It’s since backpedaled.
  • Halosheep@lemm.ee
    51·
    3 months ago

    This is being reported poorly. This is a voluntary program that is intended for social media brand embassadors, aka, the people who go out and rep a brand. It makes sense to include some language requiring someone prepping your brand to show preferable to it.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    3·
    3 months ago

    The company’s invite-only Team Pixel program — which seeds Pixel products to influencers before public availability — stipulated that participating influencers were not allowed to feature Pixel products alongside competitors, and those who showed a preference for competing phones risked being kicked out of the program.

    Good move right after a judge ruled you’re a monopoly using your position to influence the market. This doesn’t reinforce that you engage in bad behavior at all. /s

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      1·
      3 months ago

      Google is the very awkward kid in elementary school who tries way too hard to be liked, but does everything wrong and screams, why doesn’t even like me? I am perfect!

  • grubbyweasel@sh.itjust.works
    3·
    3 months ago

    Google’s official Pixel review program for publications like The Verge requires no such stipulations. (And, to be clear, The Verge would never accept such terms, in accordance with our ethics policy.)

    So then, what is Team Pixel, exactly? Officially, it’s a program handled by PR agency 1000heads that seeds early units to influencers and superfans to drum up interest as brand ambassadors. While Google partners with 1000heads, it doesn’t directly run the program, and there are distinct differences from the traditional reviews program. For example, journalists and influencers in the official reviews program often get briefed and given products under embargo before or during an event. Team Pixel participants get the devices shortly after launch but before the public — all in exchange for some coverage on social media. For smaller creators, this can be a big leg up in terms of access.

    extremely critical context here, this is kind of a non story tbh

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      100% this is a non-story.

      It’s a brand ambassador program. It’s not a review program. The entire point is to promote a product.

      If you are hired specifically to promote a product, and you instead shit on the product, you don’t get hired in the future. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist for this one. The Verge, while including an actual explanation buried in the article, is massively editorializing the headline, to the point it’s not even really accurate anymore. They’re not threatening influencers, those are the stipulations to be part of a specific program to receive free product early with the express purpose of promoting it.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.comEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      Yeah, it’s still sleazy but it sounds like the only threat is that influencers who don’t say since things about the free toys they got won’t get any more free toys.

  • worldwidewave@lemmy.world
    2·
    3 months ago

    The agreement tells participants they’re “expected to feature the Google Pixel device in place of any competitor mobile devices.” It also notes that “if it appears other brands are being preferred over the Pixel, we will need to cease the relationship between the brand and the creator.” The link to the form appears to have since been shut down.

    This is some Disney Influencer-level bullshit, where they just dole out premium perks to influencers who will endlessly and exclusively positively shill their shit.

  • Paddzr@lemmy.world
    1·
    3 months ago

    This is m3an to target “pixel influencers”. Those don’t exist. Only Apple and Samsung has does. I can’t think of a single " Google " channel. I can’t really think of any Samsung either but they do have a cult following plus eco system, so more chances of them being out there.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      01·
      3 months ago

      When they juat focused on cool tech for the sake of tech they were great ( and the son’t be evil mantra). now it is juat shareholder profit driven and they kill stuff when numbers aren’t constant growth

      • leisesprecher@feddit.org
        0·
        3 months ago

        They killed stuff before.

        Google’s downfall seems to be this weird promotion culture where you only get attention by launching new products. That’s why they keep introducing half assed messengers. Nobody gets anything from maintaining a successful product.

        That combined with myopic shareholder value management gives us the corporate equivalent of a 12 year old kid with ADHD and a bad tamper.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          0·
          3 months ago

          They killed stuff before when it failed. Now it’s just fucking weird. They’re killing the Chromecast. Why? I have no clue. It has decent sales.

          • leisesprecher@feddit.org
            0·
            3 months ago

            Google Reader didn’t fail. And they killed it for no reason.

            Chromecasts are probably simply not profitable enough. The device class is served by cheaper sticks and given the absurd salaries and profit expectations of these firms, it’s probably not “worth it”.