IGN Responds to MusicHub Controversy – A Perfect Storm or a Perfect Crime?

IGN’s Senior VP of Publishing and co-founder Peer Schneider answers our questions regarding their “Hero” Series fansite, MusicHub, and he promises continued commitment towards transparency and unbiased journalism.  But is it enough?Has this all added up to an increased accountability and clarity in games journalism, or are we still stuck in the muck and mire of endemic advertising?  While the initial story broke at the beginning of this week, days passed before all of our questions could be answered.  For our part, we had maintained contact with IGN.com’s Community Site Manager, Teddy Pierson, since day one.  Despite this, it took a nice chat with Peer Schneider to finally answer all of our remaining questions.  Unedited below is our Q&A with him.

Does Activision or any other publisher provide any sort of monetary sponsorship for musichub.ign.com or music.ign.com?

A: Yes, this community portal is currently sponsored by Activision’s Guitar Hero 5. Our main music channel and some other channels also carry Activision campaigns (among many other advertisers, of course).

Is there any connection between that sponsorship and the content on those sites?

A: While the content on musichub.ign is dedicated to Hero franchise titles, our advertising partners do not make any editorial decisions or have any control over the site’s editorial content. The same applies to all content channels in the IGN network. Since musichub.ign is a wiki at its core, contributions can come from anyone with a keyboard.

Is there any other undisclosed relationship between Activision or any other publisher and musichub.ign.com or music.ign.com?

A: I don’t think so. We didn’t try to pass off our “Hero” community site as a site that covers all music games – but we’ve received some complaints, including yours, that told us the site’s mission isn’t defined enough. We’ll try and fix that. IGN covers all facets of gaming without fear or favor on the editorial side. At the same time, our sites carry advertisements for all major games, entertainment and consumer brands.

Is music.ign.com a member of the vault/planet community system?

A: No, music.ign.com is an IGN.com channel – just like movies.ign.com. All content on that channel is written by editors. Most articles are about music-music – but there’s some music gaming-related news/feature content as well, such as :

http://music.ign.com/articles/102/1025981p1.html

http://music.ign.com/articles/103/1032653p1.html

etc…

Are the site director and assistant site director (listed on the staff page as [GSI]lufiaguy and NextWeek, no real names listed) compensated for their services to IGN Entertainment in any way (whether or not they are full time employees is not my question, I want t know if there is any pay for their roles at all.)

A: All our community portals are managed by Teddy Pierson, who also oversees the IGN community at large (including IGNboards moderation). There are both paid contractors who post news topics from around the web and unpaid volunteers who contribute postings, wiki content and the like.

Is content written by MusicHub’s staff endorsed by IGN Entertainment? By this I mean, should consumers expect the same quality and type of content on this site as they do throughout the rest of IGN Entertainment’s properties?

A: The publishers are not involved in the editorial decisions on our site, and the IGN.com editorial staff does not directly contribute to these community sites. In other words, the content on these sites is different from the reviews and editorials IGN editors write on the IGN.com platform channels and targeted specifically at fans of those games. Many great games journalists started off as contributors to community and fansites, so we’re proud to feature this type of content as part of the IGN network. The community site content is not directly mixed in with IGN main site content on our game or platform pages, but we definitely highlight the sites and link to select content.

Does musichub.ign.com produce revenue for IGN Entertainment?

A: Aside from the sponsorship deal between Activision and IGN, the site produces no additional revenue for IGN Entertainment at this point.

Do the other members of the Planet/Vault/Community system produce revenue for IGN Entertainment?

A: Yes, any page on our network that carries ads contributes revenue as long as those ads are sold.

Is content written for those sites endorsed by IGN Entertainment? The same clarification for #6 applies here.

A: As with all our Vaults/Planets/Hubs, there is some editorial oversight over the postings in the main blogroll, which typically aggregates content from around the web, and there is moderation of user-created content. The idea is to allow for open discussions and aggregate game/series-specific content from around the web in one place. We have had fan-run pages on IGN and GameSpy for 13 years, including Planet sites, Vaults and blogs — and we think they’re a great way for fans to connect and show their creativity. As mentioned before, the sites and the content are linked, but not directly funneled into our game pages. We take a similar approach with the integration of user blogs and community reviews.

Why is there no indication on the musichub.ign.com site that it is a community site?

