Nintendo Has A Plan To Share Ad Revenue With YouTubers, But Nobody's Happy About It
from the all-new-questions dept
Roughly a year ago, Nintendo began a bold plan of declaring war on well-known YouTubers who created "let's play" videos using Nintendo IP. Well, perhaps war isn't the right word. Suddenly and swiftly, it claimed these YouTube videos through the site's system that then allowed it to push ads into the videos, the revenue for which it shared between YouTube and itself, leaving the videomakers out in the cold. It was misguided in several ways, the most obvious being that these kinds of videos and their creators are essentially free advertising for Nintendo, getting the word out to potential customers about games they may then pick up. It strains the mind to think of any large numbers of people who might substitute a "let's play" video for actually playing the game themselves, but Nintendo is Nintendo, so the company opted for control over goodwill.
Perhaps only coincidentally (or maybe not...), the last year has been rough for the gaming company. Console sales are down across the board, and Nintendo appears to be pinning its hopes on a couple of triple-A games coming out to save its skin -- which makes it all the more interesting that Nintendo is also announcing a new plan to share ad revenue with YouTubers who sign up for its affiliate program.
Nintendo's statement came from a series of messages on its Japanese Twitter account that mentioned "several affiliate programs" for YouTube users that would allow them to "receive a portion of the advertising revenue" coming from videos featuring gameplay footage. I reached out to the company for additional information, and here's what a representative from Nintendo of America had to say:On the surface, this seems like a huge step in the right direction. The once monolithic stance on collecting all the revenue possible from these videos is finally giving way to a program that will allow some of the fan-gathering YouTube personalities to have some skin in the game. You'd think there would be praise across the board for this. You'd be wrong. Between the ill-feelings still lingering from the actions of last year and the wariness of working under the umbrella of a Nintendo affiliate program, some of the bigger names seem suspicious in this phase where details are still lacking on the program.
"Nintendo has been permitting the use of Nintendo copyrighted material in videos on YouTube under appropriate circumstances. Advertisements may accompany those videos, and in keeping with previous policy that revenue is shared between YouTube and Nintendo. In addition, for those who wish to use the material more proactively, we are preparing an affiliate program in which a portion of the advertising profit is given to the creator. Details about this affiliate program will be announced in the future."
Zack Scott, another popular YouTuber and the one who first brought the issue to light last year after he noticed that some of the Nintendo-focused videos on his popular ZackScottGames channel were being tagged with the network's Content ID system, told Kotaku at the end of last June that he had resumed posting such work once Nintendo appeared to back away from its crackdown. I followed up with him today to see if anything had changed since his tentative return to posting Nintendo-centric "Let's Play" videos last year. He said that while he's been impacted "very, very minimally" by any changes in Nintendo and YouTube's policies so far, he could "definitely see a future" where this has a bigger influence.Left unsaid is the converse: will Nintendo use its affiliate program to attempt to exert control over YouTubers' video content. Keep in mind that the Nintendo IP on display isn't really the draw in these videos. After all, there are a million such videos for a million games. The popular ones are popular because of the personality of the YouTuber. They share the stage with the game and they got their audience on a ledger of trust from the viewers. If Nintendo attempts to leverage that trust by exerting control through its affiliate program, such as by only allowing access to content in exchange for positive or non-negative editorial speech within the video, it will be a massive problem, one that will ultimately backfire in Nintendo's face, while torpedoing a bunch of YouTube personalities along with it.
"I feel the relationship between video creator and content publisher is mutually beneficial," Scott wrote in an email. "Numerous companies already understand this balance. I'd hate for the model to become where a popular creator can request revenue of a publisher in exchange for coverage. I'd equally hate for a publisher to request revenue of a creator in exchange for access."
Either way, the devil is most definitely in the details with this kind of program. If Nintendo makes it extremely clear that editorial content is hands-off and that the affiliate program will be free from YouTuber corruption, this might, possibly work. Given the company's history, however, I have my doubts.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: let's play, monetize, promotions, videos
Companies: nintendo
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This is just a replay of the gaming mags of the 00's. Was at one time I used to get them for honest evaluations of what was trash and what was good. Gaming houses became so sensitive over these evaluations that they started putting pressure on the gaming mags to give them good evaluations or no prereleases for evaluation of the latest greatest. This in turn damaged the gaming mag reputations to the point that it drove the customer away from the evaluations because they could no longer be trusted.
You now have the same thing lurking in the background again. The gaming houses will not be able to not crack down on those who publicly mention anything less than sterling recommendations when speaking of the gaming house. Again, people will leave over not being able to trust these gaming channels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overall, it seems a bad idea that could be saved by even worse circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They are making the games exclusive to their distribution platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me be the first to predict...
