To think Paperchase shouldn't have apologised?

[jenniferl1983]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42057493

Paperchase have apologised for a promotional giveaway that was featured in the Daily Mail. They were lobbied by the campaign group Stop Funding Hate and have now promised they ''won't ever do it again''.

AIBU to think they shouldn't have backed down so easily on the back of some social media messages? Businesses seem now to be so scared of causing a media furore that they now apologise for anything (see the 1 gender fluid man who got Topshop to change their dressing room policy).

This isn't an incident where someone has received appalling or dangerous service or been discriminated against, it's just a promotion in a newspaper. I don't understand the ott grovelling.

Flowerpot I tried to highlight and bold but it didn't work (you should be able to see asterix's etc,) I've clearly done something wrong so apologies for that.
I have read the whole thread and if it isn't saying that Paperchase shouldn't listen to the likes of me, I really don't know what it is saying.

And there's no point in arguing about the Jan Moir article, you clearly don't see what I see which I guess is the main issue here, suffice to say, 'complimentary' is the last word I'd use to describe it.

In the interests of free speech etc. I'm not going to continue to argue, there really doesn't seem to be any point.

wherestheweightlosspill Of course.

Let me just say what I think has happened. What most people on this thread don't like is that Paperchase only listened to those who contacted it, which was largely through a biased campaign. I don't know anybody who was asked by Paperchase what they thought. I know many who would prefer Paperchase to take the attitude that John Lewis did yesterday. But they weren't asked.

So it's not about you not having the right to not shop etc - as you have shown, nobody has actually said that. It's that Paperchase have come out and said "we have listened to you" and made a decision, when they haven't listened to anything like all of us.

On the Moir article, we clearly don't see the same thing in that article which is fine. But throwing around words like hate and hate speech is highly problematic, and clear definitions and boundaries need to be made, for hate to be part of a hate crime or campaigns against hate. I genuinely couldn't see any actual hate in it.

Farewell.

I agree there's no hate crime, but I think there's underlying hate in most things they write, it's subtle (ish) but there. But let's agree to disagree. No hate on MN

Oooh I made the smiley work! Cause for celebration!

Interesting no similar frothing outrage over the Guardian's mendacious, denial and (towards German women) hate-filled approach post-Cologne.

Why aren't we twittering about stopping their advertising execs selling space to whomever they wish to in a (last time I looked) free society?

Oh, hang on, just remembered why.

P.S (I'll go away soon I promise) but the John Lewis statement is interesting. It's not 'apolitical' to give your money to a paper with a strong political leaning, if it was 'Nazi Times' or 'Transgender Gazette' you wouldn't say that. TV must be impartial, newspapers are not, they don't pretend to be, so it's not remaining 'apolitical' to support a consciously politically partisan paper. Fair play to JL for standing their ground, but I can't say that their statement makes sense to me. In truth, I imagine they're not pulling their advertising because it's effective for them, no more and no less.

Applefalls, I'm not familiar wtih that, do you have a link?

wherestheweightlosspill (and I'm not arguing with you! ) Generally the DM is considered mainstream media, but I do see what you are saying.

House of Fraser advertises in the DM. Paperchase has concessions all over House of Frasers. If Paperchase is now going to be consistent in its in my opinion frankly ridiculous decision, surely it must now shut all its concessions?

MNHQ - could you get Paperchase to respond?

No, no arguing!

wheres not to hand on my phone but if you google reports in the Guardian on or around January 26 (if memory serves me right) there was a terrible piece suggesting women in short skirts and carrying iPhones were to blame for provoking the attabks.

It's probably also quoted extensively on the many threads that ran here on the sibject,

As a woman, I was disgusted. I've never once since thought that any organisation should pull their advertising from the paper.

I'd be interested to hear from media planners how they intend to hit their clients target demographics if they have to run all planned buying past the morality police now.

I am a feminist and I hate the daily mail but I think that's ridiculous.

Who were they apologising to? a knee-jerk apology to whoever was complaining!?

I think they should have said they had an offer coming up in the guardian and the times too. Equal wrapping opportunities for all readers left or right

he died seven years later, after this article was written. [grin[

I'm glad that you find it funny.

She implies that he was promiscuous because he was gay as if there are no straight men who put it about.

She implies that a gay man who smoked cannabis not long before his death must have been a victim of his own homosexual, druggie lifestyle.

