Remington Rifles new game in bad PR blunder ???

[fohfoh]

lol Remington is a great arms company, but they should seriously stay out of the gaming industry...

How about Burger King and their games?

[Meomix]

The popcorn's mighty roasty tonight.

[Guru Zeb]

We have had one teenage tantrum but thats to be expected.

yea, and it came from you.

Oh dear looks like i REALLY got under someone's skin ....... without even trying  
Oh well what else can you expect from someone who can't engage in a rational debate by
supporting a rational position rather than just getting all butt hurt and posting gifs  

reminds me ......... didn't you bail this thread a long time ago?


I think i smell someone who can't take people disagreeing with better logic than they can muster.
At this rate methinks mummy and daddy are going to have to clear a lot of broken toys out of your room.

Thanks for proving my point, bigotbi.

(click to show/hide)

OMG this guy doesnt agree with me, he must obviously not understand the issue!

So tell me oh enlightened one, where was the flaw in my logic? Was it where I said that I didnt see a problem with the game and by extension the PRs decision to OK? or was it just that I didnt see it the same way you did?

Did you read my earlier post or just see it?

I know you are saying Remington is backing the game, but that doesn't automatically mean we are all gonna agree that its some sort of horrible PR decision. I actually think Remington backing the game will be more profitable alone then whatever a group of nuts complaining about endangered species could possibly detract from sales.

PR isnt there to make sure no one gets angry they are only another department to help increase profits often by means of damage control and weighing the good with the bad.

tl:dr? I don't think its a bad PR decision.

OK ... i want to say this is the last post i will be wasting on you. Since its obvious you are not mature enough to
deal with being disagreed with without starting a personal flamer.
Reading back anyone can see. You came into my thread and stated your opinion = fine no problem.
Then without being insulting or personal i dismantled the logic of the analogy/comparison you made.
Then you got all personally insulted about it and went off on one ignored the rational on topic points i had raised and started swearing ......... so at that point i though 'Ok fuck you dickhead' ....... and have responded in kind.
Then you felt compelled to pad your attempt at an argument with a big edit involving a gif that implied you where leaving the thread for ever !?!?!? ........ i wish  

Here for the last time is my rational non personal rebuttal of your flawed logical. I have covered all this in previous post, but since you insist on asking for explanations of the flaws in your logic/reasoning ........ i feel compelled to oblige.

A. Soryon States: "Why complain about hunting endangered animals when there is a plethora of games where you shoot and kill humans seemingly just for fun, such as GTA."

5 seconds of rational thought shows holes in this rational that by 5 year old twin girls could drive a tank through.

No one said anything about people complaining, thats not how PR works, bad PR inspires people to not use your companies products in favour of another's, bad PR encourages some people to actively oppose your company this creates even more bad PR. PR is no restricted to your user or customer base PR extends well beyond your customer base, however bad PR generated in non customers can easily affect your actual customer base. As bad PR starts to circle a company like a flock of vultures, customers choose, not to choose your products.
If you think this is nonsense i suggest you read a book on PR or look online plenty or written stuff about PR theory.

'plethora of games where you shoot and kill humans seemingly just for fun, such as GTA'
This is where your reasoning is really poor. Very bad analogy/comparison.
How many arms manufacturers ( companies who deal in death and destruction for a living ) are actively in sponsoring, FPS, tactical shooters, any other games that model their weapons?? Thats right non. For good reason because it would be very bad PR ...... arm companies making billions don't need bad PR. In fact some of them are active in preventing games developers from using the exact model names of there weapons ....... non sponsor or actively support their products in games.
Same applies to GTA when did Luxus, Honda or Toyota sponsor a game like GTA ...... never ...... for the obvious reasons. Once again the occasionally make efforts to have exact model names changed in a game ... never included.
According to your logic both arms companies and car manufacturers ought have no issue supporting games like these that showcase their products .......... oh but they obviously do don't they.
So you see this is where your logic was massively flawed. However once i pointed this out to you. You couldn't handle replying with "ok i see your point  ..... but i still think xxxxx" you went and got all butt hurt and came back with a 12 year old tirade which addressed non of the points i had made.

So if this time round you have any rational logical rebuttal of my points ......... am more than happy to hear it.

[Soryon]

Ok, since most of your post was just skirting my point and taking quotes and applying them to areas they weren't intended for, I will make it simple for you-

Remington is a company, companies look at profit margins.
Remington is a hunting goods manufacturer, this is a hunting game. Who do you think they are worried about not buying their products? This game will have little to no effect on their customer base because they, unlike you, can distinguish fact from fiction and realize they aren't encouraging people to hunt endangered species. What this will do, is increase overall profitability by advertising their name to people who either enjoy hunting or hunting games.

