Kotaku
By: Wagner James Au
When I launched Kotaku's Preview Ho column a couple weeks ago, I did so on the assumption that the gaming press hyped up their previews primarily to stay in good stead with the publishers, whose access and ad revenue they depend on. But in the case of the top two gaming sites, at least, I quickly learned that the story is more complicated—and disturbing— than even that.
Shortly after the first Preview Ho, I was contacted by a former media buyer for various game publishers. This person was irked by the game media's pretense that previews were pure editorial. But unlike their readers— or for that matter, me— my source had hard proof they were much more than that.
"I was the media buyer who made the purchase," the source told me, "signed the insertion order, and then followed up to make sure that what we had been promised was in fact delivered."
What was delivered, my source went on, was editorial placement on the two largest game websites for a sizeable fee.
This source sent me some invoices for a game studio client. (For good measure, I faxed copies to my Gawker editors.) Several were from Gamespot, and while most of the items referred to legitimate ads, a couple mentioned something called "Front Door rotation"— or what Gamespot staffers refer to as a "gumball". Gumballs are those thumbnail screenshots you see on the front page of Gamespot, when you visit the site— clicking on these takes you to an article about the game.
In the Gamespot invoice I looked at, a gumball for two weeks cost the media buyer's client over $7000.
"You can purchase messaging plus units that increase the likelihood of an article about your game showing up on their front page," the source said. In other words, if you want your game to get more editorial prominence, you pay extra.
Then the source showed me an invoice for the same game, this one from
IGN/Gamespy. What Gamespot calls a gumball, Gamespy calls, less charmingly, a "Gamespy Spotlight". But the content and the principle is basically the same: the Spotlights are those thumbnail screenshot links that you see on the site's front page. "What you're looking at on the front page is not what the editors decided is the best game," the media buyer informed me.
Reached for comment, both the editors of Gamespot and Gamespy, unsurprisingly, have a much different way of looking at their policies.
"I can confirm that GameSpot does offer publishers programs that promote their content on our site using a variety of means," Gamespot Executive Editor Greg Kasavin acknowledged. "The promotion causes gumballs linking to specific content to appear more often than other gumballs (which are auto-generated for all new content and displayed randomly and dynamically upon page load)." But for the "vast majority of cases", he goes on, the gumball doesn't feature Gamespot editorial, but an official asset like the game's trailer or a playable demo. "Our editors have the authority and responsibility to decide which content gets top billing," Kasavin added.
I asked Kasavin about this "vast majority" of gumballs— what was an exception, where a paid gumball linked straight to Gamespot editorial?
As it happened, he said, such a gumball is currently in play, for Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter for the Xbox 360. "I wouldn't want you to jump to the incorrect conclusion that the extra push being given to the review must mean that the game's publisher somehow influenced the review in the first place," Kasavin added hastily. "My guess is this promotional deal was negotiated after we decided to give the game a positive review, but since I'm not privy to the details of these types of deals, I don't know for sure." He insisted that Gamespot maintains a strict separation between editorial and ad sales.
IGN/Gamespy had a similar explanation for the selling of their editorial space.
First noting that the practice is "pretty common both in print and online", Peer Schneider, IGN's VP of Content Publishing, described their Spotlights as "'sponsored' slotting, sometimes called 'digital reprint.' This is a practice where advertisers want to make sure coverage of their titles is seen. For example, some magazines sell their cover image (or part of it) to the highest bidder." Schneider insisted IGN and GameSpy don't sell their "top story" placement to anyone. "We have, however, designated spots that can be 'sponsored.' What this means is that a publisher interested in exposing more users to a title (including games, movies, etc.) can book a one-day sponsorship in what we call 'spotlights.'" Like Kasavin, Schneider enunciated a principle of strict separation between editorial and ad sales.
"In the time I have been here (six years now)," Gamespy editorial director John "Warrior" Keefer added, "there has never been any deliberate intent to deceive our readers. If anything, we try to err in the other direction. I am a strong proponent of editorial integrity. My staff knows that the quickest way to get on my bad side is to mess with GameSpy's name or reputation. We have made a few mistakes (Donkey Konga, anyone?), but those we have never shied away from or tried to sweep under the carpet (I spent three days after Donkey Konga answering questions and posting on boards)."
