Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Sony Graffiti Ads Draw More Anger

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the viral-marketing-for-the-lose dept.

Businesses 69

Philly.com is running the confirmation that Sony paid a vendor to lease wallspace for their PSP graffiti ads. Philadelphia groups are slamming the ads as affronts to clean urban spaces, and the Licenses and Inspections Department in the city is planning to cite the business owner. From the article: "Jake Dobkin, copublisher of the Gothamist Web site, considers himself a street-art aficionado. He said the Sony campaign hit his SoHo neighborhood in Manhattan a few weeks ago with not only 'dozens' of spray-painted murals but 'hundreds' of posters of the same cutesy youths. He took aim at Sony for trying to dupe people like him. 'It's clearly a large campaign, and deserves a thoughtful, measured response,' he wrote on his blog. 'Here's mine: corporate graffiti sucks.'"

cancel ×

69 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Solution... (5, Funny)

WTBF (893340) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354472)

Just go round and spray $sys$ infront of all the adverts.

Re:Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14355002)

and a big fucking COCK in those toon's mouths!!!

Re:Solution... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14355904)

Best. Comment. Ever.

Poor Sony... (0, Redundant)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354476)

I welcome our spray-painting Sony Overlords... and so does the anti-spraypaint police.

So? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14354481)

I thought the basic problem with graffiti that people were complaining about was that it is usually done to other people's property. If the property owner is consenting to this, where's the problem? Seems to me, it's a bunch of people who don't like graffiti itself using the property arguing as a ruse to get their way.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

creimer (824291) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354536)

The artworks are basically unmarked billboards pretending to be street graffiti and can be argued as "false advertising" by those who are able to stick a large multinational corporation with a big fine.

Re:So? (2, Funny)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354757)

You have an interesting definition of false advertising. Incidentally, I'm using your technique and redefining interesting to mean something private. What I mean by it is left as an exercise.

Re:So? (1)

HotNeedleOfInquiry (598897) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355083)

It's not false advertising, but it is very likely a zoning violation. Most cities require permits for advertisement signs.

Re:So? (1)

swv3752 (187722) | more than 8 years ago | (#14360220)

But the problem is not so much Sony's as the property owners' not getting the appropriate licence. Additionally it gets into a more nebulous area as it is not a Billboard nor any sign but paint directly on a building.

Re:So? (0)

SoCalChris (573049) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354537)

Because graffiti looks like crap, and will likely cause more graffiti to show up in the future.

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

Bogtha (906264) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354588)

The awful Christmas decorations some people put up look like crap too, but we don't forbid people from putting them up on their own property, do we?

Since when is bad taste illegal?

Re:So? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14354698)

Since when is bad taste illegal?

When it's done by the damn niggers it's illegal. When it's done by Johnny WASP Christian it's OK.

Re:So? (2, Interesting)

bigman2003 (671309) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356246)

I owned a business for a long time- a new business opened up next to mine, it was listed as an 'art gallery'. It had the crappiest art you've ever seen (I don't mean like a 6 year old, I mean like an idiotic 19 year old...which is what it was.) They put old couches out in front of their place, spray painted their half of the building, put up horrible hand-painted signs, etc. etc. This was for a building we shared where I was paying $2.50/square foot- back in 1993.

One of my customers was actually the city code enforcement officer. When he came into my place of business, I asked him about the signs, couches, etc. etc.

His only answer was, "There ain't no law against ugly."

Re:So? (1)

saphint (668126) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357675)

just wondering did it affect your business at all? a lot of customers are pretty conservative and that sort of scene could have scared them away. I'm not just talking about your situation but others. if the graffiti or "ugly" hurts your business/community value, cant you do something about it?

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14358655)

Sure, you can pack up and move your business or lease the space next to you to keep the undesirable "art" away.

Re:So? (1)

shineyboy (840750) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356735)

What? This is Slashdot! Anything a company above 50+ people does (except Google) is evil by default. How dare you be reasonable and bring up a perfectly good point that highlights an embarassingly slanted perspective? :)

Re:So? (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357737)

Actually, there are several communities in Illinois that have made it illegal to leave decorations up for more than 60 days past the holiday.

Shadowshawk

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14357943)

"Philadelphia has strict billboard regulations. Companies have to get a permit from the city's Licenses and Inspections Department before putting up an advertisement.