You sit here and emphatically insist that this is a poor PR decision when for all intensive purposes, I don't beleive it is.
In fact, after looking around the internet a bit, you seem to be the only one who thinks it is.

The GTA point had nothing to do with sponsorship and I never claimed it did, it was a comparison of the difference between games and real life.
PR may play a roll in helping save a companies image but when pros outweigh cons they will side with the more profitable route as they are infact just as dependent on that companies sales as anyone else who works for them.

If you want to refute any of this, do it on the issues I applied my points to, not the issues that you choose to apply them to.

[Meomix]

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html

Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!

Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?

In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?

[Guru Zeb]

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html

Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!

Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?

In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?

For a start Remington's 'business model' has nothing to do with hunting endangered animals, its about developing and selling firearms and peripheral accessories.

Further you must be joking if you are seriously trying to suggest that this game will prevent any endangered animals being killed. Since the killing of endangered animals is primarily an illegal actively perpetrated by mostly local criminals so poor the probably have never seen a computer. The other killing is controlled culls by wardens and hunters employed by the wildlife authorities. I find it hard to believe that either of these groups would be encouraged to alter their behaviour by a computer game.
However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't.
At no point have suggested this game is a "bad influence" ....... just a bad PR move.

But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero. As with many things in society. Often objections are based more on peoples moral/philosophical objections to a given activity.


Its a BAD PR move because, it will do nothing to further Reminton's business, i personally don't see this game encouraging many sales. All it will do is upset people of an environmental/animal rights bent, which could easily lead to a campaign being launched that could definitely hurt Reminton ...... of course this is speculation. But thats exactly what PR is about you think what are the gains vs what negative outcomes COULD occur.

Think of this scenario:
There are a few bush ranch tourist shooting lodges in Africa, where you can legally book in and shoot wild animals ( not endangered ones as thats illegal via international laws ).
image you run one of them. Various environmentalists, greenies, and animal rights groups kick up a minor fuss about Remintons involvement with the game. Then you get a call from a journalist asking amongst other questions who's guns you use.
A few weeks later your due to order some new guns for the lodge.
What do you do ??
Buy guns from a company that is maybe attracting negative scrutiny?
Or buy guns from another company who is not attracting negative scrutiny?

This is how things work in the real world. I guarantee it would be pretty easy to stir up a campaign amongst  greenie/animal rights groups against Reminton over this game.
Its that simple. And thats how PR works and how PR extends beyond your customer/user base.

[Meomix]

... So you're pissed that they made a game containing potential illegal activity, or that they even bothered to make a game in the first place.

If you are mainly concerned about the bad PR i don't see why that should be a concern, it isn't going to alter many peoples choices in the long run.

No matter how you spin it, someone will find a reason why this or this sucks.
If they decided to make a FPS shooter instead, human rights activists would start hooting their horn as usual yet cant do shit because it is none of their business.

[undetz]

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html

Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!

Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?

In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?

For a start Remington's 'business model' has nothing to do with hunting endangered animals, its about developing and selling firearms and peripheral accessories.

Further you must be joking if you are seriously trying to suggest that this game will prevent any endangered animals being killed. Since the killing of endangered animals is primarily an illegal actively perpetrated by mostly local criminals so poor the probably have never seen a computer. The other killing is controlled culls by wardens and hunters employed by the wildlife authorities. I find it hard to believe that either of these groups would be encouraged to alter their behaviour by a computer game.
However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't.
At no point have suggested this game is a "bad influence" ....... just a bad PR move.

But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero. As with many things in society. Often objections are based more on peoples moral/philosophical objections to a given activity.


Its a BAD PR move because, it will do nothing to further Reminton's business, i personally don't see this game encouraging many sales. All it will do is upset people of an environmental/animal rights bent, which could easily lead to a campaign being launched that could definitely hurt Reminton ...... of course this is speculation. But thats exactly what PR is about you think what are the gains vs what negative outcomes COULD occur.

Think of this scenario:
There are a few bush ranch tourist shooting lodges in Africa, where you can legally book in and shoot wild animals ( not endangered ones as thats illegal via international laws ).
image you run one of them. Various environmentalists, greenies, and animal rights groups kick up a minor fuss about Remintons involvement with the game. Then you get a call from a journalist asking amongst other questions who's guns you use.
A few weeks later your due to order some new guns for the lodge.
What do you do ??
Buy guns from a company that is maybe attracting negative scrutiny?
Or buy guns from another company who is not attracting negative scrutiny?

