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.

This hideous poster is still up in Chingford, just off the Billet roundabout (across the road from Walthamstow Dogs in case anyone fancies defacing it).

A small sticker has been put on it saying 'have your say' - is that really meant to make it better?

I'm with Dittany on this.

Thought the letter from Mrs B very good but I don't agree that we've decided to give to a charity. There is still debate about this - though I accept we need to make a decision asap given there is a deadline on this.

The reason the posters are being taken down is that they offended some women (both 'career women' and SAHMs) on the grounds of sexism. Redress should therefore be made in the same area. It's not that Shelter (or any of the other charities mentioned) aren't worthy of help or support but this debate has been about sexism and women still being subjected to sexist attitudes in society. The agency has conceded that offence has been caused on these grounds and an ad making a statement about the very thing that's been raised on all the MN threads powerfully underlines the argument that has been made here.

Plus it's more likely to get picked up on by all the various media websites/bloggers than a charity ad would because it looks more like a mea culpa from the agency. That once more reinforces what's been done here and communicates the really important message that a sexist society is an unacceptable one.

Still like 'damages us all' rather than 'women and girls' as I think it's more likely make men stop and think ('ooh, how do sexist ads affect me?' rather than 'god, more wimmin whingeing' which I fear may still be a response from many...). Failing that, the 'sexist ads are a waste of space' (was that MN HQ's or Beta's? Can't remember.) as it's quite witty while making a fundamental point.

I like

• sexist ads are a waste of space
• or sexist advertising damages us all

don't let them chose 'feminists make good fathers' or some other trite shite

I think the money should go to Object or Fawcett as it would be noticed rather than just disappearing into a national charity's vast coffers, and it would make the approach single-message

or we could buy Riven some nappies for her supply while she waits for David Cameron to arrive with her order

I've read a lot of this thread but haven't had time to keep up today, so forgive me if I am repeating someone else.

The original ad struck me as pretty childish and overly simplistic. I thought it was purely about courting controversy (at the expense of working women), not about initiating a genuine debate. It was a cheap shot. To undo that wrong, I reckon (Beta) should replace the posters with something that is about a genuine discussion of sexism:

"Is feminism still needed?" or

"Sexism is bad for business", something like that.

As for the money, a homeless charity does seem the obvious choice given the weather.

Oh, I do like the Fawcett idea for the money.

morningpaper - agree totally.

Run an ad which addresses the issue directly. I worked (note past tense) in advertising and it's true that charities so get quite a lot of free space. There's so much covert sexism in advertising (don't even get me started on that one...) that having an ad which overtly addresses this is an opportunity which shouldn't pass up.

Give the money to a charity which ensures consistency across the message (always an important element of any comms campaign).

Like the idea of Fawcett though, without wanting to complicate things further, there is a group called Working Families who actively campaign to help those work create work/life balance and provide free legal advice, help the government develop policy, commission research etc. Here's a summary from their website:

'Holding down a job is hard. Bringing up children or taking care of elderly parents is tough. Doing both - and getting the balance right - is doubly difficult.

Today, work comes first too often. For the sake of our families, wouldn't it be good to shift the balance in favour of the family? Children need our income - but also our time and attention.
This is where Working Families can help, by campaigning for your rights, advising you on how to make your case for change, and providing relevant information. Our voice is being heard. We have helped move working parents to the top of the social agenda, influencing legislative change such as the right to request flexible working, paid paternity leave and adoption leave.

There is still a long way to go. Most working families face tough decisions about childcare, money and time. Many employers have yet to be persuaded that work-life balance is good news.

We can keep up the momentum - and help you to help yourself. We have extensive experience of advising working parents and carers on legal rights and how to go about negotiating change with employers.'

workingfamilies.org.uk

Just a thought.

at "Sexism is bad for business"

ok, so it's pretty clear from Beta mans last post, that we either come up with a statement or they will...
so the current list is

Sexism damages us all / Sexist advertising harms women and girls
Feminists make better fathers
which others are serious contenders?

and the £1000 charity money is for
Shelter
Fawcett
Womens Aid
Any other choices?

gad, step away.
let them do what they want and give the money to st mungo's.
new company or not, i don't think garry lace is cold at night.

(I don't think workingfamilies is a charity?)

MP - you can gift aid donations to them and I thought that to benefit from gift aid you had to have charitable status?

Agree with stepping away.

Oh I couldn't see that GEM, praps you are right

Mmm... if I was Betaman I'd probably be keen to steer us away from the idea of giving the ad space to a charity because it won't help them repair the reputational damage of the offending campaign.

So what if lots of space is already given to charities for free. Lots of donations are made to charity every day but that's not going to stop me from donating too. Bit of a flawed argument there I think.

I still don't want Beta to benefit from an MN endorsed slogan (either formally via MN branding or informally via approval on this thread). Media will see this as a public display of having kissed and made up, which is massively inappropriate since the original offence went far and wide beyond MN.

The point about sexism has been made IMO - we brought down the campaign. A slogan such as 'sexism damages us all', as I said earlier, just sounds like some worthier than thou public service announcement and leaves MN open to further ridicule.

I'm quite of the opinion now to just let them stew in their own juice.

Another vote for stepping away.

"I'd like Women's Aid to be the charity of choice. They know that sexism kills women and they provide shelter for homeless women and children and help them put their lives back together."

Agree with wahwah - Women's Aid or Refuge. No one is saying Shelter is somehow 'unworthy'. We are arguing for a charity helping women because this ad attacks women. Giving ad space to Shelter does not address this wrong. Yes Shelter saves lives but so do women's refuges:

• 2 women are killed each week by a current or former partner ? 1 woman killed every 3 days.

• An analysis of 10 separate domestic violence prevalence studies by the Council of Europe showed consistent findings: 1 in 4 women experience domestic violence over their lifetimes

• 1 woman in 9 is severely beaten by her male partner each year.

• Domestic violence has a higher rate of repeat victimisation than any other crime.

• Every minute police in the UK receive a domestic assistance call ? yet only 35% of domestic violence incidents are reported to the police.

• On average, a woman is assaulted 35 times before her first call to the police.

• In 90% of domestic violence incidents, children were in the same or the next room.

Source here

Have just parked DC in front of the TV so that I can type one more response before signing off to go and cook dinner.

CCL - no flaw in the argument. With limited resource (in my case money and in this case one poster execution), you have to chose where to put the resource. I can't afford to give to all the charities I want to so give to the ones that matter the most to me personally or seem to need the most help. Can't see much advertising actively raising the issue of sexism so the poster doing this gets my vote.

Not sure if the media will see a poster making an overt statement about why the preceding poster was seen as wrong. Given that anyone who might think this is 'a public display of having kissed and made up' will be aware that the poster was forced down by action on MN, it is more likely that it will look like the agency has recognised the issue that created the anger and that this is a public statement thereof.

Need now to cook DC's dinner before I have to change my name from GEM to Mother in dereliction of duty...

BTW - like suggestions of Women's Aid or Refuge for all the reasons cited above. Given the poster was felt to damage women, the money should go to help women.

GEM, my point about the flawed argument was directed at Beta. They have argued that charities are given lots of space for free already as the reason why they don't want to do it. This is ridiculous as there are clearly many charities out there who could benefit from some free ad space.

Plus, they in all likelihood want to steer us away from donating the space to a charity as it won't give the public airing of having kissed and made up that they are desperate for.

Had enough of the whole sorry saga now. Beta - go away and make sure the many remaining posters come down immediately, donate the £1000 to the consensus charity on this thread and just think a bit more carefully with future campaigns... thanks for listening.