Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Infant feeding

Get advice and support with infant feeding from other users here.

Original poster

not looking for a row, but has anyone seen the new SMA logo? the one that looks like the mum is bf?

673 replies

harpsichordcarrier · 14/04/2007 21:39

here's the logo

you tube clip here

sma site

way to get round the new advertising rules, which forbid them from saying "close to breastmilk" &c
anyone like to complain? I would like them, very much, to have to change their logo and slogan again. especially as they have clearly spent quite a bit of wonga on it.

OP posts:
yy · 15/04/2007 22:46

i saw it and loved it.

Anyone remember

"woooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaaaah bodyform, bodyform for yooooooooooooouuuuuuuuu"

Twinklemegan · 15/04/2007 22:47

Just want to add FWIW, I also think formula should be unbranded and prescription only.

Welliemum - I will look at that thread tomorrow.

LucyJu · 15/04/2007 22:47

Twinklemegan, I think that people have very little to go on other than the packaging/marketing anyway.

Which is why SMA have come up with a new logo, undoubtedly at great expense. To grab attention, to appeal to mothers on some subliminal level.

lissielou · 15/04/2007 22:48

so what, they have to say "our formula is no better and no worse than this one"? why do you use your brand of shampoo? washing powder? nappies? did you try other brands first and settle on the one you liked best? why did you try that brand?
im betting that advertising had a big hand in that decision

BreastfeedingNazi · 15/04/2007 22:48

Not bothering to read the whole thread - can;t be arsed to squabble...

BUT the logo is a parent holding a child - babies are held the same way whether it is a teat or a nipple in their mouth.

Its your classic madonna & child shape, and no-one would bat an eye with it on mothercare.

noddyholder · 15/04/2007 22:49

prescription only is a whole new thread and a huge argument so Goodnight all

Flamesparrow · 15/04/2007 22:49

shit - sorry , that was for the cod's cast off thread!!!

lissielou · 15/04/2007 22:49

well said bfn!

littlelapin · 15/04/2007 22:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Flamesparrow · 15/04/2007 22:51

Was quite an apt name cock up wasn't it?

Original poster
harpsichordcarrier · 15/04/2007 22:51

actually that's not quite true. the way a baby is held to bf is very different to a bf hold.
I teach a bf class and that is one of the first things we discuss, how different it feels to hold a baby to bf.

OP posts:
Greenleeves · 15/04/2007 22:52

Nice posting name you have there.

Coward.

Twinklemegan · 15/04/2007 22:53

LucyJu - well it wouldn't have made me buy SMA because I've heard it's sh*te (appreciate that is just hearsay though, and apologies to anyone who uses it).

I agree there isn't much to go on in any case. I ended up choosing C&G because the HIPP organic one was in individual sachets that I thought would be wasteful. And I guess I'm the classic target audience, because having initially gone for the organic version because the ingredients list wasn't as long, I was convinced eventually that the extra stuff must be good . And not forgetting the non-organic version is cheaper.

hunkermunker · 15/04/2007 22:54

Lissie, of COURSE advertising had a hand in that decision. That's what advertising is FOR. It is there to reflect the image of the kind of person you would like to be in the product they're selling - it's about aspiration and buying into a brand.

NONE of that should have any place in nourishing babies. You can't make an informed choice based on adverts from formula manufacturers. It's not possible because they don't tell you anything factual.

A shampoo is NOT such an important decision.

Greenleeves · 15/04/2007 22:54

Oh, fuckety fuckshit, sorry flamesparrow .

it does look like bf to me though.

Flamesparrow · 15/04/2007 22:54

It is still in the crook of the arm like that.

Greeny - the name was a complete cock up, I hadn't changed back from the "names not taken yet" thread

Flamesparrow · 15/04/2007 22:55

Tis ok - couldn't have posted on any other thread with it could I?

LucyJu · 15/04/2007 22:58

Breastfeedingnazi - don't think much of your name.

"BUT the logo is a parent holding a child - babies are held the same way whether it is a teat or a nipple in their mouth".

Wrong - bf babies are not held in the same position as bottlefeeding ones - basically, a bf baby needs to face his/her mum's nipple. Bottle fed bables are typically fed facing upwards.

"Its your classic madonna & child shape, and no-one would bat an eye with it on mothercare".

"Madonna and child" - this is usually an image of a breastfed baby. (definitely not bottle fed - but not always feeding)

Mothercare ... is a shop selling baby goods. It is not a product competing aginst breastmilk and trying to insinuate its closeness to breastmilk.

Cazee · 15/04/2007 22:59

You have to admit, the SMA logo is similar to this breastfeeding welcome one

hunkermunker · 15/04/2007 23:00

Yes, no breasts on view in that one either, Cazee. It's definitely what they wanted to emulate, whatever the excuse-niks say.

Gobbledigook · 15/04/2007 23:01

Don't get it - what's the hoo-hah about? It doesn't look like a mother breastfeeding at all to me.

Twinklemegan · 15/04/2007 23:01

I agree Cazee, because I did think that when I looked at that logo on the exceedingly non-militant picnic thread. But then I would have thought there are only limited ways you can draw a person cuddling a child in a stylised way.

Flamesparrow · 15/04/2007 23:02

No - A silouhette is a baby in the crook of an arm - you have no idea what way that blob is facing.

Madonna & child is often mother gazing down at baby whilst he gazes back up.

Once again - THE NAME WAS AN ACCIDENT FROM ANOTHER THREAD!!!

I just feel the reaction to the logo is much more aggressive because of who it is for - were it for anyone else the idea would be much more likely to be "mother and child" than breast v bottle

lissielou · 15/04/2007 23:02

"IMPORTANT NOTICE: Breast feeding is best for babies. Infant milks are intended to replace breast milk when mothers do not breast feed. Good maternal nutrition is important for the preparation and maintenance of breast feeding. Introducing partial bottle feeding may have a negative effect on breast feeding and reversing a decision not to breast feed is difficult. Professional advice should be followed on infant feeding."

taken from the SMA website. i never saw fm as competeing with bm, just as an alternative. there is a huge difference!

hunkermunker · 15/04/2007 23:03

SMA shouldn't be allowed to stylise in that way though, IMO. No pics of babies on boxes. Let alone in their farking logo (and I realise it could be a warty nork, but come on, we ALL know what they intended, however much you protest!).