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.

Some suggestions of charities to donate the space to:

www.womankind.org.uk

www.object.org.uk Would fit in with MN campaign

www.thehavens.co.uk/

refuge.org.uk

Have been following (as best I can between bathtime, bedtime, mealtimes, story time, glue and glitter time etc.) the various threads and twists and turns in this particular story.

All very interesting.

Understand the view of some of the MNetters that we should step away from the poster but - in my humble opinion - we should take up the offer. Here's my thinking:

we have a chance here to have a message on a fair number of sites which, even despite the arctic conditions, will still be seen by many. And the chance to make a difference, no matter how small, should not be passed up.

The charity thought is an interesting one, and altruistic, but given the grievance was ultimately over sexism that's the area we should address. Particularly as there seems to be an inherent view that it is no longer a real problem (because so many more of us work, there are women MPs, Benny Hill is no longer on the telly, we have the vote, blah blah etc.)

'Sexist advertising damages us all' (I think I've got that right? Can't find the original Beta post where they listed suggested headlines now...)is pretty powerful. It's true - sexist advertising does damage us and damages all of us. I understand the desire to say that it damages women and girls but the reality is that it doesn't just damage the female gender; it damages society as a whole. Putting the broader message up there may actually also get people to think about how and why sexist advertising is so dangerous. To say it damages women and girls is almost too obvious which would risk the message not being noticed and therefore the point not being registered.

Getting the message up straight after the working mums poster also underlines the feelings expressed in the various threads which have led to the original poster being taken down.It may even be seen, by those who've followed the debate, as a tacit apology by the agency and a public recognition of why it was important to remove the original poster...

There's still too much sexism in advertising so let's use an ad space to make that point.

Btw - has anyone seen the Yaris ad that is causing Saatchi's in Australia such a headache...? That really beggars belief.

The New Economics Foundation have developed something called Social Return on Investment, which measures not the financial ROI but the social ripple effect of money spent by organisations such as charities. They assign a monetary value to things like well being and good mental health and other intangible benfits. So for example, WaterAid's SROI claims that for every £1 they spend they generate £8 in social value (Clean running water means that girls can stay in school instead of fetching water each day, which lifts the family out of poverty, less disease means an eased burden on hospitals and so forth).

Now for the bit relevant to (Beta): NEF just published a report comparing the salaries of lowly paid workers like child minders and hospital cleaners with bankers and advertising execs. The former, unsurprisingly, generate about £10 in social value for every pound they are paid. And the latter DESTROY social value for every pound they earn.

"The advertising industry... encourages high consumer spending and indebtedness. It can create insatiable aspirations, fuelling feelings of dissatisfaction, inadequacy and stress. In our economic model we estimate the share of social and environmental damage caused by overconsumption that is attributable to advertising. For a salary of between £50,000 and £12 million, top advertising executives destroy £11 of social value for every pound in value they generate."

Full report here.

skatergirll, we are truly not worthy. That was fabulous.

Que? The NEF bit? They are completely ace! Strapline: "Economics as if people and the planet mattered."

Have MrsB and skatergirll met? I think they should. What a team they would be!

V interesting, skatergrrrrl.

Whilst I wasn't a top ad exec, my instinct told me that I was helping to create insatiable appetites and to fuel feelings of disatisfaction. And that was one of the number of reasons I left the ad industry.

I left a job in financial publishing to work for a small charity so know the feeling, GoodEnoughMum!

SROI is a brilliant way of measuring the true impact of an organisations work. Charities and the civil service are starting to use this tool. Say a charity spends £15k on a powered wheelchair for a disabled child. That's the financial cost. But then look at all the benefits. Maybe mum can go back to work part time as the child doesnt need a full time carer any more. In turn this improves her marriage and she no longer claims unemployment benefits. The child has less health problems associated with a manual wheelchair, saving the state money on GP visits. Plus the improved well being, social life and friendships the chair enables the child to have. Suddenly the wheelchair doesnt look so expensive, in fact it is saving the NHS and the local council money.

Social vaue should matter as much as financial value.

Anyway, to return to the pint of the thread, I love that NEF have turned the tables on bankers and advertising execs and how their work destroys social value.

kudos SG

I wish there was a pint on this thread but meant to type point.

