How trustworthy is Facebook?

During the SimCity debacle of the last few weeks, there was one story that seemed to be swept under the rug by the gaming press at large. The story pertains to the use of social media, which publishers have been utilizing more frequently to advertise their products. This increased usage of sites like Facebook and Twitter is no doubt part of the plan to connect with more of their audience, but where is the line between leveraging a service and abusing it? Take, for example, the picture above. Although it is actually a fan appreciation page posting their admiration for the game, the screen-capped image shows how social media can be misused, in this case by Electronic Arts.

This is far from the only recent incident, however.

If you’ll recall, EA recently held their Full Spectrum event to talk with industry insiders about promoting sexual orientation tolerance and diversity in video games and the workplace. There is no doubt in my mind that EA means well in this message, and is actively pushing for a change of attitude in the industry. In fact, their previous actions regarding sexual orientation, both internally and externally, have shown a commitment to such change, even if it serves as a positive public relations stance at the same time.

But the sad truth is that social media has pushed the Full Spectrum conference, and their goals, into the realm of a callous publicity stunts. I am of course talking about the social media campaign of transplanting bots to promote the message of change, as seen in the image below, which was collected by an eagle-eyed viewer before the messages were deleted.

All of these messages, including the broken links, were done by an advertising group designed to promote the conference for EA. The mistake shown above is that someone did not diversify their message or stagger the release of these empty words of praise for the cause, instead releasing them all at the same time on the forum these messages were collected in. It would be easy to hand wave this as breaking the rules for the right cause, but even in the case of promoting the Full Spectrum event and diversity in gaming, EA simultaneously cheapens their message by implanting fear and doubt into the consumer base.

Of course, I suspect that is the last thing EA wanted to do, but such is the case for abusing social media this way. Many game companies already farm out such actions to expert firms to do the busy work for them. One such group is known as Ayzenberg, an advertising agency that is pushing social media interaction. The Ayzenberg Group has an impressive client list, one containing EA, Activision, Bethesda, Ubisoft, Konami, and other game publishers, as well as a broad spectrum of non-gaming corporations.

With such an impressive client list, the Ayzenberg Group is no doubt an example of being a leader in the social media push. The Ayzenberg website features Electronic Arts as one of their case studies, stating the following:

Ayzenberg Group Case Study of EA/EA Sports
Electronic Arts recognized the growing importance that social plays in the success of their brands and came to Ayzenberg’s social team with a challenge: Help them grow and manage a social community for one of their biggest games ever, Battlefield 3. Today, as part of a successful program, we initiate an average of 15,000 points of conversation daily across several titles. This continual interaction drives real brand engagement, and that in turn leads to increased sharing, referral, and ultimately sales.

Our community experts, who understand both personal communications and the subject matter (in this case, video games), worked tirelessly with EA to establish a voice that could be carried across the entire team consistently. This commonality ensures that issues and concerns are addressed in a cohesive manner, always based on approved messaging yet without sounding robotic or manufactured. This practice also encourages community engagement and game adoption throughout the pre-release, beta, launch and post launch phases.

The program currently leverages Ayzenberg’s 50+ person social media staff, a team of community operatives (agents with their hands on keyboards), social strategists, and analytics and statistical experts. This team has worked to not only engage, manage and grow the community, but also to provide in-depth statistical analysis of the data collected for daily, weekly and ad hoc reporting. This adds value and action to the brand, in terms of delivering ongoing content, game updates and messaging that resonates with the community and stakeholders such as the publisher and the development team.

Across many of EA’s titles, we’re now engaging and growing a fan base of 40 million people.

To be clear, I am not accusing the Ayzenberg Group of abusing social media. There is no evidence that they are the firm behind the bots for EA, and it would be libelous to make such an accusation. However, it does beg the simple question of why publishers employ firms to disingenuously engage fans, when such practices inevitably lead to fake accounts and astroturfing. Perhaps more importantly, it raises the question of how widespread the practice really is.

