?
If it works, there's no need to promote it, your doctor will know about it from better sources than TV ads. The purpose of TV ads for prescription medicine is to induce nagging behavior - trying to convince patients to nag their doctors and so increase the sales of these things.
Like all advertising, it is a practice meant to distort our behavior in a way that makes us better consumers.
If it works, there's no need to promote it, your doctor will know about it from better sources than TV ads. The purpose of TV ads for prescription medicine is to induce nagging behavior - trying to convince patients to nag their doctors and so increase the sales of these things.
Like all advertising, it is a practice meant to distort our behavior in a way that makes us better consumers.
>If it works, there's no need to promote it, your doctor will know about it from better sources than TV ads.
Yeah they've got the drug sales reps showing up weekly with food and possibly lapdances[1] telling the doctors all they need to know about how to make the drug companies more money.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/30/stripper-...
More context
https://www.financierworldwide.com/bribery-and-corruption-in...
Yeah they've got the drug sales reps showing up weekly with food and possibly lapdances[1] telling the doctors all they need to know about how to make the drug companies more money.
[1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/01/30/stripper-...
More context
https://www.financierworldwide.com/bribery-and-corruption-in...
The NHS advertises smoking cessation in general terms, and non-prescription patches etc are indeed advertised.
> Like what are we even talking about?
There's a long history of patients being easily suckered into ineffective or inappropriate medications, or even being persuaded that a condition exists that they wouldn't have been worried about otherwise. And of unscrupulous marketers persuading them to spend money on this.
Has everyone forgotten the opiates scandal? https://www.ft.com/content/7cf7b242-a6e1-11e9-984c-fac8325aa...
Or previously OxyContin (2009): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/
Medicine is supposed to be a science. It's supposed to be possible to determine accurately what condition someone has, what the appropriate medications to treat them might be, and for them to make an informed choice. Marketing is the opposite of that in every respect: it's incentivized to mislead people, even if it kills them.
> Like what are we even talking about?
There's a long history of patients being easily suckered into ineffective or inappropriate medications, or even being persuaded that a condition exists that they wouldn't have been worried about otherwise. And of unscrupulous marketers persuading them to spend money on this.
Has everyone forgotten the opiates scandal? https://www.ft.com/content/7cf7b242-a6e1-11e9-984c-fac8325aa...
Or previously OxyContin (2009): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622774/
Medicine is supposed to be a science. It's supposed to be possible to determine accurately what condition someone has, what the appropriate medications to treat them might be, and for them to make an informed choice. Marketing is the opposite of that in every respect: it's incentivized to mislead people, even if it kills them.
In most places with bans on ads for prescribed meds you can advertise to doctors. That's why some websites have banners saying "for medical professionals only" -- they also run ads for prescription meds.
What's wrong with ads for drugs?
Because prescription drugs are supposed to be prescribed by a doctor with actual medical knowledge. Average joes watching ads shouldn't be deciding what prescription drugs their doctor gives them.
I think that they positively spread awareness of both problems and solutions. If a patient doesn't know about a drug, then they might not bring the problem up with their doctor. Viagra might be a good example. Many, or even most, men wouldn't be comfortable bringing up ED with their doctors were they not aware of a possible solution. Perhaps the Internet does a better job at surfacing this information than was the case before, but I am not sure. Personally, I have benefitted from learning, via ads, about a cure that I never would have known existed otherwise, for a problem that I had assumed I would just have to live with.
Same could be achieved by sponsoring social ads about specific illness without mentioning perscription drug.
Yet drug corporations don't do that in countries where ads for perscription drugs are banned. I guess that does not bring the same value to them as pushing drug explicitly.
Yet drug corporations don't do that in countries where ads for perscription drugs are banned. I guess that does not bring the same value to them as pushing drug explicitly.
I'm convinced that this is the worst possible example given that Viagra marketing produced an absolute tidal wave of spam in the early 2000s. It was advertising at its worst, and least ethical.
On the flipside, many physicians complain that patients come to them convinced that they absolutely suffer from the disorder advertised on TV, and they need it prescribed.
Besides, while direct to consumer advertising is a more recent phenomena, pharma companies have for the longest time targeted physicians. So if there's a new treatment for your condition, your physician knows about it. Are you a suitable candidate for the treatment? That's for the physician to determine.