This is how things work in the real world. I guarantee it would be pretty easy to stir up a campaign amongst  greenie/animal rights groups against Reminton over this game.
Its that simple. And thats how PR works and how PR extends beyond your customer/user base.

I disagree with your analysis. Most animal rights activists and conservationists have better things to do than kicking up a fuss about video games. [sarcasm] Also, unlike students and pupils who become experts at using firearms and go on rampages and kill their teachers solely because of the video games they play, there is no evidence that playing certain video games makes a person go out into nature and shoot non-human animals. [/sarcasm]

[fohfoh]

I like how so many people know nothing about vertical integration...

[Guru Zeb]

... So you're pissed that they made a game containing potential illegal activity, or that they even bothered to make a game in the first place.

If you are mainly concerned about the bad PR i don't see why that should be a concern, it isn't going to alter many peoples choices in the long run.

No matter how you spin it, someone will find a reason why this or this sucks.
If they decided to make a FPS shooter instead, human rights activists would start hooting their horn as usual yet cant do shit because it is none of their business.

Actually am not pissed about anything ....... read my original post please.
i was more amused than anything.
How many times do i need to say I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH HUNTING OR ARMS COMPANIES.

Ok everyone is entitled to an opinion ...........

[Guru Zeb]

http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/remingtonsuperslamhuntingafrica/index.html

Just an amusing one i spotted, surely Remingtons PR people are living in a bunker or something.
They have allowed a developer to release a game associated with their company, in which you gun down ever endangered species in Africa larger than a bush rat ...... ROFLMFAO .... WTF?!?!?!
The only way they could have generated worst PR for their company would been to force the developers to add a few Bantu tribesmen to gun down too.
I know their business is allowing people to gun down wild animals and other human beings either unarmed or using inferior weapons but WTF ?!?!?!

Ok i ask you, how is making merchandise of their business model a bad PR move, why is it a bad PR move?

In fact them making a game out of their business would actually keep those animals alive longer, how is this a bad influence again?

For a start Remington's 'business model' has nothing to do with hunting endangered animals, its about developing and selling firearms and peripheral accessories.

Further you must be joking if you are seriously trying to suggest that this game will prevent any endangered animals being killed. Since the killing of endangered animals is primarily an illegal actively perpetrated by mostly local criminals so poor the probably have never seen a computer. The other killing is controlled culls by wardens and hunters employed by the wildlife authorities. I find it hard to believe that either of these groups would be encouraged to alter their behaviour by a computer game.
However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't.
At no point have suggested this game is a "bad influence" ....... just a bad PR move.

But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero. As with many things in society. Often objections are based more on peoples moral/philosophical objections to a given activity.


Its a BAD PR move because, it will do nothing to further Reminton's business, i personally don't see this game encouraging many sales. All it will do is upset people of an environmental/animal rights bent, which could easily lead to a campaign being launched that could definitely hurt Reminton ...... of course this is speculation. But thats exactly what PR is about you think what are the gains vs what negative outcomes COULD occur.

Think of this scenario:
There are a few bush ranch tourist shooting lodges in Africa, where you can legally book in and shoot wild animals ( not endangered ones as thats illegal via international laws ).
image you run one of them. Various environmentalists, greenies, and animal rights groups kick up a minor fuss about Remintons involvement with the game. Then you get a call from a journalist asking amongst other questions who's guns you use.
A few weeks later your due to order some new guns for the lodge.
What do you do ??
Buy guns from a company that is maybe attracting negative scrutiny?
Or buy guns from another company who is not attracting negative scrutiny?

This is how things work in the real world. I guarantee it would be pretty easy to stir up a campaign amongst  greenie/animal rights groups against Reminton over this game.
Its that simple. And thats how PR works and how PR extends beyond your customer/user base.

I disagree with your analysis. Most animal rights activists and conservationists have better things to do than kicking up a fuss about video games. [sarcasm] Also, unlike students and pupils who become experts at using firearms and go on rampages and kill their teachers solely because of the video games they play, there is no evidence that playing certain video games makes a person go out into nature and shoot non-human animals. [/sarcasm]

So your 2nd point is that you agree with me ?? ........ or didn't you bother to read my post ??

"But it is mistakes to assume that peoples objections or distaste at certain games is focused solely on the games ability to encourage a given type of behaviour, as the truth is this is often close to zero."

And
"However i freely admit ( even though i never suggested the converse ) that the opposite is also true, no one with a rational mind could suggest that this game would encourage people to kill endangered animals. I certainly haven't."

Is English not your 1st language or something

[fohfoh]

1. Don't double post
2. Do you not understand sarcasm or something?