Comments | gamepolitics: Philadelphia Slams Sony For PSP Graffiti Marketing

gamepolitics

Philadelphia Slams Sony For PSP Graffiti Marketing

Dec 28, 2005 10:29

( Read more... )

sony, graffiti, psp, philadelphia

Comments 38

calviin December 28 2005, 16:13:19 UTC

I agree that the graffiti is disrespectful

I think... ace_ofspade December 28 2005, 16:17:21 UTC

I think it's disrespectful too, but I also hate Sony's attempts at being "hip" and "urban".

chenry December 28 2005, 16:19:05 UTC

the only thing stupider than the graffiti ads is the TV ads that go with it. The Squirrels speaking in sterotypical "black", or the fuzzy-lint...thingies speaking like stereotypical Espanic-americans? Look, i'm one of the least PC people i know, and even i find them to be in bad taste.

God... ace_ofspade December 29 2005, 00:54:01 UTC

God, don't remind me. They're lol funny, but for the wrong reason

"I'M PLAY'N NUT! I FORGOT ABOUT MY MAIN DEMOGRAPHIC!"

kharne83 December 29 2005, 22:36:54 UTC

I don't get the ads at all. An ad is supposed to convince people to buy the product, right? Well I don't see how being told the PSP is "carpet you can watch" (or whatever the slogan was) is supposed to encourage me to go out and buy one.

Unless of cource, 'carpet' is some special slang word my "street impared" mind can't grasp. In which case, Sony is just being stupid. In any case, didn't gaming move past overplayed slang and imitation hip-hop after Toejam & Earl on the genesis?

mechanos_angel December 31 2005, 02:11:17 UTC

I can think of one interpretation that MIGHT fit in there, but something tells me it's not something you would want the kids watching *cough*

clearmind December 28 2005, 16:25:08 UTC

I'm surprised they didn't do this via a third-party PR firm. If you're going to do this, you heir a PR firm where they throw money at them for promoting the product. That way when an ad campaign gets caught in the law, it's the third-party firm that gets the blunt end of the beating as Sony pulls "Oh, we didn't know. We hired the 3rd party and they did what they did."

That aside, I still think the whole stunt was simply lame attempt to attract a market they clearly didn't think through.

inabottle December 28 2005, 16:40:54 UTC

"That aside, I still think the whole stunt was simply lame attempt to attract a market they clearly didn't think through ( ... )

morlock December 28 2005, 18:19:35 UTC

*standing ovation*

TELL IT. YEAH!

Well... apathyislife December 28 2005, 20:19:25 UTC

As far as I've heard on reports, it seems as though the mass appeal is more for the UMD factor... which is something that I'll never quite understand. Regardless, we live in the age of gadgets, and it seems like the gadget that does the most is the most coveted. I mean... look at all the rediculous things cell phones are doing, or the popularity of portable dvd players ( ... )

Thread 9

anonymous December 28 2005, 16:35:38 UTC

The disrespect comes from the fact that they’re encouraging graffiti. I fully agree with Goldsmith there.

Beyond that... hell, cities are where young people are more prone to living. So neighborhoods like that are EXACTLY where you want to put those ads. It has nothing to do with targeting the poor, and more to do with targeting those who are likely to buy your product.

the1jeffy December 28 2005, 16:59:01 UTC

"The disrespect comes from the fact that they’re encouraging graffiti."

No, they failed to follow the proper channels in their ad campaign. If they had paid for a Billboard License, no one would even care (except maybe SCRUB). The graffiti issue is a side note at best.