Besides, while direct to consumer advertising is a more recent phenomena, pharma companies have for the longest time targeted physicians. So if there's a new treatment for your condition, your physician knows about it. Are you a suitable candidate for the treatment? That's for the physician to determine.
Other countries handle this through public service announcements in the form of "do you suffer from X/Y/Z? Your doctor can help you", for identified public health challenges, such as smoking or obesity.
[deleted]
The ‘defense’ is the first amendment. It would violate it if you prevented people from telling other people about their products.
When was the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV?
Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings [0].
[0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speec...
Commercial speech in the United States has limitations. Historically commercial speech was not protected by the 1st amendment. Protections and limitations have largely been established over the past 50 years in Supreme Court rulings [0].
[0] https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/939/corporate-speec...
The comparison to cigarettes isn't very convincing. To legally justify a of regulation of commercial speech, the government must show that it is to directly advance a substantial government interest and it is no more extensive than is necessary to serve that interest.
Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults.
It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far.
Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to).
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.
Cigarettes physically harm pretty much all of their users, and they are very addicting leading to psychological and financial harm to a large number of users too, and they are available over the counter with no more than an age check to try to keep them out of the hands of non-adults.
It's fairly easy to find a substantial government interest in the physical and psychological health of the population, and regulating the spread of something addicting that directly harms that interest directly advances that interest and doesn't seem to be going too far.
Prescription drugs cannot even be sold until the government approves them, and even then they can only be sold if prescribed by a doctor. Those measures should already keep them out of the hands of those who would be harmed by them, so it is hard to see what substantial government interest a TV ad ban would directly further that couldn't be better addressed without restricting speech (e.g., limitation on who doctors can prescribe the drug to).
I'm not saying that it wouldn't be possible to sufficient justify a TV ad ban on prescription drugs. Just that it is not anywhere near as easy as it is for cigarettes.
It's incredibly convincing given what happened with opiates and the current hundreds of thousands dead from overdoses over the past 20 years or so.
I've heard another defense that's pretty laughable. Goes something like, the ads tell people about conditions they might have but not realize.
I fully think we should be banning prescription drugs. There's precedent already for banning product ads - tobacco ads are no longer allowed for example.
I fully think we should be banning prescription drugs. There's precedent already for banning product ads - tobacco ads are no longer allowed for example.
I think the more charitable interpretation of this defense is:
Ads tell people about conditions they might have, but not realize there is an available drug that can treat it. Or at least an encouragement to talk to their doctor about it.
If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue.
I think a lot of these ads prod hypochondriacs to rush to their doctor (or perhaps even the ER) to "tell them about their symptoms" which just drives up costs for everyone.
I think a lot of these ads prod hypochondriacs to rush to their doctor (or perhaps even the ER) to "tell them about their symptoms" which just drives up costs for everyone.
> If your condition isn't bothersome enough that you need an ad to prompt you to mention it to your doctor, perhaps it's not really an issue.
Au contraire, people will live with all sorts of debilitating conditions, assuming that treatment is exceptionally hard.
I lived with an impacted wisdom tooth for a long time, and when it was removed I suddenly realized that it wasn't just a natural way for my body to feel.
I also just assumed that I had to poop explosively in the morning just because, and not because I drank the large cup of milk my mother gave me.
And that's normal. Loads of people are like this.
Au contraire, people will live with all sorts of debilitating conditions, assuming that treatment is exceptionally hard.
I lived with an impacted wisdom tooth for a long time, and when it was removed I suddenly realized that it wasn't just a natural way for my body to feel.
I also just assumed that I had to poop explosively in the morning just because, and not because I drank the large cup of milk my mother gave me.
And that's normal. Loads of people are like this.
All the more so in a place without socialized health care.
Yeah, in my case, I had access to the health care whenever I wanted. I just never thought to.
The defenses I've seen are less about free speech and more to the tune of "doctors can't possibly know everything, so you should ask them in case they haven't looked into it." Frankly, if you think a TV advert does a better job at informing you about medical research then your doctor, who spent tons to graduate and more still on continuing education to maintain a license, you probably need new doctor.
