Please note: This topic is for Question and Answer threads run by Mumsnet, all are sponsored by a MN client. If you'd like to run your own Q&A, please email firstname.lastname@example.org.
This is a Premium feature
To use this feature subscribe to Mumsnet Premium - get first access to new features see fewer ads, and support Mumsnet.Start using Mumsnet Premium
Want to know more about the Pampers UNICEF 1 pack = 1 vaccine campaign? Ask your questions here! ANSWERS BACK(44 Posts)
This week we're running a Q&A with Anita Tiessen, Deputy Executive Director at UNICEF UK.
With Pampers’ support, great progress has been made by UNICEF, the world’s leading children’s organisation, in the fight against maternal and newborn tetanus. Since the Pampers UNICEF “1 pack = 1 vaccine” campaign started in 2006, Pampers has donated funds for 300 million vaccines, helping to protect the lives of 100 million women and their babies and eliminating maternal and newborn tetanus in 15 countries.
Anita is responsible for UNICEF UK’s public affairs, programmes and communications work. She will answer your questions about the 1 pack= 1 vaccine campaign, what has been achieved so far and the work that still needs to be done to help the millions of women and their newborns around the world who are still under threat of maternal and newborn tetanus.
Post your questions to Anita here before 15th October and we will send 20 questions over to Anita for her to respond to. We will then post her responses back on the thread on 24th October.
This Q&A is sponsored by Pampers.
My question is, why does stuff like this make me feel so uneasy? Why doesn't an incredibly wealthy multi-national company like Pampers just pay for the vaccines?
I thought exactly the same. Why can they not just make a donation instead of capitalising on it. Sorry I don't approve of this kind of operation.
Like linerunner, I dislike that aspect of the campaign. Why don't pampers donate x amount and, if they want to, put that information on the pack instead? That way both unicef and pampers benefit, the former from the money and the latter from the good publicity.
I came on to say exactly the same thing. I am very uncomfortable with the thought that 1 pack less = 1 vaccine less. The (entirely wrong I know) image in my mind of a child at the end of the line being turned away because Juniper didn't buy Pampers that week is surely not what either Unicef or Pampers want to promote is it?
'Buy this brand of nappies or a child will die' is stupid, nasty promotional blackmail.
What we need is to tax these big corporations properly, and fund public health and aid programmes out of what would then be public money.
So my question is, does Pampers pay all the tax it is supposed to pay, and how much more does it think it should pay in taxation in order to fund work like this through established national aid and health programmes?
But I would rather ask someone other than the only people likely to lie about it if any has been avoided...
Well, this is all going terribly well for Pampers.
Ha ha my thoughts exactly Line Runner!
If you are going to do this kind of promotion then why only one vaccine per pack?
Yes I think these sort of campaigns are awful. Pampers should just be funding vaccines anyway, as part of their corporate social responsibility.
It's all tax deductible anyway.
Maybe they were going to donate anyway and ran the campaign to further reduce the tax burden. Not impressed and your customers are not stupid you know.
Do they literally add up how many packs have been sold and donate only that? Or do they say " well, we sold 852,963 so we'll round it 1 million"?
The former would make me resolve to not buy any Pampers products ever again. The latter feels a little better.
Also, while charitable donations are good, I prefer it like others as part of well thought-through, long-term, guaranteed CSR (I work in this field so know a little of what this entails) rather than a marketing/sales led campaign. I don't like the onus being on me the consumer to ensure these children are vaccinated. If Pampers think it's important, they should donate a defined guaranteed amount, annually, for several years do UNICEF knows exactly what it has to work with, rather than making it dependent on sales. Maybe the 1 pack, 1 vaccine is shorthand for "we guarantee X vaccines will be donated" but I'd feel better about Pampers if I could easily see that detail.
Also, I should say categorically in case Pampers are reading: this campaign makes me refuse to buy your nappies. I don't like the onus being on me. I choose competitor products over yours because of it.
If you told me "we donate x million vaccines regardless of product sales" I would happily buy your products.
