I never ceased to be amazed about the uncommon nature of common sense. Common sense would tell us that there needs to be a clear separation between editorial and advertising if a particular media property wants to maintain credibility in the marketplace. Common sense would tell a major game maker that even a critical review is still advantageous editorial coverage and that to raise a ruckus about it would simply bring out the animosity of the hard core gaming community. Common sense would tell a website that sells itself as “your source for video games” not to fire an editor who authored a critical review of a major advertiser. Common sense would inform a major online publisher like cNet not to risk their credibility by putting one of their websites in the hands of a gaming neophyte. Once again Harry Truman gets the last laugh having noted that “if common sense were so common more people would have it.”
This particular story is my new poster child for Marketing for Bad. According to a number of sources the plot line goes something like this:
*Kane & Lynch, a new game from Eidos takes a dominant advertising position on the GameSpot website (a couple of weeks ago)
*GameSpot critic Jeff Gertsmann gives Kane & Lynch a 6 out of 10 rating in his review
*Jeff Gertsmann is fired & the video review of Kane & Lynch is pulled from the site
*The gaming community gets wind of the story and rants about it
*“Gertsmann-gate” becomes a top story on Digg
*Gertsmann’s video review is posted on YouTube and gets over 330,000 views in 5 days
*C-net defends its editorial integrity
*GameSpot restores the review on its website
*GameSpot is raked through the coals by gaming blog Destructoid masked as “Cashwh0re” which looks a lot like the GameSpot website
This story is a text book case on how to screw up without really trying. Eidos screwed up by putting pressure on GameSpot about a mediocre review. Imagine what might have happened had they responded by saying, “hey Jeff, you’re right on these points but wrong on these points.” At least they could have started a dialog with Jeff and his readers. Better yet they could have said “Hey Jeff, you’re right, the game isn’t as good as we wanted it to be but we rushed it in order to make the holiday sales period–anybody who buys it before xmas will get a free upgrade next year.” The point is that they could have been honest. Instead they tried to bully their way out of a mediocre review and got caught.
GameSpot screwed up by pulling the review and canning Jeff Gertsmann. Pulling the review was unusual and certainly raised a little smoke. Firing the editor was practically an act of self-immolation. Even if his firing had nothing to do with the pressure from Eidos, any idiot would have assumed that the outside world perceive a direct cause and effect and put a reasonable time period between the editorial and the eviction. Once word got about this situation, GameSpot had a chance to come clean and admit they screwed up. Instead they and their parent c-net offered the usual pulp about editorial integrity and standards above suspicion. Yeah right. You blew it. And then you blew it again.
But there is always time to admit the error of ones ways and be forgiven. Jason Giambi came clean. Barry Bonds didn’t. Now Bonds is facing jail time and Giambi is still the pride of the Yankees (witness how many fans still wear Giambi jerseys despite his problems). Both Eidos and GameSpot can still fess up. Eidos can apologize for being a bully and making a game that isn’t as good as they hoped. GameSpot can apologize for feeling financial pressure that made them compromise their editorial and they can hire Jeff back and fire the publisher responsible for this silliness. And c-net can establish an independent task force to evaluate and monitor the editorial integrity of not just their websites but their competitors. These folks need to start turning lemons into lemonade lickety split or forget the whole thing.
Come on guys, this the internet era. Honesty is the not the best policy, its the only policy.