Child’s Bray
Am I not merciful, Little Billy? AM I NOT MERCIFUL?
Over at Station.com blog (Smed, call me and let's think up a better name, kk?) Brenlo posts a very deserved tip of the hat to Child's Play:
With all of the criticism out there about video games, as well as all of the competition we have between various companies it is refreshing to see industry and fans alike come together and do something so worthwhile.
Hear hear and harumph. I couldn't have said it better. Child's Play has probably done more to help the image of this (oftentimes undeserving) industry than an army of PR drones could have ever conceived of within the echoing caverns of their frontal-lobeless melons. The fact that they did so while brightening the lives of sick children across the globe is, of course, more significant by magnitudes, and truly does speak to the generosity of this loose collection of consumers and creators we call the "gaming community."
And then…
Our own John Smedley is quoted in the story,
(Insert vinyl scratch here.)
*sigh*
For the record, here's the relevant passages from the (subscription required) NYT article:
While the leaders of most charities would take care to avoid criticizing donors, the Child’s Play venture has managed to remain largely separate from the outspokenness of its directors. The same day that Mr. Holkins, writing on Penny-Arcade.com, referred to a Sony marketing tactic as “idiotic,” the company coincidentally pledged to donate all the profits from the first day’s sale of a new product, Pirates Constructible Strategy Game.
Frequent criticism from Penny-Arcade, said John Smedley, president of Sony Online Entertainment, “doesn’t mean we don’t get a good laugh from their comics and their caustic wit.” Besides, Mr. Smedley said, Child’s Play “really helps bring our industry together for the common purpose of helping kids.”
It's (the Station.com quote, not the NYT quote) like a bad Ron Burgundy skit. "Seventeen thousand and seven…seventeen thousand and eight…Oh, hi there! I didn't see you over there. Just handing out some money to charity. December is Child's Play. Oh it's a deep burn. Deeeep burn! I can barely lift my checkbook! I don't know if you heard me over there, but I just gave money to Child's Play…"
Just…why? Why isn't the smile on a child's face, or the knowledge that a kid might temporarily forget his pain, not enough? Why does it have to come with the virtual pat on your own back? The value of a charitable contribution, while very real in terms of value to the recipient, is morally diminished when it comes with a "HEY! Lookit what the hell we did!" sidebar. The act ceases to be about the giving, and becomes about the giver.
Sony should indeed be proud of their involvement in Child's Play, but it is not for Sony to lay the laurel wreath, Caesar-like, upon their own proud heads. There's pride, and then there's pride.
You might say I'm over-reacting, and I'll concede that I'm exaggerating things a wee bit to make a point. And perhaps, you might also say Brenlo was only reporting on news that was already known. But there are no concessions on that point. The New York Times reporting on Smedley's involvement is reporting. Kotaku or Slashdot reporting on Smedley's involvement would be reporting. Hell, even if *I* pointed to Smedley's quote, that would be, at some level, reporting. But the Station.com blog reporting the quote is not a story. It's a press release. Even worse, because it's coming from a quasi-unofficial channel, it could even be construed as an attempt at viral self-superlatives. (And I can't help but use "viral" in the most ironic sense.) I choose not to be quite so cynical as to make the outright accusation, but then it's hard to know these days exactly where Sony draws the line.
Anyway, we get it. You are generous, Sony. We "the community" thank you, and I'm dead serious on that score. Sony is an important part of this community, and I'm thankful they're out there setting a charitable example for the rest of the industry. More importantly, the kids (I think it's safe to say) are thankful to receive the benefit of Sony's participation. But please be happy with that, and stop turning everything good into a goddamned PR opportunity.
"The charity that hastens to proclaim its good deeds, ceases to be charity, and is only pride and ostentation."
William Hutton
§
January 5th, 2007 at 5:38 am
Corporate Charity PR Grandstanding is a standard procedure, and has been for ages. Sony certainly hasn’t cornered the market in that behavior. I don’t think we can fault them for behaving that way, any more than we can fault a venomous snake for biting. We should just be happy that some worthwhile causes are being helped, and disregard the PR crap.
January 5th, 2007 at 6:43 am
To give Sony their due, they are “Platinum” sponsors to the charity (along with Bungie, Dell, Dark Horse Comics and others) but Blizzard are only Silver level sponsors.