Sony did not get permission ahead of time for its graffiti ads, the L&I office confirmed yesterday."

I dont think anyone who posted even read this.Since, obviously, it is illegal.

Re:So? (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 8 years ago | (#14361046)

I thought the basic problem with graffiti that people were complaining about was that it is usually done to other people's property. If the property owner is consenting to this, where's the problem?
There are two other aspects you have to consider; first - there is the general distaste among the public for astroturfing [wikipedia.org] . Secondly, in many cities signage and public advertising are regulated - no matter if you have the owners permission, without the proper permit it isn't legal.

This is made clear if you RTFA.

Deaf ears. (5, Funny)

grub (11606) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354488)


Complaining won't work. Spraypaint swastikas on the ads, they'll be erased in no time.
(not that they're nazis, but swastikas always get the clean-up crews in action.)

Re:Deaf ears. (0)

Bad Boy Marty (15944) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354508)

This would indeed be quite effective, but it would also be in utterly poor taste.

Re:Deaf ears. (3, Funny)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354763)

This would indeed be quite effective, but it would also be in utterly poor taste.

Then spray paint a manji. Not that it would help with ignorant or geometrically challenged people.

Re:Deaf ears. (1)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355375)

Godwin to the rescue!!!1

Re:Deaf ears. (0)

djdavetrouble (442175) | more than 8 years ago | (#14358177)

Complaining won't work. Spraypaint swastikas on the ads, they'll be erased in no time. (not that they're nazis, but swastikas always get the clean-up crews in action.)

And if you are lucky, you may accidentally spray paint it on some Jewish owned private property (never more than a stone's throw away in NYC) and get charged with a hate crime. [wikipedia.org] Good luck solving your future problems with that "two wrongs" thingy.

The proper response from that man should be... (1)

Omeger (939765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354579)

Vandalous graffiti sucks.

Re:The proper response from that man should be... (0)

syrinx (106469) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354604)

Did you even read the summary? Sony leased the wallspace: whatever you want to call it, it's not "vandalous".

Re:The proper response from that man should be... (1)

Omeger (939765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354648)

I wasn't talking about corporate grafitti, I'm talking about the stuff that gangbangers like that guy probably supports puts up on innocent people's homes.

Maybe there was a reason they used posters in NYC (2, Informative)

vertinox (846076) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354629)

He said the Sony campaign hit his SoHo neighborhood in Manhattan a few weeks ago with not only 'dozens' of spray-painted murals but 'hundreds' of posters of the same cutesy youths.

Oh... Myabe because graffiti in NYC is classified as... You know... A felony.

With a entire office of police devoted to graffiti crime.

RTFA (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354675)

Philadelphia has strict billboard regulations. Companies have to get a permit from the city's Licenses and Inspections Department before putting up an advertisement.

Sony did not get permission ahead of time for its graffiti ads, the L&I office confirmed yesterday.

L&I intended to issue a violation to the property owner and inform Sony that such advertising required a permit, said a department official who asked not to be identified.

Putting up posters isn't much better when you don't get permission. Push the case hard enough and you can claim its graffiti by saying its lowering the value of your property or because its covering legitimately used wallspace without permission. And then of course, there are walls that are marked 'Do not put up posters' all over nearly every major city.

Re:RTFA (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355914)

Yes, here in NY you can just about see the "Post No Bills" markings where someone has torn off one or two of the hundreds of identical posters covering the wall.

Re:RTFA (1)

MMaestro (585010) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357056)

Except in cases like that, theres no clear evidence regarding whos doing the posting. How do you know a company didn't hire another company to do the advertising and had nothing to do with where they were posted? Maybe they were put up by a random fanboy who simply wanted his favorite band to get some advertisement, should the band be punished for that? Hell, maybe they were put up by a competitor who wanted to smear their reputation, theres no evidence.

In this case, the evidence is clear. The styles are too similar, the art is too consistant, the placement is clearly thoughtout and then we have the company and the people involved identified and admittedly connected to Sony. Sony CLEARLY knew what was going on and DEFINATELY hired these people to put up this graffiti. The evidence ultimately points to Sony saying with the 'artists' claiming "don't blame us, Sony paid us to do this."

