OAA Apologise for "Career Women Make Bad Mothers" Campaign

[OAA]

The OAA are running a campaign to demonstrate the power of outdoor advertising to drive people online. This is being done in conjunction with a new website called ?Britainthinks.com? which encourages debate amongst the people of Britain.

We regret any misunderstanding that led to feelings of offence on the part of members of the Mumsnet community.

The intention of the website is to generate debate by posing questions that are deemed to be socially relevant by members of society.

We did not intend to cause any offence and we would stress that the questions posed were not the opinions of the OAA or any of its members.

Three posters were designed to initiate the debate using sport, life and politics and these are supported by dozens of other questions on the website itself.

Regrettably the question relating to ?career women? has caused offence and the OAA unreservedly apologises to anyone who has been offended. This was not our intention and, to ensure that this misunderstanding does not persist, instructions have been given to remove this poster.

Subject to the vagaries of the weather, all copy will be removed as soon as possible. The sites currently carrying this poster will be either blanked-out or carry one of the other designs. The poster will also be removed from the ?Britainthinks.com? website. All Digital posters have already been removed.

Maybe he wants the rejection formally, in Haiku?

Although, if they'd put up the motherfucking one right outside 5 of the biggest ad agency offices in London, I'd go for it...

Seriously, MNHQ - what is your view on this?? They're talking about using your branding.

he's v careful to say 'the poster' isn't he? what exactly is on offer, how many and where? (not that i think it should go ahead, obv, but it all sounds like a bit of a chisel to me).

ROFL (again) @ Swed

"Career Women Make Bad Motherf*king Admen Apologise thanks to Mumsnet" would be perfect.

I doubt they'd run with it.

But it's perfect and would make people research the story. And make advertisers think perhaps.

Dittany. We don't know the exact schedule of poster sites available. We believe they are the big roadside digital ones. A significant number of them. We will confirm this on Monday if you want to go ahead. Best. (Beta)

Can't you just give me personal permission to deface any billboard that I fancy?

There wouldn't be that many, I don't often leave the house TBH

Exhibit A: How a crisis management meeting changes things.

Yesterday:

"I will now engage in a process to ensure that it never happens again for anyone and that we are compensated for the hurt,corporate loss and reputational damage that we have suffered as a result of your inability to moderate your medium properly."

Today:
"Have a good weekend. Best (Beta)."

hahahhahaha

(morningpaper)

I vote an absolute NO to any kind of joint branding or accreditation here - mumsnet is the far more valuable brand in this and has nothing to gain by this association. MNHQ would presumably do anything like that carefully and judiciously.

But an absolute YES to (Beta) deciding to post ads with 'sexist advertising damages women and girls' or even 'us all'.

And an answer to why has the haiku thread gone - assume that's down to legal pressure? So whose lawyers? If G and R are truly sorry and want to be our friends then surely they are not persecuting us still? We need to be told. Seriously.

I agree with aitch's point that the ad was offensive to everyone, not just people who use mumsnet. I think there is a danger that, in being perceived as a homogenous group, our views are more easily pigeonholed as those of 'mumsnetters.'

they are obviously engaging in some damage limitation exercise, but I wouldn't like to see anger at sexism thought of as a 'mumsnet' thing.

Anyway, just my view - I realise it's not particularly 'on brand' at the moment. ;)

I vote an absolute NO to any kind of joint branding or accreditation here - mumsnet is the far more valuable brand in this and has nothing to gain by this association. MNHQ would presumably do anything like that carefully and judiciously.

But an absolute YES to (Beta) deciding to post ads with 'sexist advertising damages women and girls' or even 'us all'.

And an answer to why has the haiku thread gone - assume that's down to legal pressure? So whose lawyers? If G and R are truly sorry and want to be our friends then surely they are not persecuting us still? We need to be told. Seriously.

Gosh, you lot... I've been reading this and the related threads pretty much ALL DAY (it's all right, my kids are old enough to be self-supporting and I don't have a job right now). Only just caught up.

I break out in the relationship boards from time to time, being particularly interested in the threads about emotional abuse. How many times have we all agonised on behalf of women who crawl back time and time again to abusive partners? We say come on love, he'll never change, of course he's nice some of the time but it's only a matter of time before he batters you senseless, get out of there.

And here we have Exhibit B, an advertising company which has been stood up to by (a subset of) its victims, and after finding that threats don't work, is being ever so conciliatory. It's all right darling, I've seen the error of my ways, I'll be a better husband advertising company from now on. And we believe him, and we go crawling back trustingly. But wait! The sneaky dog has somehow turned it all against us and he's not so nice at all, but now he's back in the house we can't get him out. It's worse than vampires.

Don't believe an abusive leopard can change his spots! Bill Hicks was right!

ps if the advert we're talking about is going to be on their short-term mock-up of a website, big deal, nobody goes there anyway. If we want a Mumsnet Message that everyone can sign up to, why not post it on Mumsnet itself and then maybe more than half a dozen people will actually read it.

Lady creatives of Mumsnet - IMHO you already did your work reading and contributing (haikus) to this thread and writing emails to the OAA, to buyers of outdoor advertising, to Beta's other's clients and to the ASA. I propose that if there are replacement posters to be designed, that Garry lets Sharon have a go ...

Back later.

[MrsBaldwin goes off to get the all-important pre-bathtime white wine]

Am impressed that you have pre-bathtime white wine. What wine do you drink during bathtime? And do you move on to liqueurs afterwards?

Prosecco here. Not open yet, mind.

I've had post-Tesco doses of Fullers' London Pride and am now in a state to say 'Mumsnet I lurve you'.

This thread is a very entertaining state of affairs.

Prompted by your suggestions Sharon and our copywriter (female but not the author of the contentious ad) have written the following. No obligaton to purchase!

WOMEN MAKE BETTER BOSSES. (discuss)

SEXIST ADVERTISING DAMAGES US ALL (discuss)

ADMEN OR MADMEN. (discuss)

We would not use the mumsnet logo unless you or Justine ask us to.

Please let us know early on Monday morning what you would like to do.

Best.

(Beta)

I like the second one.

But agree that use of the MN logo must be sanctioned by Justine/MNHQ first.

Oh do go away now Garry. Your attempts to corral us toward an agreed new slogan are going to fail because none of us want to associate with you, and MNHQ doesn't seem to want to either. This is one 'medium' that you cannot control.

I'm not sure there's much more to say on the topic actually. Right off to bath DD then finish off a PR plan for a client. See how this mother and career thing works?

"you or Justine" - I am quite sure that nobody outside the hallowed Mumsnet Towers itself has any right to authorise the use of the logo, or in any other way to be taken as representative of Mumsnet as a whole (even if we all agree with them, which is unlikely ever to happen).