I was rather enjoying your pint!

fantastic, skatergirrl.

i see the point on the fawcett society (although how lucky for all these political organisations, getting their christmas hols until the middle of january, i must change career) but i do keep returning to how cold it is and how an advert on a digital board saying 'if you're cold right now how do you think the homeless feel?' might be felt directly in the pockets of the men and women who are in serious danger of dying of hypothermia at night.

I can still see this discussion has not been removed from the Britain Thinks website and have therefore emailed my comments to them directly, and they are as follows:

"I am absolutely appalled with the wording used to open up this discussion. I am a career women who?s 4 yr old daughter has gone to nursery full time since she was 5 and half months old and to insinuate that I am a bad mother because of this is an absolute insult, there are a number of factors that make someone a bad parent and this will have nothing to do with whether they are a career person or not, if they are going to be bad parents they will be bad parents whatever their work status. I understand that this was intended to open up a discussion. However you must realise you have a responsibility not to discriminate which I feel you have by singling out women in this discussion. As well as this working mothers are constantly attacked, when I am sure there are women and I do not speak for all, who given the choice would prefer to stay at home but as is usual we are left trying to find the perfect work life balance as well as trying to ensure we bring home enough bacon to make sure that we provide a comfortable future for our children.

Maybe we should be asking what causes bad parenting and then maybe we can start to find ways to avoid it instead of beating parents over the head. Remember children don?t come with a handbook and should parents be given more support/guidance maybe we could reduce the number of bad parents and as a result the number of children who are not achieving their full potential.

Food for thought eh?!!"

Don't think so Harpy, but it's pretty objectionable so I'd hope not.

I wish I had time to read this whole thread, but am constrained for time. But, I would just like to extend my support to Mrs.B, who as far as I can see has done an admirable job so far.

I will look forward to reading her statement/letter later. I hope I may have time to contribute.

Apparently the posters are still all over Manchester. C'mon Beta/OAA, what are you doing?

I said earlier I would draft up a letter to Beta re their offer of a poster. I said I'd put the draft here for people to look at and if they liked it (or some version of it) it could go 'official' on a new thread in this topic sometime before Monday morning.

Here is the draft letter:
___

Dear Beta

On Friday afternoon you offered contributors to Mumsnet the opportunity to create a poster as part of the OAA?s current outdoors-to-online BritainThinks ad campaign.

This was by way of apology for offence caused by the campaign?s career women ads.

You said:
*the poster could be on a topic of the Mumsnet community?s choice
*that it would go up on digital ad sites around the UK (although you would confirm the exact numbers and locations of these later)
*that it must be co-branded BritainThinks (and conform with the various rules and regulations of poster advertising)
*that there would also be a donation of £1000 to a charity of Mumsnet contributors? choice

You suggested various potential slogans and asked us to get back to you (by Monday morning).

Contributors to Mumsnet have debated your offer, here:
(link to this thread)

They thank you for your offer (and commend your efforts at damage-limitation).

Following their discussion, they have decided that they would like to donate your offer to a worthy charity. The thread linked above suggests a number of possibles, as you will see when you read it.

As you ring round these charities, in the early part of this week, to offer them free, co-branded BritainThinks ad space and a £1000 donation, you may not suggest you are calling on behalf of Mumsnet or working in partnership with Mumsnet. However, you will want, for their information, to direct them to the debates on this site or, for brevity, the recent items in the Guardian, Independent and Times linked here:
(links to this week?s mainstream press coverage)

We?d be very pleased to receive a progress update when you are ready to make one.

Thanks very much.

_

MrsBaldwin postscript:
*£1000 - may be cash, may be the offer of £1000-worth of work for a charity. If a charity is minded to accept the latter that will be their business, not ours, IMO.
*there's no way of knowing in advance whether any of the charities people have suggested will want to take up the Beta offer - they may, they may not. Best then, IMO, that we don't try to micromanage Beta's ringround - let them organise it themselves (whilst we get on with the next big thing).

MrsBaldwin's next big thing:
*getting out the Chenin Blanc

Oh and BTW, re the original billboards. Yep, Crazycatlady, you're right, some of them are still up - I saw one today in North London.

Thanks Mrsb. It gets my vote! Enjoy yr Chenin Blanc.

mrsb has spoken.

all hail mrsb.

And meanwhile, back at the ranch...

page not found

second try