Marketing Firm Gets Fined for Homefront GDC Balloon Stunt

December 14, 2011 -

It might have seemed cute when marketing company TrashTalkFCM pitched the idea of releasing thousands of balloons into the San Francisco sky to promote Homefront during the Game Developers Conference earlier this year. But THQ realized as the balloons flew upwards and then inevitably fell down into the San Francisco Bay that maybe it wasn't such a great idea after all. The bad local and national publicity wasn't worth it.

TrashTalkFCM, the marketing company behind the campaign, thought that all those balloons would rise high enough into the air that they would disintegrate, according to the San Francisco Appeal. Instead they fell to the earth below, much to the chagrin of local residents. At the time THQ said that the balloons "were made from a 100 percent organic product and are 100 percent biodegradable" and a clean-up crew was immediately hired to remove balloons that had littered the Bay.

Ultimately, the onus fell on the marketing company that initiated the stunt in the first place, and not THQ. According to a 1UP report, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board has fined the marketing company behind the publicity stunt $7,000, which it has 30 days to pay. The fine is the result of a settlement, which reduced what could have been a hefty sum.

Source: 1UP


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew Eisen"Gamasutra... had to pay" Yes. That's EXACTLY what it was. "Accountability" is and always was horse poop.07/29/2015 - 11:29pm
MattsworknameSo to speak07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
MattsworknameThats why this happened, you get people who felt hurt, marginalize, bettrayd, or otherwise offended, and they don't actually look at teh facts, they just attack and try to get there Blood for Blood07/29/2015 - 11:28pm
Mattsworknamefalse. Weather you think the article was right or not, there was a large group who felt taht gamastura and the other media sites had to pay for there actions, weather they deserved it or not07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
Andrew EisenTrying to yank advertising over a single opinion piece on a site that I would bet money most of the offended (if you will) didn't read, is no more an attempt at accountability than the Brown shooting's subsequent riots.07/29/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameMy point andrew is that it's not about them, its about the people responding to the situation. THe brown shooting was eventually shown to be completely justified, but the "Black lives matter" meme kept on rolling despite all it's intiall claims being07/29/2015 - 11:26pm
Andrew EisenDude, you're comparing an opinion piece with someone who was shot to death. Gamasutra and Alexander already were accountable for the opinion piece in question.07/29/2015 - 11:25pm
Mattsworknamekinds of events. nor has it stopped them from being asshats in my opinion, but in there view, they have to hold someone accountible for recent events, so they are doing what they think they must, even if it's based on falsehoods07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
MattsworknameAndrew: It's really a matter of context for the people involved. For example. The "Black lives matter" thing is based on an entirely false account of events in the brown shooting, but that hasnt' stopped it from triyng to hold Polititcians accountable for07/29/2015 - 11:22pm
Andrew EisenWouldn't surprise me. A lot of words' actual meanings escape many people on the internet.07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
Andrew EisenSo, "they must be held accountable" means "we must hurt them for publishing an opinion piece we don't like."07/29/2015 - 11:17pm
Mattsworknameor me thats demanding accountability on this, it's the ones who undertook the actiosn against these sites and went after the advertisers07/29/2015 - 11:13pm
MattsworknameJust cause you or I disagree with there response, they still feel they have a right to hold Groups like kotaku, gamasutra, Gawker, ET all, to account for what they felt was a vile and inappropriate action. Regardless of your or my view on it, it's nto you07/29/2015 - 11:13pm
Mattsworknamebetrayed or insulted by the articles in question, then they will feel a need to hold those media groups, regardless of intent, to account for that action, be it right or wrong.07/29/2015 - 11:12pm
MattsworknameAndrew: :target audience or not, if a large enough portion of our audience has a given view point Andrew, then you risk aggrivating that audience at your own peril. your question has been answer. if a large enough part of a media groups audience felt07/29/2015 - 11:11pm
Andrew EisenMy original question (which I've posed to you four or five times now) still stands.07/29/2015 - 11:04pm
Andrew EisenMatt - Yes, non-industry folk are welcome to and do read Gamasutra. That doesn't change the fact that they're not the site's target audience. Which wasn't my point anyway, merely an offered clarification as you keep referring to it like it's IGN.07/29/2015 - 11:04pm
MattsworknameNo different then GG ttrying to get Vox, Kotaku, gawker, and other such sties to fold cause they disagree, it's not right, but it's also the most common and most widely used of methods now adays.07/29/2015 - 10:21pm
MattsworknameTechnogeek: No, there isn't, you or I have no right to say someone cant say something, no matter how much we may dislike it. Even if you hate what they said, they have a right to say it. trying to shut someone down cause you don[t like what they say, is07/29/2015 - 10:20pm
Mattsworknameexamples of movments like what happend with those articles that occured with other, much bigger incidents.07/29/2015 - 10:18pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician