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.

I hope they don't pilfer anything that's suggested here. Not without the express permission of its author and Mumsnet who both have a claim on the copyright.

If (Beta) ingringe my copyright, I'll have no alternative but to take a view on it.

I saw one of these posters in Cheltenham yesterday. Even though I'd seen them linked to from here, and in the Guardian, it was still like a kick in the teeth somehow.

I can't believe this is still going.

We all know it's pathetic horse dung, why not just rise above it?

They are just silly, sad little people.

Full on ingringing here as well

Minus the tip and strip pen, because I don't know what that is. It sounds rude though.

who are? the advertising industry? lol. yup.

Just popping my head back in to say, again, that I agree (again) with crazycatlady and BecauseI'mWorthIt a few posts above. Leave Beta to it now. It's their job to turn the campaign around. There have been plenty of suggestions here. They know more about the feelings of MN posters now and they can do the work.

Tip & Strip pen

They make the perfect corporate gift. I sent them to all my clients.

Crazycatlady is absolutely right. The social media marketing world is agog to stories in which brands #fail in their engagement with consumers - but if there's one thing they like more, it's stories where 'The Team Turned It Around'. It's a very potent archetype for an infant industry which is having money thrown at it - but fundamentally has no frickin' clue what it's doing, no way of predicting what will happen, and no way of measuring success.

(beta) will probably have hired a soc med reputation-management guru as soon as they realised the extent of their double fuck-up (poster then legal threats)- and that person will have recommended that they stop at nothing to co-opt the story and rework it into one of 'putting our hands up','reaching out', 'crowd-sourcing', 'growing'. In other words, any of a dozen or so industry buzzwords that will enable (beta) to tell a reassuringly recognisable story (Jung anyone?) of failure, redemption, and victory.

Remember that hideous Domino's pizza youtube incident involving bogies and possibly bums? Domino's latest online figures are waaay up - because they followed the social media fuck-up script. They have rebranded themselves as social media stars. (beta) will be desperate to be able to say that they 'worked with Mumsnetters to turn it around' - and it would be delicious to deny them that opportunity.

However, there is a moral thingy somewhere where someone, you know, that whatsisname, says that where action and inaction have apparently equal moral value, it is preferable to act, simply because action is, erm, active. You know?

So I'm thinking that the ethically-preferable thing to do is to use the digital sites to say something which is NOT debatable (and thus does not play along with their silly controversy-chasing, get Britain talking late 80s an-excellent-cafe-with-a-jolly-good-museum attached shoite) but which all of us too frequently forget - like the homelessness thing.

Something about sexism would get more press it's true - and would feel like a suitably humiliating moral victory. But we should remember that Garry will be doing all the interviews this time, rather than Justine, and he will certainly manage to tell his story. It won't involve humiliation I shouldn't think.

amen, onebat.

All good points OBM

I think that something like "sexism is bad for business" would be LOVELY because it is factual but it also tells the story

And a donation to a suitable women-themed charity would reinforce the story

Fawcett is nice because they fight for equal pay in particular (so a business link)

Object would be nice because they fight against sexist advertising

Of course collaboration is a risk but I agree that action better than non-action and handing over the keys, which means they say "Mumsnet choose the theme and let us work it into a new creative" and then produce something wet

Onebat - Yes good points and I totally agree so what do you suggest.

"Only 3 people have won £1M on who wants to be a millionaire."

Obviously we would have to check if it's true. Or would we?

Your post hangs on your last-but-two para onebat, which is an interesting one, really, and an argument I'd love to hear more about. But perhaps that is another thread. Anyway, what counts as inaction. Telling beta to fuck off is pretty active.

I needed a But in front of the second para

You're right onebat, a reworking of this campaign, with our help is exactly what Beta will want to prove the "open source" way of working I've heard them talk about. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...

Also, this precise scenario is exactly what every brand most fears - it's ALL they're talking about: "what if there's a massive backlash of consumer criticism and we can't control it?"

All the agencies are saying 'hey, relax, 20th Century Man. This is the Age of Conversation - and we are the Conversation Kings. It doesn't matter if people are negative about you - what matters is what you do with that negativity. Hire us - we are very much hip to the hop.'

Beta, in showing that they are very much not hip to the social media hop, have buggered up specTACularly, and they know it. This is really very high stakes stuff for them. Zey vill stop at nussink - nussink I tell you! - to save zeir skins.

I mean, onebats first three paras def suggest the fuck off approach, which I still like best.

FUCK OFF BETA

Off to watch wallander now.

I agree with Dittany

SEXISM IS BAD FOR BUSINESS or SEXISM IS A WASTE OF SPACE

We won't ever have that chance again

Trouble is if it's not about sexism Beta don't want to play ball.

So I think reiterate that it's minus 22 and we want to donate the space to Shelter.

And if they don't do it that's their problem.

i realise now that my amen was muddled.

i think we should tell beta to go boil their heids.

i think beta should do an ad that will help rough sleepers. but i have no control over that, because of my first answer.

I know this is another debate but

Rough sleeping is NOT the problem that it was under the Tories

There are more beds in hostels than people on the street these days

Or we could ask that Garry wears a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt for all his pitches for the next 10 years.