[jallen_dot_dev]

To be clear, the FTC is warning all online influencers and not specifically those who receive free board games to review. It'd be wild if the FTC thought the problem of board game reviewers not disclosing this was big enough and egregious enough to warrant special action against them.

[Xeoncross]

Of all the actual misaligned incentives out there, giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing. Someone gave you a $50 game and you created a free $500+ video about it encouraging others to take a break from screen time.

I hope no one tells the FTC about paid Amazon reviews, they'd probably have a heart attack.

[satvikpendem]

It's great for the publisher, it's great for the reviewer, but it's not so great for the customer, who might buy the game thinking that the reviewer was speaking in an unbiased manner. That is why it's important to disclose if a reviewer gets free or sponsored stuff.

[dawnerd]

And reviewers are afraid to lose their freebies so will hold back negative statements or soften them.

[getwiththeprog]

When searching for board games to buy recently, I read many reviews.

The problem I found was that all the games revewied were linked in an affilaite sales agreement.

This created a 'bubble' of games that many reviewers reviewed.

Searching further, I found that board games are so loved by millions that you can find quality reviews from peoplw who buy many games. You can even find views of the full contents of games so you can make a further informed decision.

None of this was on social media, just a good old fashioned web search.

[thaumasiotes]

https://boardgamegeek.com/

[james-skemp]

There's certainly bubbles on BGG, but from game forums to random lists, this is an excellent resource to get (generally) quality reviews.

BGG does have a very clear bias against traditional games (see Clue, Monopoly, etcetera), due to it's roots, but that's changed a bit as board games have become big again.

[srcreigh]

Sure, and if that is what was actually happening it'd be fine. It's just hard to know if its actually an ad (make positive video we pay you $5k and give you game for free and review what you say before you can post) or just "hey we made a game here's a free one tell people what you think of it".

[TylerE]

Doesn't even have to be quite that insidious.

People who don't give glowing reviews don't get contacted the next time around.

In many of these niche communities I suspect it is far more about the perceived clout (Oh, hey, I get to play it months before you do!) than the actual financial incentives.

[TylerE]

That isn't what the FTC is saying, at all.

It isn't saying that they can't do that, just that if they do they most disclose that they received compensation.

Sounds immanently reasonable to me.

[phnofive]

Yes, it's fine to do that; the videomaker just needs to disclose it.

[Broken_Hippo]

giving someone a free board game in exchange for them playing it and creating a review seems like a great thing.

Sure.

But if you don't reveal that they've given payment in the form of a free game, you are giving a dishonest review. Free stuff is payment. And everyone knows it is payment - Free meals and other benefits at a job are advertised to entice you. It might not be taxed, but is definitely part of your pay package.

I'm pretty sure the FTC knows about the Amazon reviews - they've taken action against some of them. They may or may not have the budget to go after more and may or may not have the power to go after all of them.

[squokko]

Well Lina Khan went after Meta for acquiring Supernatural for $500 million while Apple continues their trillion-dollar anticompetitive empire. So it wouldn't be that weird for the FTC to be focused on stuff that does not matter