This Dec 12th article says:

"the images appeared in places where the company had paid for space and that the company was not vandalizing or defacing any property."

And the big deal is.....?
Sony paid for using the property/ad space.
They've commissioned art that they feel will connect with the market they're targeting.
The artists, who aren't normally commissioned to do this sort of work were given tremendous latitude in creating the art, and it put coin in the pocket of artists that aren't "big name" so they've gotten a chance to shine.
Sony is the first "big" company to try this sort of campaign. Kudos to them, IMO, for trying something new. Maybe it will fail, maybe it won't. Do you WANT them to fail? If so, why?

For those that don't know, this is part of EXACTLY how Sonic Foundry launched ACID at Comdex in Las Vegas. And they were reprimanded for chalk grafitti on the sidewalks. They also had to pay the cost of sticker removal from convention center property.
Obviously the campaign is working; it's got people talking and that's what's important.
But my question would have to be "why do so many people in this community feel like they need to play David to Sony's Goliath?" They're a big company and therefore bound to make decisions that some don't like. Kinda like the government. This community alternates around attacking and defending Bush. But Sony only embues attacks. What's up with that?

I, for one, applaud Sony's efforts. It could be a lot worse. They could have installed rootkits on a wireless networks. Or like most urban areas, put up ads for alcohol and cigarettes. If Sony legally paid for the space, then they have doen nothing wrong. Its not like they put up a porn billboard or anything.

Creative marketing at its best. Isnt Sundance festivals like this type of stuff?

I think the big deal is whether or not you know Sony paid for the ad space.
That changes a lot about your perception of the campaign.

Seems like they're trying to appeal to the very people that would buy ripped DVDs.

If that's the case, then why are some cities slapping them with a fine?

I believe Sony received permission from the building owners but perhaps not from the city. I know some cities have differetn regulations regardign advertising and where it can be placed so as not to cause a "blight" on the community.

Maybe it's because some of us are tired of being taken advantage of, Douglas. Maybe some of us are tired of being told what we can and can't do with the products we legally buy and legally use. Maybe some of us are tired of the corporate/government mentality of "us versus them." Maybe some of us are tired of the tail wagging the dog. Maybe some of us are tired of being treated like we don't know any better than the politicians and corporate big-wigs. Maybe some of us are tired of being treated like peons rather than citizens and customers.

Fact is, I'm old enough to remember in my adult life when customers were treated with respect and appreciation. That simply ain't happenin' these days, and if and when it does, it's a rarity, and it's usually a small privately owned company who knows the value of happy, satisfied customers!

And remember, Goliath was NOT a good guy!

DES,
I couldn't agree more. Down here it's all part of our 'tall poppy syndrome', something must be evil because it's successful.
I see the same thing happening with Microsoft, sure they've done a lot of dumb things, so do all of us. There's nothing special about big companies that insulates them from human failings. The very best of us do stupid things and for sure we need the vigilance of others at times to show us where we've gone wrong but that doesn't in any way mean everything we or small or big companies do is wrong.
And if anyone feels the need to put the boot into a large company you might start with Apple.
Bob.

>>> And the big deal is.....?
Sony paid for using the property/ad space.
They've commissioned art that they feel will connect with the market they're targeting.
The artists, who aren't normally commissioned to do this sort of work were given tremendous latitude in creating the art, and it put coin in the pocket of artists that aren't "big name" so they've gotten a chance to shine.
Sony is the first "big" company to try this sort of campaign. Kudos to them, IMO, for trying something new. Maybe it will fail, maybe it won't. Do you WANT them to fail? If so, why?<<<

Woah!

Ok first of all some marketing people sat around and came up with this graffiti. Sony is going out and paying people to take a stencil and a can of spray paint and do this. Also I have not seen any "credit" on this graffiti, it is even more anonymous than real tagging is. As for Sony paying for "space" the sutff I have seen is just gang type tagging where someone has crossed out other, existing, graffitti and painted these little zombies over it. This might vary city to city and no, I am not saying Sony has told people to do what they want, however these things are popping up in many urban areas already plagued with gang graffiti...not on the outside of Tiffany's.

Also Sony isn't the first to try this. I think Nike did it several years ago, I know Nick (as in the TV network) did it back in '99. Either way - Sony gave zero "tremendous latitude in creating the art" to local talent to spray paint these things.

EDIT - In reading the link provided by Jay I have to say the images in the pisctures are much much bigger than what I have seen in NY. But also, Spot,some of your comments are adressed up in this MSNBC piece - As for Sony paying for "ad space" - 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. and in Sony world I am not surpised to read The Sony division did not immediately respond to the letter or to a telephone message left by The Associated Press. and on the "creative" aspect you brought up - 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.

OK, so I'm wrong about the "tremendous latitude." My understanding from the CNN story was that Sony had hired urban artists to design the art, and then they'd hired locals to recreate the art as it was given them, but that they'd taken liberties with the art.
Either way, so what? It's an ad campaign. If you don't like it, don't look at it. I can't stand Mapplethorpe's art during his "Urine" days, and saw zero socially redeeming value. But I also respected his right to create the garbage. Less intelligent people like Jesse Helms used the controversial art to kill funding to other artists. The message I got from that was "Even if you don't like it, shut up, because it then removes opportunity for other artists."

I fail to see the harm. So...they paid building owners, but not the city, and some cities are tweaked. So? The cities wouldn't capture one nickel from any gang group or urban artist, but they see Sony as a cash cow to be milked for having a commercial message. IMO, commercial messages are a lot less threatening than some of the other grafitti we see out there. I hate grafitti, but if it's gonna exist, and it is gonna exist....then I'd prefer it to be commercial. It's just one more indicator of commerce taking strides towards intelligent messaging.

