Waiting for the Backlash

[Update: The internet in action!  Isn't it wonderful?  It seems that Robert Bowling of Infinity Ward (Twitter ID: fourzerotwo) has either pulled or identified a reason for pulling the Youtube video in question.  Either way, the video is no longer up due to "concerns" registered.  I'd call that a win for sensible gamers everywhere.]

The Brainy Gamer blog featured a terrific post today directed at Infinity Ward's questionable "FAGS" advertising campaign, in which Phillies pitcher Cole Hamels decries grenade spam.  It's covert advertising for Modern Warfare 2, of course, although the acronym with which said message is provided is obviously the source of the most worry.

Abbott astutely covers the seeming non-response by Infinity Ward's target audience:

If we want to teach boys why compassion and civility are essential to their development as men, we must do it one lesson at a time. We can disapprove of EA and Activision's despicable choices, but we shouldn't presume our outrage will impact the underlying reality. It's not about the games or the ad campaigns; it's about how we raise and teach our kids. We have created this callous consumer, and we should expect marketers to target him accordingly. Are companies who sell games and music and body spray complicit in all this? Of course. Are they to blame? No.

Again, said beautifully, and Abbott goes on to say in the comments section that no one should be giving IW a free pass.

My one comment in all of this, however, is that Abbott's view about how the gaming audience has received the marketing is somewhat muddled, if not overly pessimistic.

For one, Abbott starts the post by saying that the gaming blogosphere has already unleashed a degree of backlash at Infinity Ward, but then says the Youtube comments for the advertisement in question support the unstated theory that this sort of brazen insensitivity appeals to gamers (who, by the way, are primarily adult in audience, and not "youth," as is sometimes declared).

I don't think Abbott is necessarily wrong, but I do think this sentiment needs some sorting out.  Certainly, gaming blogs represent a more pointedly academic or thoughtful perspective than most gamers bring to the table, but that does not mean the "backlash" sentiment isn't present in many gamers--many who are undoubtedly homosexual.  I think (or at least I hope) these blogs tap into an underlying sentiment in the reactive, progressive portion of this culture... the portion that wants to clear the air before investigating a bit further as to how an ad like this serves as "cultural artifact" or how the game itself stands alone (and I do believe it stands alone).

Does that mean the outrage somehow washes out support for the ad?  Not at all.  I think Abbott is striking at something far sadder than "the average gamer" in his post:  He mentions how insensitivity is in and empathy is out in our culture, and I think this is true to a certain extent... among conservatives.

I don't mean to turn a discussion about video games into a political rant, but to be honest the word "conservatism" isn't merely political these days.  Conservatism in our society has now taken on the form of the man or woman who is self-serving, immediate surroundings first and thinking outside the box a distant second.  It isn't a Southern or Republican trend; this has become the mode for all citizens of our country--and perhaps Western democracies in general--who would rather be seen as stoic and impassionate than somehow "weak" for their ability to step outside their own myopia.

I believe THAT is what allows some to find some sort of comfort in this advertisement.  It represents niche thinking to a supposedly niche market (which gaming is not), a warm blanket for those who feel best when they can throw darts at the rest of the world with impunity.  I don't think it necessarily has to do with gaming, or the way all games are currently marketed.  If you look at Sony's recent PS3 ads, aimed at men and women alike, you'll find something far more humorous, warm, and mature about our current gaming culture than the odd EA "Sin to Win" promotion would evidence.  I believe these kinds of advertisements are definitely the outliers.

The backlash is out there... and it will trickle down slowly in response to conservatism.  Like yin and yang, it's impossible to have complicity without scrutiny, and I do think the scrutiny will eventually balance out the free pass many have given to Infinity Ward's PR department here.

That said, there is also the issue of whether to point blame at Infinity Ward as a whole.  Abbott suggests that we cannot point fingers at the company but then closes the post with this:

The day your son gets a load of "Sin to Win" and decides he'd rather spend his money on another game is the day we begin to turn this around. And the marketing will follow suit. Those PR types know how to hit a moving target.

Well, wouldn't buying another game mean blaming the company?  I doubt the enormous team responsible for Modern Warfare 2 itself has much to do with this particular ad, and it's important to recognize that big-budget games are not made by homogenous entities but rather teams of hundreds, if not thousands, of talented men and women who slave over computers with artistry, not advertising, in mind.  Suggesting that an informed consumer would reject the product indicates that everyone responsible for the game is culpable, and I do not think this is the case at all (and I'm sure Abbott agrees, which makes his final paragraph all the more puzzling).

