Need help with a very sensitive complaint against a massive multinational!

[MrsRickman]

Ok, here goes.
Coca Cola are running a promo via their Dr Pepper brand just now on facebook. It is called 'status takeover' and involves the application putting an embarrassing or funny status on your FB page.
My 14 yo dd participated and I was HORRIFIED to log into FB and see that her status read - 'I watched 2 girls one cup and felt hungry afterwards'. For anyone who doesn't know what this means, please stay ignorant, for those who do, you can imagine how I felt. This was compounded later on when a quick search through dds internet history revealed she had tried to find out what it was for herself. Thankfully, our ISP has a wonderful child filter!!
So, after various emails and phonecalls to CocaCola marketing I have been offered (quite offensively) as way of compensation, a night in a hotel and theatre tickets for the West End. Fat lot of use to me, we live in Glasgow.
So, how do I proceed? ASA? I am absolutely fizzing with rage and disgust, and want a full apology and explanation. CocaCola are saying they use outside marketing teams for different brands and it's outside their jurisdiction. Help!?

ISNT, the application wasn't forced upon anyone. They had to physically click 'accept' in order for the application to gain control of the status updates. So in reply to your argument, that would be like a 14 year old girl coming up to me to talk about masturbation and 2girls1cup. And of course, I would refuse. Like coca cola should have refused to let anyone under the age of 18 use the app. What I don't agree with is the 'we must change the world' attitude that so many people seem to have at the moment. I enjoyed using the app, as did many of my friends, but one person got offended by it and the entire thing was shut down. It's like people who buy houses next to pubs, and then complain there's noise and try to get the place shut down. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

StrawberrySam, thanks. I did have that view yes, so I shall be corrected.

ISNT - I posted a comment yesterday when I had seen a page welcoming potential participants with "You've got balls. Nice." and suspect the tone of some status messages was in line with that type of intro.

It might have been aimed at males more than females, but clearly it is happy to encourage some degree of ignoring what parents say, and setting a challenge to get as many points as possible.

I just wonder what the brief for the promotion was, as written by Coca-Cola. It might have accepted some degree of "edgy" but they've now been caught with their pants down, if you'll excuse the pun.

Lauren Branston must be fuming to have her name pasted here and there, but maybe there will be some Press Release naming the person in Marketing who has "fallen on their sword" and quit over this bite-them-on-the-bum campaign with the potential to give Pepsi a chance to grab market share.

I am very interested in where the law stands on this and would like to see a criminal prosecution, but doubt very much that that will happen.

SoftlyWalking - the T & Cs said that you needed to be aged 14 and over (which is in itself a breach of Facebook's rules that say promos should either be for everyone, or 18 and over and hidden from everyone who isn't over 18) but that under 18s needed parents permission.

However, they did not request any proof that a parent had consented.

As an aside, even if I, as a 26 year old, had accepted this application, because the T & Cs also state that my profile should be made totally public, and because I am friends with some under 18 year olds, they would all have seen these status upgrades.

So it doesn't really matter if a parent had consented or not, because MrsRickman's daughters' friends would have seen this status whether or not their parents had stopped them from downloading the application themselves.

Jimbo - why aren't you offended by this film? Offended by its very existence? I fail to understand.

I'm entirely in agreement with MrsR's actions about this event. I think she was right to complain, and that the behaviour of the ad agency was entirely irresponsible.

However, I can see that the fact that this is portrayed by the media as an example of the power of Mumsnet might feel quite disturbing to people who are not members of Mumsnet, and who (in their own minds) never could be members of Mumsnet. (Of course, we all know that men are members of Mumsnet too - witness this thread.) The name Mumsnet does appear very exclusive - that it is only for women of a certain age and with a given childbearing capacity. For people who don't fit those criteria to be told that Mumsnet has 'forced' corporations to behave in a certain way might be quite worrying. (Just as we on MN tend to worry about the power of the DM) As Jimbo says, in his mind, 'Mums' are people that tell you off, who worry about you, and (They're also the people that love you, care for you, and support you, but in your teens and early twenties, it doesn't always feel like that.)

