Advert with 'I will do my share of the night feeding'

[becstarlitsea]

Okay, I'm still smarting from complaining about the last set of formula ads on TV and all the flippin letters from the ASA to patronise me explain why my complaint wasn't valid.

But has anyone else picked up on this TV ad with the Dad standing in the kitchen heating up a bottle saying 'I will do my share of the night feeding' (or somesuch words - they probably worded it more carefully than that...)

My gripe is - although they show follow-on formula at the end and have the teeny tiny writing at the bottom as required by law... Aren't most babies over 12 months sleeping through the night without needing a night feed? I know some babies over 12 months have a night feed, but surely they are implying a younger baby here?

What do you think?

Just viewed the clip from Tidey's link and noticed another thing indicating a very small baby - you can see a pram (the sort baby lies flat in) in the hallway. How many people will be using a flat pram, as opposed to a pushchair, after the baby is 6 months old?

verylittlecarrot if you look at a tub of Aptamil, it clearly calls itself on the front of the tub a 'BREASTMILK SUBSTITUTE'. No other formula does this, they all seem to call themselves infant milk/infant formula milk. I do think Aptamil try pushing their luck a bit and I'm not even from the anti formula brigade (although I suppose it technically is a breastmilk substitute if you are not bf but it does seem to be inviting trouble!)

When I first started using Aptimil, when dd was born 2.5 years ago, they did describe themselves as being closest to breasmtmilk, the other formula brands did not, and that it had immunofortis etc. At the time one is confused and really sad at not being able to bf and gets this brand over the others as i am thinking that it is like breastmilk when its clearly not. oh dear.

So in my nievity at the time, i thought that i was giving dd something that was akin to bm.

It is interesting. When it comes down to it, the image each brand presents in their current advertising is as follows:

SMA - Bottlefeeding/Mixed feeding is better because the Dad can be more involved and Mum gets a rest.
C&G - Oh, breast might be best but formula is good enough.
Aptamil - Breastfeeding is lovely, isn't it, but we all know just how difficult/painful it is, so don't worry if you can't, use this instead - it's just as good.

Now tell me, breastfeeding mums, how many of you have heard at least one of these views from unsupportive family/friends/hcps? So either the adverts are picking up on general public opinion and reinforcing it with their ads (because the more you hear something you already believe, the more it strengthens that belief) or they have planted the seed themselves and it has worked!

Also this kind of trumps the argument that they are only trying to win the other FF customers - the main part of each ad is about how good their milk is compared to breastfeeding, not how good their milk is compared to other commercial baby milks.

precisely, bertie.

This idea that you can only get a break/leave baby for a few hours if you ff is just not accurate. My daughter is 7 months old, I have been working full time since she was 12 weeks and she has never had a drop of formula. My DH is at home with her while I work. Expressing milk is dead easy with a double electric pump, I have a hands free bra and I get work done while I express. Everyone thinks it must be a hassle, but I still think it is easier than faffing about with formula.

Shanster, I could have not done that with my Avent manual pump, dreadful results. The electric ones seem so much better, will try it if i have another little one.

Good point Bertie. It's really notable that formula adverts don't mention other brands of formula at all. Whereas it's really common for adverts to draw comparisons to competitors e.g. Tesco ads go on about how they're cheaper than Asda/Sainsburys/Morrisons.

or even 'compared to the leading big-box powder'

The whole "dad must be involved" with feeding is a product of formula advertising. Can someone tell me exactly why a father needs to be able to feed a baby?

If new mums had proper support in the early days then horrific stories like ella's wouldn't be so depressingly common. I think the money spent on formula advertising is something like 90% more than is spent on bf-ing promotion/support.

The thing is, formula doesn't need to be advertised. If you need it, you need it and that's that. Far better to have one brand of formula, in plain packaging, with the ingredients on the side and some proper, non-fluffy information freely available to all women. Oh, and accurate instructions on how to make it up properly.

But that wouldn't provide multi billion profits for formula manufacturers. Much better that we keep parents in
the dark with lovely fluffy ads with CGI laughing babies and immunofortis. God forbid - we wouldn't want to make anyone feel guilty by giving them accurate information.

Sorry if this has been said on this thread already, have tried to read most posts between nappies and feeding.

I think that to a certain extent the full intent of the adverts has been missed. Its no solely about capturing the 'just had/about to have a baby' market -- its about capturing the future market. SMA etc of course run the ads to increase there current sales, but that isn't their only goal.

These companies know that younger women and girls are seeing these adverts. A young girl or woman probably won't know about the rules of marketing formula and won't know that there are different types of baby formula (eg. follow on milk) but from an early adulthood will subconsciously see that happy smiling babies have SMA, that helpful dads do the night feeds to make it easier on mum. In years to come, when she starts a family, that comes back to her. She is then more likely to choose FF from the outset.