As EA has taught us, gaming companies could publish a press release that says "If you buy our latest game, we will delete all your email, set your car on fire, and enslave your children to the will of the Beliebers", and a substantial number of gamers would still buy it. Gamers have long since proven to the gaming industry that they'll tolerate ripoffs, DRM, abuse, advertising, more ripoffs, lies, insults and still more ripoffs: so why shouldn't Nintendo use this strategy?
They can always have a come-to-Jebus moment later and make nice-nice noises if it doesn't work out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Nintendo happened to do this right at the start of the LP craze, before the industry in general basically gave them the okay, this could have worked. Instead, the Big N waited way too long and now just looks like a big bully with its IP trying to force itself into other people's revenue stream because they're not doing well financially.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do I need Nintendo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's part of it, but it's also partly looking after existing customers of the product. I know that I personally only use game videos when I'm *really* stuck at a particular part of a game (as a gamer since the early 80s, I'm stubborn about solving things myself whenever possible).
If those videos didn't exist, I may never complete a game. Not only does that lessen the enjoyment and value of the game I already own, it also takes me out of the market for DLC and sequels. Why would I spend more money when I still have 10 hours of uncompleted gameplay on my shelf from the original title?
Just another example of how over-enforcement of copyright is, while technically justified, completely counter-productive in reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on May 28th, 2014 @ 2:59pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How to defeat this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to defeat this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How to defeat this?
If Nintendo wants to blow their own foot off and kill off the free advertising they're getting from reviews/LP's, let them enjoy the consequences of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1/ regardless of any agreement you come to with Nintendo there is no way to present this agreement to youtube via the DCMA reporting system prior to getting strikes against you.
2/ The marketing departments, legal department and different world regions are often not on the same page as each other, so coming to an agreement with the North American Nintendo marketing departments wont necessarily stop the Japanese Nintendo legal department from flagging your content.
3/ Automated DCMA flagging doesn't care about written agreements you have with anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response
It is interesting how popular lets play has become and i can not lie i always watch pewdiepie as he is amazing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left unsaid is the converse: will Nintendo use its affiliate program to attempt to exert control over YouTubers' video content. Keep in mind that the Nintendo IP on display isn't really the draw in these videos. After all, there are a million such videos for a million games. The popular ones are popular because of the personality of the YouTuber
this is completely untrue. No one would know of these 'youtube personalities' were they not using massivily popular games in their videos.
i see this as a college cover band, they may be a good bad, like really good, but they still play cover songs. now, of course we can argue if they should be paying EMI (or whomever), but it is the same arguement. in both cases, cover band, video game youtuber, the main portion of the effort is someone elses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, he and others like him bring nothing to the table, all those views are solely due to how awesome the games are. /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response
I personally still like to play the first Mario kart on the Nintendo 64. :p
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is a video game
I was amazed the first time I saw my kid kid watching videos of people playing Minecraft. (Then Skyrim, then TF2, . . .) Hours and hours of it. Watching videos of other kids playing video games. My kid is not alone.
It's a thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is a video game
I suspect your kid isn't watching these videos for the gameplay, but for the folks that are actually playing the game.
I must admit that I've watched both pewdiepie and Rooster Teeth as well as a number of other Let's Play vids, not for the games, but for the comedy gold. Rage Quit isn't about the game...it is about how funny serious people getting really upset about the game is. The Leeroy Jenkins Meme wasn't about watching a bunch of folks clear a dungeon on World of Warcraft (aside from whether or not it was staged.) It wasn't the game that folks were watching...it could have easily been a bunch of folks sitting in spaceships outside of the Void in Eve, waiting to jump into another team's system. It was Leeroy Jenkins, doing what Leeroy Jenkins does...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It is a video game
Minecraft is a totally different thing, since it's debatable how much of that is actually a "game" per se and how much of it is a giant creative tool. Watching other people create elaborate constructions of their own is not exactly watching people play a game, even if the medium they choose to do so it technically a "game".
You also didn't mention if your kid actually plays the games themselves or only watches the videos. If they play the games, for example, Skyrim is a huge open world with massive areas that may be hard to explore while TF2 is a game with a lot of hardcore fans who will have developed expert strategies. Watching the experts play those games if a good way to pick up tactics. They usually supplement the game and enhance it, not replace it.
But, if your kid really does only watch the videos, my question would be - do they want to? That is, would they (or do they) want the game if the video wasn't available? Have they asked you to buy the games for them? If so, it's not a real "substitute", especially if your kid is young enough that they have to wait till Christmas to get the latest expensive title, or the hardware to play on, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]