Don't play with my feelings over maternal and child health to make sales for yourselves. Terrible marketing practice.
I don't blame UNICEF. They have no control over the marketing aspect and rightly will take what us offered.
Pampers have said:
"Hello everyone. We understand that this type of partnership can raise questions and we are happy to give more information on some of your concerns. We have been working with UNICEF for 9 years on both funding vaccines against newborn tetanus but also raising awareness of the issue through our communication. Very few people know that newborn tetanus is still a threat to 100 million mums and their babies around the world. And yet it is preventable through vaccination. By creating the "1 pack = 1 vaccine" campaign together, Pampers and UNICEF have enabled more people to know about this threat and help eliminate it. It’s an easy way of helping parents, who already buy our packs, help other parents in need. We have also created other ways to engage a wider audience and help the campaign, like our "1 view = 1 vaccine" mechanic on our Facebook page, which is not linked to our packs."
"Since we started working with UNICEF, parents have helped to eliminate newborn tetanus in 15 countries and are helping to protect 100 million mums and their babies around the world. We wanted to give you the opportunity to ask question to Anita Tiessen at UNICEF to better understand the work that is happening in the field to eliminate this terrible disease and also the on-going need that UNICEF workers see everyday.We always welcome feedback of course, and we hope lots of you will want to join in the Q&A with Anita to find out more about the work that UNICEF does."
Clicked to echo everyone else's opinion really, if Pampers see it as an important cause then they are more than capable of making large donations that do not guilt consumers.
I use reusable nappies and wipes so have no need to purchase these products from any company and it makes me uneasy that an advertising campaign insinuates that I am potentially denying a child a life saving vaccine by not doing so.
In the small print on the Pampers website it states 'UNICEF does not endorse any brand or product'.
Now we hear from Pampers on this thread that Pampers and UNICEF apparently created this '1 pack = 1 vaccine' campaign together.
Well, which is it?
Interesting article in the FT
"P&G says it recoups the 7 cents per vaccine it donates through increased sales because of the vaccine campaign marketing."
Oh yes, I see on the Pampers website that the 'vaccine' is actually a 4.4p [7 cents] contribution to UNICEF.
I wonder if they get tax relief on that to make it even more profitable for P&G?
Anita: what other vaccines would UNICEF like to see offered to new mums in areas they work in? And one more Q - do you think tetanus in new borns will be eradicated at some point in the future?
Interesting thread but I think P&G are taking a slightly unjustified kicking here. UNICEF are obviously happy with the campaign or there's absolutely no way they'd be lending their branding to it, and to be honest if they're happy with it then that's good enough for me.
I really don't think they're trying to 'guilt' anyone into buying the packs; at least, no more than any other fund-raising campaign is trying to guilt people. From what MNHQ posted up below, there's a metric for triggering a vaccine donation via Facebook without any purchase. I walk past these packs in the shops all the time and don't feel any guilt at all, I'm quite comfortable with the choices I make about charity giving.
I do think there's a risk of letting the best be the enemy of the good in all this. I'm no fan of massive corporations as a rule but slapping them around the face for fairly basic CSR work doesn't seem like the most constructive response IMO.
LineRunner, that disclaimer line will be a completely standard thing i should think; most charities don't officially endorse any products. it's a big leap to get from there to saying that P&G are lying about how the partnership came about. I expect UNICEF would have called them out on it pretty firmly if that were the case!
I have not used the word 'lying' or even implied it about P&G.
You used that word.
Just to be clear.
I hope MNHQ will verify this.
Apologies LineRunner, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth and fully acknowledge you didn't accuse P&G of lying. My point really was that it's genuinely unthinkable that P&G would have this level of branding tie-in and messaging coordination with UNICEF without full agreement on UNICEF's part. (I work in a related field!)
No worries, I get snippy too easily these days
To go back to questions to UNICEF, I suppose the actual question is whether they really did create the campaign together, and what do they think of the unease expressed on this thread?