She appears to believe that Matt Lucas' husband would still be alive if only he were straight.

She's a fucking dickhead.

They shouldn’t have apologised. It’s pathetic. It makes me want to never shop in paperchase. Not that I do. But if I did.

Floellabumbags

I'm glad that you find it funny.
I find your outrage whilst not realising that it article was written 7 years previously funny, yes.

She implies that he was promiscuous because he was gay as if there are no straight men who put it about.
No, you have made that up. The article is about gay men, she wanted to point out that not all gay men are promiscuous, she used GM as a high profile example.

She implies that a gay man who smoked cannabis not long before his death must have been a victim of his own homosexual, druggie lifestyle.
No, she said that a gay married man, whose 'natural death' was correctly dubiously described at the time of writing, might have been a victim of activities connected with a lifestyle which involved bringing strangers back to his apartment for sex and the environment around these activities.

She appears to believe that Matt Lucas' husband would still be alive if only he were straight.
No, you have gone doo-lally with that one, I can't even begin to reply to that nonsense.

She's a fucking dickhead.
Since you base that on your made-up stuff above, it's not an entirely reliable description, I must say.

Is it this one?
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/08/cologne-attacks-hard-questions-new-years-eve
I can find several MN threads referring to the Guardian (and other sources on the attacks) but there are 200 pages so can't find a link to the article?
If it's this one, perhaps I'm reading from my liberal perspective, much like Flowerpot reads the Jan Moir article differently to me, but if it's this article, is she not trying to work out the motivation for the attacks and musing that it could be that these men are trying to humiliate young, confident successful Western women enjoying a night out (not saying that it's okay or by being confident they've 'brought it on themselves')
because in their own countries they had little but they did have male superiority and they are now resentful? Like I say I absolutely could be reading this wrong (or have the wrong article), but if not then I'm fascinated that we genuinely read things in a very different way.
If that's the case today really has been eye opening (honestly no sarcasm here) and explains a lot (in that I'm as guilty as everyone else at seeing what I want/expect to see)

What most people on this thread don't like is that Paperchase only listened to those who contacted it, which was largely through a biased campaign. I don't know anybody who was asked by Paperchase what they thought. I know many who would prefer Paperchase to take the attitude that John Lewis did yesterday. But they weren't asked.

How was it biased? If someone contacts Paperchase and points out that (a) the DM regularly prints lies directed against vulnerable people, and (b) that as a result of Paperchase's support of the Mail they don't intend to shop there any longer, is that anything other than two factual statements?

As for Paperchase canvassing opposing opinions, why should they? It's a marketing decision, FFS. The HNH campaign was public, if anyone disagreed with it and wanted to tell Paperchase so, they were obviously free to do so.

Ceto

*How was it biased?
Biased campaign were the actual words I used. These words refer to the Stop Funding Hate campaign which got many of its supporters to contact Paperchase.

As for Paperchase canvassing opposing opinions, why should they?
Because if a company is going to claim to respond to its customers, then it should canvass its customers.

It's a marketing decision, FFS.
Yes it is. So? Where did I say it wasn't?

if anyone disagreed with it and wanted to tell Paperchase so, they were obviously free to do so.
They were 'free' to do so, but most people didn't know about it until the decision had been made. So they had no opportunity to do so.

Hi weight, your link is to today's guardian but yes, that sounds like the article.

Perhaps time and perspective are also to play but as someone with young female relatives in Germany who had mentioned similar harassment, the denial, minimalisation and whataboutery of the phenomena by the left-wing press was, to me, nothing short of insulting and dangerous.

I absolutely delight in your differing interpretation and the fact we can have a civilised debate about it. To me, that is the polar opposite of attempting to close down a newspaper simply because it's editorial does not chime exactly with one's own beliefs.

My DH was in Russia during part of the Cold War. Is that type of state-sponsored one-opinion-only fascism really the way we want to go?

If I find something annoying or offensive I exercise my right as a broad-minded adult to simply ignore it or argue against it.

Delete it because I don't like it? I'm not 14.

Biased campaign were the actual words I used. These words refer to the Stop Funding Hate campaign which got many of its supporters to contact Paperchase

That's not a biased campaign, it's just a campaign. By its nature, every campaign asks people to do something that supports the campaigners' viewpoint.

Because if a company is going to claim to respond to its customers, then it should canvass its customers.

