Except that mere-mortals, like myself, had no idea that "Sony" was not "Sony".

If Sony reaps brand benefits from naming a "partially owned company" "Sony xxx", then Sony should also suffer when one part of the whole does something damaging to the brand.

Can't have it both ways.

Exactly. Just a few weeks ago I read an article linked through HN about some 3rd party site branded as some Microsoft store, developed in India that stored passwords/credit card/some sensitive information in clear text... didn't take people long to start beating Microsoft with that stick.

Your clued up person may know the difference, but the average person is not that clued up.

I worked at Sony Music during the time of the rootkit fiasco and I was a bit surprised by the reaction of the internet. There were many organized boycotts of Sony Corporate, Sony Playstation, etc… while nobody tried to boycott any Bertelsmann products (and there are plenty). The irony is that the individual in charge of that division of Sony BMG came over in the merger from Bertelsmann.

While Sony certainly stood to reap the brand benefits, they also reaped almost all of the negative publicity.

> While Sony certainly stood to reap the brand benefits, they also reaped almost all of the negative publicity.

That sounds like someone failed in their due diligence role, rather than any reason I should pity Sony.

Well, no, it's not like that. It was a private venture 50 percent owned by Sony itself, not merely a public venture with a shared big stockholder. Sony had substantial control over the company, which was made substantially of labels spun off from Sony, and which are now fully owned and controlled by Sony. Sony is the successor in interest, getting all of these labels' assets, including their goodwill or lack thereof.

Mainly, though, this corporation, which began with Sony and ended with Sony, fit very well with the Sony culture of abusing consumer trust for additional profit.