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 have at last received a response from the NSPCC:

"Thank you for your email regarding the Beta advertising agency?s recent campaign. The NSPCC does not endorse the sentiments of this poster, which we understand has now been withdrawn. Although Beta has, in the past, done some free work for us, we have no plans to collaborate with them in the future.

We hope this clarifies our position on this issue."

So that's NSPCC and Bupa who say they won't work with Beta again... two out of their named list of seven clients as per their website. Don't think I'd be too happy if I was Beta.

Thomas Cook were, understandably, a bit kinder to them. Given that they are in the middle of a £9m campaign I would expect their response to be quite measured, here it is:

"Thank you for your email. We don't comment on the advertising campaign of another organisation or agency. As you know, (Beta) have created our recent advertising campaign, and for commercial reasons we wouldn't disclose the nature of any relationship with them going forward. However, we appreciate the serious points you've raised and please be reassured that these have been passed on to the relevant people in Thomas Cook.

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention, we do treat all matters like this very seriously.

Kind regards"

Well done Crazy - that is where the real 'muscle' lay!!

Lenin - did you see my 'off ramp' to the parenting thread for DP et al? I've never created a thread so fast! Trouble is, there are all these people over there, who now think it's debate I (bravely) wanted. They might wonder why I never followed up on any posts. I am now the worst OP ever!

I have received identical responses from the NSPCC and from Thomas Cook.

Word-for-word identical.

Lenin - I must say everyone was really sweet about my bluntness and moved off the thread with good grace.

My initial response to the ads were that they were just 'dated'. Maybe I've spent too much time on Mumsnet, but I don't have much to debate on the subject.

Really? Word for word?

I wonder who wrote it then? {grin]

Well what a load of bollocks that apology was eh folks. I urge you to contact the agency's clients and potential clients as well as media contacts. Please make sure that every person you know, knows what the facts on this 'campaign'

Please stop telling them to fuck off and hit them where it really hurts; in the balance sheet.

yeah lets lose a few peope their jobs shall we in already difficult times

[MrsBaldwin logs in for a look after almost a full 12 hours offline (busy day today)]

Just reading all the threads

Fern the campaign itself had/has (given the posters are still up) the potential to have a huge impact on women in the workplace, in these already difficult times, so perhaps they should have thought about that...

lol fern, what are you on about? Lace would do well to lose a contract or two, but there will always be other admen and women scuttling into their place.

anyhoo, i think biwi asked you to link to the 'bullying'...

(Beta)

Thanks for your notes over the weekend and this morning. You've taken the debating with good grace, and I was glad to see you pick up the suggestions to lead it yourselves, but using some of these ideas.

I just wanted to give you thanks and credit for the way you have comported yourselves since Friday.

Looking forward to seeing what you come up with,

WIOAIG

OAA

I have been watching three poster sites. I checked two yesterday and both were up and both were large, highly prominent locations right by tube stations. One is very close to two girls' schools as well. The other site is on my way to work and is one of those rolling around under glass ones, if you know what I mean. That one wasn't moving this morning, so only the non-bad mothers ad was visible, so that was good.

As far as the other two go, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because of last week's snow and the weekend. But I will be checking both sites tomorrow morning, and if they are still there, I will be on the phone to you (in my real name, obviously). I certainly hope they will be gone and their pernicious influences will be over.

I do think it would be a good idea for you to post a progress report from your poster companies on how far you have been able to progress at removing them. We on this thread have no idea whether the ones we are seeing are all of them, or the last 5%, so an update would be really helpful.

Many thanks,

WIOAIG

I passed mine on the way home from work.

Poster is still up there as well. so much for taking them down

Hello fern. As Aitch says, it would be good if you could give us some examples of the bullying. I really hope I wasn't guilty of any - but I also have to say that I can't remember any at all, from anyone else who was posting either. Although as the threads moved quite quickly (and some were deleted) I suppose I could have missed them.

But I would like to know where your assertions come from.

WMMC - why did you think the apology was so bad?

Tangentially interesting Gaby Hinscliff article here.

oh jesus i hate rod liddle. (and dh worked for alton at the obs, what a gent. oddly useless, but a gent. loves the horses).

Rod Liddle = what is wrong with the world.

I'm going to start using him as a noun.

Some other person: "Christ - did you see that bad person just take candy from off of a baby?"
Me: "Rod Liddle!"

tbh i'm surprised he got the job at today, i mean he talks a good game but even a feeble brain such as mine can see that he's a major bullshitter.

He defines bullshit

How, in a just world, is it possible for a man's success to be based on the articulation of his terror of .. well, everything else.

Peter Hitchens in the piece entitled 'You've got nerve, Kirsty' in yesterday's Mail on Sunday:

'Most women with children, given the choice, would be full-time mothers. They would then be able to play a real part in their upbringing.'

Translates as: Working women make bad mothers.

Over 2 million people read the MoS so a fair few would have seen this.

Are we going to complain to the MoS and write to everyone who advertises in the rag paper, threatening to boycott their brands? Or is it just ad agencies that are to be punished for making sweeping generalisations which offend some?

Just found the answers to my earlier question. Thanks, SnowWorm and Swedington.

Can someone explain what a 'unique user' is please?

It means that they're counting each person, no matter how many times they click, GEM.