[Jurri]

S.R. Krol said:
All I was saying was that the ads are meant to bring new eyes into the fold and all the complaints in the thread are coming from people who already own the game. If it was truly something so offensive (e.g. "John Romero is going to make you his *****") then I would assume that there would be some sort of furor from folks outside the community. There isn't.

And again, I really don't understand where the hostility comes from towards the ads, or frankly anything in this thread. You have a concern about the ad. Others don't. And then I'm sure there is a huge percentage of people who feel nothing either way. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone's opinion is valid.

I should imagine that a company in the entertainment industry would have some concern for the values and image it chooses to project. Certainly us private citizens often enough care of right, wrong, and what others think of us. It is your privilege to weigh the eyeballs earned by exploitative marketing against the reputation hit your company takes in the eyes of those who care, and then act according to your estimation. This does not speak well of your morality to those who care about the issue.

Whether the majority of your customers care about this matter or even whether your company might benefit from this business practice is, however, beside the point when the concerned segment comes to complain. We are telling you that some of your customers feel estranged by the choices the company makes. There being people who do not care of this issue or even favour exploitative marketing does not make this complaint any less significant for those who do care, it only makes the complaint matter less in the eyes of a company that cares more of the bottom-line than good corporate citizenship.

Frivolously dismissing actual customer feedback is, again, your prerogative, even if many businesses would value and weigh heavily such grassroots signals that might reflect significant issues for large customer segments. You do not even have to pretend to care of the issue, you may well decide to scoff upon the concerns raised here – that will win you no favour with the offended customers, but perhaps there are other rewards, like seeming decisive and confident in your public relations decisions. Or perhaps you have numerous customers for whom 19th century attitudes to objectification of women are a selling point?

Personally, however, I am taken back by both this campaign and this seemingly rash attitude. I find it difficult to believe that I see you defending sexist and blatantly improper exploitation here in this thread. One would – one should – think that such would hardly be beneficial to a company at all interested in its public image.

I can’t speak for others here, but for myself I can say that I object rather strongly, even hostilely, to objectification of women in service of crass consumerism. The gaming hobby has a dark history in this regard and while these advertisements might be appropriate (if transparent) for furniture, lipstick or women’s shoes, in service of a fantasy adventure game they are pure exploitation. Neither the visual style nor content matter here bears even passing relation to the advertised product; this is most clear-cut as a case of female exploitation. Similar advertisement campaigns have been judged in Finnish courts as demeaning and patently offensive, unfit for public consumption.

To put it more simply, I have no desire to associate myself with this travesty of modern marketing, and while others are of course entitled to their own values, I do not like these values displayed in places I frequent or make purchases in.

Annette said:
We apologize that our banner ads offend you.

And what's up with this double-speak? Are you trying to intimate that you are not sorry for your actions, but regret that some are offended? You have no claim to an apology for the latter without regretting the former, you know – I for one am not inclined to forgive you when you do not even confess that there is room for offence in what you have done here. The first step to conciliation is seeking common ground; false humility does not become anyone.

For the consumer who might be reading this I’d like to point out that you are not without a voice when corporations choose not to heed your moral norms: not only can we be unambiguous in making clear our stance, but we can also make our own choices in the marketplace. If you feel strongly about sexual exploitation in gaming and the marketplace (or other corporate citizenship issues for that matter), then let the offending companies know what you as a community member expect of them. In the short term the company might prefer that no voice be raised in critique (they are all infallible, after all), but you do no service to any party by staying quiet: if their own sense does not tell them what is good and proper, they will not learn from your passivity.

And should the company scoff at your concerns (as seems to be the case here, at least for now), you may well opt to vote with your wallet, as they say. There are other games to play besides Dominions (I’m partial to doing some internet Diplomacy this summer, myself) and there are other communities for discussing the game as well. They have the right to choose their methods of advertisement, and you have the right to choose whether to give them your business, it's as simple as that.