I’ve heard that argument and but it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. You also have a right to run a business and sell things - such as prescription medication - but that hasn’t stopped the government from (too heavily, imho) restricting that.
The US constitution explicitly grants regulation of commerce to Congress (see the commerce clause). Whereas the constitution explicitly prohibits the abridging of the freedom of speech through law.
Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States. Cigarette manufacturers no longer have "freedom of speech" to advertise their products with anthropomorphized cartoon characters and relaxing artwork depicting tropical getaways, even though their product is more "freely available" than 5mg of Propranolol, but somehow Tofacitinib¹ ("serious side effects may include infections, cancer, and pulmonary embolism") is spammed on every channel.
¹ I have absolutely nothing against what I'm sure is a very fine drug - it was merely the first result in my search for "most advertised prescription medication" and I'm sure that the side effects are not representative of typical outcome and that someone suffering from serious rheumatoid arthritis is better off taking the drug than not.
¹ I have absolutely nothing against what I'm sure is a very fine drug - it was merely the first result in my search for "most advertised prescription medication" and I'm sure that the side effects are not representative of typical outcome and that someone suffering from serious rheumatoid arthritis is better off taking the drug than not.
> Yes, but let's not pretend there's "absolute" freedom of speech even here in the United States.
This isn't whats happening is it? The exemptions to free speech are well known and taught in entry level civic classes [1]. There are quite a few. Whats happening here is another discussion on the intricacies of free speech (which have hundreds of pages of professional opinion and case law for each exemption) full of nuance. However here, as is the case for most discussion forums, you can only fall into two groups: anarchist or fascist.
Heres a more honest view: given free speech laws in the US it's not clear what we should or what is right to do with regards to advertising medicine. We will probably have a populist exemption when it's needed, as we have in the past.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
This isn't whats happening is it? The exemptions to free speech are well known and taught in entry level civic classes [1]. There are quite a few. Whats happening here is another discussion on the intricacies of free speech (which have hundreds of pages of professional opinion and case law for each exemption) full of nuance. However here, as is the case for most discussion forums, you can only fall into two groups: anarchist or fascist.
Heres a more honest view: given free speech laws in the US it's not clear what we should or what is right to do with regards to advertising medicine. We will probably have a populist exemption when it's needed, as we have in the past.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exce...
But that was the point I was trying to make when you first replied to me. It’s freedom of speech to the extent “we” (the people and their representatives) allow, meaning the first amendment isn’t an absolute barrier to preventing the enforcement of a law “for the common good” (and the abuse that automatically entails, cf anything regarding encryption and the prevention of the distribution of child pornography) and it can accordingly make room for outlawing anything from PACs to advertising prescription medication.
Well the nuances lie in what "we" and "common good" are. In fact, the fact that these ads have already not been restricted probably implies the thresholds for "we" and "common good" have not been met. Notably America holds a high standard here for "we" (hyper majorities) and "common good" (severe public threat) when it comes to free speech.
I don't share you confidence that this is very obviously worth another exemption at a federal level, but I do share your concern with misinformation through these sorts of ads.
I don't share you confidence that this is very obviously worth another exemption at a federal level, but I do share your concern with misinformation through these sorts of ads.
Oh, I'm not arguing for restricting any/either of those. Merely pointing out that the common argument against doing so doesn't hold water in the real world that we live in.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that criminalization tends to only stop law-abiding citizens, have second-order effects that discriminate against those whose needs were not considered by the policy makers at the time, create a hole that's usually filled by another issue/crime, and tend to be far less effective than they were made out to be. Just so my position is clear :)
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that criminalization tends to only stop law-abiding citizens, have second-order effects that discriminate against those whose needs were not considered by the policy makers at the time, create a hole that's usually filled by another issue/crime, and tend to be far less effective than they were made out to be. Just so my position is clear :)
I wonder how many commenters actually watched the video, and the section about freedom of speech and the first ammendment
Buying an ad is... commerce.
It’s actually more nuanced than that. The actual buying/selling of the ad is commerce, but the right to spend your money to buy a specific ad is partially first amendment (and partially not).
A person exercises their freedom of speech when they say whatever they want. The advertisement is when somebody is paid to say something with implication that they don't want to say that, as otherwise they would not be paid. So advertisement is an opposite of the freedom of speech.
