In this post I will explain that content creators within the chess community are lagging behind

other communities in following ​Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidelines​ regarding truth in
advertising.

In fact, it is common in our community to be paid by chess platforms while endorsing them,
without being honest about this fact to the viewers. This is hidden advertising, and in many
cases illegal. I prefer to think that this is happening due to lack of knowledge and not
intentionally.

I am hoping to shine a light on this problem so that content producers can change their
practices before the FTC comes after them and so that we as chess content consumers have
sufficient information and can take financial relationships into account when we consume chess
content.

FACT #1: Chess streamers are endorsing chess platforms

EVIDENCE
● GM Finegold ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nz_V6i5LX7k
● GM Hansen ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztRkuFXBoU8
● GM Huschenbeth ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2jOH9dVTpg
● IM Bartholomew ​https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG8lqOOw0Sw

Chess professionals and amateurs are posting videos of themselves using different chess
platforms every day.

REGULATIONS
From the FTC guidelines: “​Simply posting a picture of a product in social media, such as on
Pinterest, or a video of you using it could convey that you like and approve of the product. If it
does, it’s an endorsement. You don’t necessarily have to use words to convey a positive
message. If your audience thinks that what you say or otherwise communicate about a product
reflects your opinions or beliefs about the product, and you have a relationship with the
company marketing the product, it’s an endorsement subject to the FTC Act.​”

CONCLUSION
Especially when streamed or posted on personal channels, these videos/streams are
endorsements - even if the streamers don’t happen to say many positive things about the chess
platform. This is actually very common sense. If we see streamers and/or chess professionals
using a site, many of us will naturally assume they do so because they think the site is good.
Videos/streams (and even social media posts) like this are endorsements. ​Chess streamers
are endorsing chess platforms.
FACT #2: Chess streamers receive significant compensation for
this

EVIDENCE
I don’t mean to pick on specific chess platforms or individual streamers, but I have to use the
public information that is available. We know that Chess.com pays some of their tier 1 streamers
like IM John Bartholomew and GM Ben Finegold.

Lower tier Chess.com streamers may have to make do with ​the other benefits that Chess.com
gives to their content producers​:

Chess.com offers all of their ​partnered streamers​ and ​titled players​ a lifetime Diamond
membership for free. Chess24 also ​gives away Premium Membership to all titled players​. Even
if we are conservative, we could estimate these memberships (they cost the same) to 20 years *
$99/year = $1,980.

Chess.com partnered streamers also get very valuable exposure in terms of

chess.com/streamers listing, promotion on Chess.com social networks, Twitch hosting and
access to the Twitch front page. They also get extra features and services like “Live Presenter
status”, “Chess.com affiliate status”, “Twitch assistance”, and more.

REGULATIONS
From ​the FTC guidelines​: “​For example, an endorsement would be covered by the FTC Act if an
advertiser – or someone working for an advertiser – pays you or gives you something of value
to mention a product. If you receive free products or other perks with the expectation that you’ll
promote or discuss the advertiser’s products in your blog, you’re covered [by the FTC Act].​”

CONCLUSION
Direct cash payments, membership benefits and the exposure (which can be more valuable
than all the other benefits combined, particularly for streamers who typically make more money
from subscribers/donations/advertising if they have more eyeballs on their content) are very
significant benefits. ​Streamers are being compensated by the chess platforms they
endorse.

FACT #3: Chess streamers have to disclose this financial

relationship in their content

REGULATIONS
From ​the FTC guidelines​: “​The question you need to ask is whether knowing about that gift or
incentive would affect the weight or credibility your readers[/viewers] give to your
recommendation. If it could, then it should be disclosed.​”

“​A single disclosure on your home page doesn’t really do it because people visiting your site
might read individual reviews or watch individual videos without seeing the disclosure on your
home page.​”

“​If I upload a video to YouTube and that video requires a disclosure, can I just put the disclosure
in the description that I upload together with the video?

No, because consumers can easily miss disclosures in the video description. Many people
might watch the video without even seeing the description page, and those who do might not
read the disclosure. The disclosure has the most chance of being clear and prominent if it’s
included in the video itself. That’s not to say that you couldn’t have disclosures in both the video
and the description.​”

ANALYSIS/CONCLUSION
Consider the difference between these two statements:
1) “Most chess professionals play on X”.
2) “Most chess professionals ​are paid​ ​to play on X”.
It should be obvious that knowing about the financial relationship makes a huge difference.

It is very clear from the FTC guidelines that ​endorsers have to disclose their relationship to
the advertiser (in this case, the chess platform) very clearly in their content​. It is not
sufficient to include a logo in the video or a comment in the description - the disclosure has to
be obvious and almost impossible to miss.

If you have read this far and think this seems strict or unrealistic, consider that most big/serious
streamers and YouTubers actually follow the FTC guidelines, and that people who have not,
have gotten in trouble.

● Example #1: Linus Tech Tips ​discloses sponsored content​ in an obvious fashion
● Example #2: Jesse Cox ​discloses sponsored content​ in an obvious fashion
 ● Example #3: Hutch ​discloses sponsored content​ in an obvious fashion
● Example #4: TotalBiscuit ​discloses sponsored content​ in an obvious fashion
● Example #5: The FTC and Warner Bros. ​reached a settlement​ over claims that the
publisher failed to disclose that it had paid prominent YouTubers for positive coverage of
one of its video games.
● Example #6: CSGO Lotto Owners ​Settle FTC’s First-Ever Complaint​ Against Individual
Social Media Influencers

I could list many more examples from YouTube, or from Twitch for that matter. It is common to
disclose in the title of Twitch streams and YouTube videos, but it is not sufficient. It is typically
also mentioned as the first thing in the video/stream. For streams, where it is more likely that
people will join in the middle, it would be good practice to repeat the disclosure during the
broadcast, or at the very least, at the end of it. This is what truth in advertising looks like. If you
are still skeptical, please read ​the FTC guidelines​. More than likely, they will answer your
questions.

It is also worth considering that it is actually ​illegal​ to praise a product or service you honestly
think is terrible. This would be very hard to prove of course, but it definitely makes you think.

Let’s be better.