A: There should be. It was stated on the site the day we launched it but has since been buried by new posts and wiki updates. We’ve added a mission statement to the “about” page to reinforce that the site is a community hub for the titles in this specific franchise.

Can you explain to me the decision making process behind naming your “Hero” franchise community site MusicHub?

A: Since we’re dealing with a third-party brand, there were limitations to what we were able to call the site. We’re looking for ways to make the presentation more clear. The header of the site shows the three brands the portal page covers, and all entry points to the site reference the franchise in some way.

Were there other names considered?

A:  Yes. We weren’t able to get clearance to use the brand name as part of the site’s name or URL, so the header has to do most of the talking.

The title for musichub.ign.com is “Music Hub: Guitar Hero 5, Band Hero, DJ Hero Official News, Videos, Guides and News.” What makes this content “official”?

A: It’s a generic site title for community portals that we’ve been using for far too long. It just means that the site carries “official news,” as in press releases or announcements, in addition to videos, guides, and “news” generated by the site or others.

Even though we’ve been publishing community sites for more than a decade, this has been a learning experience for us. I’m sure our next site launch won’t leave anyone confused.

This discussion with Peer left me secure in the knowledge that IGN’s brass knows what went wrong here, and the tone of conversation emphasized his (and IGN’s) committal to professional integrity. The issue is not so cut and dry, though.

I know that no one is putting money in IGN’s pocket to review DJ Hero (or whatever) well – I have not ever claimed that, and don’t think that it’s relevant to the discussion at hand.  As it stands, MusicHub.IGN.com does little to differentiate itself from the main set of IGN content pages.  Nowhere on the front page does MusicHub point out to readers that it is a community site.  Since it doesn’t look or even feel like a community site, nor outright claim to be one in a visible manner (as did the old Vault and Planet sites), uninformed readers will assume that MusicHub is creating unique, IGN branded editorial content.

Endemic advertising is a problem that permeates games journalism, but it’s of special interest here because entire sites worth of content are being paid for by sponsors with a vested interest in those products’ success.  Consumers are growing skittish because that sort of relationship might not always be for the best.  They think: “Well, what if a product in the line being advertised and covered on this site is bad?  Will the writers be able to tell me that?  What if there is something wrong with a piece of DLC?  Can they write that up? At what point does this set of news stories become a set of advertisements, and at that point should I find my news about this game elsewhere?”  And when they hit that point they feel betrayed.  There is a clear conflict of interest, even if that conflict never develops into a particular deceitful action.  Case in point, the Kane and Lynch situation dealt considerable damage to GameSpot.com’s credibility, from which they’ve never fully recovered.

Peer states that the site is officially sponsored by Activision, and there is an ad for Guitar Hero 5 above the “Latest Content” section on the right hand side of MusicHub to prove it. Teddy Pierson – and perhaps the other writers – are paid to run and maintain MusicHub. There is an undeniable, though indirect, connection between the publisher of the games that MusicHub focuses on and the team that creates editorial content. That ad wouldn’t exist without the content around it and the traffic you make, and that content wouldn’t exist without the sponsorship. In short: an advertiser is paying IGN to pay Teddy Pierson & Co. to write about their games.  If the people who run these sites are not compensated for their work, it is even worse.  To put it in the most blunt terms possible, advertisers are saying “If you build a site filled with content about our game, we will buy ad space on it.”  A “Field of Ads” situation.

Even though the content of IGN’s MusicHub isn’t directly determined by Activision, the fact that the site exists at all has among its causes the fact that ads for Activision products will be bought and placed on it.

That’s the crux of it.  I understand IGN desires to operate an effective system through which fans of numerous games can connect and interact with each other.  I’m not trying to paint Peer, Teddy, or others at IGN as corrupt, money-grubbing journalists who would sell out their opinions and their credibility to the highest bidder.  I know they love their work because I know that I love my work.  This is why I’m pushing for transparency, because I feel like it’s the best thing for games and game journalism.

Teddy Pierson once asked me something to the effect of “If you ran a fansite for the Mario series, and you called it CoinHub, wouldn’t you be upset if someone was attacking you and your writers?”  My answer is clear – if there were another popular title about collecting coins, and I was in a position of authority, I would never brand my Mario-centric city “CoinHub.”  Just like I wouldn’t call it “PlatformerHub” or a site about the Forza series “RacingHub,” a site about Tekken “FightingHub” or a site about Fallout “RPGHub.”  There is an air of disingenuousness, an element of bias, however unintentional, there that I seek to avoid.  If I were a writer stuck on a site that was poorly branded, like any of those mock examples, I’d be pleased to have another publication pushing my site towards more transparency.  I would welcome the opportunity to prove my own legitimacy.

