Joel Hopkins claims he wasn't sent a review Switch because he refused to say certain positive things about it.

[Combo]

Later in the in video he speaks about other things that Nintendo did to him, however he did anger them by reviewing an import Switch which he obtained days before its launch.

So how much influence do these companies have on the criticism in embargoed reviews?

Edit: His claims are that he wasn't allowed to give his own opinion and was asked to say certain positive things about it even if he disagreed. The word negative in the title is my own. Mods can you please change the word "negative" in the title to "certain positive".

Edit 2: Please see threadmarks for statements by a reviewer that opposes the claims made by Joel.

 

[Lyriell]

Well that's the game right? Nobody is entitled to review a thing or get a console before launch just 'because i have a lot of games'

But they did offer him one if they hit the talking points.

This is how marketing works. All companies do it. "You want a nice new console before launch... we'll you gotta do something for us!"

Joel seems like a great guy and I like his channel, but this comes off a bit entitled.

 

[Wein Cruz]

Well that's the game right? Nobody is entitled to review a thing or get a console before launch just 'because i have a lot of games'

But they did offer him one if they hit the talking points.

This is how marketing works. All companies do it. "You want a nice new console before launch... we'll you gotta do something for us!"

Joel seems like a great guy and I like his channel, but this comes off a bit entitled.

Click to shrink...

You would rather have dishonest reviews? Good Lord.

 

[Tomo815]

I dont know who he is?

Why does he deserve a free Switch? can I also have one?

 

[JakeNoseIt]

You would rather have dishonest reviews? Good Lord.

Click to shrink...

That's not really what the poster is getting at, nor did we really have dishonest reviews for the switch when it came out so I'm not sure what you are going for.

Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a free product. Pre-release reviews are implemented as a marketing arm, but if this guy wants to review the switch can't he just buy one and review it?

I agree it comes off as entitled

 

[Nolbertos]

Too many youtubers with a sense of entitlement. I don't know who he is. Unless he's a sports celebrity or huge Nintendo fanboy he might deserve a pre-launch Switch.

 

[Wein Cruz]

That's not really what the poster is getting at, nor did we really have dishonest reviews for the switch when it came out so I'm not sure what you are going for.

Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a free product. Pre-release reviews are implemented as a marketing arm, but if this guy wants to review the switch can't he just buy one and review it?

I agree it comes off as entitled

Click to shrink...

Well of course no one is entitled but if they could have gotten a unit if they agreed to not say anything bad I'd say that's a problem.

 

[Combo]

I dont know who he is?

Click to shrink...

Just watch the fist few seconds of the video. He owns some of the rarest gaming items. E.g. the first ever Famicom and an actual Ultra 64.

 

[ExoExplorer]

This seems a bit overblown no? He didn't agree with whatever stipulations Nintendo had, so they didn't send him a free unit. It's not like they censored a review of something he paid for himself.

 

[VICTORsaurio]

I don't know what else was asked by Nintendo to "point out" during unboxings but it seems like stuff that would also be talked about anyway?

 

[DiipuSurotu]

This reminds me of the influencer who was mad that a bakery didn't give him free cake

'I'm sick of influencers asking for free cake' (BBC article)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54543279 I saw this when reading the choosing beggars subreddit. I don’t think I’ve ever bought anything because of an influencer recommendation. But obviously people do right? It must be infuriating to be asked to do free work for ‘exposure’

www.resetera.com

 

[Ambient]

This seems a bit overblown no? He didn't agree with whatever stipulations Nintendo had, so they didn't send him a free unit. It's not like they censored a review of something he paid for himself.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I'm failing to see the issue here...

 

[StrappingYoungLance]

It's almost like companies see influencers as marketing tools more than anything else.

 

[Combo]

Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a free product.

Click to shrink...

While you are right in saying that Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a review product - however we should be aware that when we watch embargoed reviews, there will be restrictions on criticism from the reviewers.

 

[VariantX]

All I can do is shrug my shoulders. No one is entitled to a free unit even if Nintendo asked you to do or say shady shit as a stipulation to getting one. You still had the option of buying your own and reviewing it however you like at the end of the day.

 

[Deadpool_X]

Whatyearisthis.gif

 

[Vyse]

I also remember when the world unanimously agreed the Switch was flawless and to this day has the most loved and huge controllers ever.

