By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
-CraZed- on 31 January 2014
Edit Thread
Somini said:
-CraZed- said:
bubblegamer said:
JoeTheBro said:
bubblegamer said:
JoeTheBro said:
Mummelmann said:
Did MS really make that first one? That kind of advertising would actually be illegal here. Great response though.


Yes. Why'd it be illegal over there?


Europe is the same. You are not allowed to reference competitors by name in commercials. You can say other consoles in this case, but no specifying.

Thanks for the response. That's a strange rule.


The main reason behind is so that companies don't trash talk each other. Otherwise the richer one wins by default.

Why by default? Smaller companies can't make a case against a larger one? That seems counter intuitive to me and seemingly only actually serves the interest of the larger companies who are above reproach by their lesser competitors.

Well bigger corporarions have much more money to spend on ads. Smaller one's may not be able to fight back as effectively. For example we had an electricity company taken over by a german one some time ago and one of their smaller competitors aired commercials about their clients paying a foreign company and that they should choose a local one instead.

That didn't get appreciated one bit and they were in court soon after. They had to rectify the commercial and pay a large fine in the end.

See, that goes straight to my point. A smaller and native company was shut up by a larger and richer company in court. The policy you speak of allows bigger companies to force smaller ones to keep quiet for fear of being penalized with huge legal burdens that only a larger company could afford.

Big companies know how that works and will most likely shut up smaller competitors before they even get to court. Seems it would be fairer to allow that type of advertising than not.