Why would Bounty Business have edited this page, do you think?

[hunkermunker]

This is as it is now

This is as it was

To get rid of this paragraph?

"HiPP were also keen to drive traffic to the HiPP website in order to increase awareness and understanding of the full product range, including the HiPP Organic milks range."

I'm not sure who I'm more about - HIPP wanting to employ someone to help them target their formulas at mothers, or Bounty for facilitating it, and in fact using it as a ploy to garner business from such companies.

A friend left the hipp website up the other day when she had used my computer - I was shocked to see their weaning pack, including samples of "goodnight milk" recommended as "an ideal gift for a new mum"

Bounty, for example, are twats

Hipp are too. It really does fuck me off

Goodnight milk [spit] And as an ideal gift for a new mum?! Maybe if she drinks it and sleeps through [flippant]

It's amazing how much fondness Bounty packs evoke with some mothers - largely over the miniature tub of Sudocrem (fgs), when all they are is marketing and all the mothers are is mugs targets.

I had my first child over 20 years ago. The bounty pack back then had loads of stuff, about 15 samples of wide ranging stuff - I have been more and more disappointed in each dacade that i have had a child since - oh and there was no photo nonsense with the £it's for security" untruth hard sell

It really does make me appreciate MN and their ethical ad policies though

Bounty packs are a load of crap. The rep seemed dumb founded when I declined her gift of a miniature pack of Persil and a sachet of washing liquid.

I am v impressed with MN's ethical ad policy and how they've stuck to it, even with some pretty tempting carrots waved under their noses.

As for Bounty photos being "for security" - ffs!

They're often advertising for reps on the working mum job sites. And did I read they're owned by Barclays Private Equity? [cuts up Barclaycard]

I hate Bounty, they break "international code of marketing of breastmilk substitutes" in return to be paid by formula companies for advertising their products. FF advertising undermines BFG in my opinion, I think formula should only be available on prescription.

Hoppity - you're right about advertising and promotion, but why would you think doctors having to prescribe formula would be a good idea?

'Cos doctors know all about infant feeding and when babies actually need formula???

thank you for linking to that very informative and disturbing site Hunker. The more I read about Bounty the more I think it's completely inappropriate for NHS to be allowing them such access to expectant mums/new mums. Judging by their own website, personal information e.g. about stage of pg is being flogged to all comers, making that free pot of sudocreme seem less enticing.....

(taken from Bounty's own web site)
"Products & Services

Customer Acquisition

Bounty data can be purchased for use by brands across Direct Marketing and Electronic Direct Marketing activity. Prenatal data is selectable by trimester and/or due date, first time or subsequent pregnancy. All postnatal data is of confirmed births and is selectable by child?s date of birth, first time or subsequent mothers, number and age of children in the household. All data is selectable by parent?s age.

Outside of the information collected by Bounty, additional income, lifestyle and socio-demographic details can be overlaid on the data.

For every month of birth, Bounty can provide approximately 45,000 records for Direct Marketing activity and 12,500 records for E-mail Marketing activity.

Bounty?s inhouse Electronic Direct Marketing (EDM) broadcasting service includes the provision of a full set of campaign management statistics, to assist brands in evaluating their campaigns."

Interesting concept Hoppity .

So you want the NHS to be snarled up with parents making appointments to see their GP because they feed their babies formula?

Ludicrous.

Being an unwilling FF I also wish F was prescription only, that way I wouldn't have to shell out £8 week on something I have no desire to buy into in the first place

So that explains why I got a vile letter from the NSPCC complete with graphic despriptions of child abuse, unprompted, when I was newly postnatal?

Marvellous.

I think there was a discussion about this in priciple inthe early 90's. When I did my degree I know my tutor wrote abot it.
I think the gist was to try an impose stricter rules on the formula companies. If their product was prescription based, they would need to produce evidence on a greater scale before making claims about the addition of LCP's for example. It was the idea to try make the product a medicine, rather than a consumable good.

