The Quartering Responds after Advertisers Pull Out Following CNet Editor Ian Sherr’s Hit Piece
Jeremy Hambly aka The Quartering informed his viewers that a number of advertisers dropped him after a hit piece from CNet Editor Ian Sherr.
In a new video, The Quartering responded to Ian Sherr’s article. He detailed the effort put into not only developing the piece but how Sherr contacted his advertisers who then had their ads pulled from Hambly’s videos.
Hambly states Sherr “contacted several of my advertisers and shamed them into pulling ads off my YouTube channel.” Hambly later indicates that the advertisers in question were Honda, GameFly, and DeVry University. He does indicate that he might pursue legal options against Sherr.
“I will leave the archived link in the description below for legal purposes, as I will be having Bill Richmond review this article
and decide if this is an actionable type of behavior.”
Then Jeremy goes into detail about how “bloggers” such as Ian Sherr deploy certain tactics in order to financially impact those they are targeting.
“There is certainly precedent for these “bloggers” to contact advertisers with a pretty much-predetermined outcome. They know if they contact Honda, Gamefly
DeVry university like they did in my case, they’re just going to pull ads from my channel. I can only imagine what the email read, ‘Would you like to comment on how your ads are supporting an angry person on YouTube who is spreading bad vibes?'”
Hambly adds, “I will not back down from a challenge at the risk of increasing intensity or the spotlight on my channel.”
This is where things get interesting. Jeremy goes on to claim in his opening that the author of the article singled him out, compared to the other YouTubers in the same article, by not only contacting advertisers but also YouTube themselves. A very similar tactic was used earlier this week by Vox’s Carlos Meza against Steven Crowder.
“It would appear to me that this author took a particular interest in my channel, taking the time out of their day to contact people who ran ads on my videos
and get me demonetized. I’m sure they also contacted YouTube because, of course, they are a verified blue checkmark blogger for a website and that’s
all they’re good for.”
Jeremy goes on to tell his audience, very clearly, that he doesn’t want anyone contacting Ian, noting that reactionary conduct is exactly what “bloggers” want.
“I will again disavow any contact of this person because that’s what they want. They have a measly three thousand followers on Twitter and by all aspects without the CNet name attached to them, nobody knows or cares anything about them. Do not contact this person. I will be responding directly to, what I consider, a targeted effort to hurt me financially. We’ll see what my lawyer says about that.”
Where did this all come from? Well, earlier this week Hambly uploaded a video that warned viewers that a hit piece from CNet’s Ian Sherr was incoming.
He began his video explaining that he had been emailed by Ian Sherr who told Jeremy that he was putting together a story about Hambly’s YouTube channel.
What Sherr didn’t realize was that Jeremy had been tipped off by an insider at CNet about the upcoming story and he cut Ian at the knees and basically told him he had no interest in participating in an interview. Jeremy believed that Ian was less interested in crafting a story about YouTube based commentary, but was rather crafting a hit piece against said commentators.
Hambly made it clear that CNet needed to be careful how they presented him because he was ready to take them to court over any damage to his reputation.
Nevertheless, Sherr appears to have attempted to paint Hambly as a woman-hater. He specifically brings up Hambly’s criticism of GameSpot’s Kallie Plagge’s review of Sony’s Days Gone game. He also mentions Hambly’s criticism of Brie Larson’s Captain Marvel. He does point out that Hambly is also a critic of the #MeToo movement.
Sherr does not include in his article that Hambly was physically confronted by Matt Loter.
Following the publishing of the article that included the fact that Sherr had influenced Honda, DeVry University, and GameFly to drop advertising on TheQuartering’s channel, Sherr would go on a lengthy Twitter post defending his hit piece.
Story time: About a year ago, I noticed a new crop of game commentators taking off on @Google’s @youtube. They included @UE_UpperEchelon @cleanprincegame @DownwardThrust @LegacyKillaHD and @TheQuartering
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Most of them focused on game criticism, and some like @cleanprincegame, did it with compelling scripts, slick editing and smart background music. I wasn’t surprised to start seeing each pull in millions of views a month.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But as I watched more, it seemed the videos YouTube was showing me were angrier and angrier.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So I started tracking as much as I could about them. Sentiment, moments where they had calls to action, moments where they seemed to be really pushing boundaries.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
The gaming commentary YouTubers each put out about 10-20 min videos, sometimes once a week, sometimes three times a day. I soon racked up hundreds of videos and easily more than three dozen hours of content. Keep in mind: The Star Wars movie saga so far is only 18 hours.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
In some cases, I watched every video these channels put out during this time. I watched at home. I watched on the bus. I watched in line at Costco. I watched on the beach during vacation.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So why do it?
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I was curious about why this group seemed to be gaining traction, just as an “old guard” of YouTubers was complaining about subs and views leveling off.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I began watching game commentary because I’d stumbled across @Boogie2988 , in character as the parody-angry gamer Francis, complaining about Diablo III in 2012. What I found was an interesting commentator who eventually amassed 4.5 million subs.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Recently, he began complaining about losing subs and lower views. Oftentimes, he blamed it on something he said on Twitter or in a podcast. Sure, I thought, maybe that played a part. But then I saw other YouTubers complain too.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Another, @JimSterling, complained in a video that his “shittiest game of the year awards” did double the number of views of his more positive Jimquisition awards.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
All the while, this group and their “negativity” train was going straight to Wins-Ville. It was fascinating.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
What was driving this? Was the community changing? Were gamers suddenly all angrier? Were they hungry for these epic takedowns? (even if they were just repackaging reporting by people like @jasonschreier?)
