Personally, I appreciate the effort you and Eradication take upon yourself.
But…
… let’s say there’s a sales guy (or gal) at Funcom who watches sales in the bazaar.
Let’s also say this person evaluates if sales rise or fall after youtuber reviews.
And finally, let’s say sales rise even after a bad review or an advice not to buy due to the item being too expensive.
One may say that people bought stuff due an informed decision, that maybe they didn’t share the reviewer’s opinion on price and decided, willfully, informed, consciously, to buy the item at that price.
Or one may say that humans are pretty stupid and buy, eat and drink stuff that’s shown on TV, that being know is more important than being popular, that even bad publicity is good publicity.
If one follows the latter interpretation, one might say that reviewers that do semi-free (i. e. paid by social credit, possibly youtube advertisement money and a free sample) advertisement are being used, consciously or not, to make people buy stuff they shouldn’t buy.
One might also add that advertisement done by a third party is very convenient for the seller, as the seller probably wouldn’t be held liable for any faults in the advertisement by the (“unpaid”) third party.
One may wonder if the aforementioned assumtions are correct. But if one says they’re not, it would be pretty stupid by Funcom to continue giving you “free” stuff, wouldn’t it?
And even if Funcom doesn’t measure this stuff, Tencent most certainly did, and to a level of detail we probably couldn’t imagine.