The power of Coca Cola, the media response to sensitive subjects, advertising revenue - AIBU to think they are linked?

[FindingMyMojo]

Another thread on CocaCola/Dr Pepper/Facebook madness exposed by Mrs Rickman on MN.

I want to talk more about the media's role - or lack of role in this debacle.

I'm amazed at how very little media coverage this incident has received. Especially as there are Facebook related stories all the time in the papers. I haven't even seen any 'wider' debate on multi-national interests VS marketing to children etc etc. The Guardian piece I saw was flacid to say the least.

I wonder if this has to do with the huge amount of money Cola Cola & Co spend on advertising?

Or is this story just so not newsworthy?

Is viral marketing of hardcore scat porn to young teenagers just so difficult to discuss - or is it a subject worthy of very little interest and debate?

Or am I being cynical about the spending power of multi-nationals & their influence over the media who rely so much on advertising income?

I do find it amusing that items that are really not newsworthy about FB (eg. person A loses job because they were tagged at a party while meant to be off work ill)

And yet this has drawn no media coverage that I've seen

Exactly - so why no media coverage? Is it that the subject is so distasteful the papers won't cover it unless they HAVE to, or is something more sinister going on. How much does CocaCola spend a year in UK on advertising?

I have to admit to being fairly astonished by the lack of media interest. Hardcore porn/14-yr-old/facebook/coca cola - all the elements of a cracking story.

I can understand the "popular" press not picking it up due to Mrs Rickman's totally understandable wish not to be identified/pictured, but I would have thought it warranted at least a mention on, eg, BBC online, at least in it's "tech" section.

I might be being too paranoid, but to me, that smells of someone being warned off.

Or is it because it's Mumsnet?

Very odd.

Stories being on MN has never stopped them before

I was a bit surprised, too -- esp compared with the big non-story of 'Year 8 Pupils Being Taught The Simpsons' that is running currently.

I don't put it down to any cynical deference to a potential advertiser, though. I suspect that whether or not a story takes off is more of a chaotic, chance, thing than a conspiracy of silence. Papers have cut back a lot on journalistic staff, haven't they? So are more dependent on just being reactive to what catches their eye.

Did it get any mentions?
TBH the other stories you mention are normally either lighter news (people being caught cheating or saked) or else have someone who is willing to be identified and pictured holding up a copy of the Sun etc for the news story.
Without a face to go with it and a mother willing to to go in front of the cameras and say "x/y/z of cliches" that will appeal to modern news outlets there's probably not much of a story there for them as coca-cola will just say "we apologise for this,out of our hand/tech problem/looking into who's responsible" and it will be two faceless peoples words against the other.

Oh yes good point. I guess that MrsRickman had the utter good sense and decency not to want to dance about in front of the press with her daughter, and that that made the story less of a runner.

The power of consumerism, people.

Sadly money talks in our capitalist society, and I expect this was all nipped in the bud somehow way before it got too much coverage in the media.

It wouldn't have surprised me if somehow this poor woman's daughter was blamed for Coca Cola's mistake, or that Mrs Rickman ended up wrongly accused of being a bad mother.

In an industry that sells products under the guise of female empowerment and choice (when it's just stuff, after all, buying yet another new pair of shoes does not make you a better feminist, even if you did pay for them yourself) - using porn to sell a soft-drink hardly surprises me one bit.

or perhaps because the media to have to explain exactly what the message meant - cos i certainly had no idea until i read the thread.

Imagine the news reporters having to explain what it meant

and also money talks

I agree. unless they can include a pic of mother and daughter looking sad or angry, holding a crushed can of dr pepper or something equally ridiculous, it won't make the big newspapers.

I think it may be to do with squeamishnnss about the nature of the reference.
And agree, also no photo of Mrs R and her daughter looking outraged.

I imagine papers are more interested in sales than squashing a story due to advertising source. Also there wasn't a proper press campaign / release including the personal angle.

"or perhaps because the media to have to explain exactly what the message meant"

I remember, many years ago, the media in NZ explaining in excruitatiing detail exactly what a dominatrix was and what is meant by the term "auto erotic asphixiation".

I agree on the comments re MrsR and her DD not wanting to be public face of any campaign. The thing is we know that this would have happened to other kids too & their parents just didn't notice or click if they did notice.

Good point re the subject matter being so distateful also - but that is also at the very centre of this scandal. It's not like they were directing kids to view people kissing.

