Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think Paperchase shouldn't have apologised?

267 replies

jenniferl1983 · 21/11/2017 00:20

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.

OP posts:
Andrewofgg · 21/11/2017 09:41

Does anybody else round here choose goods on quality, price, and availability rather on where the manufacturer advertises them?

Backingvocals · 21/11/2017 09:41

No fan of the DM but they have been more honest than Stop Funding Hate about the trans issue. And I am no fan of Paperchase since their awful rapey valentines cards last year. So a pox on all their houses.

whiskyowl · 21/11/2017 09:45

"Does anybody else round here choose goods on quality, price, and availability rather on where the manufacturer advertises them?"

Actually, there are loads of other factors in consumer choice - ethics of both supply and advertising are an increasingly important aspect for many people. Your high quality, cheap and available coat may not feel so good when you realise it's made by an 11 year old working a 15 hour day in a sweatshop.

Creambun2 · 21/11/2017 09:45

Anyone who buys/reads the daily mail should hang their heads in shame.

mothertruck3r · 21/11/2017 09:52

Anyone who buys/reads the Independent/Morning Star should hang their heads in shame.

FlowerPot1234 · 21/11/2017 09:55

BiglyBadgers
and would support a boycott of Paperchase now.
And you would be absolutely within your rights to do. In fact go for it if you feel strongly. Set up a campaign group to write to Paperchase and tell them that unless they start advertising in the mail again you will no longer be shopping there.

No, you've missed my point. I would boycott Paperchase now not because of their advertising activities with the DM, but because they receive a few tweets and regard that miniscule subset of opinion as all their customers and change their policy based on this handful of people, who are unlikely to even be their customers anyway.

It is that behaviour which is despicable. How dare Paperchase be so thick as to presume that a few unidentifiable tweeters speak for their customer base.

TaylorTinker · 21/11/2017 09:55

Andrew - yes.

scottishdiem · 21/11/2017 09:55

Paperchase made their choice. No-one forced them. Free speech means they can take out an advert, listen to feedback and then change direction.

Free speech means they could have not bothered changing course but free speech also means they can listen to the free speech of both sides and decide what to do next.

The slippery slope argument is interesting. If only because people cant see what slippery slope the Daily Mail is on. It is a racist, xenophobic and spreads misinformation and lies. But it has a free speech right to do so. But so do people who disagree with it.

shutitandtidyupgitface · 21/11/2017 09:57

Well now I'm just really fucked off that I am actually agreeing with Piers Morgan and the Daily Fucking Mail.

MrsHathaway · 21/11/2017 10:00

As others have said, I remember boycotting South African produce during apartheid (while our government continued with support of the regime - a regime that was an appalling affront and appears more so as the years go by - what the hell were they doing supporting it?).

I would recommend watching United Kingdom as it gave me some clues. Money. Always money.

Meanwhile...

It's a simple fact that advertisers want to get maximum sympathetic exposure with minimum outlay. You target your TV ads between programmes likely to be watched by people likely to be interested in your product. That's Marketing 101. When you mismatch your product and your advertising forum, you damage your brand or waste your money: neither of which is desirable.

Paperchase probably don't give a shit about the DM's politics. They're apologising for so badly mismatching their loyal consumer base and their choice of advertising platforms, not for "funding hate". They ought to have done their homework better and realised that their potential customer base is more Guardian than DM and furthermore more Stop Funding Hate than DM. Lesson learned.

And I think there's a subtle difference between "stop buying the DM" and "stop publishing the DM".

TaylorTinker · 21/11/2017 10:11

This pressure group seems to be wanting press censorship then?

That seems a bit off.

I buy from Paperchase, if I'm feeling reckless.
My mum reads the DM (whilst ridiculing some of it!)

I don't believe it is possible to segment your market into pro and anti Mail. But maybe Paperchase have done the research. Or maybe they've had a knee jerk social media reaction - more likely imo.

I don't think the pressure group manage to live up to their goal of creating harmony themselves.

BowlingShoes · 21/11/2017 10:20

I think it is ridiculous that they apologised. I think it sets a dangerous precedent when certain groups dictate what thoughts and opinions are acceptable and what aren't.

But this isn't what is happening. Nobody sadly is preventing the DM from printing their nasty, racist, islamophobic, poor-bashing bilge. The Stop Funding Hate campaign has resulted in one company recognising from its market research that its target customer base probably is opposed to some of the things the DM prints and that they will probably pick up more customers as a result of announcing it won't advertise in the DM than by placing an advert in there.

I would argue however, that the DM has been pushing the sort of views that correlate with the rise in hate crime over the last year or so (Katie Hopkins being a prime example) and anything that puts pressure on them to stop doing this is a good thing.