You’d think that with all the revenue they are undoubtedly raking in from WoW, they could stretch a little deeper than a “Silver” contribution. Too busy appearing on South Park no doubt.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:53 am
This is a little unfair. 99% of the reasons corporations donate to charities is for the PR angle. Focus instead on how they’re spending their money. And every bit of publicity they get by donating (or give themselves), helps publicize the charity and its mission.
I’m not seeing a bad side to this.
If there was somehow made a rule that all charitable contributions were to be made anonymously, there’d be a lot fewer, and everyone would suffer.
January 5th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Even worse, because it’s coming from a quasi-unofficial channel, it could even be construed as an attempt at viral self-superlatives. (And I can’t help but use “viral” in the most ironic sense.)
What did you think would happen when businesses discover blogging? To be fair, almost every blog (including mine) at some point becomes an exercise in self-superlatives. If it takes me reading through self-flattery to have money donated, I’m all for it though. I would much rather have a psuedo-PR story to read about donating (used as a marketing device) than one without. This post really doesn’t sound like the “SOE is teh devil” stuff and you have a point and yeah I agree they suck sometimes, but it IS a business. I would surely be pimping myself if I gave away that much.
DISCLAIMER: I run an EQ2 fansite and I love the game but that doesn’t always carry over to SOE.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Just because milking charitable donations for PR is standard procedure, doesn’t mean we should be OK with it.
January 5th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Tipa:
I hope it's not that high, but that's not really what my rant is about. My rant is about SOE actively tooting their own horn, as if the normal PR that comes with being a (as Dragon points out) Platinum sponsor, and getting Smed's name in the papers isn't enough.
Again, I don't begrudge Sony the publicity. I'm annoyed that it's not enough, and that they feel the need to churn the PR cycle for all its worth.
I agree, that would be a terrible rule, and I'd never support something like that. As I wrote, I think it's very important that the industry see Sony as a charitable leader. I'd just like to see SOE exercise some self-restraint once in awhile; you know, show a little class. This might come back to bite me in the ass, but can you name another Child's Play corporate contributor that feels the need to toot their own horns?
January 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
On a side note, I didn’t give a single penny. That probably makes me a bad person - but as I’m a very lapsed catholic and self proclaimed atheist, I’m already going to hell and I’m sure I’ll burn just fine.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
Work of art you are. All you can do is bitch about sony just saying oh by the way John Smedly was qoted in a story but every other post you are bragging about what a big deal you are. Your video was nothing more than a grab for attention so your really just calling the pot black arent you miss. kettle? How about you donate thousands of dollars to charity and then lets see you keep your big mouth shut about it? I bet you couldnt do it. I bet you would be writing a post and making a video about how kind and giving you are before they could even cash the check. I guess you would just like to see kids suffering in the hospital without anything to do yeah i bet that would make you happy. Then you could bitch about how sony doesnt give a fuck about sick kids. i hope you cancer and you have to sit in a hospital for a year wishing that you had something to do while your hair falls out and you die.
January 5th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Holy shit Hunter is Yoda!
On topic: I can see both sides. I agree that tooting your own horn about charity is bad form but I also think that brenlo didnt mean it that way even though it came out that way.
January 5th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Well if not seeing anything wrong with promotion in the name of charity (like, say, donating buildings and whatnot to universities and naming them after yourself) puts me on the same side of an issue as Hunter, I change my vote.
Damn SOE. Burn them. How could they.
January 5th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Ok, so SoE grandstanded and took a slam at the worthy Penny Arcade. While I find it deplorable, it is NOT the worst thing that I’ve seen happen this year.
/Sarcasm The wonderful mayor of the City of Detroit /endSarcasm, recently took full responsibility for leading the charity drive to bring home soldiers from Fort Dix to the metro Detroit area before they were deployed back to Iraq. This scumbag did nothing to raise any funds for this charity drive.
SoE should be ashamed but I’m less likely to dig at something like this in the light of local events.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Oh hun, you have no idea. I agree with you that it’s in bad taste but let’s just be thankful it wasn’t worse.