I've decided CocaCola isn't getting another penny from me and I've seen several other MN'ers saying the same. Not that it's slowed Nestle down, but I do imagine the CC boardroom having a Nestle inspired shudder late last week.

But the Guardian were aware of the story - which is why I was asking about lack of discussion/debate on broader issues of children, media, marketing, school hols etc. I mean Mrs R's discovery happened in the early days of the Dr Peppers campaign - imagine if it had been left to run over the summer holidays.

SLUG that's just not cricket.

(Peter whathisname - the cricket ref.)

Peter Plumbley-Walker - how could I forget!

Also you shouldn't underestimate the damage that has been done to Coca Cola and Lean Mean Fighting Machine by all the exposure in the trade press.

Ok, most people aren't going to read those stories. But many people who matter will - people considering taking on LMFM for future contracts, for example.

So just because the story isn't running in the Nationals doesn't mean it isn't doing untold damage to those concerned.

Although it doesn't seem to have affected Coke's profits (yet) sales up

Well that's just it.
Coke will be by and large completely unaffected.
I'd imagine they were more worried over their poster boys like Wayne Rooney not having a great world cup than this.
The advertising company however will certainly be hit by it.
So the question is, is that enough?
Do people simply want blood from coca-cola because of their size and already having a disposition to disliking the company?
Or are people happy to know that the people who were actively responsible for it and instigated it (although I accept that anything done under the brand of coca-cola is their ultimate respnsibility) will suffer the consequences?

Interesting mayorquimby. I think when it's a big organisation people do want blood, rightly or wrongly, as the company is seen as faceless, invincible and able to ride roughshod wherever it likes.

I can imagine it's quite a different story for the individual(s) responsible for losing the Coke contract at LMFM though..

If it is run more widely in the mainstream media it will just result in more people finding out what 2 g 1 cup is or trying to find out what it is.

So for that reason alone I am not all that bothered that the story isn't all over the place. Because when the young teens in a family find out what it means then they might pass it on to the younger children, in a ghoulish way, and this repulsive phenomena will become even more widely known.

There are some upsides to it being dealt with in a fairly low key way, I think.

If I were Mrs Rickman I would want the agency to lose their account and for Coke to put right the wrongs re. advising children to make their facebook settings private, and that's about all.

"I think when it's a big organisation people do want blood, rightly or wrongly, as the company is seen as faceless, invincible and able to ride roughshod wherever it likes."

That's kind of the feeling I have about this and other "scandals" (Ross and Brand etc), and it normally leaves me half defending people I really don't want to be defending because I think others are using an isolated event to gve air to grievances which are unrelated (e.g. in this case possibly the incidents in Colombia for coke, with something like the Brand thing they were used as a scapegoat in a backlash against overpaid celebs etc., or perhaps just a general anti-corporate feeling) to the event in question or I feel they're being knee-jerk.
So I'm happy this isn't splashed all over the newspapers in a way because it feels as though the reaction as such has been proportionate.
So as Bibbity said above
"I would want the agency to lose their account and for Coke to put right the wrongs re. advising children to make their facebook settings private, and that's about all."
seems about right to me.
If it were to start hitting the tabloids and 24 hour news stations I have a feeling people (read:talking heads with no knowledge of the subject in question or members of the public who ring up phone-in shows) would want criminal charges and for it to be mentioned in parliament.

Nothing to do with advertising.

Tesco and Marks and Spencer are two of the Daily Mail's biggest advertisers and they always have editorials criticising them.

As a journalist I have to admit the story didn't prick my news antennae. The lack of interest will be due to:

1. mother's unwillingness to be identified/pose for pictures

2. fact she's Scottish

3. the shit factor

....on top of that - it probably was a genuine error/cock up and they were swift to act and apologise.

Nancy - it depends who you work for and what sort of stories you write. Yes, agreed, not a front page splash. But something more could be done with it in columns, comment, background, social pages, parenting pages etc.

Perhaps some of that still to come.

All the other media reports I read online seemed to reference the Guardian article, which was a hastily written, sloppily researched, "and finally..." type of thing. Due to coke/facebook removing the offending material before the story broke, I suspect very few people are aware of the full extent of the story and aren't bothered making any more of it.

The status updates mentioned were among the less offensive; mainstream media (I would imagine) are loath to identify the "2 girls" video and as Coke pulled the entire promo, there's nothing tangible left to outrage readers/viewers.