Tweet
So, I work for a PR-related firm, and we recently were approached about doing some work for Take Two Interactive. Take Two, as most of you probably know, is a software publishing company, and the most famous of their products is probably the Grand Theft Auto series, which has inspired no small amount of controversy.
I had actually been intrigued by this work and was hoping to work on the account, since I have a keen interest in computer games and would like to work with such a company.
Well, I was told by the SVP I work for that, in no uncertain terms we would not work for Take Two. She explained that they found GTA too violent and therefore they had moral objections to the client. This was all based on assumptions, mind you, as nobody at my firm, including myself, has played the game.
If my firm was consistent in this, I'd have no problem. But the only other company we have refused to work for based on such a moral objection was Phillip Morris. We have done work and are doing ongoing work for clients such as:
GE (like pollution?)
Enron
Global Crossing
Sony Pictures (wonder if they've ever released a violent film?)
Showtime
HBO (Oz, anyone?)
Exxon
And many others. On top of that, two years ago we did work for a major Southern company of global proportions who committed blatant, obvious sexual orientation discrimination, but we looked the other way and are continuing to work for them. Now, this was not illegal, unfortunately, but you'd think my firm would have, given its stated preference for making moral decisions with clients, had the cajones to walk away, since we profess to abhor such discrimination.
So I guess I learned it wasn't a moral objection to the product/actions of a company, it was the chicken****tedness of management, as they just don't want to be seen taking on a controversial client.
In conclusion, I just went out and bought GTA III.
I had actually been intrigued by this work and was hoping to work on the account, since I have a keen interest in computer games and would like to work with such a company.
Well, I was told by the SVP I work for that, in no uncertain terms we would not work for Take Two. She explained that they found GTA too violent and therefore they had moral objections to the client. This was all based on assumptions, mind you, as nobody at my firm, including myself, has played the game.
If my firm was consistent in this, I'd have no problem. But the only other company we have refused to work for based on such a moral objection was Phillip Morris. We have done work and are doing ongoing work for clients such as:
GE (like pollution?)
Enron
Global Crossing
Sony Pictures (wonder if they've ever released a violent film?)
Showtime
HBO (Oz, anyone?)
Exxon
And many others. On top of that, two years ago we did work for a major Southern company of global proportions who committed blatant, obvious sexual orientation discrimination, but we looked the other way and are continuing to work for them. Now, this was not illegal, unfortunately, but you'd think my firm would have, given its stated preference for making moral decisions with clients, had the cajones to walk away, since we profess to abhor such discrimination.
So I guess I learned it wasn't a moral objection to the product/actions of a company, it was the chicken****tedness of management, as they just don't want to be seen taking on a controversial client.
In conclusion, I just went out and bought GTA III.
ACK!
Comment