Re:RTFA (2, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357495)

Billboard laws are pretty much ignored in Philadelphia. They were looking at starting to fine illegal billboards to get more revenue in the budget,and clear channel through a hissy fit (don't know what they decided to do). I heard on the raidio that it is estimated more than 50% of all billboards/signs are in violation of the code withing Philadelphia.

Edgy? Please! (2, Insightful)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354753)

They think they're being cute and getting their product into the public memespace, whatever the hell that is. They kind of are, but it's backfiring.

The problem is, it's not backfiring quickly enough to suit me. So I propose we help them. We need to co-opt and corrupt the vacant-eyed gamins, in their style, and make them completely abhorrent to the general public. Only then will Sony achieve the vicious, visceral backlash and legal ass-reaming that these jokers are begging for.....

...say. Ass-reaming? I think I know where to depict the PSP being played with in this new campaign...

Re:Edgy? Please! (1)

Omeger (939765) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356906)

I thought you said "ass rimming" for a second there. That would be kinda weird to do to a company.

Re:Edgy? Please! (1)

xerxesVII (707232) | more than 8 years ago | (#14372378)

Not if you're a fanboy.

I think it's safe to say... (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354754)

that the only graffiti that I've ever liked was the old Palm OS graffiti. Most spray painting is pretty lame, IMO.

Re:I think it's safe to say... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14366485)

FYI, that was the old PC-Geos graffiti first. Palm computing's first [?] product was the OS for the Casio/Tandy-Radio Shack/AST-GRiD Z-PDA 7000/"Zoomer"/GRiDPad 2390. (whew!) They released graffiti for that OS long ago. It also works on my GRiDPad 1910 with PC-Geos installed (and THAT system has a 640x400 mono CGA display, rather than 384x512 4-greyscale.)

Bill Hicks was right (3, Insightful)

GrumpySimon (707671) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354787)

... if you work in advertising, please, kill yourself. Do it for the good of everyone.

Re:Bill Hicks was right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14355158)

It isn't 'Advertizing' that is the problem; the problem is advertizers who have little respect for the general public. Good advertizers attempt to entertain their 'Targets' in order to gain a positive reaction for their clients products; bad advertizers produce anger/annoy their targets to get any type of reaction they can get.

Re:Bill Hicks was right (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357025)

Unless you're one of the many people in the industry (such as myself) who strive to make entertaining advertising that is actually useful, and that people actually seek out. There's a reason Adcritic had to start charging.....it was so damn popular! Now tell Bill Hicks to put THAT in his pipe and smoke it.

Re:Bill Hicks was right (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14360537)

Question for you. Why is it that the beer companies always have the best commercials? It seems like the best ones they have don't even have a beer in them, just their logo at the end.

Re:Bill Hicks was right (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14360572)

Well...the notion that beer companies always have the best commercials is one that I have to say is not shared by most of the advertising industry. They often have massive budgets, but too often they fall into the trap of "show attractive people having exciting parties with tons of shots of the drink". Other times they fall into the trap of "lowest common denominator humor". But there has been a big backlash against them recently, and they are starting to come out with more intelligent ads.

There's also the issue of defining "best". You see from the advertisers standpoint, it could do wonders for their brand image, or it could drive sales. Those are two very different things though. So the question is, how effective at meeting the desired goal is an entertaining ad with just a logo and not even a beer in it? I would guess not very effective. Reminds me of the infamous Lexus spots that were absolutely fantastic several years ago, and everybody loved them...they just had no idea what the hell they were selling. So the ad was considered a failure.

I know that doesn't really answer your question, but then again it was not really a question that could be answered in a straightforward manner to begin with. If I had to give it a single answer I would say budget. The beer companies have TONS of money, and they spend a ridiculous amount on advertising compared to other companies. Money opens up a lot of options creatively, and while the most creative stuff is not always big budget, it certainly doesn't hurt.

Re:Bill Hicks was right (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 8 years ago | (#14360621)

Money opens up a lot of options creatively, and while the most creative stuff is not always big budget, it certainly doesn't hurt.

Good point. To be more specific, the two best beer commercials (from my point of view and others I know of) that I have seen was the one at the last superbowl with the soldiers walking down the Airport Terminal and people start to clap and one more recently with this guys house that had his Christmass lights timed to "Wizards of Winter" (among other songs). Here's a link to a site that has a copy of the lights (mind you, this was out before the commercial) http://media.putfile.com/WizardsofWinter-SM [putfile.com]

Re:Bill Hicks was right (1)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14361534)

The Xmas lights one is interesting. I am a huge fan of viral ads, and that happens to be my area of expertise. I've seen web trends travel to TV before (Quiznos?) but this was done in a very interesting way. They took the high quality video which wasn't available on the web (thus adding value to the experience) and didn't do anything to alter it other than add their tagline at the end thus linking it to the brand.

