Advert with 'I will do my share of the night feeding'(111 Posts)
Okay, I'm still smarting from complaining about the last set of formula ads on TV and all the flippin letters from the ASA to patronise me explain why my complaint wasn't valid.
But has anyone else picked up on this TV ad with the Dad standing in the kitchen heating up a bottle saying 'I will do my share of the night feeding' (or somesuch words - they probably worded it more carefully than that...)
My gripe is - although they show follow-on formula at the end and have the teeny tiny writing at the bottom as required by law... Aren't most babies over 12 months sleeping through the night without needing a night feed? I know some babies over 12 months have a night feed, but surely they are implying a younger baby here?
What do you think?
It annoys me too (partly because my ex p never got up in the night with either of mine, ever, for anything)
Isn't that formula ad for the 6 months + milk? They're allowed to advertise it from 6 months I think, or I might be wrong. So some babies would still need a night feed.
that ad annoys me too - all the babies are clearly under 6 months or only just
Follow On Milk is recognised by WHO as to be a completely unnecessary product. It was only invented so formula companies could advertise formula.
Yes, I find this advert annoying. IMO follow on milk adverts shouldn't be allowed.
you are right
of course it is meant to make you think of a dad making pre-birth promises re a newborn
but the spouty cup and the small print means they can claim it is solely an advert for follow-on milk
(notwithstanding all this, dd wanted feeding at night till 18m and probably would be still if I gave her the option)
i hate that ad.
that one and the fecking giggling babies one that pretty much says 'all the research into breast is best is utter bollocks because look we got these babies to laugh on camera'
and it's not the fact that they're advertising formula... there are some formula ads i don't mind much like that one where when it mentions 'if you want to move on from bf-ing at some point' and shows a 1 year old not a blimmin 3 month old like most of the other ads.
I always thought the dad was a bit stupid. Why was he boiling a kettle in the middle of the night. Now he will have to wait for ages while the bottle cools down and that baby will be screaming his head off!
I have never used follow on milk. They didnt have it when my big kids were babies. By the time they were ff they were almost on cows milk anyway.
Didnt bother for the younger ones. What is it for?
I find it exremely annoying as well but mostly for the same reason as Meglet.
ellagrace - bottle feeding is not criminalised, and I respect any mother because however you feed your baby it's the hardest most important job in the world. But advertising baby formula on television is illegal. Hence the slimy shyster tricks that the formula manufacturers use to get around the ban - advertising 'follow on milk' instead of baby formula and incorporating arguments against breastfeeding subtly in the ad.
I wouldn't mind if equal funds were available to help women struggling to breastfeed who really want to, but there are millions in the marketing budget for companies to misinform, mislead and extort money from women who don't really need to buy their product. I am not against bottle feeding mums, and there are any number of good reasons for bottle feeding, but I spit in the general direction of those who make their money from misleading advertising of formula.
Now, can I face the depressing effect of complaining to the ASA yet again...?
YANBU. I hate it too. I'm amazed that these ads get past the ASA when they are clearly implying that the parents are feeding a much younger baby.
And ellagrace - companies are not allowed to advertise formula.
These ads don't bother me in the slightest. I tend to think people can make their own minds up how to feed their baby and that we are not all morons who will flock to Tescos to buy Aptamil just because the telly has shown an ad for it.
No, not everyone is a moron. But if advertising doesn't work why do they spend millions every year doing it? I can't imagine the shareholders would be overjoyed if they had an entire department (marketing) that is essentially pointless. After all, not everyone is a moron.
Why on earth do they bother to advertise then? If the adverts make no difference at all then Aptamil, C&G et al must be employing their marketing staff out of charity, or maybe to keep them off the streets. How kind!
I agree that we can all make our own minds up but if people are given misleading information then they're likely to make a different decision than if they'd been given correct information. So if they're given the impression that formula is good for babies (like the 'do I look like my immune system isn't working' or whatever those laughing baby ads) and given lots of information about the benefits of bottle feeding (look, your partner can do it in the middle of the night) then more people will choose it. Not because they're morons but because they're probably knackered and struggling with breastfeeding, not getting the support they need, and nice old P&G throws them a lifebelt with 'Hey this stuff is better for your baby anyway' written on it. So they grab it. Then find out later on that they were misled but can't turn back the clock.
Put it another way - I would bet my house and everything in it that a woman who has chose to BF won't see an advert for SMA and say "oh fuck it I'll just use that instead". Just won't happen. People are not that stupid and if they are then I'm surprised they knew which hole to put it in to make the baby in the first place.
I woudl have thought the fairly obvious answer to why they advertise is to compete against each other and pitch their formula to the ones who have already chosen to FF.
Clearly they are allowed to advertise formula, JulesJules, otherwise there wouldn't BE adverts for formula. They're just not allowed to advertise first stage formula or tell people that the formula helps babies' immune systems or whatever it was they got into trouble for recently. Immunofortis or something?
I have no problem regarding whatever feeding choices people make, but just in the case of this advert, I do agree that all the stuff the Dad is saying sounds like promises made before a baby is born, not a six month plus baby.
"I woudl have thought the fairly obvious answer to why they advertise is to compete against each other and pitch their formula to the ones who have already chosen to FF."
But that is still illegal. Whether we like it or not it is still not allowed to advertise, in this country, formula milk for babies under 6 months. Follow on milk allows them to circumvent this.
I do not understand why it bothers you?
If you are happy breast feeding why do you mind if other women choose to bottlefeed?
Some women can not or choose not to breast feed why is this a problem for anyone else?
I seriously doubt a new mum would watch this advert and then say 'ohhh I had better bottle feed now' really?
Do you think all women should be forced to breast feed and all references to bottle feeding sensored from the media and literature?
No I agree they are geting round the ban without a shadow of a doubt. I just don't get all the hand-wringing about it I suppose. The only people likely to take notice are the ones who have decided to ff anyway and are just not decided about which brand.
Wasn't one of these ads banned quite recently? I seem to remember a report about unsubstantiated claims that follow on milk helped maintain a baby's immune system?
Actually follow on milks have been around at least 20 years - I remember because my MIL asked me why I was still bf DS (who's 21 now) when I could give him the stuff from the tin! - I did use one, but only to mix with his porridge because the HV told me not to use cow's milk & I've never been able to express.
Join the discussion
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.