 

[Instro]

I mean he's essentially a nobody with a bit of a social media/influencer following. Companies only cut deals with people like this to be hype men. Only professional outlets get to really "review" hardware/software.

 

[ExoExplorer]

While you are right in saying that Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a review product - however we should be aware that when we watch embargoed reviews, there will be restrictions on criticism from the reviewers.

Click to shrink...

The good reviews are usually upfront about this. Though it would be nice if disclosure was more widespread.

 

[data]

This definitely sounds like an entitled influencer. Why exactly do they deserve a free switch? Couldn't they just buy one and review it as they like?

 

[Truant]

IIRC, the Switch wasn't universally praised upon launch, at least not to the degree Joel's experience implies. Why not just agree to the terms and post your thoughts like everyone else? IGN gave it a 7/10 which most people would take as a bomb.

 

[nsilvias]

no one is entitled to a free switch but no company should feel entitled to use reviewers as cheap marketing like the gaming industry often does. hell its not even just the game industry its all these techtubers. most of these dudes rarely say anything bad about the products they review and then you see a bunch of in the wild user impressions they are rarely as glowing.

 

[HustleBun]

...why did other gaming YouTubers I follow get an early Switch from Nintendo and say negative things about it?

 

[riq]

no one is entitled to a free switch but no company should feel entitled to use reviewers as cheap marketing like the gaming industry often does. hell its not even just the game industry its all these techtubers. most of these dudes rarely say anything bad about the products they review and then you see a bunch of in the wild user impressions they are rarely as glowing.

Click to shrink...

This right here.

 

[Myself]

Well of course no one is entitled but if they could have gotten a unit if they agreed to not say anything bad I'd say that's a problem.

Click to shrink...

It is a problem I agree and that's how the industry works. I would guess few companies have the honesty to just give hardware away and say 'review and you please'

 

[Akash]

YouTube was a mistake.

 

[gothmog]

If you agree to an embargo you've already agreed to limitation on what you can say and when you can say it. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that you focus on the good parts of the product you got early access to.

Most influencers stay credible by saying things like "stay tuned for the full review" or "I'll have full comparisons with similar products soon".

 

[Combo]

This definitely sounds like an entitled influencer. Why exactly do they deserve a free switch? Couldn't they just buy one and review it as they like?

Click to shrink...

The point here isn't entitlement. He was actually offered one. The point is how he was asked to say certain things. I don't see entitlement to obtain free things in his attitude.

Where he may have been wrong was how he reviewed a copy of BotW that he managed to obtain through contacts days before any outlet was allowed to.

 

[Lobster Roll]

no one is entitled to a free switch but no company should feel entitled to use reviewers as cheap marketing like the gaming industry often does. hell its not even just the game industry its all these techtubers. most of these dudes rarely say anything bad about the products they review and then you see a bunch of in the wild user impressions they are rarely as glowing.

Click to shrink...

Yep, and at worst, those influencers will paint any kind of criticism like "while (feature) hasn't really been performing how I would normally expect, these things normally take time to smooth out, and I expect a future software update to smooth out the kinks ... otherwise, this new (product) is absolutely brilliant and I cannot wait to see more from it! Don't forget to likesubscribefollowsharescreenshotemailinstagramfacebook".

 

[Deleted member 3093]

This reminds me of the influencer who was mad that a bakery didn't give him free cake

'I'm sick of influencers asking for free cake' (BBC article)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54543279 I saw this when reading the choosing beggars subreddit. I don’t think I’ve ever bought anything because of an influencer recommendation. But obviously people do right? It must be infuriating to be asked to do free work for ‘exposure’

www.resetera.com

Click to shrink...

But there's an expectation of review copies, free cakes isn't normal. The objection isn't "I want free things," it's "I don't want to have to compromise my review to get a review copy of the Switch"

 

[shancake]

This is not true. This guy is a notorious liar. Having worked with Nintendo Australia for a long time (and having been one of the Australian outlets sent a Switch prior to launch), there was nothing of the kind in the embargo. It's utterly ridiculous and I can't believe people in this thread are even questioning that tbh.

My memory is that this guy obtained a Switch through other means prior to launch, and was then putting out content, which we all know Nintendo doesn't like.

