Sound_Card
Regular
Sony gets cought in a marketing scam...
- Thread starter Sound_Card
- Start date
Bless 'em!! They're trying so hard, but there's not much they can do against Nintendo this time around...
Trust me, if you think the Nvidia/AEG thing was bad......wait till someone unconvers the Sony community management programs.
MS also did this with the original Xbox as they were part of the AEG Group and left a great review for their services
Seriously, these tactics are pure bullshit and any company found doing this should be dragged through the mud endlessly. I simply do not approve of such sleazy tactics.
MS also did this with the original Xbox as they were part of the AEG Group and left a great review for their services
Seriously, these tactics are pure bullshit and any company found doing this should be dragged through the mud endlessly. I simply do not approve of such sleazy tactics.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Bless 'em!! They're trying so hard, but there's not much they can do against Nintendo this time around...
Bless them? Bless the goons at SA. Let Sony spend their big bucks coming up with more garbage and scams and let the college goof-offs spend a couple of hours tearing it all down and washing Sony with yet another paintbrush of shame.
scooby_dooby
Legend
This is probably the funniest marketing gaf I can remember, just classic
Looks like the original site has dissapeared...
Looks like the original site has dissapeared...
I don't quite understand how this came to be news. Viral marketting is big business. We know they all they likely do it to some extent or other. And there's some things pretty untraceable like the idea of Forum Mites working surreptitiously to spread a message.
The poignant part of this for me is that a court mentioned companies could get into trouble over viral marketting. Quite how they can enforce that, I'm not sure. In the UK it's not against the law to advertise a 'product' without any mention at all of the product or company. I imagine that's the same in the US? Though I hear ads over there are pretty...straight-forward. Still, the idea that companies would have to disclose their involvement in a marketting campaign wouldn't fit in with that. Much as I'm unimpressed with viral marketting and these dodgy campaigns, least of all because I doubt they achieve much (why not put that 'viral' material on yourpsp or dustballs? They need some content!), it comes with the whole open-marketting-capitalist thing. Same with YouTube. You can't really screen everything of commercial interest. Just accept marketeers will wrangle into every opportunity, unless you want a heavily regulated marketting sector. And no government wants that as it's bad for the economy!
The poignant part of this for me is that a court mentioned companies could get into trouble over viral marketting. Quite how they can enforce that, I'm not sure. In the UK it's not against the law to advertise a 'product' without any mention at all of the product or company. I imagine that's the same in the US? Though I hear ads over there are pretty...straight-forward. Still, the idea that companies would have to disclose their involvement in a marketting campaign wouldn't fit in with that. Much as I'm unimpressed with viral marketting and these dodgy campaigns, least of all because I doubt they achieve much (why not put that 'viral' material on yourpsp or dustballs? They need some content!), it comes with the whole open-marketting-capitalist thing. Same with YouTube. You can't really screen everything of commercial interest. Just accept marketeers will wrangle into every opportunity, unless you want a heavily regulated marketting sector. And no government wants that as it's bad for the economy!
I can trace back the rot in SCEA's marketing department to 2003/2004 when they let the cretins from the Apprentice help design a billboard ad for GT4. Tretton and some other exec actually said it looked "good". Tretton's definition of "good" is unspeakably repulsive.
Molly Smith should be re-hired. Sony's PR/marketing right now is all over the place. They used to school everyone....it truly is like the twilight zone.
On the one hand you have the “like.no.other†adverts which are some of the best CE ads of all time and on the other hand we have the PSP adverts.
Molly Smith should be re-hired. Sony's PR/marketing right now is all over the place. They used to school everyone....it truly is like the twilight zone.
On the one hand you have the “like.no.other†adverts which are some of the best CE ads of all time and on the other hand we have the PSP adverts.
The controversy is not so much over the concept of viral marketting in general. It's how the advertising is being done.
In this particular instance, people on the Sony payroll created this website and deliberately masqueraded as impartial consumers in an attempt to deceive consumers into thinking that they represented a (financially) unbiased opinion.
You don't have to mention the name of a company or product explicitely in an advertisement, but at least in the US, there are disclosure guidelines and you can find the source of an ad if you want. These sorts of things are meant to deliberately conceal and misrepresent the source, which is where the issue arises.
I don't understand US law on this matter, but wouldn't the fact that you can look up the owner of the website to trace them to an advertising firm serve that requirement? It's not like they hid that info, so weren't really misrepresenting anything other than the content, but that's marketting. eg. You get celebrities to endorse your product when they themselves wouldn't use it. Or you get actors pretending to give interviews extolling the virtues of a product. These are common marketting techniques to disguise a message as 'coming from the people'.
I never traced the registered owner of that domain, so I couldn't tell you if they attempted to hide using that method or not.
