As video game playing increases in popularity and becomes more integrated into the American media mainstream, it’s inevitable that sociologists and the public in general pay more attention to it. In addition to debates about whether violent video games make players more violent in real life, racial/ethnic issues are also present. In the past, I’ve written about efforts to change the stereotypical ways in which Blacks are portrayed in video games.

The most recent controversy is in regard to Sony’s advertisement in the Netherlands that portrays a White woman holding the jaw of a Black woman in a menacing manner (picture below). Some have called the ad racist while others have said that it is just a marketing image designed to publicize the option of buying Sony’s PSP console in either a black or white color:

Black groups in the USA are up in arms over the latest Sony billboard advertisements for a white PSP. A new billboard advert for Sony’s white PSP has caused consternation across the US videogaming community. The ad shows a white model dressed entirely in white threateningly grasping the face of a black model.

Next to them are the words, “PlayStation Portable. White is coming". Sites such as Kotaku, Joystiq and Digital Battle have questioned whether the ads are racist. So far the debate has split comments sections with some condemning Sony and equal numbers defending the ads as a harmless personification of the handheld console’s two available colours.

Clearly, whatever the justifications, the intention is to be provocative. According to Joystiq, the adverts have been created by TBWA an agency that speciliases in ‘disruptive’ marketing.

Apparently bowing to the public outcry, Sony has just announced that it is pulling the ad. Nonetheless, the question remains, where do we draw the line between advertising that is designed to be provocative and draw publicity one way or another, versus images that conjure up a racist history of prejudice, discrimination, and stereotypes?

Obviously this debate will not be settled any time soon, but my two cents is that companies are free to use whatever images or advertising they want in order to generate some publicity and attention for their product but they should then be prepared to accept whatever consequences arise from the images they use and the outrage that it engenders.

In other words, if Sony used these particular images unaware of its potential cultural connections to White domination over Blacks, then it deserves to be called an aloof, out-of-touch, and culturally ignorant company. If it used these images knowing that some/many would consider it racist, then it deserves to be called opportunistic, arrogant, and irresponsible.

Finally, Sony needs to accept that if they were going to stick with their ad, then they need to accept the consequences of whatever boycotts and other collective action arise from their activities. Thankfully, Sony chose to pull the ad rather than let the outcry escalate. That’s probably the best move Sony has made in this whole episode.