P. S.: I am watching the video and Tom Scott gives a very similar definition of advertisement at 3:44, and basically the whole video is about how that logic is applied in British and American laws.
P. P. S.: I am now at the last section "The Land Of The Free" (24:47) where Tom Scott talks specifically about freedom of speech in US, and basically everything in this thread is brought up by him.
P. S.: I am watching the video and Tom Scott gives a very similar definition of advertisement at 3:44, and basically the whole video is about how that logic is applied in British and American laws.
P. P. S.: I am now at the last section "The Land Of The Free" (24:47) where Tom Scott talks specifically about freedom of speech in US, and basically everything in this thread is brought up by him.
[deleted]
Part 4, starting at 18:03, details how UK TV shows can completely bypass the rules. I found it very convincing, and I now think our rules are insufficient.
just to be clear, the video/blogger that this discussion is about is also from the UK and this video is about his unhappiness
figured i'd just edit my comment here to add another topic: the video says the lyric "does your Spearmint lose its flavor on the bedpost..." was changed to "chewing gum" because Spearmint was a trademark, which was banned on UK radio. The wikipedia article does not mention Spearmint being a trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint Anybody know the story? [did more research, perhaps the answer is that Wrigley's trademarked the "arrow" design surrounding the word spearmint on the label, the arrow presumably an analogy to a "spear"]
figured i'd just edit my comment here to add another topic: the video says the lyric "does your Spearmint lose its flavor on the bedpost..." was changed to "chewing gum" because Spearmint was a trademark, which was banned on UK radio. The wikipedia article does not mention Spearmint being a trademark. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spearmint Anybody know the story? [did more research, perhaps the answer is that Wrigley's trademarked the "arrow" design surrounding the word spearmint on the label, the arrow presumably an analogy to a "spear"]
I think it's the other way around. The BBC public radio are (were?) not allowed to condone -any- private businesses or products.
Then it get's a bit tricky. Trademarks are a consumer protection device which affords the consumer to differentiate between competing products.
As the song appeals to a chewing gum, and it's assumed that the general public are aware of one brand, two brands or 50 brands of spearmint-flavoured chewing gums for purchase - the radio may reason that the lyric would be unfit according to their mission.
It's less about any actual trademark such as a Spearmint® Chewing Gum, than it is a public association to some marketed goods (and the BBC's stated mission to not condone such).
This is just a random reasoning of mine, so a grain of salt etc.
This entry mentions this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its..., but the issue is marked 'dubious'.
Then it get's a bit tricky. Trademarks are a consumer protection device which affords the consumer to differentiate between competing products.
As the song appeals to a chewing gum, and it's assumed that the general public are aware of one brand, two brands or 50 brands of spearmint-flavoured chewing gums for purchase - the radio may reason that the lyric would be unfit according to their mission.
It's less about any actual trademark such as a Spearmint® Chewing Gum, than it is a public association to some marketed goods (and the BBC's stated mission to not condone such).
This is just a random reasoning of mine, so a grain of salt etc.
This entry mentions this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Does_Your_Chewing_Gum_Lose_Its..., but the issue is marked 'dubious'.
Most likely because spearmint was short for Wrigley's spearmint which was trademarked. I don't think spearmint chewing gum was a generic term at the time. Similar to how sellotape(TM) was trademarked but now cellotape is a generic term.
[deleted]
If you watch the video you'll see examples showing that law has essentially disappeared in the UK. I haven't watched TV for more than a decade so I was unaware of this, but it's clear that TV in the UK can now do product placement, even on the BBC.
I didn't know the BBC could do product placement and I didn't see Tom Scott mention that. Just found this post from the BBC that says they do product placement outside of the UK: https://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/b4b56c6d-a3c...
Tom Scotts channel is pretty much filled with short, nerdy and well-made videos. Highly recommended.
Relevant to HN's interests: a compelling, layperson-accessible argument against electronic voting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs
Pretty overrated.
I have to admire Tom Scott for his monologues. Long, edit free, pieces to camera are a really pro move, and so rare on YouTube. There is so much prep needed to make that happen. What a star.
He'll often include a little bit at the end of him verbally celebrating when he gets it in one take, and it's always delightful.