Hos, or honest brokers? We leave that to the readers of Gamespot and Gamespy to decide. To us, however, their answers raise more questions than they answer. Can any indy game studio really compete for attention against publishers who can afford to stack the deck? With so much money at stake, how separate can editorial and ad sales truly be? And what would happen if it were discovered that, say, the websites of Premiere and Entertainment Weekly charged the studios extra to put their trailers (no matter how mediocre) in a prominent place on their page?
We leave readers with those questions to ponder, as well. For now, consider this a glimpse inside the sausage factory, where games often reach the public awareness not because of their quality, but because of the billing that goes with them.
And the search for Hos continues.
Send samples of egregiously fawning game previews and information on backroom deals that influence them to au@kotaku.com. Tips from editors and writers in the game press especially welcom—all correspondence kept strictly confidential.
Comments
The problem, as I see it, is that front page placement, be it in print or online, is an indication of increased newsworthyness. I don't have a problem with a site or magazine or newspaper selling front page ads (actually I do, but that's a whole other ball of wax), but the ads need to be marked as such.
*yawn* I'm sorry, but no "complicated-and disturbing" content here. Publishers are paying for placement, not paying for content. I make game X and GameIGN reviews it. If they are going to take a dump on it, I'm not going to pay for placement. I want it buried. If they are going to polish it till it's fat and chubby, I want it right there for everyone to go, wow, it's so big and shiny... Simple, and not deceptive. Ultimately, review sites only have one thing going for them: their integrity. If I read IGSpot and they say Y game is ubarleet and I drop $60 and find out it's a steaming pile, I'm going to be royally pissed at IGSpot for lying to me. They will lose me and every other person who disagrees with their review. And then they lose money from their advertisers. And then they have to sell their cars and their offices off the 101 and move back in with their moms and work at Kinko's again... Mmm, so ya, nothing to see here, move along.
Yes. If the content placement is anyway based on anything but editorial discretion, which I assume is not tied to the financial side, it needs to be indicated. "First noting that the practice is "pretty common both in print and online", Peer Schneider, IGN's VP of Content Publishing..." Can you imagine the editor of the New York Times or the Washington Post saying such a thing so casually? Whatever the faults of news outlets like these two, at least they don't sell the front page to the highest bidder and not tell the readers about it. If these guys want to get out of the journalistic gutter, they need to stop with this "pretty common" practice.
This article didn't shock me in the slightest. This is the world of business, where money talks as loud as you and your pockets allow. Exceptional games will get coverage on their own merits, average games need to be "pushed" to be sold. I'm not saying that some great games don't get advertised heavily, what i'm saying is, if you can make an exceptional videogame, then the players will do all the advertising for you.
This is the same bull that's been going on for eons in other industries. You would think gamers would run a business differently and actually try to tell companies that ads are ads and reviews are reviews. You pay for one, you take a chance with the other.
Hikaru The problem here, of course, is that video game reviews are invariably one person's opinion, and that opinion could have nothing to do with what anyone else thinks about the game. Steaming piles are subjective For example, the Halo series and the Grand Theft Auto series are two examples of some of the worst video games ever made, and yet every single video game review site fellates them on a regular basis. Likewise, there are a ton of games that received horrible reviews that I really like. The whole point is that game previews and reviews are a load of bullshit in the first place. The only way to form an opinion about a game is to play it for yourself.
Crecente has the right idea. You want to have "designated spots that can be 'sponsored'"? Fine, great. But when that designation is known only to buyers, not to readers, you're going down a very dangerous road. Simply put: if they didn't think they were doing anything wrong, and if it's so innocuous, then there wouldn't be any problem with a small designation of the item as "Advertising" as is done in print every day. Hell, most papers have so-called "Real Estate" sections that are completely bought, but they designate them as such. Sure, it's in small print, and if you're not looking for it, you might think it's editorial content. But when it comes down to it, there is indeed marking. At the very least, allow your readers to make the decision as to whether they care that a spot is paid for or not. Until then, it's impossible to say it comes across as anything but dishonesty and deception.
Not surprised at all to hear about this. That's why I don't trust outlets like those.