Last year, Facebook estimated that roughly 8.7% of over 955 million monthly active users are dummy accounts. That is a staggering 83 million Facebook users that don’t exist. What’s worse, around 14 million of those 83 million accounts are used for spamming on Facebook. Interestingly enough, despite Facebook attempting to crack down on such accounts since 2012, the practice still continues, even perpetuated, by established, corporate accounts such as EA.

Facebook is not the only social media outlet attempting to combat false accounts. Google+ has been vocally opposed to multiple accounts per user, and was under fire for limited accounts to the users real name. This has not stopped the social media push though. In October of 2012, an SEO firm that was attempting to fake information on Google+ local was caught falsifying reviews by well respected SEO veterans, simply by creating fake accounts for over 60 people. The accounts were shut down immediately, however, with Google purging the fake reviews from their system.

Both The Ayzenberg Group and Google+ were contacted for a comment, but did not reply back to our inquiries.

Regardless, this throws even more suspicion on the shaky bond of trust between publishers and consumers. Social media can be a valuable tool, but when wielded without discipline it becomes self-destructive–even when the message is good–so why trust anything said on Facebook or Twitter now? There is also the question of just how widespread this all is, since it is likely that EA is just the company that got caught, because they have been scrutinized heavily due to the SimCity backlash. I do hope that those companies participating in the social media space start to do so more honestly, for their sakes.

Sources: CNN, Ayzenberg Group, SeroundTable

avatar

Robert G.

All around gamer, teacher, historian and writer, making his home at Blistered Thumbs.

More Posts - Website

  1. May 18, 2013 at 12:41am
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Ah EA you devil you. You’re the biggest most bloated troll and you need to just disappear.

  2. March 19, 2013 at 12:45pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    So everyone knows, as Finthurin pointed out, the first picture is actually not a bot for SimCity, but a fan group on Facebook. It is a legitimate group as well, although technically still in violation of Facebook’s ToS regarding dummy accounts. I did, however, change the last line of the first paragraph to reflect this truth.

  3. March 19, 2013 at 12:19pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    “Flaw Exposed in Electronic Arts’s Origin Store”

    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416782,00.asp

    with all of this maybe it would be better for them just to dissolve and splinter the company.

    • March 19, 2013 at 12:29pm
      In response to Bunker
      VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      As I said elsewhere, that is not going to happen with EA.

      Worse case, they will slim down the company by letting go studios and selling them to other publishers. At best, it will go forward as it is and start going lean on certain initiatives.

  4. March 19, 2013 at 02:06am
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    What happened to EA? A long time ago they used to be a pretty good company, but now they have become one of the most hated companies in the industry.

    • March 19, 2013 at 12:49pm
      In response to SneakySolidSnake
      VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      Honestly, EA has always had the underpinnings of a horribly draconic company. They have this system where they obtain a company or property and at first give them lots of breathing room for creative freedom, but as their work partnership progresses, they start leading the company by the nose more and more to change things in their later installment or just steal the IP outright from the creative minds who penned it.

      Some prime examples:

      Wasteland, back in the DOS era was developed by Brian Fargo and his development team under EA, after release, they eventually wanted to make a sequel, which EA refused because they were taking the universe and making their own sequel to it in-house, denying them the rights to their own product pretty much. This resulted in EA making a spin-off game, Fountain of Dreams, while Brian Fargo shelved his Wasteland 2 ideas until later on overhauling and revising it into Fallout as its own IP (and eventually got the Wasteland rights back from EA recently, allowing for Wasteland 2).

      Another case was System Shock, Looking Glass Software and Irrational Games developed the System Shock games, both 1 and 2 under EA. When Irrational later left EA and eventually wanted to buy the rights back from EA, they were denied under pretense that EA was making its own System Shock 3 with a different team and after it turned into something else entirely (Dead Space), they sold the rights to an insurance company that had a vicegrip on it until recently an upstart company re-bought the rights and provided GOG.com the methods to redistribute System Shock 2. Without the System Shock License, Irrational developed a spiritual successor series through BioShock.

