What are the PR implications of recent in-fighting at Activision between Infinity Ward's Robert Bowling and Call of Duty: World at War producer Noah Heller?

One of the biggest stories currently working its way through the editorial sphere at the moment is that of Infinity Ward community manager Robert Bowling and his irate “comments” regarding Call of Duty: World at War producer Noah Heller via his blog.

The background to this story is pretty well known by now. It involved Robert Bowling questioning the rights of Noah Heller to reference previous ‘Call of Duty’ titles in the promotion of ‘Call of Duty: World at War’. Of course, ‘World at War’ is being developed at Treyarch rather than Infinity Ward, the home of the series’ prior incarnations.

Bowling said, “A rule of thumb I like to use is…. when promoting your game. Promote YOUR game. Don’t compare it to another game, or reference what OTHER games did in the past, pitch YOUR game. I mean, you have lots of cool things you could talk about… like Nazi Zombies….”

He then goes on to make a plea to the games media, “Can you guys please stop interviewing this guy, talk to someone who actually works on the Dev Team at Treyarch and knows what the fuck they’re talking about. Not Senior Super Douche Noah Heller from Activision - who apparently has never played the game and doesn’t even work at the developer.”

Bowling’s comments, whether they are sympathetic or not, raise a number of interesting issues about who has the right to be the public face of a game, the wider IP and the brand that encapsulates it all.

Obviously, Infinity Ward and Treyarch are two completely different studios with different development cultures and ultimately their interpretation of the Call of Duty franchise will result in two completely different experiences. However, for all their differences they are both still representing the same franchise and, in the minds of consumers, the same brand.

Whether they meet eye to eye across the board at Activision is irrelevant, all employees of both studios are ambassadors of the brand and ultimately it is the brand alone that will suffer damage as a result of any perceived in-fighting. As Keith Stuart of the Guardian Gamesblog rightly points out: “This almost never happens. I mean, public in-fighting between two developers working under one publisher. It's the sort of nightmarishly human scenario that PR departments will seek to quash with Draconian might before it ever, ever escapes the confines of the company intranet. And yet, here it is online for all to see.”

Whatever differences that may exist between the two firms they owe it to themselves and - more importantly - the franchise that they have both had a hand in building to keep disagreements private and amicable. How game’s are promoted and who has the right to say what, be them developer or publisher, should form part of a brand’s wider communications strategy and be agreed on by all relevant parties.

Allowing individuals’ blood boil over into the public sphere is very dangerous. While in this case the results may not be terribly severe (if anything, the whole thing has been a pretty silly affair) their implications and what they say about the powers of we web-enabled workforce should be of great concern to PR managers everywhere.