While this is an interesting topic, even though it's been common for years, it's still not the Preview Ho Conspiracy you make it out to be. The buyers here are buying prominent placement of editorial content, not directly influencing the content itself. There's a huge difference. Is it kind of subtle and a little misleading? Maybe a little bit in that readers see an older preview or review pop up from the archives, but it doesn't change the content itself. Like Hikaru said above, this is nothing. Nothing big, anyway, since the sites run on credibility and if they go too far astray the readres will hate them for it. And even so there will be some crusty folks like mashuren who bag on games because they're popular.
I think the issue here is not the money, but the deception. One would assume that those "spotlights" are reserved for games the editors are excited about. I think most of us have clicked on a "spotlight" and saw bland screens of a boring looking game. I also think that most of us have thought "they HAD to have been paid to do that" and now we have some proof. This may not be an issue to those of us who have been around game journalism for awhile, but think back to when you first subscribed to a videogame mag or went to a game site. Most of us can remember that we took note of the games they featured, the hype they spewed, and the screens they printed. We were all taken by that stuff at one time, of course we got older and realised how the world works, and that hype is often tied to the buck. Even younger players realise that game mags like Nintendo Power are owned by Nintendo, but what about gameinformer? A major game retailor running a game magazine, so if said retailor wants to push so many units of "crap licenced product" they have a propaganda rag from which to do it. It's all deception, and that is the real issue. If they maked this content as a paid feature this wouldn't be an issue.
One other thing I have to add. Don't think for a second that the developers don't know what the review says before they decide to pay to push it to the front of the site. I can't imagine some developer paying $7,000 for a review of their game to get front page play without either reading the whole thing first or at least being assured it's positive. So, what happens when a developer says they have $7k and want to push a review out front but it's bad? Does Gamespot or Gamespy or whoever say "No thanks, we don't want your money" or do they change the review? Once you sell your news judgement what's to stop you from selling your review judgement? It's a slippery slope.
Street creds stop IGN and Gamespot from selling out. All the hype and top placement in the world won't save dogs -- the PR guys know this, and the ad sellers know this. The big sites have way too much to lose. You can't buy an 8.9 if it's a 5.9 -- and if you sell yourself, and sell it as an 8.9, everyone will scream bloody murder and go to your competition who gave it a 5.9. You can trust the big guys better than the little guys, oddly enough, because they have the least to gain, and the most to lose. Think about Consumer Reports and their car reviews. Think GM can't throw in huge kickbacks for good reviews? They'e got a helluva lot more money than EA or Vivendi. And yet CR will still stick to their guns. Why? The press only has one way to hold its audience: Trust.
These sites are dangerously blurring what should be an unambiguously bright line. Even if one is willing to buy the vapid justification of these petty media moguls, it is nevertheless an inexcusable practice given what the readers experience of these advertisements is. When the reader sees a game promoted on the front page that is not delineated in any way as an advert, the assumption is inevitably that the editors have put it there for good reason. It is precisely the perception of the implicit editorial endorsement that makes these wonderful advertisements, and is precisely why the adverts cost so much and why companies are eager to participate. At a minimum the practice is dubious, and at worse shameful. Too bad none of these companies care enough to hire a collective ombudsperson to mediate such conflicts with the integrity of media objectivity and the readers interest at heart. On a related note, I want to thank Wagner Au for his efforts to elevate games to an art in the popular understanding through his criticism and thoughtfulness. It might be an embarrassing comparison to say the guy has the potential to be a contemporary Diderot or Baudelaire, but I think the spirit of appreciation and dedication to this nascent digital medium is at least is the same.
Crecente, you're confusing the story here. This is about media buyers buying prominent placement of content that's already on the site. It's a "digital reprint" like the article says. There may be some hazy other ways that reviews get influenced such as companies trying to send schwag, but it's still pretty minimal. Who really cares about yet another t-shirt to wash the car? You can even test this theory out yourself by checking out the sites. Games get slammed in the review and yet on the same screen there will be an ad for the same game. It's the same street cred theory as posted before.
Consumer Reports doesn't run advertisements of any kind, hikaru. This is part of why people trust them to be impartial.
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?