      Another important case is Ultima, a series whose last few entries were developed under EA and a series that is very historically important, now seperated from Richard Garriott, the man who created it and effectively helped DEFINE the Computer and Console RPG genres with his work on it. EA is still trying to beat the long-dead horse of Ultima to make new Ultima games without the very guy who made and defined the series, who in reaction is making his own RPG in response through kickstarter.

      So I hope this demonstrated that while EA has been better, they have ALWAYS been like this. It’s practically their motto to make bad decisions for their creative minds or customers for profits and then do crowd control. All it is now is more apparent and magnified.

    • March 20, 2013 at 05:27am
      In response to SneakySolidSnake
      VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Are you kidding me? EA has been a draconian horror since at least the early nineties when they consumed Origin and destroyed it. That would be the company that created among others Wing Commander and Ultima. That’s 23 bloody years.

      And Westwood Studios; creators of Command & Conquer the same.

      To make you understand just how destructive this is; the creators of Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, the quintessential JRPGs, studied computer science in the UK, where they played the first Ultima. Without Ultima, without Origin, no Japanese RPGs, or if there would have been, the landscape and perhaps even the conventions of JRPGs would have been vastly different.

      Westwood are the originators of Real-Time Strategy games; and EA consumed and destroyed them too.

  5. March 18, 2013 at 11:55pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Goddammit EA. You can’t even support a good cause without resorting to some dubious means. Its like you’re trying to be held in contempt by everyone.

  6. March 18, 2013 at 08:56pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +6 (from 8 votes)

    EA. That is all.

  7. March 18, 2013 at 07:42pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +5 (from 9 votes)

    I honestly, HONESTLY didn’t think I could be anymore sickened with EA than I already was. This shouldn’t surprise me, they probably aren’t the only company that does this, but it DOES. Auuuuuuuuuuuuugh OH MY GOD EA!

  8. March 18, 2013 at 06:13pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Isn’t the SimCity UK unofficial fan made account?

  9. March 18, 2013 at 05:44pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +1 (from 25 votes)

    This is what I point to when people complain about users review bombing games on metacritic and such. The companies do it to, except they put up fake positive positive ratings instead of semi-legitimate negative ratings. Combine that with how many “professional” reviews are bought and paid for by the publisher…

    • March 18, 2013 at 06:28pm
      In response to Sylveria
      VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
      Rating: +10 (from 22 votes)

      Can we actually cite another actual cases of this happening to be able to use the word “many”? There seems to be this conspiracy that being “bought” is something that happens all the time, if at all.

      • March 18, 2013 at 08:15pm
        In response to Yousif A.
        VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
        Rating: +1 (from 13 votes)

        If you’re a site that relies on pre-release review copies of games being sent to you, you’re bought. How a site/reviewer responds to that with regards to their review content is what separates the good sites from the bad, and you have to admit the bad sites far outweigh the good.

        • March 18, 2013 at 09:29pm
          In response to Hotcakes
          VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
          Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)

          Why would that be? Wouldn’t such integrity rely on the reviewer in question? After all if a developer sends out a review copy of a product it usually means that they have some semblance of confidence in their game. Of coarse something like this can backfire on them.

          If the reviewer is sucked in by the free swag and products its their own problem. Of coarse they’ll probably stop getting said swag later.

          Same applies to things like movie pre-screenings for critics. Just cause you treated the reviewer to a free movie doesn’t mean they’ll give you a good review if your movie sucks.

          • March 19, 2013 at 07:41pm
            In response to xikar
            VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            “Wouldn’t such integrity rely on the reviewer in question?”
            Gee, wish I said as much.