Companies regularly claim to respond to their customers whenever they bring out a new product: at best they may (but don't always) do a bit of market research, they don't canvass all their customers. But frequently they're doing little more than responding to a general perception of what their customers want, and that may well in part result from Facebook, Twitter and direct communications. To answer your subsequent question, that is the relevance of the my comment that this is a marketing campaign, as opposed to, say, an election or an opinion poll.

They were 'free' to do so, but most people didn't know about it until the decision had been made. So they had no opportunity to do so.

No doubt they can now start their own campaign to get the decision reversed. Strangely, they don't seem to have rushed to do so, so maybe Paperchase have got it right when assessing customer reaction. Or, if they loved the tie-up with the Mail so much, they could have flocked to Paperchase to buy things to show their approval. I'm guessing they didn't; if Paperchase thought the connection with the Mail was boosting its customer base I suspect they'd have ignored HNH.

The article is 8th Jan 2016? But as you say background is at play and I don’t know anyone there so don’t have the background knowledge of previous harassment etc. So I sympathise if that’s how it reads as in no world can I condone victim blaming.
I agree that civilised debate is the desirable way but to me it’s not about shutting anything down, just holding to account a very powerful media organisation who have scant regard for the truth and a desire to blame the minorities in society be they immigrants, disabled, unemployed, etc for societies ills. Genuine news with genuine facts, whether leaning one way or the other in their presentation is fine, downright lying and scapegoating is not, in my opinion. I don’t want them shut down, just to be measured in their reporting.

Those of you who disagree with Paperchase having apologised and pulled their advertising have every right to complain to Paperchase and request that they change their minds again.
You have every right to go on Twitter and try to generate a campaign in support of companies exercising their democratic freedom to advertise in the Mail - or the Times, or the Sun. (I appreciate that not everyone fancies using Twitter, whatever their opinions, as it can be a bit, er, robust.)
We currently still live in enough of a democracy that people can complain to companies - or show support to companies - and encourage others to do the same. People can air their opinions about percieved bias in newspapers and other media, and encourage others to do the same. Sometimes a social media campaign is the only recourse people perceive as available to them when they are either an individual or a member of a relatively small group without much money, frequently abused or lied about by a powerful, wealthy media organisation with lorryloads of expensive lawyers.
(The rightwing Trump fans who filmed themselves shooting their coffee machines after the company which made them pulled their advertising from a TV show didn't all quite get the way a boycott is supposed to work. Given that many of them appear to have gone out and bought coffee machines purely to throw the machines out of windows and post the footage online...)

Reanimated there’s no need to speak to posters as if we’re children.

Ceto

That's not a biased campaign, it's just a campaign. By its nature, every campaign asks people to do something that supports the campaigners' viewpoint.
Exactly. It's biased towards the campaign's viewpoint. They want brands to pull advertising from those companies they think are full of hate. It's not a neutral research group. It's a campaign with a viewpoint. It's biased.

But frequently they're doing little more than responding to a general perception of what their customers want, and that may well in part result from Facebook, Twitter and direct communications.
Paperchase can't even have formed a general perception of what their customers want since a) they didn't verify that any of the SFH campaigners were customers anyway and b) they only looked at the complaints. Nobody else even knew there was a campaign against them which customers could counter. That's not just no market research, that's not even getting a general perception of its customers.

that is the relevance of the my comment that this is a marketing campaign, as opposed to, say, an election or an opinion poll.
So what? We haven't been discussing election or opinion polls.

No doubt they can now start their own campaign to get the decision reversed.
Yes they could. But that's not what we're discussing.

Strangely, they don't seem to have rushed to do so, so maybe Paperchase have got it right when assessing customer reaction.
Maybe some people are. Maybe some people can't be bothered. Maybe some people will stop shopping at Paperchase. Who knows?

if they loved the tie-up with the Mail so much, they could have flocked to Paperchase to buy things to show their approval.
Who said they loved the tie-up?

if Paperchase thought the connection with the Mail was boosting its customer base I suspect they'd have ignored HNH
And.. so what?

I assume you boycott the Sun because they don't trust Scousers, The Indy because it's owned by the Russians, Guardian because it's only read by twats, BBC because it's in the pocket of the ruling party, FT because it's a bit confusing, Telegraph because it leans to the right ...

What a strange assumption.