However, in regards to the second part of your post, that's exactly the sort of thing that this filing is being used to address. If you hire someone to advertise a product, then according to the law (at least it seems, based on the artcile), that person has to be transparent about their relationship to the company.
Theres a pretty big difference. In one instance you know that celebrities and sport icons pocket money for advertising goods or services, and they're not Average Joe. In this instance they made it appear as if it was infact a totally normal person. Its exactly as dlm said, they made it appear as if their opinion wasnt bias when they were being paid to have an opinion, in your example you know right away sport stars and celebrities are being paid for what they do. You're being a little dense by overlooking that and comparing it to something totally different.
It would be like a company saying they're going to interview 10 random people about how great their product is but then someone finds out the people werent random but were screened and pre-selected. That is simple lying and misdirection.
Last edited by a moderator:
That was my second example though, and quite common. You get adverts that appear to be interviewing ordinary Joes, but they're paid actors. Not that I'd mind if an end is put to that, as it is misleading. But I don't see why Sony are 'teh Evil' for this when it's a practice that's been around for decades. In many forms. eg. You can get books or TV programmes starting with 'based on a true story' when it's all just made up, because as a work of fiction, the 'based on a true story' part is also a part of the work of fiction. At the end of the day, trust nothing! Or enforce an honest world. I can't imagine that second option proving popular though.
thatdude90210
Regular
scooby_dooby
Legend
In all cases these are obvious advertisments and as such, bias is assumed.
Pretending to be an unbiased news source, who is actually funded directly by a companies marketing department is totally different.
The people running the site explicitly said repeatedly "THIS IS NOT AN AD". Now, Sony have apologised by saying, "Busted!" on the front page.
This is wrong because they explicitly said, "this is not advertising", which is clearly a lie.
Similar to how Sony invented a reviewer to give movies great reviews for their posters (Garfield, Hollow Man, others?) They were fined for this and had to refund movie tickets to people who saw certain films based on the fake reviews.
This is wrong because they explicitly said, "this is not advertising", which is clearly a lie.
Similar to how Sony invented a reviewer to give movies great reviews for their posters (Garfield, Hollow Man, others?) They were fined for this and had to refund movie tickets to people who saw certain films based on the fake reviews.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
For starters, anybody who has questions about exactly what happened or why this is wrong should just go check out the original SA thread which is linked in the above article.
It also contains captures of the youtube vids as well as a mirror of the site before it was pulled.
As far as athlete and celebrity endorsements, in the US, all such advertisements are required to say 'This is a paid endorsement'.
Anyway, very few are upset that the Sony was attempting viral marketing. They are upset because in Sony's attempt it became clear that Sony believes their intended market is comprised of a bunch of half-wits who would buy into their scam.
It also contains captures of the youtube vids as well as a mirror of the site before it was pulled.
As far as athlete and celebrity endorsements, in the US, all such advertisements are required to say 'This is a paid endorsement'.
Anyway, very few are upset that the Sony was attempting viral marketing. They are upset because in Sony's attempt it became clear that Sony believes their intended market is comprised of a bunch of half-wits who would buy into their scam.
In this country, such interviews are preceded by "The following is a paid advertisement," unless it's otherwise obviously delineated as an advertisement. I've also seen "Paid actor" at the bottom of the screen. We have some kinda truth-in-advertising laws that regulate that, which I'm not entirely familiar with.
Heh heh... I want to know how Zipatoni got the marketing deal.
SCE is one of the last companies who need this form of viral marketing. Playstation is a strong brand. It has a loyal and huge fanbase. The only thing Sony needs to achieve and surpass viral marketing are...
(1) Always think from your customers' point of view and keep them informed (You already have a solid baseline product). Be concise, specific and sincere. This is never crisis management. It is Customer Service.
e.g., If firmware v1.30 affects 720p folks in a negative way, let them know first. If necessary, tell them not to upgrade. Inform them what your future plans are.
Do not worry about false starts so far.
(2) Give them the tools to connect to each other... starting with playstation.com and Playstation Network registration. It does NOT need to be Xbox Live like. Nintendo Mii is the better model.
You should have spent the money on Zipatoni on your own hire.
SCE is one of the last companies who need this form of viral marketing. Playstation is a strong brand. It has a loyal and huge fanbase. The only thing Sony needs to achieve and surpass viral marketing are...
(1) Always think from your customers' point of view and keep them informed (You already have a solid baseline product). Be concise, specific and sincere. This is never crisis management. It is Customer Service.
e.g., If firmware v1.30 affects 720p folks in a negative way, let them know first. If necessary, tell them not to upgrade. Inform them what your future plans are.
Do not worry about false starts so far.
(2) Give them the tools to connect to each other... starting with playstation.com and Playstation Network registration. It does NOT need to be Xbox Live like. Nintendo Mii is the better model.
You should have spent the money on Zipatoni on your own hire.
Similar threads