BonnieF · 21/11/2017 10:26

Paper chase should not have apologised.

I disagree with the Mail. It is divisive and promotes bigotry. I also disagree with the enforced politically correct virtue signalling espoused by organisations such as 'stop funding hate', whoever they are.

They are two sides of the same coin.

Floellabumbags · 21/11/2017 10:27

Put aside your views about SFH, ignore your feelings about Paperchase and their big shop of pretty things and remember that the Dailly Mail pay Katie Hopkins actual real money. There is no defence for that.

TaylorTinker · 21/11/2017 10:31

I dont have to read Katie Hopkins. Having seen her on the Apprentice a few years back I don't put any stock in her opinion. If they are daft enough to pay her I don't object.

If she breaks any law then I expect the police will know!

TaylorTinker · 21/11/2017 10:33

Give the readers, including my mum, a bit of credit.

MrsHathaway · 21/11/2017 10:36

If she breaks any law then I expect the police will know!

Yeah, I mean it's not like she ever lost a libel case and had to pay out thousands.

Wait ...

TaylorTinker · 21/11/2017 10:38

Well there you go. I don't think that example of a civil case going against her undermines my case for tolerance at all.

FlowerPot1234 · 21/11/2017 10:41

BowlingShoes
I think it sets a dangerous precedent when certain groups dictate what thoughts and opinions are acceptable and what aren't.
But this isn't what is happening. Nobody sadly is preventing the DM from printing their nasty...

But that is what is happening. The poster you replied to did not say the precedent was prevention they said that it was dictating what thoughts and opinions are acceptable. That is 100% what the Stop Funding Hate campaign, and this action is doing.

SFH try to dictate which journalism is a "hate campaign" and which isn't, the definition of a "better media" which they use is one which satisfies their criteria only, the perspective of demonisation is one dictated by them. All the criteria behind their campaign is based on a series of assumptions and perspectives which they dictate. So that PP you responded to was perfectly correct.

shutitandtidyupgitface · 21/11/2017 10:41

resulted in one company recognising from its market research that its target customer base probably is opposed to some of the things the DM prints and that they will probably pick up mor customers as a result of announcing it won't advertise in the DM than by placing an advert in there

No it hasn't, at all. People shouting on twitter is not market research, and I'd hazard a guess that middle aged DM readers are more PC's core market than twitter warrior millenials are.

Whatever the politics, I'd say this was a bad business decision.

manicinsomniac · 21/11/2017 10:47

I think the whole thing is weird.

  1. Paperchase obviously have no ethical problem with advertising in the DM or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. They aren't 'truly sorry', nor do they 'realise they are wrong.' They have just decided it would be a good idea to back down in the face of social media pressure.

  2. How do so many critics even know about it? Unless you either buy the DM (in which case you presumably have no issue with it) or seriously have enough time to walk through shops staring at every newspaper's front page in great detail then it wouldn't even have been on your radar. And, if you only heard about it because of the social media shit storm then it seems a bit silly to join the complaint bandwagon.

I don't like or buy the daily mail. I do like paperchase. I would never have known the two businesses were connected because I don't see the daily mail.

Rebeccaslicker · 21/11/2017 11:01

The ultimate goal IS to silence the mail. It's daft to think that they want anything else.

Tugtupite · 21/11/2017 11:02

1) Paperchase obviously have no ethical problem with advertising in the DM or they wouldn't have done it in the first place. They aren't 'truly sorry', nor do they 'realise they are wrong.' They have just decided it would be a good idea to back down in the face of social media pressure.

Indeed. Neither Paperchase nor the Daily Mail have ethical interest per se, apparently. However, most companies have financial interests and, sadly, if that's what it takes to stem the flow of hate the Daily Mail pumps into the already ignorant and xenophobic underbelly of British society then it's all fine as far as I'm concerned.

The Daily Mail needs to be bled dry of the advertising revenues which fuel its bile and hate, else it will continue to contaminate this country with toxic waste, to nobody's benefit but the owners.

Gilead · 21/11/2017 11:06

I think it is ridiculous that they apologised. I think it sets a dangerous precedent when certain groups dictate what thoughts and opinions are acceptable and what aren't.
But this is exactly what the Mail does.

Much more inclined to purchase from Paperchase now. Just wish Sainsbury's et al would do the same.

shutitandtidyupgitface · 21/11/2017 11:06

The Daily Mail needs to be bled dry of the advertising revenues which fuel its bile and hate, else it will continue to contaminate this country with toxic waste, to nobody's benefit but the owners

It's been spewing bile since 1896 and is the UK's second biggest paper. The average age of a reader is 58. Do you really think for one minute the likes of a twitter campaign or a pressure group are going to close it down?