Of course, every act of incompetence under the Sony name tarnishes that name, and in the marketplace, that's ultimately all that matters.
Of course, every act of incompetence under the Sony name tarnishes that name, and in the marketplace, that's ultimately all that matters.
As it should. When these companies merge, buy other companies out, or execute reverse takeovers, there's always talk of "brand synergies" and all of the business advantages of having one set of products associated with another. There's absolutely no reason why that particular sword shouldn't have two edges to it.
As a consumer, I'm not the least bit interested in a detailed breakdown of the corporate structure. Sony pays brand managers very well to encourage me to think of it as a single monolithic company, and I'm happy to oblige.
Its fair for you to say you're not interested. However, if you're going to try to boycott a company to punish them for their behavior, being aware of exactly who is responsible is a good place to start.
Bertelsmann was just as aggressive with music protection. They had to issue replacement CDs that had anti-rip software to annoyed customers in 2001 for instance. The executive in charge at the time of the fiasco came over to Sony BMG from Bertelsmann.
I worked closely with some of the people involved in it at Sony BMG. One lesson I took away from it all was that even though it was a 50-50 merger, Sony had way more name recognition and therefore more on the line. As you said, they benefit from the goodwill disproportionately and they also took the brunt of the PR damage.
What actually happened to him? I don't think I ever heard.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4989260 (even here when they were interviewing him, the headline is just "Sony" but throughout it is "Sony BMG") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hesse (last few paragraphs)