This did something very interesting...if the viewer had seen it previously, and attributed it to good ol' fashioned grassroots viral, they then got to point out the cool ad to all their friends, and they then associate the brand with the original viral, thus generating a lot more "cool points" than they normally would have gotten.

I'm really curious as to the money that was passed around, because in the ad world, it was a relatively short time from when they must have first picked up on this, to getting it approved by the client, to producing and airing it. True, they didn't have much to change, but I feel bad for whoever is in charge of their broadcast production. Must have been a "fun" holiday for them.

Additional Measured Response (0)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 8 years ago | (#14354836)

>"It's clearly a large campaign, and deserves a thoughtful, measured response,' he wrote on his blog. 'Here's mine: corporate graffiti sucks.'"

To which I would add: "Sony Sucks!"

You're Fired! (1)

Reignking (832642) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355049)

Donald Trump already did this on The Apprentice, but I'm sure that they had purchased the ad space for it. I think it was for Gran Turismo...

Re:You're Fired! (2, Interesting)

MBraynard (653724) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356237)

They purchased this space, too.

The problem for this Rent cast member, living in SOHO of all places and complaining about 'corporate billboards', is that someone actually got paid to put this up, rather than being your typical crack head putting it up, which would be A-OK with him.

Maybe Philly City Hall should focus more on... (3, Insightful)

smaffei (565629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355301)

The approximately 380 murders that have occurred in Philadelphia in 2005.

We have more murders here "per capita" than New York City. I can stand the "little sony dudes" murals if there wasn't a person being killed by gunfire every day in the streets.

Re:Maybe Philly City Hall should focus more on... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355827)

And what about all the cancer deaths? What are these anti-Sony people doing about cancer? Nothing, most likely, and it makes me sick. Not cancer sick. Just, kinda, I feel icky.

Re:Maybe Philly City Hall should focus more on... (1)

smaffei (565629) | more than 8 years ago | (#14362200)

Well, when you learn to read (and comprehend), then you can reply to my comments...

I was expressing the thought that maybe Philadelphia's limited governmental resources would be better directed at problems that truely affect the community.

The cancer comment only shows your callousness.

Re:Maybe Philly City Hall should focus more on... (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#14362316)

Don't worry, your post wasn't so deep as to need much comprehension skill. It was understood from the first. I also felt it to be ridiculous. You see, I was using hyperbole as a literary device to make fun of you. If you don't like being made fun of, don't post on the internet.

The meeting on this: (3, Funny)

Luigi30 (656867) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355412)

Exec #1: Well, our ads aren't getting enough people to buy our PSPs. What can we do?
Exec #2: We can improve the product, give it better battery life, better screen, like Nintendo did with the GBA SP!
(All execs laugh at him.)
Exec #3: We could try to keep it real in the hizzouse with graffiti! We'd license space on corporate buildings and spraypaint these awesome tags on the wall! We'd be the hippest gangstas on the planet and get more urban punks to buy our stuff!
Exec #1: Marvelous idea! We'll do that, whatever he said.
Exec #2: WTF.

Re:The meeting on this: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14355563)

re:"better screen"

WTF indeed. How would you make the screen on the PSP "better"? It's the best portable screen I've seen - um - in my LIFE?
Bigger perhaps? They have these kewl new gadgets called laptops. Might wanna peep those sometime, or those throwaway cheapo portable DVD players. Seriously - what should they do? Project the images directly on the back of the retina with a group of micro-lasers? Sounds neat - sure - but good lord, think of the battery life man!

Not to mention the cost...

Re:The meeting on this: (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14355932)

hello dead pixels and the no return policy

Re:The meeting on this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14364057)

re: "dead pixels" didn't get any on mine - nor at least 4 other gamers I know. But hey - if 1st month release bug arguments float your wig, there's a bunch of 360 threads with your name on it. As far as no return, even the "no return" at the Sony PS store at the Metreon in SF had managers that initialed the receipt for return in the first few days.

