Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Brief summary, Mumsnet vs ‘career women make bad mothers’ ads (as at end Thurs 7th Jan)

51 replies

mrsbaldwin · 07/01/2010 23:59

On Monday 4th January the Outdoor Advertising Association (OAA), a trade body representing firms who sell outdoor ad space, launched a campaign to promote the power of outdoor advertising.

The OAA wanted to prove that outdoors advertising can attract consumers to specific online locations. They thought that if they could demonstrate the link between seeing a billboard and making a purchase online they might sell more outdoors ad space.

The OAA hired a London-based ad agency Campbell Lace Beta (Beta), fronted by a well-known adman Garry Lace, to help them run their campaign.

Beta suggested a campaign that would ?get people talking?. They devised a series of ?provocative? statements to be pasted in large print on billboard sites. In smaller print consumers were encouraged to log on to to a website ?BritainThinks?, set up by Beta for the purpose of counting numbers of people who see an ad and follow it up online. The OAA agreed this campaign strategy.

Just prior to the ads going up Beta briefed the press (the adland trade press and media correspondents of the national press) about its campaign intentions.

In the event one of the ?provocative? statements ? ?career women make bad mothers? - proved particularly provocative to many Mumsnetters, who expressed their annoyance and campaigned to have the posters removed.

As well as discussing the ads on Mumsnet they:
*emailed and called the OAA to express their disappointment
*emailed complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority
*emailed Directors of Communications (responsible for signing off outdoor ad spend) and chief executives at UK firms who spend a lot of money advertising outdoors
*emailed other clients of Beta

On Wednesday 6th January (16.15) the OAA issued an ?unreserved apology? on Mumsnet, saying they would remove the ?career woman ?? ads as soon as possible from their sites. Click here to see the full text:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/in_the_news/888789-OAA-Apologise-for-quot-Career-Women-Make-Bad-Mothers-quot

Some Mumsnetters subsequently contacted the OAA to commend their decision.

Beta spoke to Media Guardian at around the same time, citing a ?misunderstanding with an important mother?s forum?:
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/06/outdoor-advertising-career-women-billboards

Later on Wednesday Mumsnet received communications from Beta?s Garry Lace and his lawyers. Lace?s communication said:
"I will now engage in a process to ensure ? that we are compensated for the hurt, corporate loss and reputational damage that we have suffered as a result of your inability to moderate your medium properly."

Mumsnet has reminded contributors to follow the rules of the forum when making posts on this topic.

Beta?s lawyers have also asked for personal contact details for a number of contributors to the site ? LadyBlaBlah, Harriedandflustered, MrsBaldwin, Overmydeadbody, Southeastastra. HerBeatitude, FunnyLittleFrog, Dittany, FlightAttendant, MrsChemist, Paulaplumpbottom, SydneyScarborough, Imisssleeping, Whomovedmychocolate, Thumper76. Data protection laws have prevented Mumsnet from supplying these.

The debate has sparked a good deal of interest online both in the UK (although mostly not, it appears, on the BritainThinks website) and overseas.

OP posts:
llareggub · 08/01/2010 00:03

Good summary, and well done Mrs B for all that you have done.

BitOfFun · 08/01/2010 01:31

Oh what a load of arse. Makes me glad I have signed up to the reforming libel laws campaign.

Garry Lace, for example...

Do feel free to send him my details, Justine, for implied insult to his reputation

FluffyForLifeNotJustForXmas · 08/01/2010 01:41

The key in libel laws is that if you strongly believe the thing you are saying to be true, it's not libel (unless they have changed the laws since I did my law degree).

Longtalljosie · 08/01/2010 07:45

Err, well - yes, but the justification defence only goes if you can prove something to be true.

The fair comment defence is only a partial defence.

Strix · 08/01/2010 12:12

Oh no. They are suing MN?!?! How did I miss this. Is it because we implied he had a little squeaky package? (okay, maybe it is not squeaky)

BoysAreLikeDogs · 08/01/2010 12:14

yikes

BecauseImGarry · 08/01/2010 12:16
Grin
Strix · 08/01/2010 12:44

Can someone point me to that libel campaign thread which I can't seem to find.

BoysAreLikeDogs · 08/01/2010 12:44
Grin
BoysAreLikeDogs · 08/01/2010 12:45

oh sorry strix not larfing at you mate

Strix · 08/01/2010 12:53

It's okay. I wouldn't want to keep you from grinning. Carry on.

jackstarbright · 08/01/2010 12:58

Thanks for the summary MrsB!!

Here are (some of) the blogs all in one place for an easy catch up for all!

Adland

Mother-2-Mother

brandonmoller

Mediaweek

Malleablemussings

commutertheology

parentdish

G osh - I haven't finished yet - but need a break.....

jackstarbright · 08/01/2010 13:05

Some more....

pennolson

impact

kate

bust

The campaign might well prove the power of the medium to sell eggs, as people shell double-deckers to express their disapproval.

Mumbrella

jackstarbright · 08/01/2010 13:10

And not forgetting the excellent: Amelia

missorinoco · 08/01/2010 13:11

Can't Mumsnet HQ countersue the for the slogan on the basis that they presumably "career women"?

missorinoco · 08/01/2010 13:11

Can't Mumsnet HQ countersue the for the slogan on the basis that they are "career women"?

missorinoco · 08/01/2010 13:11

sorry for double post

DuelingFanjo · 08/01/2010 13:13

So - that's a bit off isn't it? Asking for Poster's contact details.

How scary.

SydneyScarborough · 08/01/2010 13:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

mrsbaldwin · 08/01/2010 13:15

Thanks Jackstarbright - gosh, someone on the MediaWeek comments thread seems to be comparing Garry Lace to Socrates Although AngryCareerWoman has put her straight in the next post.

I'm very glad the efficacy or otherwise of this campaign is being debated in adland.

I wonder, a la Carrie Bradshaw: can it still be claimed, in this digital age, that all publicity is good publicity?

OP posts:
cleanandclothed · 08/01/2010 13:27

What bad losers! Their idea to run the campaign, their choice to pull it. Just because they couldn't control the 'talking' that people did.

WilfSell · 08/01/2010 13:30

Don't forget the f-word blog

youwillnotwin · 08/01/2010 13:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

jackstarbright · 08/01/2010 13:41

Mrsbaldwin - I wondered if Angrycareerwoman is an MNeter??

I would imagine being judged by your peers is even tougher than be being judged by Mumsneters. And as to being judged by your customer's....

Gary Glitter or (at the moment) Tiger Woods would not agree about bad publicity having any merit. Though, as for the long run, we have the examples of Michael Jackson and Jade Goody to consider!!

Seriously, now he's apologised Mr L could turn it around. Write a book perhaps? Public speaking? Actually, you should consider those options Mrsb, having spearheaded such a successful camplaign.

Maybe you and Garry could do a double act?

youwillnotwin · 08/01/2010 13:43

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.