Need help with a very sensitive complaint against a massive multinational!(1409 Posts)
Ok, here goes.
Coca Cola are running a promo via their Dr Pepper brand just now on facebook. It is called 'status takeover' and involves the application putting an embarrassing or funny status on your FB page.
My 14 yo dd participated and I was HORRIFIED to log into FB and see that her status read - 'I watched 2 girls one cup and felt hungry afterwards'. For anyone who doesn't know what this means, please stay ignorant, for those who do, you can imagine how I felt. This was compounded later on when a quick search through dds internet history revealed she had tried to find out what it was for herself. Thankfully, our ISP has a wonderful child filter!!
So, after various emails and phonecalls to CocaCola marketing I have been offered (quite offensively) as way of compensation, a night in a hotel and theatre tickets for the West End. Fat lot of use to me, we live in Glasgow.
So, how do I proceed? ASA? I am absolutely fizzing with rage and disgust, and want a full apology and explanation. CocaCola are saying they use outside marketing teams for different brands and it's outside their jurisdiction. Help!?
runoutofnameideas - scat is short for scatalogical - basically toilet-related output (!) Sorry, yes it is messy and TMI really.
This is so shocking.
I am truly disgusted that CocaCola think it ok.
There must be some laws that cover this.
Mrs Rickman many parents will thank you that you had the guts to take on a multinational.
I would be very interested in reading an interview with the performers and directors of this video just to see what their justifications for doing it were. But as I do not want to know any more detail about it than that which I already know (when I found out, from Mumsnet funnily enough, I felt unsettled and strangely depressed for weeks) I guess I'm going to have to remain in the dark. Am certainly not going to start searching for anything.
MrsR - I really would report this to the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) - although it would perhaps cause a few tantrums at some homes tonight if FaceBook is disabled across the UK for 24 hours, it would draw attention (in response to questions from the media to IWF) about how this Dr Pepper campaign was the cause.
Might make a few CC executives uncomfortable if it made the evening TV news as the cause of IWF blocking FaceBook/ DrPepper promotion pages.
Certainly a good idea to shut down facebook as I don't want see porn posted by cocacola in the status updates of my friend list. I have teenagers on my friend list and wouldn't want them to read such horrid things from my friend list. (Hopefully no one is doing this campaign that I know - but you never know)
KerryM - and what do you expect the average copper (or civilian answering the phone) to do ? "Oh, thanks for your information, madam, it will be logged and someone will get back to you."
9 times out of 10 I doubt they'd know where to forward it/ file it (except in the circular 'cabinet' in the corner aka 'bin'). Perhaps better to have the Police investigate after websites are shut down/ blocked from access. Much bigger stink and there would be wider public knowledge that some advertising twit thought this "edgy" campaign would "make his name" (it might, but with a P45 and if the CPS / Police consider it bad enough, a fine or worse).
According to my Level 2 Safeguarding Children for Nominated Officers training course, allowing children to be exposed to pornographic material is a serious form of sexual abuse.
By putting these pornographic updates on young teenagers facebook pages, are Coca Cola not guilty of exposing them to porn? These children will be tempted to google the terms to find out what they mean, and they are inviting comments from adults that do know what it means, especially if they have to have their profiles public.
Thanks, PP, for putting it in context, though of itself, a simple English phrase isn't necessarily "pornographic".
I went by the IWF reporting page and suggested that the campaign was misleading teens about how 'embarrassing' the updates would be, and that there was likely to be wide readership (by other teens) and participation, for the chance to win 1000 pounds.
Someone else pointed out that although T+C says 14 to 16yo need parental consent there is nothing to show it has been requested / obtained.
Some forces may do, but I think it's pot luck as to how someone's report of "a Facebook status update" would be interpreted...
Some copper might suggest the individual young person had made that status update themself, as it is done with their login details (another "no no" for using the internet, is to allow someone else access to your account!)
Without being able to point to a dozen or more of the same phrase appearing, some updates could be considered just a joke, as they may be mild.
All the better to get Facebook shut down, albeit temporarily, and get all status updates removed! Hopefully MrsR will come back onto MN today.
NetworkGuy - why are you so keen to see Facebook shut down? Is it just for the newsworthiness of that in itself?
I know the phrase in itself isn't pornographic.
How many 14 year olds will know what it means without googling it? In googling, then they are exposed to all the horrors and nastiness of the internet.
They also have a update status that is inviting all the sickos and weirdos to contact them, because their profile is public.
It only takes a facebook search to have a list of victims. Some 14 year olds ahve their mobile phone numbers and email addresses on their profiles.
fbook says to reprt abuse by clicking on the
ceops link www.facebook.com/terms.php#!/help/?safety=teens
It runs another 9 days or so, but has been live since mid May, so either it hasn't been of much interest to the target age group, or they have had these status updates and none have been spotted, or possibly thousands have been spotted and parents have taken action.
I don't think MrsR can be blamed for not reporting this to the police, as she wants to protect her DD from the possible publicity that would be generated, and any sensible judge should accept that.
Certainly one would expect a ban on publicity because of the nature of the wording used, once explained by the judge to the jury, an unpleasant task at best!
Thanks for clarifying that Networkguy. I had no idea .
bbh - it would (a) make Facebook more careful, (b) make any advertising/PR agencies more careful, (c) make parents more concerned about FB (since so many under age youngsters are clearly being allowed to lie about their age),
and (most important, especially after Kerry's comments about the police vis a vis MrsR) :
(d) it would take the spotlight off one Mum expressing concern, if a body like the IWF took action on parents' behalf, as they must get dozens of anonymous reports and would not be expected to divulge her details.
IWF can act faster with the ISPs to block sites than some copper in <middle of nowhere> can, even if s/he knows the home number of someone in a specific internet/child protection section of the police.
runoutofnameideas - not my cup of tea either !
Child exploitation online protection or whatever is called may be interested as it promotes on line safety an op's dd has been encouraged to search the meaning thereby potential putting her at risk.
All this has made me checkout how to report things on fbook.
Facebook are notoriously slow to act.
I would have thought that ceops and the specialist police divisions handling this sort of thing have 24 hour operations (otherwise out-of-office-hours suddenly become a whole lot more dangerous) and would imagine that the op must have had some sort of response from somebody by now.
I think other people on this thread have taken it upon themselves to report, too.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.