 

[Jagernaut]

This definitely sounds like an entitled influencer. Why exactly do they deserve a free switch? Couldn't they just buy one and review it as they like?

Click to shrink...

Did you watch the video and his explanation? He refused to follow their embargo restrictions so they did not send him a switch. He got a Switch anyway prerelease from a contact of his and made a video about it. Nintendo accused him of illegally obtaining it and put copyright strikes on a lot of his videos.

 

[data]

The point here isn't entitlement. He was actually offered one. The point is how he was asked to say certain things. I don't see entitlement to obtain free things in his attitude.

Where he may have been wrong was how he reviewed a copy of BotW that he managed to obtain through contacts days before any outlet was allowed to.

Click to shrink...

Yeah I work in marketing and for some of our creatives, you generally don't paint the product in a negative light when offered a free product whether as a model or a user.

That's just how companies do some of their marketing.

 

[TorianElecdra]

Sounds a bit sketchy considering many people panned the Switch at the beginning?

This is not true. This guy is a notorious liar. Having worked with Nintendo Australia for a long time (and having been sent a Switch from them) there was absolutely nothing like this in the embargo.

My memory is that this guy obtained a Switch through other means prior to launch, and was then putting out content, which we all know Nintendo doesn't like.

Click to shrink...

There it is then.

 

[Dyle]

Doesn't this guy have a poor record? This is just normal and I doubt the embargo text was as strict as he implies it was considering lots of outlets had plenty of criticism for the system.

And if you put stuff out there before release without permission of course it's going to get claimed, especially after you've already demonstrated that you knew it was under embargo. Hard to read this as anything other than an entitled influencer

 

[data]

Did you watch the video and his explanation? He refused to follow their embargo restrictions so they did not send him a switch. He got a Switch anyway prerelease from a contact of his and made a video about it. Nintendo accused him of illegally obtaining it and put copyright strikes on a lot of his videos.

Click to shrink...

I mean yeah they obtained it through a contact before the street date. How exactly is that not illegally obtained?

Yeah I don't see how an embargo restriction would contain don't say anything negative in it tbh.

EDIT:

This is not true. This guy is a notorious liar. Having worked with Nintendo Australia for a long time (and having been one of the Australian outlets sent a Switch prior to launch), there was nothing of the kind in the embargo. It's utterly ridiculous and I can't believe people in this thread are even questioning that tbh.

My memory is that this guy obtained a Switch through other means prior to launch, and was then putting out content, which we all know Nintendo doesn't like.

Click to shrink...

Well it's just as I thought. The embargo didn't say don't say negative things and the view he's putting is only one side of the coin that may not be true

 

[CanUKlehead]

Not that I automatically trust big, corporate NCL, but how do we know what he said was true?

And if he obtained BOTW illegally, why would I want to work with him?

 

[TimeFire]

I'm kinda surprised people are more angry at the guy refusing free stuff than the company that offered him free stuff and asked that he didn't criticize it

This is not true. This guy is a notorious liar. Having worked with Nintendo Australia for a long time (and having been one of the Australian outlets sent a Switch prior to launch), there was nothing of the kind in the embargo. It's utterly ridiculous and I can't believe people in this thread are even questioning that tbh.

My memory is that this guy obtained a Switch through other means prior to launch, and was then putting out content, which we all know Nintendo doesn't like.

Click to shrink...

Now this is more like it. Thanks for the clarification

 

[Stat]

You would rather have dishonest reviews? Good Lord.

Click to shrink...

Of course not. But that's a crazy slippery slope.

But you understand that its a give and give situation. Like whats the benefit of Nintendo giving people consoles if they aren't going to hit certain talking points?

Pretty much every marketing deal has this. You're allowed to be honest....to a certain extent. Just know that next time, they might not give you stuff.

I'm kinda surprised people are more angry at the guy refusing free stuff than the company that offered him free stuff and asked that he didn't criticize it

Click to shrink...

Ehh, Im not sure people are angry but more like "well duh welcome to the world of marketing". Like its kind of a moot story imo. Nintendo asked him, he said no, they moved on and so did he. Thousands of marketing deals begin and end this way.

Not that I automatically trust big, corporate NCL, but how do we know what he said was true?

And if he obtained BOTW illegally, why would I want to work with him?

