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.

don't worry, gem, anyone with enough of an iq to get a job and become a 'career woman' knows that peter hitchens is marginally more of an atavistic nobboid than rod liddle.

Nope. The moment that RL tupped [I WIN the prize for matching verb with arsehole] a twenty year old was the moment that he clamped the 'atavistic nobboid: lifetime achievemnet award' to his tepid breast.

Anyway. Fuck me 800k? I deffo went into the wrong business.

This poster is just up the road from me. I completely understood the purpose of the campaign but it did feel like a kick while I'm already on the floor. I'm glad I won't have to avert my eyes any more.

could beta please confirm how many posters went up and how many have come down? [grand old duke of york]

yorkyorkyork

I should think Beta are busy rustling up a sexy antisexist slogan in a warehouse-style operational hub. They're probably skateboarding there .. or maybe leaning against the wurlitzer. Choosing a branded water from the 'help yourself' fridge. You know, generally getting creative.

I see the lawyers are still watching ...

Another cutting:
San Francisco Chronicle

Some interesting comments on it.

lol onebat. Why did harried's post go? Was it because she mentioned Mrs Garry's handbags?

PMSL onebat!

Surely a true creative environment these days would have boring, brown veneer desks with grey, slightly fraying chairs. Speckled beige carpet tiles, with the odd splodge of something horrible spilt on several of them. A tea lady with a trolley, and manual typewriters operated by ladies called Margaret and Sheila. (With apologies to all ladies called Margaret and Shiela)

SF Chronicle - hooray, another press cutting for the OAA/Betagate file. I like the 'can you even imagine any idiots plastering these all over the place in SF' lead-in.

I thought this was a very interesting comment:

"If England is anything like America I'd expect every single woman working for that company to file a discrimination lawsuit..."

... and it made me wonder what the women who work at (Beta) and the OAA think about all of this?

I liked the pithiness of this comment:

"We were shocked, shocked! that saying something stupid would make people mad at us!"

Do you, the absurdity of this comment had passed me by the first time. The fact that they were so shocked does tend to show that casual sexism is a part of their make-up/psyche.

Why wouldn't anyone be shocked by such a remark?!

Seen this?

Puts that shock into context..

lol. That would have been a better slogan I think.

Although this is a very telling part of the article:

"Perhaps given the scale of the advertising budgets wielded by the financial services industry it was decided that upsetting mothers and career women ? who buy products but don't book ad campaigns ? was the best tactical move"

Who says career women don't book ad campaigns?!! And even if they don't directly book them, I bet there are many who have a significant influence as to where their advertising budget is being spent!

God, they're just not very good are they? I mean every single one of these lines has been done by someone else, either in advertising or editorial.

How about coming up with something insightful that actually incites new debate rather than just regurgitating the Daily Mail?

Although, I'm a bit at the Monkey's statement that career mothers don't book advertising campaigns. I'm sure they do. Just like I am sure they constitute quite a few of the banker-wankers. Again, the slide into seeing mothers just as mothers (and career mothers just as a species of mother).

x-post biwi!!

Re the MediaMonkey blog 'bankers' item onebatmother links above - IMO no-one should think that 'mothers' and 'people who buy ad space' are necessarily separate. The key mistake OAA/Beta and so on have made all along in their handling of this, is to assume (implicitly) that 'mothers' and 'people who have any kind of ability to think or act, and/or are or have been employed in positions of any influence in the communications and other industries' are different and separate. One of these days they'll stop making those mistakes.

Have to type faster, SnowWorm!

Exactly mrsbaldwin. I feel cross all over again now. Bloody monkey.