OT: "FONY" SONY does it again.

MH_Stevens wrote on 12/29/2005, 11:10 AM
PlayStation Graffiti Ads Spark Controversy By MARYCLAIRE DALE, Associated Press Writer
Thu Dec 29,10:38 AM ET

PHILADELPHIA - Sony Corp (NYSE:SNE - news). scouted out an unusual place to advertise its PlayStation Portable before the holidays: the side of an abandoned building in a gritty North Philadelphia neighborhood.

The black-on-white graffiti shows wide-eyed cartoon characters riding the PlayStation like a skateboard, licking it like a lollipop or cranking it like a Jack-in-the-Box. But there's no mention of the Sony or PlayStation brands — nor any hint the wordless display is an ad.
The stealth marketing campaign has popped up in San Francisco, New York and other large U.S. cities.

"It's all about hip-hop, urban and all that. They're just trying to get into the teenagers' minds," said Eddie Torres, 29, who works at a nearby furniture shop. "I think it's sharp."Anti-blight advocates think otherwise."They're breaking the law," said Mary Tracy, who runs the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight, a watchdog group that fights illegal or ill-advised billboards in Philadelphia.

Tracy said Sony ignored the zoning process that regulates outdoor commercial advertising in the city. Philadelphia Managing Director Pedro Ramos on Wednesday faxed a cease-and-desist letter to Sony Computer Entertainment's U.S. division in San Mateo, Calif. He could seek modest fines allowed by city code or sue to recover any profit the ads produced. "My fines aren't going to scare Sony," Ramos said. "What will worry them is what the parents and their users will think. This really flies in the face of everything we've been trying to do with our anti-blight initiative."

The Sony division did not immediately respond to the letter or to a telephone message left by The Associated Press. However, Sony spokeswoman Molly Smith told an Internet news site earlier this month that Sony was hiring artists in seven cities — Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago were the others — to spray paint the pre-drawn designs. "With PSP being a portable product, our target is what we consider to be urban nomads," Smith told Wired News.
In San Francisco, the ads were defaced soon after they appeared as word spread that Sony was behind them. "Get out of my city!!!" and "Fony" were written on one.

"I thought it was sneaky. Not cool," said Zan Sterling, who works at a bar near one of the ads, which has since been painted over. "I hope that they paid for the cleanup and removal."

Critics and supporters agree the campaign is designed to crack through the clutter of marketing that pervades daily life. Others have criticized its visual appeal.

"They hired artists to just copy this same figure over and over, which isn't too creative," said 29-year-old Jake Dobkin, a New Yorker who writes for the blog Gothamist.com.

That matters little to North Philadelphia resident Leslie Griggs, 39, who said the Sony ad is an improvement over the handbills and scrawls it replaced.

"I don't think that's graffiti," Griggs said as she paused beside the PlayStation ad. "That's art."

Comments

DavidMcKnight wrote on 12/30/2005, 9:03 AM
Didn't SoFo do something similar with the introduction of ACID? Or do I have that wrong....
Spot|DSE wrote on 12/30/2005, 10:46 AM
Sonic Foundry didn't use painted walls, but yes, they used street grafitti at Comdex in Vegas. Only they didn't seek permission, and ended up in trouble with the City of Las Vegas and with the LVCC folks. But it worked! NO ONE forgot the launch of ACID, it was in every major television station across the US, and in every major magazine.
Like the guy said on CNN last night "I think it's creative and cutting edge." I agree.
p@mast3rs wrote on 12/30/2005, 10:56 AM
And a Linux distributor did it once before as well (sidewalk chalk.) People seem to forget we live in a highly competitive age when it comes to recongition and advertising. Anything that can increase sales legally in my book is definitely ok. Again, its not like Sony picked a building and painted without persmission.

It just seems more and more that society is becoming less tolerant of others who things we dont like. If its legal, then those with a problem must suck it up and deal with it. Dont like it? Dont look at it.

While I consider myself a person of faith, I cant understand with those of faith became so upset over the holidays with everyone taking the "christ" out of Christmas but these same people come down on the porn industry for participating in a consensual act. Do I like porn? Nope. But its not my business what other people do in their own privacy. So Sony is pushing their PSPs. Would Apple get the same kind of crap if they were Ipods and G5s painted on the building?

jeff_12_7 wrote on 12/30/2005, 1:20 PM
"Cutting edge?"

If I read the above article correctly, SONY is breaking the law. They have the money to pay the fines obviously, but that's why there is the controversy in the first place. If these were on billboards, we wouldn't be talking about it.

If it is true that SONY is breaking the law (but that's okay since they can afford it) in order to get publicity like this, then shame on them. That's ALL I want (sarcasm)- more companies illegally advertising on buildings. Lord knows we have a lot of buildings, and there are plenty of companies who can afford the fines.

If I misinterpreted the article and what SONY is doing is perfectly legal, then my apologies.
PossibilityX wrote on 12/30/2005, 5:11 PM
If Sony had the permission of the building owner to spray graffitti on the walls, no problem.

If not, the tagger(s) may one day find themselves testing the Play Station as a proctoscope, courtesy of an irate landlord who catches them in the act.
deusx wrote on 12/30/2005, 7:15 PM
I think we better worry about landlords who allow telecoms to put up cell phone antennas in the middle of crowded cities and just a few feet away from people's windows, then waste time worrying about some advertising sony paid for anyway.

Very possible Sony did this then "turned themselves in" to generate controversy and more publicity. That is marketing 101 by now.
David Jimerson wrote on 1/3/2006, 11:10 AM
I worry about a business model which says legal infractions are OK as long as it translates to more dollars than legal costs. Take it up a few notches, and it can get ugly. (I know it's been the bread and butter of companies like The National Enquirer, but isn't Sony in a slightly different class?)