It was also seen as a way of changing the psychology of feeding choice, and perhaps getting amessage through to those who have never ever considered anything but formula. The message being that this isn't a food stuff you just buy, it is something bigger. Also if there was a presriber, then someone would be taking overall responsibility for the giving of information in regards to the correct and safe use of formula.

So lots of things really. Here on mumsnet, almost by default, we are thinking interested motivated parents. However I do come accross families who have never really heard of breastfeeding. It's hard to imagine but it's honestly true.

In the end, and currently, it was probably felt this was far too strong a step for our country, and it could have been a disaster.

Hoppity - you should read the "Politics of Breastfeeding".

Formual gained its credibility at the turn of the 19th Century in America when it was only available on prescription from Pedeatricians. Now we all no BF was normal then, but it was the days before antibiotics (and other miracles had been invented) so their wasn't much doctors could do with sick babies. However, FF made women see the doc lots. He got paid handsomely for his services. It was a win/win situation for big business and doctors pay packets. Shame about all the babies it killed.

If formula was on prescription it gives the message that the medical profession value it.

To clarify my very judgey sounding post - I mean 'we' are interested and motivated and able to find information [we start a thread ]] We are empowered or have the means to be.

I don't meant to imply there are groups who are not interested in parenting and therefore formula feed - I mean that the govt. struggles to get health messages through to certain groups. Those with reading dificulties and those who do not attend for care spring to mind.

So don't flame me - am one handed and wrestling my own feeding choice as we speak

I do think the government does a good job of getting the message through about BF. Where it fails miserably is the crap "support" given at hospital. HVs and MWs are often instrumental in BF failure. They receive a shockingly small amount on training.

treedelivery - interesting points. I think you are correct about regulations for prescription goods.

It's also the case that some families have more or less not heard of breastfeeding....I mean they do know babies get fed that way, but it is totally outside their experience and that of everyone they know. It is very hard for women from families like that to sort of believe they can do it.

It doesn't where I live. A few posters in a surgery the client group never attend anyway does zero. Many have a reading age of less than 12 [which is a nationwide concern] and feel totally disenfranchised before they begin. Plus the information available says noting about how to do it, and the 0-3 days we are in intensive contact with the services is not a great time to start drinking in information about hormones and 6 different ways to hold a baby.

We need telly adverts, in prime time [personal theory]

Am glad you have that experience too TikTok. I find my mumsnet reality and my rl working reality miles apart some of the times.

But keep striving and trying and marching on......

We do need a TV campaign.

I live in Edinburgh and there are loads of adverts on the buses. They are very good actually.

I know this is very shallow but it would be great if more Slebs BF. Probably impossible to engineer.

Thats not shallow though - thats real life! Hope the govt, are reading.

Charlotte Church has probably done more for younger peoples confidence in birthing generally than the whole of the NHS.

Which is another point - what is the NHS for? Is this it's job? Was it born to provide healthcare and make ill people better? Is that what birthing and child rearing is? Just healthcare?

We need a new organisation - FHS the Family Health Service.
It will run birthing units, lying in hospitals, drop in centres etc. It will have nothing to do with the NHS, except to refer to it when clients have illness/conditions.

It will be a revolution. And if I work there can I have Christmas Day off please, it's my first one with 2 girls and I'd like to be home.

Not that I'm not dedicated.....

One thing I would like to be studied is the impact on breastfeeding of routinely putting babies skin to skin with mum after birth (unless the mother actively opts out). Babies and mothers who are ff deserve this lovely experience as well, and it has many benefits.

Anecdotally, midwives notice that this sometimes gets bf underway because the baby makes such obvious, irresistible signs, or in some cases latches on with no assistance at all. Bf may not last, if the mother is freaked by this, or decides it's really not for her, but in some cases it does.

I speak to more than the occasional mother who has been taken by surprise this way and who finds bf is enjoyable and rewarding.