The guy who was upset about his video game being mislabeled was nasty and upset immediately. Look at the time stamps on his tirade. He took a basic mistake and overreacted, and was nasty about it.
A mistake so easily fixed, and one that really didn't -hurt- him. It was mislabeled, but it's not like people couldn't have tried to buy it.
He was nasty and unreasonable immediately; if he'd been nice about it, they might have agree to feature his game in some other way. He shot himself in the foot. I'd have been glad about the death threat, because it would mean I could say, "you're unreasonable and nasty, and I don't want to be in a business relationship with you. Go away," and yet not have quite as much argument about it.
Plus, I'm all for the idea of dropping an immediate boom on people who say stuff like that, even if they don't really mean it. That level of nastiness needs to go away.
We had a guy who did that--got incredibly nasty about a mistake that had been made in our magazine--a store who sold his product had been ID'd as the designer ("by" instead of "from"). He was nasty to the store lady--who then decided she didn't want to sell his products anymore. He was nasty to the person on my team who was in charge of checking things.
He was nasty to me. I had to call him from vacation to back him down. And I pointed out that we hadn't actually -hurt- him; We didn't take away from him anything that he already had. The most we could possibly have done is to have neglected to create an extra opportunity for sales that might result from the publicity.
But we didn't even do that--he did. He doesn't sell his products directly anyway, and anyone who wanted to buy them -could- have purchased them from the person whose contact info was given. We hadn't even lost him that opportunity at a few extra sales--except that since he had been so nasty to the woman whose contact info was linked there, now she wouldn't be selling them. So he'd lost that himself.
And I pointed out that it surely was in his best interests to be pleasant with us while we figured out how to fix the mistake, because we had no reason now to ever feature his products again.
And I pointed out that he was nasty immediately--before he had any information, before he even spoke to anyone on the phone, he was nasty. He assumed the worst. And that I wasn't happy that he'd spoken that way to the woman who worked for me, and that I'd taken over the conversation because I wasn't going to have her subjected to that sort of unpleasantness.
And that no, absolutely not, were we going to give him a free page of advertising in our magazine, worth something like $50,000 just because the -editorial- people had ended up with incomplete information and used the wrong preposition. That I'd been in publishing for years, and not one time ever had an editorial problem ever affected advertising.
Before I called him back, I talked to the advertising person from his sector; he'd purchased some ad at some point, and she said, "He hasn't even paid us for that. So no, I don't care whether he's happy or not. Do what you need to do."
I thought I'd heard that he went out of business, but some of his products did pop up in a photo a year or so later. But my team also made sure to tell the photo team that we didn't like him and he was hard to deal with.