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Even the YouTubers themselves seemed puzzled. @cleanprincegame literally talked on his videos about how he was aware he’s known as “the negative guy” and saying “I haven’t done enough to perpetuate positivity.”
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So, one day he started a new channel called “What’s So Great” — about what he loves in a game, even if it’s a game everyone hates. I bookmarked it and set a todo to check in later.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Just a little more than a week after launch, @cleanprincegame rebranded his positivity channel — yeah, completely gave up on this whole thing. Now it was “Games vs Food,” where he criticizes games and compares them to stuff like $3 grocery store sushi.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I guess his community didn’t like it? (I don’t know the answer, @cleanprincegame sadly wouldn’t get on the phone with me to discuss it.)
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Back to the well of negativity, this time with some silly jokes.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I started to think maybe it’s not just the YouTubers, but also the algorithm and the audience too. Maybe I’d stumbled on one of those a-ha’s about human behavior: We thrive on drama and negativity. We just can’t look away.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
But these channels are funded by advertisers, right? After all, some of these guys do this full-time. I was curious if the advertisers even knew their ads were finding their way to this growing corner of the internet.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So I asked a few advertisers some questions: How do you manage your YouTube advertising? Do you ask to have your ads put on “ad safe” lists?
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
I also asked if they spot-check videos. This comes from when I worked at @Reuters. I knew that brands constantly send people to stores to check product placement, make sure their cardboard ads are where they paid to be and generally audit the system. It kept everyone honest.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
So, every day, I screen-shotted ads I saw on the channels, organized them, and sent out requests.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Well, with one exception (@volvocars), none of the advertisers I spoke to said they checked YouTube. At all.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
They had no idea where their ads were showing up. I’m gonna say it again: They did not know what YouTube channels they were funding.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
They weren’t even paying outside auditors to check for them. All they did was maybe ask to be on “ad safe” (vetted) lists, and trust their ad buyer or YouTube were checking the channels they appeared on.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Of the ones who would go on the record, @Honda, @devryuniv and @GameFly all said there were reevaluating their blacklists after my requests for comment. In some cases, they’re investigating w/YT why their ads showed up on ones they didn’t want to be “associated with.”
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Among those searching for answers to this negativity dilemma are @Microsoft ‘s @Xbox team, @EA and @Roblox. Each has different programs to encourage more healthy community dialog. In the case of Roblox, they also encourage meaningful parental involvement.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As to what happens from all this? I don’t know. I still don’t have a clear answer to my original question: Why is YouTube rewarding negativity so much? YouTube declined to comment for the story.
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
Update, YouTube statement: “We have strict policies that govern what kinds of videos we show ads on, and videos with hateful content violate those policies. If we find videos that are showing ads and shouldn’t be, we remove ads immediately.”
— Ian Sherr 🎮 E3 🕹 (@iansherr) June 6, 2019
https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js
As you can see above, Sherr admits to contacting not only YouTube, but a number of advertisers outside of Honda, GameFly, and DeVry. It definitely appears that Sherr went out of his way in order to paint a number of YouTubers in a negative light in order to make advertisers think there is something wrong with them.
What’s interesting is what Sherr actually describes as “negativity.” In his CNet article he writes:
“Their negativity comes in many forms. Some YouTubers produce a stream of videos criticizing every imaginable fault a game could have. Visual bugs. Awkward controls. Stupid storylines. Others obsess over game developers’ attempts to fix glitches.”
Sherr adds:
“There are commentators who rail against efforts to upsell players, who typically shell out $60 for a game. These microtransactions, as they’re known, can include different character designs, new looks for weapons and additional stories, and are a source of constant irritation for vocal commentators, who see them as a rip-off.”
He continues:
“Others veer into criticism of outspoken game company executives. Some attacks get personal, criticizing members of the gaming community for their looks or perceived political beliefs.”
He claims this “negativity” is done to get “the audience angry.” It’s an interesting theory of which Sherr doesn’t provide any evidence to actually back it up. In fact, he provides the opposite as he notes that LegacyKillaHD has used a thumbnail written, “GAMERS ARE ANGRY.” If the idea was to get gamers angry, they wouldn’t already be angry. It just doesn’t make any sense.
Sherr disproves his own theory. He probably should have deleted his article after that. But it’s not really an article. It’s a hit piece meant to financially attack those who dare to provide criticism of video games and the industry’s business tactics.
These hit pieces and the outrage they attempt to generate only serve to show audiences the industry isn’t interested in informing the public. They merely are trying to protect and insulate themselves in an attempt to destroy their competition. Sherr’s hit piece and those like it might give them a small leg up in the short-term, but in the long term it continues to erode the trust between the audience and journalist that is critical in reporting stories.
What do you make of Sherr’s attack on The Quartering? What do you make of The Quartering’s response? Will you trust CNet moving forward?
More About:Uncategorized