Is not buying a game the most rhetorically effective way to reach a company's PR department?  In the case of EA's Sin to Win competition, the backlash was so strong that EA found itself on its heels and apologized.  I think the best way to reach advertisers is to reject the advertising... not the products themselves.

Comments

[Sparky Clarkson]

Of course the ideal world is one in which we would be able to purchase a product and designate that none of the money from it goes to the parts of a company that we hate. I mean, who wants to fund bogus cigarette safety studies by buying a snack cracker? It should be obvious by now, however, that pushing back against ads doesn't have any effect. The pushback against Sin to Win, for instance, didn't stop EA from engaging in the Maxim piece for Dragon Age. There's no lesson being learned; the apologies are courtesies to mask a continuity of personnel and attitudes. As long as gamers refuse to speak to EA and Activision in the only terms those corporations understand -- money -- then they will merely chalk up the negative press from advertisements like this as a minor cost against the significant expected gain from their targeted audience. Buying the game gives the corporation a free pass -- offend a marginalized group, gain favor with those who appreciate that kind of ad, and those who are offended will buy the product anyway. Cost to the corporation: nothing.

If I could buy the game and pay everybody at Activision and Infinity Ward except the PR department (and maybe Kotick), I would. But my ability to speak meaningfully to the company is a lot more limited than that. I can only buy or not buy. Is choosing not to buy punishing all of Inifinty Ward for the actions of one or two guys? Yes, although my $60 probably means a lot less to IW than it does to me. But if choosing not to purchase the game is a broad punishment, then choosing to buy it is also a blanket encouragement, in the only terms a corporation cares about: the bottom line.

[Matthew G Kaplan]

I think you make excellent points, Sparky, although practically speaking, there would seem to be as few "lessons learned" from EA and Activision getting $60 less in revenue as there would from contacting the company. However, I feel that one approach is sort of roundabout and the other is more direct: If enough people express displeasure, at the very least you can get an apology. And as our friend Bill Maher says, apologies do mean a great deal, especially to the offended parties.

[Sparky Clarkson]

Of course, the ideal response is to cancel your pre-order AND express your displeasure. The complaint has more teeth when it affects revenues directly.

[Tekchip]

You seem to presume that some how Infinity Ward or Activision is at fault for this advertising. You should know darn well that they farm this out to ad agencies. Most likely a thumbs up or down has to be given but alas it isn't always the case. The left hand does not always know what the right hand is doing. The money has all ready been paid to the ad agency who created the thing so not buying the game isn't going to teach any one a lesson.

[Matthew G Kaplan]

Normally, you'd be right, but I doubt it in this case. This wasn't a polished ad from a firm (and even then you can argue that the client undoubtedly has input with regard to the finished advertisement); it was viral marketing that Infinity Ward itself seemed to be in charge of putting up on its own Youtube channel.

[Kylie Prymus]

Isn't the whole point of viral marketing to get people to click on your ads? I don't think the people at IW - or the ad firm working for them - give a rodent's anus what people are saying about the video, they just want to see high numbers.

Depending on how cynical you want to be I'd say that even the "apology" for Sin to Win or the pulling of this video plays right into their hands. They anticipate and desire this kind of negative exposure. Pulling an already viral video only strengthens the hype machine - people who hear about it will likely do a little digging to find an archived copy of it (gamers in particular tend to have the know-how for that sort of thing) thus increasing the amount of time they are actively engaged in what is basically an elaborate ad.

Perhaps the best thing consumers can do is to ignore these types of ads. It may seem counter-intuitive - we've been raised to think that silence about an issue is the worse response - but if the point of the ad is to generate talk, any kind of talk, then the only way to stop them is, unfortunately, to ignore them.

[Matthew G Kaplan]

I disagree, Kylie, at least in this case. Modern Warfare 2 was already well known to the point of media saturation, and Bowling himself stated that this video was released in the spirit of "fun." I don't think the point was to garner *negative* publicity. And even if it were, I think ignoring things like this does more bad than good. At the very least, it has generated an interesting, fruitful conversation among gamers, and that's never a bad thing.