Sony Uses Dead Goat in Publicity Stunt

[Zinkovich]

Electronics giant Sony has sparked a major row over animal cruelty and the ethics of the computer industry by using a freshly slaughtered goat to promote a violent video game. The corpse of the decapitated animal was the centrepiece of a party to celebrate the launch of the God Of War II game for the company's PlayStation 2 console. Guests at the event were even invited to reach inside the goat's still-warm carcass to eat offal from its stomach. Sickening images of the party have appeared in the company's official PlayStation magazine � but after being contacted by The Mail on Sunday, Sony issued an apology for the gruesome stunt and promised to recall the entire print run. Critics condemned the entertainment giant, which produces scores of Hollywood blockbusters each year, for its "blood lust" and said the grotesque "sacrifice" highlighted increasing concerns over the content of video games and the lengths to which the industry will go to exploit youngsters. At the event, guests competed to see who could eat the most offal � procured elsewhere and intended to resemble the goat's intestines � from its stomach. They also threw knives at targets and pulled live snakes from a pit with their bare hands. Topless girls added to the louche atmosphere by dipping grapes into guests' mouths, while a male model portraying Kratos, the game's warrior hero, handed out garlands. The International Fund for Animal Welfare said it was "outrageous" that the animal's death had been used "to sell a few computer games". A spokesman said: "We are always opposed to any senseless killing of an animal and this sounds like a gruesome death. We condemn Sony's actions. It is stupid and completely unjustified." The party features across two pages of the latest edition of the company's PlayStation magazine, which was due to hit newsstands on Tuesday but has already been sent to subscribers. We have reproduced the spread � headlined Sony's Greek Orgy � here, but have pixellated the image to spare readers the sight of the goat's decapitated head hanging by a thread of tissue from its corpse, with blood dripping to the floor. But the magazine's readers were shown the picture in its full horror. The article, based on a Sony Press release, shows more vivid pictures from the event under headlines such as Topless Girls! and Flesh Eating? It asks readers how far they would go to get hold of Sony's next-generation console, the PlayStation 3. "How about eating still warm intestines uncoiled from the carcass of a freshly slaughtered goat? At the party to celebrate God Of War II's European release, members of the Press were invited to do just that . . ." In God Of War II, which is so violent it has been given an 18 certificate, players follow Kratos into battle against a series of fearsome characters from Greek mythology. Sony describes it as "an adult-rated, fast-paced bloodbath � and enormous fun to boot", adding that it is "bigger, better and as brutal as ever". One reviewer said the title featured "the most brutal, visceral combat of any action game". Former Minister Keith Vaz, Labour MP for Leicester East and a long-time campaigner against violent computer games, branded the stunt "distasteful and irresponsible". He said: "The slaughter of animals is not something that should be done to advertise a product. "Sony as a global entertainment company has a social responsibility. At this event it failed in that responsibility. "I think people should think very carefully before bringing games like this into their homes. "I would understand if customers wanted to boycott other Sony products such as their televisions because of this controversy." Sony, based in Japan and run by Welshman Sir Howard Stringer, is one of the largest media organisations in the world, boasting global revenues of �40billion from electronics, video games, music, television programmes and feature films � including Spider-Man 3 and Casino Royale. It is regarded, along with Coca-Cola, Nike and Mercedes-Benz, as one of the world's most valuable brands. The company, which released the game in the UK on Friday, admitted that the stunt had been a mistake. In a statement it said: "Sony does not condone or sanction any inappropriate behaviour by its staff or sub-contracted staff. "It has come to our attention that at the God Of War II launch showcase, an element of the event was of an unsuitable nature. "We are conducting an internal inquiry into aspects of the event in order to learn from the occurrence and put into place measures to ensure that this does not happen again." The party was held last month in Athens in homage to the game's Greek mythology themes. Revellers partied against the floodlit backdrop of the Parthenon. The Sony spokesman said the animal had not been slaughtered for the event but had been bought from a local butcher by the Greek company hired to stage the event. What purported to be warm intestines was actually warm offal. He said Sony's UK office had been shocked to see the report in the official PlayStation magazine, which the company licenses to publishing house Future. Sony is this weekend recalling the entire 80,000 print run of the magazine. The offending article will be removed because of the "sensitivity of the general public over issues of animal welfare". The firm refused to say how the goat died. It is unusual for animals in modern Greece to be killed by having their throats cut, let alone by being decapitated. It is not the first time Sony has been involved in controversy over its games. In 2004, the PlayStation 2 game Manhunt was banned by High Street stores in the UK after it was linked to the murder of a 14-year-old Leicester boy. Last September the relatives of a family massacred by a New Mexico teenager addicted to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City launched a �317million lawsuit against the entertainment company. And in November, Europe's justice commissioner Franco Frattini was so shocked by the "obscene cruelty and brutality" of Sony's Rule Of Rose PlayStation game that he wrote to all EU governments urging tighter controls on the "dreadful game".