        • March 18, 2013 at 09:56pm
          In response to Hotcakes
          VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
          Rating: +8 (from 14 votes)

          Ok, while I disagree with that analysis on many many grounds, I’d still like some citing for a sweeping statement.

          Not once have I encountered in over 5 years of dealing with publishers and developers anyone trying to bribe me. Surely paying off smaller sites would be easy to do and deny.

          The review copy being considered payment is like saying letting movie critics into the cinema for premiers is payment. These are simply tools to facilitate the reviewing process. In the world your describing no game would get a bad score as long as a review copy was sent out.

          As for the bad websites out weighing the good, you only have to take in all areas of the internet to discover this. There are bad search engines, news sites and comic books left right and centre. Some places are just bad.

          I’m sure there are starting websites are swayed by the lure of review copies as a source of free games, but in my experience I have always found PR teams more receptive to a well written review with a justified score. It might shock you to learn that Sony are fine with my score for God of War and I remain on their mailing list.

          Not everything is a conspiracy.

          • March 18, 2013 at 10:46pm
            In response to Yousif A.
            VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
            Rating: 0 (from 8 votes)

            Exactly. This whole “belief” that companies pay off reviewers is the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard. Most companies actually don’t care what scores their games get, because they aren’t interested if somebody thinks it’ good or not. They’re more focused on the sales and if it’s profitable or not.

          • March 19, 2013 at 07:46pm
            In response to Yousif A.
            VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Pre-release reviews and ‘the first review’ equals advertising revenue, it’s as simple as that. The difference between a movie critic and a game critic is that the movie critic isn’t denied access to the cinema if they gave a bad movie an appropriate review. The game industry by comparison is out right crooked.

            “As for the bad websites out weighing the good, you only have to take in all areas of the internet to discover this. There are bad search engines, news sites and comic books left right and centre.”
            The difference being no one has heard of them. The worst sites in gaming journalism are the most well known.

            “It might shock you to learn that Sony are fine with my score for God of War and I remain on their mailing list.”
            Why would I visit this site if I didn’t consider it to be one of the good ones?

      • March 19, 2013 at 01:25am
        In response to Yousif A.
        VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
        Rating: -2 (from 8 votes)

        I believe I used the phrase “how many” typically referring to an indeterminate quantity. Like saying “Compare that to how many men have landed on the moon,” where I’m referring to an extremely small quantity.

        As far as evidence? Other than the most prominent example where a person was fired for giving a bad score since he wasn’t aware that he was supposed to give a certain game a good score cause the company had a lot of advertising there, no I don’t have a lot of examples. There’s stuff like Doritogate, Cliffy B pitching a fit when a game gets lower than a 9, Konami pulling review copies from people who they dislike the reviews of, and the simple fact that most sites are dependent on advertising revenue provided by the people who’s products they are reviewing.

        Further down you mentions movie studios don’t block people who give their movies bad reviews, but a movie is $7-$12, quite a significant difference from $40-60. Not to mention often studios don’t even offer critical screenings of stuff they don’t have confidence in so bad reviews can’t get out there before the opening day.

        Not every one who does this job is a bastion of integrity, and in my fully subjective opinion based on what I’ve witnessed, very few are. They’re prone to white knighting and fanboyism and some even work within the industry they’re reporting on. When I see a reviewer who’s a tester for the company/game they’re reviewing on, which I did see with DmC, and they’re just lavishing praise upon it and blocking people who say otherwise from their site.. I don’t need to tell you how suspect that looks.

        Whether selling-out occurs or not from situation to situation will always be something to debate, since the accused saying “I’m not being bought” only goes as far as your personal faith in the individual and until someone decides to blow the whistle with documentation to back it up, we’ll never know.

        Also, Jeera, reviews influence sales. Not drastically, but they do. If they didn’t care what people thought, they wouldn’t be using these community management firms.

