The speaker discusses a controversy involving Burger King's use of Twitch's text-to-speech (TTS) donation feature to advertise their menu. The campaign, known as "The King of Stream," involved Burger King paying the minimum donation set by individual Twitch streamers to have their comments read aloud via TTS. This raised concerns among the Twitch community, with some arguing that it was a violation of Twitch's terms of service and a form of unsolicited advertising.
The speaker also discusses the broader issue of whether such practices should be considered sponsorships or advertisements. They argue that an unexpected TTS donation does not qualify as a sponsorship, as it does not imply a relationship between the parties involved. On the other hand, they suggest that the practice is closer to a traditional ad, as it involves a payment for specific messaging.
The speaker concludes by suggesting that streamers can use the power of shame to fight back against such practices. They argue that streamers can treat large corporations promoting their products in the same way they would treat individuals promoting their own streams, by not engaging with them or even being polite. They also suggest that streamers have the right to express their disapproval of such practices, and that if a company believes they are better off without a signed sponsorship agreement, streamers have every right to show them why they are wrong.
1. The text discusses a live streaming platform called Twitch, where streamers interact with their audiences in real time.
2. The platform allows for various interactions such as sending messages, donations, and subscriptions.
3. One of the features of Twitch is the Text-to-Speech (TTS) feature, which allows for a computerized voice to read messages aloud to the stream.
4. The text mentions a campaign by Burger King, in conjunction with an ad agency, that used TTS donations to advertise their menu on various Twitch streams.
5. The campaign was criticized for misusing the TTS feature and for not obtaining prior consent from the streamers.
6. The text suggests that the campaign violated the terms of service of both Twitch and the third-party live streaming software, Streamlabs.
7. The campaign was seen as a form of unsolicited advertising and was criticized for not providing prior written consent from Streamlabs.
8. The text discusses the potential legal implications of the campaign, including whether it was an illegal form of promotion.
9. The text suggests that the campaign was closer to a traditional advertisement than a sponsorship, as it did not imply any endorsement on the part of the creator.
10. The text mentions that the streamers were unaware of the campaign and had no obligation to endorse Burger King's products.
11. The text suggests that the campaign could be compared to mid-roll advertisements, as they both interrupt streams at inconvenient times.
12. The text discusses the potential financial implications of the campaign for the streamers, suggesting that they may have made more from the TTS donations than they would have from a similar mid-roll ad.
13. The text suggests that the campaign could be seen as a form of broadcast signal intrusion, a term used to describe the hijacking of broadcast signals with unwanted messages.
14. The text discusses potential legal repercussions for the campaign, suggesting that while it may not currently be illegal, it could become so once laws catch up with modern advertising practices.
15. The text proposes a strategy for streamers to fight back against such campaigns, suggesting that they can use the power of shame and community enforcement to discourage such behavior.