Unboxing videos were one of the reasons YouTube got banned from our kids in my home. There really aren’t any redeeming qualities in those videos. Kids don’t learn anything and they were constantly asking me to buy the merchandise and crying when I said “no”. After a few rounds of this, YouTube got banned.
> There really aren’t any redeeming qualities in those videos.
There are. I do solve rubiks cubes as a hobby, so when I look for a new puzzle, I watch unboxing videos of those on youtube. Its basically just a short review with some cardboard discarding at the beginning
> The biggest change to come to the toy industry as a result of YouTube, though, is in packaging. Toy brands are riffing on the unboxing trend by developing special boxes or wrapping that specifically look good on camera, and by creating as many surprises as possible.
It's gotten really bad. They sell toys with superfluous packaging on purpose now, toys where there's next to nothing fun to play with once they're unwrapped. You're left with a trash-bag full of plastic waste and a tiny, badly made, doll.
Or that fake snow stuff with mini jewel like square creatures in them.. or the pirates in the sand crap. I am amazed with how viral and successful they've become.
There is a precedent for regulating this sort of thing. Advertising to children is regulated to some form or another just about everywhere.
What's new and challenging here is that when a person simply posts a video they made on YouTube, that's freedom of expression. If I want to post videos of me unboxing things, there's nothing morally or legally wrong with that.
The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws.
Just because it's on YouTube doesn't change that a company is paying money to an entertainer to promote their products to children. There are already laws in place about this. It's only a matter of time before prosecutors get involved.
Of course, the toy companies know this and have factored in the legal risks into their calculations. YouTube will be able to skirt the issue because they're just a platform for other people's stuff, and they're not being paid for these sponsorships. The real risk is being taken by the content producers, who almost certainly don't realize how liable they may find themselves to be.
> The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws.
This strikes me as the obvious solution and really not all that gray. Kid posts video on Youtube? That's free speech. Kid posts video on Youtube and company pays them? That's now an ad, and can/should be regulated.
Throwing a wrench into all of this somewhat is Citizen's United saying money is speech... but that's a stupid ruling so let's interpret it as narrowly as possible.
The third option is where Youtube runs ads on top of the unboxing videos or in line with it. You also have the issue where parents have to sign up children under the age of 13.
I could be wrong, but my understanding of most laws regarding advertising to kids is: It's OK to run ads on media consumed by kids (so long as those ads aren't for inappropriate things like alcohol or cigarettes or adult chat, etc). It's NOT OK to try and pressure/trick/cajole/persuade/influence or otherwise actually target those kids in the ads. It's a weird distinction, but it's what allows ads to still run on daytime television and during children's programming.
For example, you can have an ad that happens to show a toy being played with (I think). You can't have an ad that tells kids to ask their mom and dad to buy it right away.
There's a lot of nuance in between, but I've never bothered to master it because as a matter of principle I refused to be involved in any marketing aimed at kids. Life's too short to feel that kind of guilt.
I find that my kids get inappropriate ads on iPad games. Even though they have age restricted accounts per Apple, it looks like 3rd party ad providers are violating the law. I'm not sure how to address it..
27 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 33.3 ms ] threadThere are. I do solve rubiks cubes as a hobby, so when I look for a new puzzle, I watch unboxing videos of those on youtube. Its basically just a short review with some cardboard discarding at the beginning
Or are unboxers armed with scissors, Stanley knives and wire cutters?
Nah, they are making the unboxing more elaborate.
So elaborate would be fine, so long as I don't need a tool kit.
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36702905
https://news.slashdot.org/story/19/01/04/2158259/youtubes-bi...
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/youtubers-charged-promoting-...
What's new and challenging here is that when a person simply posts a video they made on YouTube, that's freedom of expression. If I want to post videos of me unboxing things, there's nothing morally or legally wrong with that.
The grey zone is the money being traded between toy makers and video makers. As soon as money is exchanged, that should logically be considered sponsorship and be subjected to advertising laws.
Just because it's on YouTube doesn't change that a company is paying money to an entertainer to promote their products to children. There are already laws in place about this. It's only a matter of time before prosecutors get involved.
Of course, the toy companies know this and have factored in the legal risks into their calculations. YouTube will be able to skirt the issue because they're just a platform for other people's stuff, and they're not being paid for these sponsorships. The real risk is being taken by the content producers, who almost certainly don't realize how liable they may find themselves to be.
This strikes me as the obvious solution and really not all that gray. Kid posts video on Youtube? That's free speech. Kid posts video on Youtube and company pays them? That's now an ad, and can/should be regulated.
Throwing a wrench into all of this somewhat is Citizen's United saying money is speech... but that's a stupid ruling so let's interpret it as narrowly as possible.
For example, you can have an ad that happens to show a toy being played with (I think). You can't have an ad that tells kids to ask their mom and dad to buy it right away.
There's a lot of nuance in between, but I've never bothered to master it because as a matter of principle I refused to be involved in any marketing aimed at kids. Life's too short to feel that kind of guilt.