        • March 19, 2013 at 03:14am
          In response to Sylveria
          VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
          Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

          Just want to point out, person fired for a bad score was… Damn. Forget the name. From Gamespot anyway. Cliffy B throwing a fit if a game scored below a 9 doesn’t seem relevant. Given that he’s a developer and not a reviewer. He can presumably suck it up. The Konami incident (if I’m thinking of the right one) had a hired PR agency threaten to not give review copies to journalists after they panned a game. That PR agency was promptly fired after the story broke.

          But yes, the conspiracy of game reviews being bought out is unlikely, with these events being far from the norm and bringing substantial controversy. I believe the Penny Arcade report has done a few articles on the actual basis of how giving out review copies work, and its not the corruption bringing doom its made out to be.

        • March 19, 2013 at 08:58am
          In response to Sylveria
          VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
          Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

          Gerstmann’s firing was a board decision from Gamespot at the time, and right after he was let go that entire board was also fired for making a bone-headed move. Same with the Konami PR group, they were fired for being completely irrational. Cliffy B complaining is just that, complaining, he needs to simply deal with it.

          As for the rest, you have a point, but the question I have is, what are the consumers doing about the bad apples out there? Do you read their stuff, reviews and news? Do you give such sites a glance?

          It kind of goes full circle, if the culture allows the behavior, how does it change? If we all know that a certain reviewer is bought out, how do you stop him from reviewing?

          • March 19, 2013 at 03:14pm
            In response to Robert G.
            VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Yes, it’s true that many good scores do lead to better sales, as the same with bad scores leading to worse sales, but the article also mentioned something else.

            “The truth is companies like Capcom can do much to mitigate the effects of low reviews with marketing. “Awareness goes a long way. Marketing spend is actually a higher factor on sales than game quality. If you haven’t heard of the game, you’re not going to buy it,” Zatkin explained.

            The low review scores will likely hurt Resident Evil 6’s chances at retail, but Capcom has the money to push the game and the brand awareness to get people interested.”

            Bigger companies, when they can’t appeal to reviewers, often default to pushing the name of the game. Companies like Capcom, EA, and Activision have other strategies to push numbers other than getting good reviews.

            When a game actually does worse than expected, on the side of both sales and critics, they often own up to it, like we’ve seen EA do with MoH: Warfighter. They try and promise putting out better content and products when it gets bashed critically and financially.

          • March 19, 2013 at 07:52pm
            In response to Robert G.
            VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            “what are the consumers doing about the bad apples out there?”
            Encouraging it. As seems evident from the neg reps in this conversation alone.

        • March 19, 2013 at 02:45pm
          In response to Sylveria
          VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          “reviews influence sales”

          Oh really now? Is that why Transformers 2 and 3 are the biggest box office flops of all time? And Scott Pilgrim is the highest-grossing movie of all time? Sonic ’06 never broke 2 million copies sold, right? Also, I’m glad everyone with a PS2 is playing Okami and Beyond Good and Evil. Genius logic right there. Would you also like to assert that nobody saw the Twilight Saga because every critic bashed those movies to hell and back?

          The thing is, big corporations see their games and movies as products, not art. They couldn’t care less what kind of reviews they’re getting as long as the advertising is effective and shifts sales. And as for those incidents you’ve mentioned, yes, they did happen, but those are more isolated incidents that everyone in the industry called them out for.

          Do your research.

  10. March 18, 2013 at 05:44pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

    EA…EA! I was proud of you going forth and stating that your on the side of LGBT. But more DRM? More lies? More of this sneaky fake praise stuff?

    The boy who cried wolf got eaten the time the wolf shown up. We seen THQ die! DIE! Do you really think EA that your safe?

  11. March 18, 2013 at 05:36pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

    I give up!

    This is the only thing I can think about when you talk about EA these days.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n80Z3hzvbP4

  12. March 18, 2013 at 05:36pm
    In response to Article
    VN:F [1.9.21_1169]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

    Well that’s just great for EA isn’t it… As if they’d need any more negative press right now XD

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.