Famebit and the Seedy Underbelly of Influencer Marketing
One of the challenges as a media maker in the 21st century is the lack of a physical firewall between sales and editorial. In my case as a YouTube creator there isn’t even a divider between editorial and janitorial!
Running a small but growing YouTube channel has me frequently taking a step back to ensure I’m not crossing into the “dark side” and violating ethical principals (or the law) when working with brands and their agencies.
Content creators, many of whom did not begin life with a journalism background or ethics training, are hit almost hourly with enticing offers from “influencer marketers” asking for <wink-wink> honest product reviews in exchange for free stuff or even money.
Normally this wink and a nod approach is all that is said to the creator, although a recent incident I had with influencer marketing firm Famebit went well beyond those subtleties and speaks more truth to what’s really going on with influencer marketing.
Famebit is a self-serve advertising platform that has potential to do good things for small creators. Brands post products they’d like covered on the Famebit platform and creators bid on producing content for the campaigns. This practice is fine so long as the creator is properly disclosing their relationship to the brand and/or Famebit.
Last year I received an email, out of the blue, from Famebit asking me to produce a video review for the Ring Video Doorbell for $250. It was unusual because usually creators come to Famebit and not the other way around.
My policy is that I don’t do reviews for money. Yes, brands and agencies send me products to review and often don’t want them back, but I disclose that when it happens. But, I never allow a brand to dictate my editorial content nor do they get to see the work prior to it being posted.
I informed the Famebit representative that I was happy to look at the product but I would not accept compensation or guarantee a positive review. Here was her cheery response:
And that was the end of the conversation. It did prompt me to post this video to give my viewers some clarity into my sponsorship practices:
So when I needed a new doorbell and actually purchased a Ring I decided that I would review the product anyhow. But because I had previously disclosed this back and forth in a prior video my audience needed to know that I didn’t have a change of heart.
A week later Famebit caught wind of this and their community manager Adam Hendle reached out to me via email.
“I hope you can understand that a brand would not be able to pay a creator to do a negative review of a product,” Hendle said, “That’s like Michael Jordan bashing a new pair of Nikes and getting paid to do it.”
Michael Jordan of course is not posting reviews of sneakers to his YouTube channel. He’s endorsing sneakers and Nike isn’t asking him to mislead the public into making them believe he’s writing a review of it.
Hendle went on to say that if a reviewer didn’t like a product, then the best option would be to keep the product and post nothing at all.
For its part Ring denies any knowledge of Famebit’s communications with YouTube and other creators. However their statement directly contradicts that of their agency.
“There is an expectation of professionalism we hold with well established vendors such as FameBit, and it’s unfortunate to see that they did not act in that way when representing us as a brand,” wrote Ring Brand Manager Yassi Shahmiri in an email to me, “We do not require all reviews be positive and we never require positive reviews in exchange for Ring Doorbell units whether it’s with YouTube influencers or mainstream reporters.”
Neither Shahmiri nor Hendle have responded to my repeated requests for additional comment. Specifically I was curious what instructions they gave to creators to disclose the business relationship. Well, actually, Famebit did respond by banning my account. The ban took effect while I was editing the video that appears at the top of this article.
A perusal of YouTube search results reveals dozens upon dozens of Ring Doorbell reviews, undoubtedly many created under the terms of Famebit’s offer. And unfortunately only a few make any mention of Famebit’s sponsorship.
YouTuber David DiFranco added “sponsored by” text to his video description, but it was below the fold so a user has to click to see it. He made no mention of the sponsorship in his video.
Another YouTuber, Jordan Keyes, correctly disclosed he received both the doorbell and was compensated for his review. Of the many reviews I searched his was the only one to make the disclosure correctly:
But many, many other “reviews” of the Ring Doorbell disclose very little if nothing at all. And because both Ring and Famebit have been unwilling to disclose who they contracted with for this promotion it would not be fair to speculate who was paid and who may have just received free product.
I reached out to a few of the YouTubers who posted reviews around the time that I was offered the $250 paid review opportunity. I did not receive much of a response. However one did agree to comment provided I agreed to use his statements anonymously as he did not want to damage brand relationships that he “wants to keep up.”
He acknowledged that he took the offer, made the video and did not properly disclose the connection to Famebit and Ring despite using the word “review” in his video. He also stated that he does not recall receiving any specific instructions as to how he needed to disclose the relationship to those companies in his review.
“Well — yea. Famebit pays everyone, and they’re paid too,” he writes.
In the United States the Federal Trade Commission is responsible for regulating the kinds of activity taking place in the influencer marketing space.
They in fact refer to the activity described here as an “endorsement” versus a review and require creators to disclose their relationship to the brand sponsoring the content.
The problem, however, is that the FTC lacks the resources to actually do much enforcement. When media was limited to television, radio, and newspapers it was a lot easier for the agency to monitor behavior and enforce its regulations. The sheer volume of social media content produced in a given day allows companies like Famebit and others the ability to operate in the gray area of the law.
And for creators posting these fake reviews there’s little consequence. That’s because the law actually places the responsibility on the brand paying for the content, not the creator themselves, for making proper disclosures.
Why aren’t more people talking about this? Our anonymous YouTuber sums it up best:
“Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, is a motto I live by.”