Another way to look at what Sony did was that it infringed on property rights, which is ironic considering it just got in trouble over its DRM rootkit scheme, because it wanted to protect its own property.

Would Sony accept a minor sampling of one its properties used without permission in someone else's ads? Some non-competitor, like Quaker State Oil or something? I think not.
Steve Mann wrote on 1/3/2006, 7:46 PM
"I worry about a business model which says legal infractions are OK as long as it translates to more dollars than legal costs."

You are sure making a lot of assumptions here. As DSE pointed out, it was most likely an ad agency that commissioned the work, not Sony. Reportedly, the property owners gave permission (and were probably paid) for the signage. The agency is most likely on the hook for any sign ordinance violations.

You're way off target to condemn Sony with practically NO facts in evidence.

Steve Mann
ReneH wrote on 1/3/2006, 8:06 PM
Please don't expect a Corp, Sony or any other, to play by your moral rules. We are talking about business and competition played out in a place we call America: It's Capitalism baby!

Last time I checked I was living in America and the business of America is business. Sony is being a master of their envirionment just like anybody else...
David Jimerson wrote on 1/4/2006, 1:47 PM
"You are sure making a lot of assumptions here. As DSE pointed out, it was most likely an ad agency that commissioned the work, not Sony. Reportedly, the property owners gave permission (and were probably paid) for the signage. The agency is most likely on the hook for any sign ordinance violations.

You're way off target to condemn Sony with practically NO facts in evidence."

I wasn't referring to Sony specifically; I was referring to the general idea that whatever works is OK.

However, doesn't Sony have the ultimate say -- and responsibility -- over the ad work it farms out? Rules of agency say they do . . .

If the owners gave permission, then that's fine.
David Jimerson wrote on 1/4/2006, 1:48 PM
"Please don't expect a Corp, Sony or any other, to play by your moral rules. We are talking about business and competition played out in a place we call America: It's Capitalism baby!

Last time I checked I was living in America and the business of America is business. Sony is being a master of their envirionment just like anybody else..."


It's not "my moral rules"; if it's against the law, it's against the law, and capitalism is still bound by it.
ReneH wrote on 1/4/2006, 2:11 PM
You are correct, David.

If its against the law then the punishment merits the crime.
filmy wrote on 1/4/2006, 10:53 PM
So many people in this thread and the other thread keep saying "But Sony paid..." as if it makes it all the better because someone got a lot of money to either do this or to allow this. I can see where some of the ads may have been paid for but others, as I keep saying, are just placed onto areas already covered in graffiti. Hell I would never ever cross out a tag and paint my "mark" over it - that is how people get killed. As far as the paid ones - I read one place got paid $100 for 2 weeks "use" of their wall. How much would a real legal billboard cost? I doubt 50 bucks a week so "Yeah capitalism!"

What I have not heard or read is if Sony also is paying for 'clean up'. Or was it expected that 200 bucks covered not only the "ad space" but the clean up after 2 weeks?

Also, though I have yet to see one, the same little zombies are on stickers and popping up stuck in bathrooms of clubs and other places around.

And one other thing to keep in mind - from what I can gather this whole thing slowly crept onto streets sometime in November. At first people just thought it was, indeed, more graffiti. But when the exact smae thing started popping up in other cities more pople took notice. The smart people who looked and got that they had PSP caught on, and some even called Sony to complain and Sony either had no comment or said they didn't know anything about it. When this all broke "big time" all the media reports I have now seen and read all have something in common - at some point they say they contacted Sony but there was no reply/no comment. Why is that do you think?

Something have been thinking about a lot lately is a music video I did about 15 or so years ago. We shot part of it behind this place off Sunset in the Silverlake, Ca area. The guy who owned the property decided to allow the local "artists" to use a wall that was on the property. He had only a few rules - you could not cross off anyones work and at the end of each week the entire wall was repainted. It was neutral ground and it was a great idea. I have been thinking about this a lot because since that time street art has taken on a life of it's own and it is a lot more accepted. On the other hand basic tagging is still tagging...crude looking scribbles to ID gang turf. The in between, maybe where this whole Sony thing goes, are tagging crews...and this is sort of what was going on in Silverlake when I shot that video. I won't say it grew out of that directly but certianly the guy was providing an option other than going out on bombing raids. Now that the whole hip hop mentality is so widespread it added more "acceptance" for what is now called hip hop graffiti - and even into middle America with things like the Bratz dolls and, to a lesser degree, the Homies figures. (which have sort of been around in one form or the other since the late 90's)

The problem is, IMO, what Sony did is just "assume" they could go into neighborhoods and do "fony" hip hop graffiti and have it blend in with existing stuff. In some areas I am finding out they did do it more like a 'billboard" and it does look like some sort of ad because it is somewhat isolated on a clean wall. The other stuff, the stuff I saw, doesn't look like any sort of "ad" - it just looks like some tagging crew went in at 3 am and did these little PSP zombies to out tag another crew. it is an eyesore, and in neighborhoods where residents have been trying hard to clean up any and all graffiti it is not welcome no matter what the reason is/was.

If you haven't looked already check out the PSP backlash photos. You can clearly see a few of these ads painted over the top of existing tags. Look at the "before" and "after" shots - clearly this is a very active wall and somehow I doubt Sony paid the owners for it's use. if they did pay them Sony is "pwerful" enough to go back to them and say "Hey we rented that space for 2 weeks yet in 24 hours are ads we crossed off. Unless you replace our ads we will sue you."