Slaughter: Horror at Sony's depraved promotion stunt with decapitated goat | News | This is London

Well, this was one completely unexpected and totally fucked up story for me to stumble upon today.

[Jack]

I guess Sony hasn't gotten enough bad press lately (think rootkits). This is over-the-top stupid, not to mention cruel and unnecessary. This sort of thing wouldn't even be acceptable in Japan.

They've earned all the disrespect they're getting.

[gw120]

I don't like the fact they chopped a goats head off to sell a game, but at the same time it's no reason for anyone to boycott the game or any other game.

[Jack]

Good reason to boycott Sony, though, if you're so inclined.

[StrongHeartsWin]

What do you expect when individuals in society view the value of animals as being based on their utility?

A value for compassion? A value for mercy? A value for kindness?

Those concepts get swept away when utility for profit and pleasure are valued most.

[fushigi]

Hate to say it, but I can't help wanting to try this game out.

And I don't see how beheading a goat and displaying its dead carcass is any more savage than killing the thing to eat it. If I were the goat, it wouldn't make any difference to me HOW I was killed; the important thing is, I'm dead now.

This is the reason I don't let bullfighting bother me any more than slaughterhouses would. The thing's dead meat either way.

fushigi

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: fushigi And I don't see how beheading a goat and displaying its dead carcass is any more savage than killing the thing to eat it.

It may just not be if the slaughtering procedures are the same.

If I were the goat, it wouldn't make any difference to me HOW I was killed; the important thing is, I'm dead now.

I have to disagree with you here, Fushigi. I think the way of killing does matter. The reason does not matter. I think that is what you really meant. Correct me if I am wrong on what you really meant. I am sure that you would agree that a process of killing that is quite quick sure does matter more to the target than a process that may be lible to being botched and slow. I for one would rather be shot in the head with a single well placed bullet than in the neck that may lead to drowning by blood in my lungs.

This is the reason I don't let bullfighting bother me any more than slaughterhouses would. The thing's dead meat either way. fushigi

Again, Fushigi, I think you are down playing the process over the final act. I do agree with you, though, on a point you are trying to make; there is no suffering in death.

[Chris]

Topless girls added to the louche atmosphere by dipping grapes into guests' mouths, while a male model portraying Kratos, the game's warrior hero, handed out garlands.

Whoah! This is the only cool thing about the party but other than that it is worrying and disturbing. Who the F wants to eat Offal>!?!

Sick

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What do you expect when individuals in society view the value of animals as being based on their utility?

I agree with you. While this article states that this game is for adults, the article that was to be published clearly is read and available (it does not say otherwise, and knowing gaming magazines, they are not for 18+ purchasers) to a younger audience as well. One must then question, who exactly their target audience was with printing this? It's irresponsible on many levels. It's irresponsible to promote the real life death of anything as a "fun" event and it's irresponsible to promote their game (especially in such a fashion) to an audience for which it is not intended. Yet, at some point someone must have thought this was exceptable, and I think, because as you have pointed out, many people view the life of an animal to be expendable and here purely for our (our as in humans) benefit without care or regard to those that we share this planet with.

