I imagine the expectation here is that the youtubers are not under any obligation to provide a positive review, or perhaps any review at all. The company is so sure of the quality of their service that they know they will get positive PR from the video.

perhaps, but at least in the US [1] (and YouTube guidelines [2]), you cannot receive something like this for free and not specifically call it out.

[1] : https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

[2] : https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/154235?hl=en

Thanks for sharing, thats very useful information. I hope youtubers are familiar with this info!

I think this is the relevant part for this scenario:

>I have a YouTube channel that focuses on hunting, camping, and the outdoors. Sometimes I’ll do a product review. Knife manufacturers know how much I love knives, so they send me knives as free gifts, hoping that I will review them. I’m under no obligation to talk about any knife and getting the knives as gifts really doesn’t affect my judgment. Do I need to disclose when I’m talking about a knife I got for free?

>Even if you don’t think it affects your evaluation of the product, what matters is whether knowing that you got the knife for free might affect how your audience views what you say about the knife. It doesn’t matter that you aren’t required to review every knife you receive. Your viewers may assess your review differently if they knew you got the knife for free, so we advise disclosing that fact.

In this case the youtubers in the OP did disclose that they got the service for free in the video. Perhaps they should have mentioned the fact in writing in the video description/pinned comment as well.

"In addition, the Guides say, if there’s a connection between an endorser and the marketer that consumers would not expect and it would affect how consumers evaluate the endorsement, that connection should be disclosed. For example, if an ad features an endorser who’s a relative or employee of the marketer, the ad is misleading unless the connection is made clear. The same is usually true if the endorser has been paid or given something of value to tout the product. The reason is obvious: Knowing about the connection is important information for anyone evaluating the endorsement."

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftc...

If you get to keep the knife afterwards, yes. The knife is worth something, right?

If they ship you a knife on loan, and you have to give it back in a reasonable period of time, then generally no.

Ars Technica, for example, notes when a car manufacturer gives them airfare or accomodations. Obviously they don't get to keep the car, but they still received value.

right. so they called it out.

From an earlier video [0]:

"We asked our agency if they could find a moving company that would give us permission to film. They did one better and found a moving company we have permission to film AND they're moving our stuff for free. They're the most famous/popular moving company in Japan."

[0]: https://youtu.be/90ujbJdRKXI?t=20m (20 minutes in)

I understood that as the company offered to do the move for free after they requested to film, whereas a sponsored video would usually involve the company approaching them.

That is not really the important distinction, the crucial fact is rather if they paid for the service they are showing to their large audience or not.

That argument goes both ways though - they crucial fact is that they disclosed up-front whether they paid for the service.

It is up to debate if their disclosure was adequate, but to title a video ”we hired a company” and insist it isn’t a sponsored video, only to then reveal they did in fact not have to pay is not up-front.

This invalidates the entire video IMO. Of course companies will go the extra mile (with extra smiles) for a PR stunt.