Comments on: Sony’s Removal of Advertisements Raises Hypthetical Constitutional Questions

By: E. Zachary Knight

E. Zachary Knight — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:14:08 +0000

I wrote an opinion piece on this based off of the ESRB’s advertising guidelines. The specific guideline is as follows:

‘Companies must not specifically target advertising for entertainment software products rated “Teen,” “Mature” or “Adults Only” to consumers for whom the product is not rated as appropriate.’

While Sony was not intentionally marketing to minors, it could have been construed that way by an outside observer. That is why Sony made this decision.

Click my name for the full article.

By: E. Zachry Knight

E. Zachry Knight — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:11:40 +0000

I wrote up an opinion piece on the matter based aroundthe ESRB advertising guidelines. On of the guidelines is as follows:

Wile Sony was not intentionally advertising the game to minors, it could have been construed that way by outside observers and that is why Sony made the decision to pull the ad.

My full write up here: http://metroglow.com/videogames/kill-ad-2-the-sony-conundrum

By: Mona

Mona — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 19:34:45 +0000

haha, well said Dan. XD

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 05:16:15 +0000

Not to mention, Sony isn’t hard up for name recognition. The argument “Any press is good press” doesn’t apply at that level.

By: Mona

Mona — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 01:22:36 +0000

Generally speaking an advertisement isn’t really effective if it’s garnering malcontent from the natives. This is something we dealt with on at least one or two occasions at Lionsgate– as a general policy, if sufficient complaints concerning a billboard were received the ad was pulled because you don’t want your consumer base holding it against you and your other products. Keep in mind that when a game is advertised or distributed it implicates all of the companies whose names are attached to the product. It is doubtful that the distributors of Little Big Planet want to be tied to an advertisement that raises consumer alarm and gives kids disturbing dreams.

It rarely if ever comes down to a legal/free speech issue– entertainment businesses don’t really give a damn about free speech unless it in some way limits the distribution of the product/the bottom line. This is especially true as most countries where games are distributed don’t recognize free speech to the extent the US does.

By: Liz Surette

Liz Surette — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:40:14 +0000

My guess is that this was mainly a PR move. Community outrage could lead to serious costs for Sony, and I’m sure they figured that taking the ads down would be the least of many possible evils. I’m not an expert in Canadian law, so I’m not sure if Sony might have had to litigate if they did not remove the ads. Taking down posters is much cheaper than going to court.

By: Want to See Killzone 2 Billboards? | Deeko News

Want to See Killzone 2 Billboards? | Deeko News — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:40:16 +0000

[...] people will not be able to see any if they are within a certain distance to schools. According to Gameslaw, Sony has plans to pull Killzone 2 advertisements in the city. With all the recent discussion about [...]

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:39:01 +0000

This is very interesting since Sony can argue about the advertisements being protected by the constitution and the fact that we are a consumer society will probably help… if it were to happen in the states. You are so right there!

Why did they agree to take them down in Canada? Is it because of increasing gang/gun violence in Toronto?