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.

ahhhh notevenamousie what a lovely post

What's the 55 hour rule, btw?

There's no such thing mousie. Lovely post btw.

it is still on a bus shelter which i drive past - if it wasnot reading the thread on here I would never knowit was fot OAA asthe print explaining this is not visibleasyou drive past

It's been more than 24 hours since the OAA confirmed the ads would be pulled, come on guys, this is too slow. Everyone is watching, waiting and ready to start emailing/phoning press offices and journo contacts if you don't stand by your word.

To be fair, the snow must have had an effect on how soon the posters could come down.

Not in central London though.

The OAA has agreed to replace or blank out the posters at the earliest available opportunity. If they stay up until the next campaign starts then to say that "all copy is being removed as soon as possible" wouldn't be true.

I hate some of the stuff people have commented under the article in Media Week. They honestly believe that 'mums' have created an almighty fuss about nothing. Some of the comments make me think of that pathetic exchange from boys who fancy a girl in school but as soon as they get the brush off start calling said girl a lesbian - if you know what I mean.

It seems some people just can't accept that women have an opinion which isn't always based on gender and that opposition to a statement such as the one used in this campaign is just a load of mums getting their knickers in a twist.

Agree DF.

Your post also really made me giggle, duelingfanjo talking about getting knickers in a twist, tee hee.

Good outcome - I had read the other thread but not got round to posting. Ridiculous comment from Garry:

He said: "The campaign was designed to start a debate about the issue rather than criticise career women, which would clearly be wholly inappropriate and utterly ridiculous."

If it would be 'wholly inappropriate' to criticise career women, how can a statement doing just that be placed to 'start a debate about the issue'? If something can be debated that suggests it's acceptable to have a number of views on it. Rubbish.

The sad fact seems to be that the 'we didn't think it would offend anyone' line has presumably been seen as viable because women in general are not seen as a group who anyone has to avoid offending anymore. It's the dream of the feminist backlash: those pesky women bleated for more rights and got them and they still complain! How unreasonable. Now, many years past the point where we should have been dealing with this stuff, there is a renewed expectation that we have to just put up with these comments and 'get a sense of humour'. Really, really, really irritating. BUT - I mustn't let this wipe out my pleasure at the ad being removed (tapping fingers while I wait for this to be completed - as of 8pm tonight the topic, in question form, is still up on the 'Business' section of the Britainthinks website).

OAA, I'll be paying more attention to outdoor advertising in future - with the aim of checking out who else does it and making sure this is a single offence, and I don't have to avoid buying any more of your clients' products.

Beta, if I manage to find out what other campaigns you run, I will certainly be avoiding any other products you help to advertise.

Eightieschick, they represent Thomas Cook, the NSPCC and Jackpot Joy.

Oh and I agree it is riling to still see the content on the site, albeit in question format. But what's reassuring is that most of the content has been posted by Beta and not real people, who thankfully aren't being fooled by the 'independent forum' line

If I see any (apparently it is nearly 25% of all billboard sites? They obviously can't SELL any of the space) I shall be adding "ass" after BAD

Is the ASA taking action over this? Are they even able to take any action, now that the OAA have said they will remove the ad?

Nick, the problem with the ASA is that it takes them so long to rule on anything the campaign is usually long finished by then.

And the most they can do is stop a campaign running or being run again, so they'll consider it a done deal.

Yep these guys knew exactly what they were doing with regards to potential for ASA involvement - why do you think the campaign is only set to last two weeks? Just long enough to really offend people but not long enough to get into trouble with the ASA. That's why we've had to hit them reputationally by writing to Beta's clients and potential clients and writing to OAA's members and big outdoor spenders. And by keeping up the MN thread, blogging and tweeting of course

I am surprised the advert met conditions of [[http://cap.org.uk/The-Codes/CAP-Code/CAP-Code-Item.aspx?q=CAP+Code_General+Rules_5++Decency+(ie+av oiding+serious+or+widespread+offence) CAP Code 5.1

To save you looking it up:
"5.1
Marketing communications should contain nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence. Particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or disability. Compliance with the Code will be judged on the context, medium, audience, product and prevailing standards of decency."

Both the words Women and Mothers was used in the ad, thus I feel it could be said that the ad could cause offence to Women, be they mothers or not.

Agreed nannynick

The ASA will have to formally investigate the complaints now. It will most likely take a few months.

When an advertiser withdraws an advert in cases of offence, it is basically admitting culpability. As far as I am aware, the ASA has never concluded a complaint as being "Not Upheld" in cases where an advertiser has withdrawn an advert, particularly in this medium. As far as I can see, the complaints are therefore likely to be upheld - against the Outdoor Advertising Association itself, which is extremely embarassing for them.

Normally, breaches against taste and decency on poster ads would also mean that the advertiser is unable to run advertisements in future without having them pre-vetted by the ASA. Also very embarassing, particularly for the agency.

The ASA will take time to act but I think there will be red-faces all round.

The industry might like to snicker at the toothlessness of the ASA, but a public telling-off, even by a teacher you don't like much, is always extremely humiliating.

one of these posters is just near our home and I hated it.
what are "career women" ?? does anyone ever talk about "career men" ?? unbelievable that we're still stuck in this dark age. yet i still hear the expression "career women" all the time.

Never heard of the OAA before this thread... anyone else in that camp? I'm surely not the only one who has never heard of them.

Opps, my link to the CAP Code failed... will try another link, this time to the main CAP Code website.