The article also does not state exactly how the animal was killed, so who knows how humanely, if at all, its death was. This statement makes me wonder:

The firm refused to say how the goat died. It is unusual for animals in modern Greece to be killed by having their throats cut, let alone by being decapitated.

I agree with you SHW, that how it was killed does make a difference.

[DEEJ85]

I am wondering if it occurred to Sony that this could and would turn out bad for customer relations. Did they not realize that even if it was a private adult party that it would definitely leak out to the general public where it would most probably be viewed with horror and disdain?

what a waste of a goat.

[Heather]

Quote by: DEEJ85 what a waste of a goat.

LOL... interesting way to put it, but yes.

Quote by: DEEJ85 I am wondering if it occurred to Sony that this could and would turn out bad for customer relations. Did they not realize that even if it was a private adult party that it would definitely leak out to the general public where it would most probably be viewed with horror and disdain?

I was wondering the same myself. Even if they didn't think it was morally wrong, I'm surprised someone didn't mention the word PETA when they were planning this.

[tinybear]

How do we know how the goat was slaughtered? Maybe it was quick and humane.

[Heather]

Quote by: tinybear How do we know how the goat was slaughtered? Maybe it was quick and humane.

We don't, but their refusal to comment on it is rather suspicous, indicating that it very well may not have been, hence their reluctance to say outright to clear up the matter to the public.

[StrongHeartsWin]

Quote by: Heather I was wondering the same myself. Even if they didn't think it was morally wrong, I'm surprised someone didn't mention the word PETA when they were planning this.

Japanese are notoriously a populaton mired in apathy. The executives in Japan probably never had it cross their mind that someone at the event or in on the plan would go through the problem of spreading the info. An island people sometimes tend to be so insular in their thought, the outside world sometimes doesn`t factor into decisions.

What is surprising is that a multinational company such as Sony had executives that didn`t think about their international image on this one. Perhaps many of the execs in on this promotional event were young and not bloodied with world PR experience. I am sure they have added a new page to their worker training manuals for PR:

Chapter 11, pg 129
Don`t use dead animals for promoting products.

It is not that we think it is morally wrong, because our forefathers used humans for testing in the Great Pacific War, but that we may suffer a loss in profits, stock prices, and image, once animal rightists publicize it to the world. Because of that, we should try to not do anything that sends a message counter to being kind to animals.

[Heather]

Quote by: StrongHeartsWin What is surprising is that a multinational company such as Sony had executives that didn`t think about their international image on this one. Perhaps many of the execs in on this promotional event were young and not bloodied with world PR experience.

Excellent point. American's (and PETA being an American organization that carries a lot of weight and pressure with issues such as these) are a large consumer of Sony products. Dare I say, largest? If anyone knows, I would be interested to know.

[StrongHeartsWin]

I keep seeing some references to PETA about this news getting out. It was not PETA; it was The Fund for Animal Welfare who got the ball rolling on this Sony thing. I know everyone thinks PETA has their hands in every animal related protest or anti-animal exploitation event, but that is simply not true. There are a few other orgs larger and stronger than PETA with more recourses to invest. PETA just gets more headlines and credit for their work in the news because they are more media savy and deft with gettng their message and news out than the other orgs do.

Comparison by the numbers:

PETA has a yearly operating budget near $35,000,000 and about 1,600,000 members world wide. They have about 125 full time employees and the head of their org, Ingrid Newkirk, draws a salary of $35,000.

The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States), sometimes partnering with the Fund For Animals, has a yearly operating budgett of about $150,000,000 and about 10 million member supporters. They have about double the staff of PETA and their top leader I think makes a six didget salary (sorry don`t have the exact amount on the top of my head).