I’ll tap into my evil marketer side and hypothesize for you how it could have been much worse: What if they had made a campaign out of it, you know, really let the online marketing and PR folks get their hands on it. Well, I’d imagine they’d put a badge on the Station.com home page that said, “Official Platinum Sponsor of Child’s Play”. The badge then links to a press release about their donation. On the same page, you can view a slideshow of Smedley handing over a big check with bald and gowned kids sprinkled about. Oh look, there’s a few shots of “product” next to hospital beds. Oh yeah, stupidly, someone also forgets to link to the actual charity so people could donate themselves. By the way, did you all read that story about how games help sick kids feel better, no? Well, they got a link to that.
Nope, it’s not tough for me to imagine the above happening. I think some guy mentioning it on a quasi-unofficial blog shows quite a bit of self-restraint. It’s just too much to ask that they don’t say anything at all when they have an active audience listening all the time (something the other donors don’t have).
January 8th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Living in both “corporate marketing” and “blog-land,” it’s always amazing to me when one side really mis-reads the other. Usually (in my line of work), it’s corporate doods totally mis-reading bloglanders. There’s a whole bunch of “don’t get it” going on there.
This though… wow. You are so over-analyzing and over-scrutinizing something that is just not there.
Company does good thing. Good thing is mentioned in major rag. Related quote in major rag is actually pretty funny and in good humor, to boot. Blog points to mention/quote.
In corporate-land, I often have to explain how bloggers get excited about things. About how the language is effusive and open and uninhibited. About how bloggers don’t always fact-check or double-check or check at all. They just write. Often about feelings. There’s lots more room for risk, but also lots more room for growth, for gain for relationships and learning. It’s a fuzzier place, these blogs, but not “worse” or “better,” just “different.”
And it’s supposed to be about open lines of communication, right? So did you think, maybe… just maybe… the Staionblog post was the blogger’s excitement about a program he’s ramped about? And that it’s cool for him to see the mention in the NYT? It would be a big deal for me to see my boss’ name in the NYT. I’d blog that (if my blog related to my job). Not as a PR flack… but as an excited, interested, employee.
And, just so we’re clear… yeah. Some funds raised by companies are pure PR plays. And at some companies it may be 99%. But lots of companies raise lots of money from their employees; regular employee-type folks who spend time and effort and their own dough are often behind those oversized, goofy novelty checks you see on TV and the web sites. And so the PR glitz ends up being, in many cases, for their benefit — to say “Thanks” to the people who raised the money.
Yes… a gift given anonymously may be a lot more classy. Unless… hmmm… it encourages more giving. But c’mon. Is this really the best thing you have to snark about today?
January 8th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
That’s certainly one facet of blogging, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be about that. It could just be one person shouting their opinion out to anyone who will listen. I do a little bit of both. It would, for example, be nice to think that John Smedley read my post, called me a mouthy bitch, and then thought better about using charity as a PR event next time. But that wasn’t my goal.
If you were using a semi-official corporate blog to say “oh by the way, in case you missed it, we donated to charity,” then I’d probably call you on it too if it fell within my sphere of caring. Look, I’m not naive to the fact that corporations do this kind of stuff all the time. But one of the reasons I come down so hard on Sony is because I think they *are* one of the good guys. If, for example, Linden were yammering about how many trillions of dollars they’ve raised for charity, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Sony is a great company, but I think their hubris gets in their way–a lot.
Well, if you take a look through the comments on most of the other posts around here, you’ll see that there’s just no making everyone happy on any given day. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is a good thing.
January 9th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
(Pouts) Fine. I still say it’s too minor to call chest-pounding hubris. It’s a pointer to a NYT story where his boss said something arguably kind of self-effacing and mildly amusing. Yes, it has good PR overtones. Yes, it does hype that they’re giving money to charity. But I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing.
Now I’m going to complain about how I’m not sure if your reference to Linden means you think they’re too one way or the other. I’m on migraine meds at the moment, and pretty confused.
January 9th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Linden Labs have shown themselves to be first rate media whores, and they will do or say whatever they think will garner themselves yet another headline. It’s gotten to the point that the latest Second Life story is as ubiquitous as it is misleading. So if I were to rail against Linden Labs every time they shilled for yet more publicity, I’d have to quit my day job.
SOE isn’t at that level yet, and it’s my hope that they never reach the point where I am simply too apathetic to care.