It is very clever marketing and companies spend millions each year on this type of long-term marketing techniques. Its one of the main reasons they banned smoking adverts from sports, because the same effect happens. If you become brand aware when you are younger it stays with you.

Good point, phishfood - the effect of ads is not solely, or even mainly, on women in their precise current market (mothers who are about to have a baby or who have just had one). These ads have a long term effect on the rest of the viewing public - increasing the invisibility of breastfeeding, emphasising the 'benefits' of formula both generically and as a specific brand.

If they did not work to increase the generic and the specific market, they would not be made. Formula has one major competitor - breastfeeding. This is why many ads either:

• 'highjack' breastfeeding imagery and ideas, so you get stuff on immune systems and health, and soft, loving closeness

or

• focus on a perceived 'deficiency' of breastfeeding eg dad's involvement in feeding

The same manufacturers make more than one formula, and in any case, the make-up of all formula is actually very close, so they have to differentiate between them using spurious differences, to segment the market and appeal to different groups.

The issue is not just the undermining of breastfeeding, but the rubbish information they give to formula feeding mothers. Surely formula feeding mothers want to know clear, accurate facts about what they are spending a lot of money on? The posters on mumsnet usually do..and instead they get fluffy ads.

Phishfood yes, definitely! My young SIL (she is 13) is forever telling me "I love that advert, the one with the laughing babies, it's so cute." I doubt she has even thought about what it's advertising or whether it might be controversial. I will just carry on being a positive bf role model for her!

Also, I myself have a strong positive memory of an SMA advert which ran for years - it had lots of cute babies in and the song "Take good care of my baby".

True true totally. When i was little i never really saw anyone bf or heard about it, when i asked my mum if she did with me she said that she tried but i did not latch on. At that time in the 1970's the formula companies were really pushing formula, my mum said that they were doing that with her and she gave me formula.

I have a background in advertising and personally think that the formula milk manufacturers only see follow-on milk as a vehicle for pushing brand awareness, to get around legislation. Any follow-on milk they sell is frankly a bonus - but the future revenue that these adverts generate will be massive and will offset any negative comments from places like MN, so from their point of view is well worth it.

'A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play' springs to mind. Not claiming to boost your immune system, but certainly sending a not-so-subliminal message that chocolate is good for you.

this was eventually banned - they can't use that slogan anymore as it is misleading.

hardly consistent, is it?

Oh oneopinionatedmother i will stop deluding myself then and cut the chocolate, oh damn its that time of the month,need choccie NOW!!!!!!

i hear Cadburys is better for that time of the month anyway...

oh yes cant beat a bit of fruit and nut

I'm glad that a lot of people have agreed with my irritation - it's taken the sting out of all the 'there, there, dear, these ads are actually fine' letters from the ASA - I hate being patronised, it makes me mad as hell!

And I'm also glad that this thread hasn't kicked off, as I do believe that lots of good mums formula feed for many valid reasons. It's the manufacturers and advertising strategists who piss me off. They have cynically figured out a way to still advertise formula to mums of younger babies despite being banned from doing so thereby perpetuating the misinformation that has caused so many women to give up BF and then regret it. And I think the points about brand awareness for women who haven't had babies yet is a good one too.

So I'm going to complain to the ASA again. Anyone want to join me, the link is www.asa.org.uk/asa/how_to_complain/

I expect I'll just get another bunch of letters saying 'there there dear' but still - Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more, or close the wall up with our English dead!

(in this scenario I generally see myself as being an English dead )

a lot of people have no desire to breastfeed,should they be denied access to the information about their informed choice (to formula feed?) whether you agree with it or not a lot of people do not want to try breast feeding,there are many reasons for this which-although a lot of people do not agree with it-are valid to them,and no amount of information from the pro bf lobby/hcp's will change that.
i doubt anyone who is comitted to feeding would see an ad for formula and head out like a zombie to buy bottles?
if you need to buy a painkiller you need to buy a painkiller-nurofen advertise so that you choose their brand over another.the need is already there.

Sleeplessinstretford - No, they should not be denied access to information about FF - but marketing "information" from the formula companies is hardly an unbiased overview, is it?
For example - Aptamil's latest "immunofortis" shenanigans - you can hardly say this was accurate, true, useful, unbiased information about their formula, can you? At the moment there is no proper information about the different formulas (or very little) and this is something that (imo) needs to change. Banning advertising of formula milks would be one way to facilitate that change, at least the companies couldn't mislead people any more for the sake of profit.

sleepless - ads do not give you information. It really does not matter what the reason is for formula feeding - ff mothers deserve good information. They will not get it from ads that tell lies and make false claims.

Why would you want to choose your baby's formula on the basis of which ad you liked best?? Wouldn't you want to choose it on nutritional and health grounds?

I like to think if i was going to ever ff a baby that one is very much of a muchness with the other isn't it?