But, PETA is more firmly lodged in the heads of people as being at the forefront for the fight for animal protection and advancement in their rights.

*Now, just because I posted some financial info about PETA, don`t some smart ass come on and say a smart-ass acronym for them. Mods, please watch for my prediction on this and take action if you think it is being put forth to enflame or add nothing to the discussion.

[DEEJ85]

While it is possible that the method of killing was less then humane, It is also possible they choose to not talk about the method of killing because they know it will open up a whole new can of worms or a whole new line of debate about the practices involved besides the original argument.

I own a pet snake, and almost all snakes kept in captivity eat mice or some other small animal. To give the snake the full nutritional components that it needs they need to be fed whole mice. Most snake owners use pre-killed mice as opposed to live mice (there is debate about this in the snake keeper world PM me if interested)

This is relevant to this topic because instead of raising my own mice (and pre killing them myself) I buy them in pre-killed in bulk from a mouse breeder. This breeder chooses not to discuss or explain how the slaughter is done. Why would a company such as this want to hide the slaughter practices from their customers who already are fine with the death of mice since they own pets that consume them? I think its not because they regard it as morally wrong and are in denial, but because they know explaining it would raise a whole new debate, where people tell them how evil or wrong they are to do those specific practices on animals.

I should add that I am 95% certain they do use a humane method on these mice, gas of some sort I think. They wouldn't do anything too drastic because it might affect the snake when they eat it.

[StrongHeartsWin]

DEEJ, I would suspect drowning in tanks or barrels in wired cages. Very cheap and easy keeping overhead low. Water trapped in the lungs of mice or rats would not pose any threat when consumed. Gas may, I would conjecture.

That said, I am aganst all forms of the pet trade.

[RickSp]

OK, I know that if you read it on the Internet it must be true.

Still, topless women, offal eating, pulling snakes from a pit with their bare hands? Sure, sounds just like most officially sanctioned corporate events. Right. Absolutely. Reminds me of the recent Apple Ipod orgy/virgin sacrifice. Sure. No doubt.

A Google search on "Sony" "decapitated goat" yielded various versions of this story. The top link was from the UK magazine "The Spoof" with the notation at the bottom "The story above is a satire or parody. It is entirely fictitious."

Until there is a better source available I will remain a bit skeptical.

[Heather]

SHW, very interesting information. Thank you for providing that. I think I will have to look into that further in my free time.

Quote by: DEEJ85 While it is possible that the method of killing was less then humane, It is also possible they choose to not talk about the method of killing because they know it will open up a whole new can of worms or a whole new line of debate about the practices involved besides the original argument. I own a pet snake, and almost all snakes kept in captivity eat mice or some other small animal. To give the snake the full nutritional components that it needs they need to be fed whole mice. Most snake owners use pre-killed mice as opposed to live mice (there is debate about this in the snake keeper world PM me if interested) This is relevant to this topic because instead of raising my own mice (and pre killing them myself) I buy them in pre-killed in bulk from a mouse breeder. This breeder chooses not to discuss or explain how the slaughter is done. Why would a company such as this want to hide the slaughter practices from their customers who already are fine with the death of mice since they own pets that consume them? I think its not because they regard it as morally wrong and are in denial, but because they know explaining it would raise a whole new debate, where people tell them how evil or wrong they are to do those specific practices on animals. I should add that I am 95% certain they do use a humane method on these mice, gas of some sort I think. They wouldn't do anything too drastic because it might affect the snake when they eat it.

Dee, I had a friend who worked for a pet store. He had a pet snake as well. The conversation happened upon how (at least this particular pet store) killed the mice. If you are that interested, I can tell you.

A snake eating a mouse because it is required for the sustainance of the snake is different than killing an animal that does not need to be killed. In this case, Sony killed the animal for no more than publicity. Very different than needing it to sustain ones life, in my opinion.