Him dancing around and celebrating at the end of his 5 minute explanation of YouTube IDs [1] is such an uplifting thing to watch.
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gocwRvLhDf8
https://youtu.be/mUF4afxMpQk was a great example, 16+ minute take, at least well disguised cuts
Plenty of cuts in that one. This one is 9:30 as a single take: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD79NZroV88
He is one of the reasons I spend so much time on YouTube.
This guy is an amazing content creator why doesn't the BBC pick him up?
There's a guy called 'Captain Disillusion' or something like that who makes these amazing shows about visual effects that remind me of some of the scientific programming on CBC when I was younger. Why don't they pick him up? His 1-man show is better than most of their expensive content.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion
There's a guy called 'Captain Disillusion' or something like that who makes these amazing shows about visual effects that remind me of some of the scientific programming on CBC when I was younger. Why don't they pick him up? His 1-man show is better than most of their expensive content.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Disillusion
It's entirely possible they wouldn't be interested. The successful youtube channels can easily pull in more than they would be paid on the BBC, and they would have less control over what they are creating. (For an example who have explicitly talked about this: the people behind the Corridor Digital channel recently got very close to signing a deal to produce a film with a traditional hollywood source, but decided against it to go their own way independently)
That makes sense, but that gives him a lot of leverage.
He can get a fat cheque, with a big production team and set his own terms if he's in a position to do it.
Or - he can literally make the same stuff, but have it under BBC terms.
I feel there is something better than YouTube for these types of shows.
I think the jump between TT/YT and broadcast is too big.
He can get a fat cheque, with a big production team and set his own terms if he's in a position to do it.
Or - he can literally make the same stuff, but have it under BBC terms.
I feel there is something better than YouTube for these types of shows.
I think the jump between TT/YT and broadcast is too big.
I think that specifically for this type of show, YT is better in almost every way than broadcast TV. It has a much, much larger audience, they can reach an international audience, the creators have more direct control, they can use formats that just don't fit right into a TV schedule, they get direct feedback on the success of their shows instead of relying on market research and 5th hand accounts.
Assuming they are making good money, I really don't see an upside to moving the show to broadcast television.
Assuming they are making good money, I really don't see an upside to moving the show to broadcast television.
I'm not sure his audience is that big. Cable TV audiences are big and consistent, and they bring big advertising dollars. I'm not sure if 1.5M views is that much.
When a network backs you, the advertising, promotion, reach is substantial.
Just because someone is on YouTube and theoretically 'anyone' can see him is not actually material reach.
When you're making a BBC/Sky show, that opens up doors to significantly more places, whereas today he's just 'some youtuber' which is nice, but it's not big.
And of course follow on deals and residuals.
For example: he gets booked on the Talk Show circuit, BBC interview circuit, his profile is raised. He maybe can get access to CERN, or the Moscow Ballet or whatever, things like that.
The various auto enthusiast shows from the UK are massive. Those hosts make a lot of money.
When a network backs you, the advertising, promotion, reach is substantial.
Just because someone is on YouTube and theoretically 'anyone' can see him is not actually material reach.
When you're making a BBC/Sky show, that opens up doors to significantly more places, whereas today he's just 'some youtuber' which is nice, but it's not big.
And of course follow on deals and residuals.
For example: he gets booked on the Talk Show circuit, BBC interview circuit, his profile is raised. He maybe can get access to CERN, or the Moscow Ballet or whatever, things like that.
The various auto enthusiast shows from the UK are massive. Those hosts make a lot of money.
The "assuming they are making good money" is an important phrase here. Unless they are doing livestreaming, where they can make quite a bit of money on "Superchats" and memberships with a smaller audience, or have a 3rd party money making tool like Patreon, with members only content, you need to have a very large view count to get enough money on just Ad revenue.
Though I completely agree with what you are saying as whole, being picked up for television could be a bad thing for content creator. If they can manage an audience and can work out ways to monetize not just on Ad revenue that can be a lot better in the long run.
Though I completely agree with what you are saying as whole, being picked up for television could be a bad thing for content creator. If they can manage an audience and can work out ways to monetize not just on Ad revenue that can be a lot better in the long run.
They have put together separate service - nebula
Tom Scott had a TV career I think? I doubt he'd be interested in taking it up again, seeing that he does quite well for himself on youtube.