(Sidebar: It upsets me that, if I’m reading Peer correctly, Activision is to blame for this naming issue. He says that other names were proposed, but that they couldn’t be secured due to licensing issues. HeroHub had to be one of those, right? It even flows better than MusicHub.)

For what it’s worth, IGN has made it clear that they’re committed to fixing these problems.  Teddy assures me that they are working on a new community brand, with a central hub that will feature all of their community “portals.” Peer has admitted that there “should be” a clearer distinction between MusicHub and the rest of the IGN Network.  But IGN isn’t the problem; endemic advertising is, and it plagues the entire industry.  Flip through Entertainment Weekly or Rolling Stone. You’ll find ads for cars, potato chips, Ikea furniture, Levi’s jeans, and yes, some entertainment products.  For years, you could only find game advertisements in gaming publications.  Things have improved (IGN’s mainsite is running ads for Couples Retreat currently) but they haven’t been entirely fixed.

And all of this can be cleared up through transparency.  If a reader is told explicitly that MusicHub is an Activision sponsored site – and I don’t just mean that they see the ads to the side, but if it is marked as sponsored content – then they assign a different sort of authoritative value.  I know that everything I read on GuitarHero.com comes with Activision’s blessing.  There is merit there.  Consumers need that source, and I promise that the type of person who wants to frequent a Guitar Hero fansite will still frequent one paid for by Activision.  The difference is that when random gamer X lands on the site when he searches for “Guitar Hero DLC news” he’ll know “Okay, this is going to be info from people who want me to buy it, not from a critical, editorial voice who might tell me that a downloadable track X is too long, or that the bass in song Y is too easy.”

The most interesting part of this entire MusicHub controversy is that it could have gone unnoticed.  If not for very particular things being lined up in a very particular way, no one would’ve doubted the intent of the site, for better of for worse.  MusicHub’s ambiguous name, the lack of any distinguishing “Community” titling, the inclusion of the IGN branding, the confusion about the source of editorial content, and the lack of promotional transparency all combined into a perfect storm of suspicion.  In most senses, this phrase suggests some awful series of events that turns a standard situation into something miserable – by luck or unpredictable causality, depending on your metaphysical beliefs.  But here, the perfect storm serves as a positive, because it highlights the potentiality of a perfect crime.

I use crime loosely, figuratively, but you follow.  What if the editorial content of the site was tied to IGN’s main offices, instead of coming from a separate group of freelancers and volunteers?  I have no reason to doubt that he is being honest with us, but what if Peer is lying?  What if the content on the site was written word for word by Activision?  What if Music.IGN.com, which original whistle-blower Shawn Elliott has also put under the spotlight, is all of what we feared MusicHub to be?

The problem with moneyhat conspiracy theories is that they are conspiracy theories. They deliberately ignore Occam’s razor.  Even the least paranoid conspiracy claims are made from fear and doubt – in this case, fear that their trust in a publication will be preyed upon, and doubt that the publication is as honest as they claim.  There is little respite from these people.  Ask Jeff Gerstmann, whose Halo: ODST video review was flanked on both sides for advertisements for that game. In spite of his known history of journalistic integrity, a vocal minority suggested that the campaign influenced the review.

As much as I’m proud of our work on this story, and pleased with that our story has helped push IGN towards more transparency, I admit that through the proceedings I became less and less pleased to be a whistle-blower.  I wrote the first editorial to comment on a story that, in my mind, had already broken.  I thought I was simply giving my opinion, when in fact I was breaking the story.  Though I feel sympathy for anyone at an IGN Community site who gained a few grey hairs this week, I stand by what I write.

Perhaps what the industry needs is people not like me.  People unsympathetic to the standing of others and their careers.  Professional skeptics.  Game journalism’s own Fire Joe Morgan, a place that would hold every other publication accountable – not just for poor writing as in FJM’s case, but also for any impropriety and potential conflicts of interest.  Meta-criticism at its best and worst.  A Press Gazette, but, you know, without all the costs.  Hrm… I wonder if we could find a sponsor.