Jump to content



Photo

Sony sued over Killzone: Shadow Fall's graphics

sony killzone: shadow fall guerrilla games ps4 resolution frame rate

  • Please log in to reply
62 replies to this topic

#61 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows
  • Phone: Nokia 3110

Posted 24 December 2014 - 13:46

The red bull suit didn't have anything to do with the wings campaign. That was just the media doing what they do. The actual suit was against red bulls claims that their energy drink gives you more of a boost than a cup of coffee and was actually found to be not true.

Settling basically worked out in their favor because they got to give away a bunch of red bull, which is a thing they do anyway in a lot of cities.

 

The wings campaign was the campaign they were sued for, its the campaign that claimed their energy drink gives you more of a boost than other beverages.

The media tried to make it out as though Red Bull got sued for the 'Red Bull gives you wings'  slogan which is incorrect, it was that campaign but not for the slogan.

 

Not sure how losing 13 million dollars worked out for them, companies don't do giveaways to lose money. Red Bull does the giveaways with good looking red bull girls for relatively cheap advertising and to portray a certain image of the product and people who drink the product. Sending a $10 check to someone's house doesn't give this benefit.




#62 spenser.d

spenser.d

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 19-December 03

Posted 24 December 2014 - 14:17

The wings campaign was the campaign they were sued for, its the campaign that claimed their energy drink gives you more of a boost than other beverages.

The media tried to make it out as though Red Bull got sued for the 'Red Bull gives you wings'  slogan which is incorrect, it was that campaign but not for the slogan.

 

Not sure how losing 13 million dollars worked out for them, companies don't do giveaways to lose money. Red Bull does the giveaways with good looking red bull girls for relatively cheap advertising and to portray a certain image of the product and people who drink the product. Sending a $10 check to someone's house doesn't give this benefit.

 

If you read the actual complaint filed with the court, it doesn't specify any sort of particular campaign. Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them. But you're arguing over semantics now and I'm not sure why so I'll leave it at that.



#63 GotBored

GotBored

    Brain Trust

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 24-June 13
  • OS: Windows
  • Phone: Nokia 3110

Posted 24 December 2014 - 14:51

If you read the actual complaint filed with the court, it doesn't specify any sort of particular campaign. Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them. But you're arguing over semantics now and I'm not sure why so I'll leave it at that.

 

You do realize I was just replying to an argument you started against my post right?

 

The actual complaint:

 

Red Bull's ad campaign promised that the drink will increase performance, concentration and reaction speed, allowing the company to charge and get a substantial premium for their products over readily available and much lower priced sources of caffeine that provide the same results

 

The Red Bull lawsuit offered a $10 refund for anyone that purchased Red Bull in the last 12 years. (So since 2002)

 

Red Bull gives you wings ad campaign has been running since 2002.

 

 

 

 

Red Bull could've made those statements outside their campaign and still have been sued for them.

 

Red Bull could've also bought a nuke and dropped it on Las Vegas, but could've means nothing. The complaint specifically targeted the ad campaign not what they did outside of it.