This video by Captain Disillusion [1] and this bonus clip [2] seems worth mentioning in this thread.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3JgPUJ6iQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=807rSw8wyGA
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3JgPUJ6iQ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=807rSw8wyGA
For a long time I thought Tom was from BBC. He speaks so well and the things he speaks are so well thought out.
He also very explicitly says to not blindly trust everything he says, because he does make mistakes. While he does try to correct mistakes when he becomes aware of them, nobody's perfect.
I wish more people would be so aware of their own flaws and foibles.
I wish more people would be so aware of their own flaws and foibles.
Strikes me as another way broadcast/studio media (and associated formats) escapes scrutiny and regulation directed at internet. As the influencer says at the end of the video, they should play by the same rules.
Is there a text equivalent of this video? A bunch of sources are listed under the video, but none is an overview.
Is there a text equivalent of this video? A bunch of sources are listed under the video, but none is an overview.
Traditional media is using their influence to lead regulation of social media under the guise of protecting people from fake news after having that same prove their bias and even outright falsification of the news; does a month go by where a major news outlet doesn't have to restate a story? Fake news or declaration something is fake news is no different than product placement. News organizations sell authenticity which they use to make money from actual product placement and many companies desire to advertise through certain outlets as they seem some more desirable than others.
At times in my local paper the small print stating a story is paid placement is easily overlooked but these stories tend to only occur on weekends
However we have to admit that product placement in some movies and television shows has approached meme quality to where the products were more talked about than the show they were on.
On a side note, a friend who does stream on twitch has to be explicit when being paid to play a game or even given a free key. they also prevent give away contest from being limited to subscribers.
At times in my local paper the small print stating a story is paid placement is easily overlooked but these stories tend to only occur on weekends
However we have to admit that product placement in some movies and television shows has approached meme quality to where the products were more talked about than the show they were on.
On a side note, a friend who does stream on twitch has to be explicit when being paid to play a game or even given a free key. they also prevent give away contest from being limited to subscribers.
Use the "..." menu below the video, and click "Open Transcript".
Because regulations are primarily about protecting the status quo in an industry and best case only distantly secondarily about protecting consumers
A slight inclination to protect consumers from the worst excesses of the regulated stems from a desire to prevent the public from getting mad enough to demand change. The distant second, therefore, follows the first.
In the web in fact they also declare ads, that's why they have a little "Ad" besides their entry on Google Search or on Google Adsense (and FB? I don't use FB anymore but IIRC also there). Not sure if this is actually regulated, or comes from the "better ads" the Adblock industry created, or both.
Google pretty much created the status quo on that one.
Earlier search engines didn't mark results that had paid to rank higher.
Regulators across the world weren't paying attention to the internet at the time. I'm sure if Google decided to remove that word "Ad", regulators would start paying attention.
Earlier search engines didn't mark results that had paid to rank higher.
Regulators across the world weren't paying attention to the internet at the time. I'm sure if Google decided to remove that word "Ad", regulators would start paying attention.
[deleted]
8bitsrule(1)
Several issues with this A) who are the regulators? Typically these are elected officials that at least half of the population typically doesn't see eye to eye with, think left vs right. So why do they get to decide what is "in the interest of the public"? B) what makes undisclosed product placement so inherently evil or at least more evil than normal advertisement? There are extremely deceptive advertising techniques, just because you are aware something is an ad doesn't mean you can be fully aware of the manipulation tactics used against you, many can be very subtle. So to paint the whole thing with such broad brush and assume one just needs a binary answer to know if something is an ad or not assumes all ads are created with the same level of deceptiveness. C) finally people with "power and money" will find a way to communicate their message regardless, you can make it more difficult or expensive for them to do so, but at the end of the day that cost has to be imposed on someone and that is typically the consumer.
I also find Tom Scott's videos highly well presented and produced but they lack the same level of quality when it comes to the concepts discussed in them.
I also find Tom Scott's videos highly well presented and produced but they lack the same level of quality when it comes to the concepts discussed in them.
The video is fairly long (about 30 minutes), but goes into a lot of the history of advertising (explicit, product placements, paid endorsements, etc) in radio, TV, and movies in order to make a thorough case.