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!?
sdia12 - if you are still lurking for comments about Coca-Cola and their campaign agency, Lean Mean Fighting Machine, rather than verbal-ping-pong going off up a cul-de-sac, then you might like to check the cached copy of the LMFM blog for
There were three entries yesterday evening but it seems LMFM has deleted the whole of May from their archive, at least while this issue is "live" perhaps because of:
Armando Alves Says:
May 23rd, 2010 at 10:34 am
*You are aware that goes against facebook Terms Of Service ? (chapter 4)
So i guess the worst it could happen is get your application banned *
The opening post had an image with an example message of "Sucked a mate's finger for a pound today" (ie innocent stuff) and then said
"Hand over your Facebook page to the Status Takeover from Dr Pepper. Whats the worst that could happen?
Let the toe-curling commence at bit.ly/autO7A "
I'm assuming the "Hand over ..." went out on Twitter because it includes the web link bit.ly/autO7A
The (sad) competition entrants are still "gutted" about the competition having been closed early, as per the Facebook page for Dr Pepper that bit.ly/autO7A points to.
Sorry, what's a Chelsea Smile ?
Baffled, living 'up north' so London slang is incomprehensible!
Some agency bods are making especially ridiculous comments about this...
I'd like to buy you a beer
This was a great controversial campaign. It delivered on what it set out to do
If anything, they (LMFM) should be awarded MORE of Coke's business for this
and on some blog by a fanboy
"perhaps there should have been more understanding from Coke that this approach, delivered through social media, was going to be edgy."
Well done MrsR. I am heartily sick of the degradation of women being used to sell products.
Ethical cola: www.ubuntu-trading.com/our-fairtrade-cola
I guess what we all need to realise about this, is that all the media reports will sell more coke. It might even have been a marketing ploy by coca cola to get some free airtime, who knows.
Sorry for the late reply, i had a slight internet hiccup.
See, I'm FOR edgy. I like edgy. If we're going to HAVE to have advertising for GODS SAKE make it interesting. But there is 'edgy' and there is damaging your clients reputation.
Ooh - the threads moved out of _chat!
I'm bowing out of this thread now. Too frustrating and depressing to see the opinions of a couple of posters here. Normally different opinions is great, but here when one advocates letting children view scat porn and that to do otherwise is wrong and overprotective it's fairly sickening.
I don't think you're going to get anywhere with them anyway.
Mrs R, still supporting you.
Am not at all anti the majority of porn, but I am very thankful never to have seen this hideous video. I wish we lived in a world where women weren't treated like that.
Ha Ha ! That will presumably make external links all come up with some error message or an alert from MNHQ saying thread has been removed from public view...
.... and ensure it lives on rather than disappear out of _chat after a few weeks.
I think the idea that Coke did this on purpose is a conspiracy theory too far.
This is potentially very damaging to a 'wholesome' brand.
DH is quite high up in the marketing world, and was appalled by this.
It slipped through the net, and they have to be accountable.
I was hoping that JezBaron didn't really know what the term meant...
Update - written apology received in the post this morning from boak coke.
Phone call from Ms Branston. Asked me what the company could do to make this right. Apologised again and told me she wanted to 'reach out' to me and talk about the situation (?)
Manage to keep calm (I think)and get across how I (and thousands of others) felt.
Told me the ball was in my court now and if I need to talk, or could suggest to her how I could be 'compensated' I should call her any time. She says she didn't want to 'offend' me again as she had done with the tickets/hotel thing.
When I asked her why coke hadn't made a public apology she said they had. I can't find it anywhere...
Have been advised to go to CAB tomorrow for some advice and clarity. Not sure what coke are playing at here but I'm left entirely bemused, and not particularly sure what to do.
I have no intention of talking to The Scottish Sun. I just couldn't trust those people unfortunately.
Thank you again, everyone.
This whole thing is just going to slip away isn´t it with I feel little effect on CC DrP or indeed Lean Mean whatever?
I think you're silly not to talk to the scottish sun - if publicity and shaming of Coke is your aim.
Are there any legal types about?
I've been directed to the amneded Sexual Offences (Scotland) Bill and think there might be a criminal case to answer here after all.
Section 18 is concerned with 'causing a child to look at an obscene image' with intent to 'humiliate, distress or alarm'
The app was designed to humiliate, yeah?
Section 19 is concerned with 'communicating indecently with a child' by 'sending a written or verbal communication' with intent to 'humiliate, distress or alarm'.
Worth getting legal clarification do you think?
diddl No, I'm not going to let it slip away, and I doubt the other MNers will either
Join the discussion
Please login first.