So the return argument, even if you didn't buy one at Best Buy (there's a few) or other major retailers that will take them back smacks of Xbox/Nintendo fanboy bullshit.

mod parent up even more! (0)

Hitto (913085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356757)

... the saddest thing is, it must be true. Sony, in every advertising campaign, has always tried to appeal to the 14-18 demographic that wants to look, act, and think like they're older. So why not actually emulate the gangsta lifestyle? Their customers are moronic enough to find this cool.

I'm actually surprised they still haven't don ad campaigns featuring a bong-smoking, animated CG bob marley saying "Yo mon, thees playstachion stuff trench town rocks! Fight the power, be a rebel, buy SONY."

Re:mod parent up even more! (1)

oldwolf13 (321189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14362192)

SQUIRREL, PLEASE!

Re:The meeting on this: (0)

TechniMyoko (670009) | more than 8 years ago | (#14358685)

Exec #2: We can improve the product, give it better battery life, better screen, like Nintendo did with the GBA SP!

Except PSP already has great battery life, and better screen than the SP

Whoa, What An Outrage (3, Insightful)

Paul Slocum (598127) | more than 8 years ago | (#14355609)

It's a billboard in slightly different kind of ink. Big deal. If you haven't previously noticed that advertising can be deceptive, cheapen the arts, and degrade the aesthetics of our living spaces, then you have been numbed.

Re:Whoa, What An Outrage (1)

badasscat (563442) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356148)

It's a billboard in slightly different kind of ink. Big deal. If you haven't previously noticed that advertising can be deceptive, cheapen the arts, and degrade the aesthetics of our living spaces, then you have been numbed.

So I guess your position is that we've lost the war and should just give up. Who's the one that's been numbed again?

Some of us would like to keep our streets clean, and keep the advertising in areas where it's, you know, allowed. The issue this article is talking about is putting advertising up without a permit. Sorry to tell some of the other people in here, but in every city I know of, it is illegal to sell advertising on your property without a permit. You can't just do anything you want; you still live in a city and you have to abide by city laws. These property owners - and Sony - did not do that.

You can sell your wall space to an artist for non-commercial art. You cannot sell your wall space for commercial use in most cases. That's the difference, and if you can't see it, then it's you that's been numbed to what's acceptable and what isn't.

Re:Whoa, What An Outrage (2, Interesting)

Crash Culligan (227354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14358038)

It's a billboard in slightly different kind of ink. Big deal. If you haven't previously noticed that advertising can be deceptive, cheapen the arts, and degrade the aesthetics of our living spaces, then you have been numbed.
So I guess your position is that we've lost the war and should just give up. Who's the one that's been numbed again?

Maybe, but I think it's more likely that the parent was comparing modern billboard advertising to the Sonyfitti in order to drag both down to the lowest level.

Some of us would like to keep our streets clean, and keep the advertising in areas where it's, you know, allowed. The issue this article is talking about is putting advertising up without a permit. Sorry to tell some of the other people in here, but in every city I know of, it is illegal to sell advertising on your property without a permit.

Again, I think the parent's point, and the point made by many comments under this write-up, is that advertising has become ubiquitous, in a very bad, can't-spit-without-hitting-it (and I hope you brought a lot of spit) way. The comment is that there's too much advertising, and not only shouldn't it be where it shouldn't be (not the tautology it seems to be, given the topic), but it probably shouldn't be in some of the places where it's currently allowed.

Under the circumstances, c'mon, who wouldn't be numbed? Companies have to resort to these "guerilla" tactics (note the sneer-quotes; it can never be an edgy, independent tactic if a major conglomerate is doing it) because people have become so familiar with conventional commercial placement that they instinctively ignore the ads. Penetration drops, the ads lose effectiveness, and they have to resort to one of two things:

  1. Create more entertaining advertisements, or
  2. Find new places to advertise.

To justify it, they probably have a Formula: If the benefits of advertising (increased sales and mindshare) outweigh the costs of advertising (materials, placement, penalties for illegal tactics, loss of life and limb), then it is a "good" advertising campaign.

The company has no conscience, and feels little pain. The Formula is one of the few nerve endings it has. We need to spank it there.

Re:Whoa, What An Outrage (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 8 years ago | (#14366464)

You can sell your wall space to an artist for non-commercial art. You cannot sell your wall space for commercial use in most cases. That's the difference, and if you can't see it, then it's you that's been numbed to what's acceptable and what isn't.