I just wish I'd have thought of it.

I fail to see the harm. So...they paid building owners, but not the city, and some cities are tweaked. So?

Frankly, Douglas, I'm shocked that you would say something like this. How is this any different from those who have said, "I fail to see the harm. So...they paid for their music CD and loaned to a friend and he copied it, and some recording artists are tweaked. So?"

That's the problem I have with anyone (including Sony) who thinks the laws apply to everyone but them. It's not fair to say "So?" when Sony breaks the law, but get upset when someone breaks the law for copyright violation. What's good for the goose is good for gander!

Isn't it possible that Sony simply made a mistake in a few cases by failing to account for local ordinances. After all, they did pay the building owners for the space. Or maybe the artists themselves failed to double-check local rules and regs.

The point is, the violations were probably due to over sight, or short sightedness rather than a concerted complex consipiracy on Sony's part to do evil.

Occam's Razor, anybody?

Exactly,
and I doubt it was Sony who did it directly, most likely they used an agency. This type of advertising isn't new or unigue, both Nike and other companies have used simulated graffiti as advertising before.

And sorry but I really don't understand what Jays beef is. So, they missed a few local ordinances, I doubt there's one of us here that hasn't done that, I can't remember how many here claiming they're involved in guerilla shoots, no insurance, no permits.

Yeah, big business don't 'look after their customers', duh. That costs money.
Little businesses are better, yeah sure. And how big was the business that wrote the crappy root kit code that started all the Sony bashing. Some tin pot, typical half baked pommy bunch, I'm certain they had our best interests at heart.

Bob.

I think Dand9959 and Bob hit my position exactly.
Sony clearly went to the owners of the buildings to get permission and pay for use of the building. In at least one case, there were already existing ads. So apparently Sony's ad agency assumed, or thought, or didn't think about building codes. Apparently they're already dealing with it. As I said before, had it been a tagger, the owner of the building would get nothing, and neither would the city.
If you want to relate it to copyright: In this case, the owner gets paid, and the distributor (the city) doesn't. In my view, the city shouldn't get a dime anyway, because the owner of the building pays taxes on the building, maintains the building, and owns the building. So the city already got theirs. Just like the artist gets his, the label (the owner of the music) gets theirs. The distributor may or may not get some of the pie depending on how they structured the deal.
The city gets their share of the owners revenue both in building taxes and taxable revenue on income. In other words, the city gets theirs twice, and even three or four times if they require a permit to paint an ad on a private landholders building.
I'm in favor of less government, not more. But more importantly, I'm in favor of art and creative discussion. Which apparently this ad campaign has generated. ;-)

All of which pales into insignificance compared to one clothing company using photos of still born babies and AIDS sufferers on their billboards.
And no, I don't think those ads should have been banned.

>All of which pales into insignificance compared to one clothing company using photos of still born babies and AIDS sufferers on their billboards.<

Totally agree with you there, farss, Bennetton is gross, debasing the human person just to catch some eyeballs.

Personally... I like 'em.

Would be nice if Sony was actually employing some of the actual Graffiti artists to do the work. Would help to show them that America does appreciate and view their contributions as art. My hope would be that they would stop Vandalizing and use their art as a form of employment.

My thing is... what happens in a few months when the ads get old and the kids start to Graffiti over them? Those pretty building sides are gonna start to look pretty ugly then... with layers of have painted/graffitied pieces... and crossed out old pieces... colors that don't match... so on and so forth.

Will Sony stick around to ensure the 'Cuteness' stays?

Wow, is it already time for another "I hate Sony" thread? Where does the time go. And HOW DARE Sony advertise their products! The nerve of some companies!!! Greedy bastards! Next thing you know they'll have ads on TV too! Woe is me!!!

These Sony bashing threads sure are helping us Vegas users. Keep up the good work! Heaven knows we're incapable of reading the news ourselves.

Interesting marketing concept. Maybe not completely thought out. Didn't anyone see the episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where on Thanksgiving they dropped the live turkeys onto neighborhoods. Of course they overlooked the fact that domesticated turkeys can't fly but it was an interesting concept.

Just trying to lighten the mood. Now someone answer my Error When Rendering topic.....please? :)

interseting. However, even though I hate the Sony PSP adds (I find the dust balls on the rug saying that people who play games are pathetic morons who will play anything shoved in front of them & the one with the people tossing the PSP around saying that all game players are nothing more then stereotypical urban kids) these are pretty cool.

But, odds are they still needed to ask the city. In a town a few minutes north, a man who owned a local business wanted to put a bilboard on a highway within town limits where he own the land & had the bilboard design approved but the zoning & town board wouldn't let him put it up. However, he didn't just slap one up, he's waiting to do it legally, with all the correct permission & wanted the towns approval first.

And while I agree with DSE that this is a very interesting idea & yeah (which is a good one), & SF did something simular with sidewalk chalk on sidewalks, at the WORST sidewalk chalk washes off in the next rain storm (or hose, bucket of watter, etc). This requires a couple people several hours (most likely cival workera at ~$15 an hour) to remove or paint over & as someone who's done that a few times, I'd expect Sony to be ready to pay for the removal/cleanup (they don't just leave billboards up until they rot, they must be taken down).

"Didn't anyone see the episode of WKRP in Cincinnati where on Thanksgiving they dropped the live turkeys onto neighborhoods. Of course they overlooked the fact that domesticated turkeys can't fly but it was an interesting concept."

Wasn't that an ad for Sony?
;-)

Mario

From the episode... "I swear Andy, I thought turkeys could fly!"