Personally, I believed it wouldn't matter much to them at all, unless the bad PR corresponded with a drop in sales. Many readers asked me if anyone at EA even cared about "winning" this award, and if they'd respond to it. I said no, but it turns out I was wrong.
In a statement to Kotaku, an EA rep had this to say about the company's 1st place finish:
"We're sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren't nominated this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."
Arrogant, dismissive, and pretty much what fans expect from EA at this point. A far more appropriate statement might have been:
"We are sorry the readers of the Consumerist feel EA deserves this title. We will continue to make quality games and remember to treat our fans with respect in order to ensure this does not happen again."
Of course, that would be admitting fault, and why do that when you can just wave away millions of angry fans with a flick of your wrist?
Interestingly enough, The Consumerist points out that three of the four companies EA mentions HAVE won the "Worst Company" award in previous years. BP in 2010, AIG in 2009 and Haliburton in 2006. EA's defense of "at least we're not as bad as these other guys" seems to me like a bicycle thief pleading innocence because "well, at least it wasn't a Ferrari!"
I didn't think EA would care about this to any significant degree, and it would seem they don't. Again, only when fan anger and bad press results in an actual decrease in sales, will anything be done to try and walk back abusive policies in order to placate upset players. Until then, they could be declared the worst company across all of time and space, and it won't make a bit of difference.