You mean, to what's legal, and what isn't. Personally, the concept of commercial art doesn't offend me. I prefer it to a blank wall, especially if they're making an attempt to be artistic. If you get all offended with it, maybe you just need to relax your sphincter so that when you fart it no longer makes a sound that only dogs can hear.

Why do people tolerate jillions of billboards then (1)

Tofino (628530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14356429)

I noticed on my commute to work the other day that there was a ridiculous, even offensive number of advertisements all over the place on the way. The roads are littered with ads, on highwayside billboards, roadside billboards, sandwich signs outside stores, and even gaudy storefronts themselves. Surely legal graffiti (meaning: the space was paid for, so it's just like a billboard) is no less crass.

If Microsoft did this (2, Insightful)

aka_big_wurm (757512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14357795)

I would hate to see what people would be saying if Microsoft did this for the 360, it would have made the main page, and have alot more posts all pissed at MS.

Re:If Microsoft did this (2, Informative)

arkanes (521690) | more than 8 years ago | (#14358498)

Microsoft did a similiar thing a couple years ago, placing "stick on" MSN butterflies all over the sidewalks in Manhattan, except there they really were illegal cause they hadn't licensed anything from anyone. And there was almost exactly the same amount of distaste over the advertising.

Whiners Suck (1)

*BBC*PipTigger (160189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14361168)

Whiners and graffiti elitists and ghetto wannabes suck more than corporate (i.e., consentual) graffiti. The businesses agreed to host advertisements on their walls. Whether it was spray cans or posters portraying the message, Sony is just spending its advertising dollars. As much as you hate to admit it, ballerz and poserz and playaz and playa-hataz all want Sony's PSP. They all already have PS2's and talk shit about how badass they are at Madden or Soul Calibur or Gran Turismo and they're all eager to buy PS3 next year.

I can understand if you were crying because Sony defaced your personal property illegally but retards like you don't deserve the floor just because you were "deceived" by Sony's attempt at cool advertising. Sony is a cool company that makes lots of cool products. It's a huge company with divisions all over the planet doing tons of different things. All of Sony does not suck because one advertising campaign offended some weakling's fragile sensibilities. Similarly, Sony (as a whole) does not suck just because a tiny portion of the company decided to put rootkit-laden copy-protection on some audio CD's. Maybe Microsoft is more evil than good. Maybe Sony is too. Even still, there could be quite a bit of good therein considering their similar enormity.

I wish more of the /. group-think (or knee-jerk) would stop demonizing entire huge companies for admittedly noteworthy poor decisions made by some middle managers... especially because the decisions are highly unlikely to even have an adverse effect directly on the person posting how much they hate X. Hardly anybody here really got rooted or suffered a breakdown due to graffiti. I agree it's crappy some music CD's had rootkits on them. It does appear some Sony music executives (just like all other major recording industry executives) are willing to bend or break laws to attempt to put the MP3 cat back in the bag. That doesn't mean PlayStation sucks. Similarly, PlayStations are sweet gaming machines even if some advertising is cheesy or campy or tries too hard to be cool. Microsoft's J Allard is all about pandering to the "Remix Generation" with custom skins and themes and tunes and configs and how ultra-hip the "HD Era" is. What an astonishing surprise it is that cutting-edge hardware is advertised as the coolest stuff ever!

So to all the Sony haters using this as more ammo: Why don't you first think a little about what matters before whining about what doesn't? PSP is a fscking cool gaming device. Sony can (and should) spend their advertising dollars how they want to and private businesses that want to host them should similarly do what's in their interest. How are your sports heroes telling you what products to buy any different?

-Pip

Re:Whiners Suck (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14383672)

Of course, you're right, which is why the municipal council is planning to cite the business owner for allowing this to occur.

Not everything a corporation can do is acceptable. You seem to be playing the apologist here. PSP is a fscking cool games device? What's that got to do with the execution of Sony's marketing strategy? Your comment isn't even on topic.

The Movie of Life (1)

camperslo (704715) | more than 8 years ago | (#14364387)

I guess this tells us how Sony feels about product placement.

Earth to Jake Dobkin: (1)

daVinci1980 (73174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14370697)

"You're an idiot"
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>