Click to shrink...

Oh 100%. Companies do not like their things/ideas/properties taken from them.

Do people remember Apple & Gizmodo? Gizmodo fell due to other reasons but they fell of significantly cause they weren't being invited to the big Apple events.

 

[Trigonometrize]

Firstly: I doubt the veracity of his claims without receipts. So really, I shouldn't say more than that.

BUT, for the majority of the posters in this thread so far: him and his channel being entitled is beside the point. A company trading access for someone to dole out positive selling points is NOT okay for the consumer process. Period. It doesn't matter if my one subscriber ass channel is hounding them for a free console or not. You, the company held to a higher standard, either give someone access and an embargo on their genuine thoughts or you don't.

 

[Combo]

here was nothing of the kind in the embargo.

Click to shrink...

Can you clarify if the embargo specified that you must speak about the Switch being robust and compact?

Joel himself didn't use the word negative, that's my own word. He claims that he wasn't allowed to give his own opinion.

 

[mute]

Just seems like the more established outlets are given a bit more leeway on the critique while the lesser known folk are thought to be easier bought. Good job refusing.

 

[data]

I'm kinda surprised people are more angry at the guy refusing free stuff than the company that offered him free stuff and asked that he didn't criticize it

Click to shrink...

Well yeah because it sounds like they lied. I would need to pull some reviews back then but I'm certain there was criticism. Embargos don't mean don't say negative shit. That's not an embargo. The contract might say to try to paint things positively because that's how marketing + free products work

 

[LumberPanda]

The thing that bugs me is the fact that those stipulations don't seem to have to be disclosed from reviewers.

Like I get it, if you want an unbiased view it HAS to come from someone who purchased their own unit. Otherwise it's inherently biased. But I should know exactly what's going on with that when I read someone's review.

 

[Ocean]

I mean the takeaway here isn't so much that the guy is entitled, but more a reminder that early "reviews" are actually just ads. When the conditions are "be positive", you can't really call it a review.

 

[Deleted member 27751]

While you are right in saying that Nintendo doesn't owe anyone a review product - however we should be aware that when we watch embargoed reviews, there will be restrictions on criticism from the reviewers.

Click to shrink...

That's been a known caveat of embargoed reviews, or really any sponsored review, since the dawn of marketing. If you are given an item for free to review, the idea is that you are beholden of the companies talking points. See Digital Foundry and their recent GPU breakdowns. It is rather expected when dealing with companies and free items that there is something in it for them, but that critiquing of sponsored views/reviews/comments isn't new to consumers.

no one is entitled to a free switch but no company should feel entitled to use reviewers as cheap marketing like the gaming industry often does. hell its not even just the game industry its all these techtubers. most of these dudes rarely say anything bad about the products they review and then you see a bunch of in the wild user impressions they are rarely as glowing.

Click to shrink...

It is everywhere, in any consumable product or service. It is the very basics of marketing a product, much like those free tasters at the shops for some new soft drink or biscuit, in that it allows word of mouth with little to no budget effort (when comparing the typical advertising avenue).

 

[data]

The thing that bugs me is the fact that those stipulations don't seem to have to be disclosed from reviewers.

Like I get it, if you want an unbiased view it HAS to come from someone who purchased their own unit. Otherwise it's inherently biased. But I should know exactly what's going on with that when I read someone's review.

Click to shrink...

It's this. You put my thoughts into better words. Things are inherently biased once you recieved a free product. Which is why transparency is a major thing marketing needs.

Look at steam reviews where they have review label if the product was recieved for free.

 

[ThatsMyTrunks]

Wait, he imported a Switch before launch? It launched everywhere on March 3rd, 2017.

 

[Truant]

It's this. You put my thoughts into better words. Things are inherently biased once you recieved a free product. Which is why transparency is a major thing marketing needs.

Look at steam reviews where they have review label if the product was recieved for free.

Click to shrink...

For serious reviewers, does it matter? Most, if not all, games are free to them so they're gonna review them equally and the freebie argument isn't really valid anymore at this point. I get the point if it's amateur YouTubers receiving a free game every now and then, though.

 

[EggmaniMN]

I don't even know why he's called an "influencer." What does he influence by having a ton of money and lots of games and showing it off. He's just a guy, there's no reason to have him review anything.