"the golden poo" is just a negative popularity contest, as you said. It's supposed to be somewhat farcical. Even if they had multiple categories they would still have one "Overall best(worst) company award" so the 'problem' wouldn't be solved in any case.

you could argue the entire rest of the site is about nuanced looks at company practises. the golden poo is a satire on awards as much as it is bad business dealings.

Thanks for reminding me of something I wanted to put in the article but forgot. I updated the last paragraph.

I'd have to disagree.
EA does deserve what they have gotten, even though BoA does deserve some scorn as well.

EA has:
Clearly shat over consumer rights by forcing spyware installation on their machines for any of their newer games.
Used clearly offensive, sex and age discriminating marketing. (and no, not just for the ability to express themselves)
They have historically and modernly taken advantage of their consumer base, pushed shoddy ports for their partner companies (and refused to support them)

These are just the consumer rights issues.
There also exist more then a few simple employment issues and overall issues harm to the gaming industry including severally high hours expected of employes in and outside of the industry standard crunch time. They have also killed off competition with near monopolistic policies of acquisition, giving serious contenders next to no chance of establishing themselves in the industry without massive monetary support.

As far as bad game companies are concerned, EA may be king, but how can you say that destroying peoples lives, homes, stealing their life savings and property, and being partially responsible for a GLOBAL recession, is less bad? You can decide not to do business with EA, and avoid being affected by them too much, even though they do harm the industry as a whole. But the vast majority of people affected by BoA didn't even have an account with them, or any way to avoid, because they have harmed the world as a whole.

these are economic irresponsabilitites, not (as consumer reports is concerned with) consumer rights issues or direct product issues.

Aren't things like foreclosing on homes you don't even own, trashing the contents, or just flat out bulldozing them, more criminal issues? The Consumerist is not Consumer Reports, they were purchased after years of existing on their own by Consumer Reports and function with autonomy. Consumer Reports as an entity has nothing to do with this. Also the contest was to decide the worst company based upon the breadth of their actions, not upon particular constraints.