I think this might be the reason for some of the backlash against Mumsnet appearing as a result of this. To those aware of this thread and the issues, the backlash seems ridiculous, but for some people hearing about the issue at second hand, it's clearly worth saying.

It's like people who buy houses next to pubs, and then complain there's noise and try to get the place shut down. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. Don't try to ruin it for everyone else.

Jimbo, it doesn't follow. Facebook allows for participants from 13; the applications on that page therefore have to be child friendly. If application writers don't want to be child-friendly, then they should go to adult only sites. If facebook was an adult only site it would have a completely different feel.

I do, however, agree that ALL parents need to be much much more web-savvy (not that that's your point specifically). I think that this story and the noise here will hopefully highlight this issue. I keep thinking that if it wasn't MrsRickman, but someone who knew less about both facebook and internet protection, then there might actually have been some harm done.

As it is, I don't think either MrsRickman or her daughter are particularly enjoying this focus.

In addition, you're argument that would be like a 14 year old girl coming up to me to talk about masturbation and 2girls1cup doesn't follow either. The promo decided the topic; as far as the child was concerned, this was harmless fun and the possibility of winning some cash. So it would have been like you saying to a 14yo; "do you want to know about about masturbation and 2 girls one cup", and then the girl saying either "yes, what is that" (googling) or saying "no" (being of an age and maturity to have a sense that it's not something good, and what 14yo does, especially when it's been broadcast to all her friends.)

p.s. I love "Mumsnet is an inspiration of putrid vile for bad parenting".

What do you think they actually meant to say? I'm guessing it should have been 'bile' for vile, but what did they mean by 'inspiration'?

"Jimbo - why aren't you offended by this film? Offended by its very existence? I fail to understand."

Because I can accept that there are people in the world who want to do or see different things to me. I don't really like white water rafting, it's dangerous and can ruin your life if you have an accident, but I don't want to see it banned. I have seen the film, and I can say that the women in the film are certainly not being forced into anything. It's not violent, it doesn't really have a lot of porn in it. It didn't sicken me like watching certain movies, namely Hostel, which really did make me feel physically sick, and I couldn't watch all the way to the end. And movies like that aren't even considered taboo like 2girls1cup, and are freely available for download on the internet; you can probably even find clips of it on youtube. I can honestly say 2girls1cup is really quite difficult to find on the internet anyway (after a bit of quick googling). I'd also like to point out that, MrsRickman's daughter should have sought parental consent, if the app specifically requested it. I'm not putting the blame on her at all, I mean who honestly reads T&Cs.

Jimbo your extension of the analogy isn't quite right.

it would be more like you having a stall on teh high street saying "sign up and win £1,000, lottery for people 14 and over sponsored by " and when 14yo girls come to sign up, then you start talking to them about cucumbers and scat porn.

There is no way that any sane person could possibly be expected to imagine that a campaign aimed at children age 14 and over by a well known brand, would contain references to masturbation and scat porn.

I should maybe warn people to cancel their subscriptions to the RSPB newsletter on the basis that the next one might contain a centrefold of a man indulging in auto-erotic asphyxiation while rogering a badger. I mean it was just totally unexpected and inappropriate. if people are going to argue that it is fine for this sort of reference to pop up in this context, then pretty much we're saying anything goes aren't we? Live sex shows in the vicarage, front page covers of women masturbating with snakes. Why not?

TYV - Coca Cola was not represented, but someone from a marketing agency was there, pointing out how media networking is big business for advertising and how specifics like tags on photos and so on could be used to determine which adverts to display to people viewing a page. I've no idea what Boden wear looks like !

Sorry, but, white water rafting vs women ingesting shit and vomit for entertainment purposes?

?
??

No, Jimbo is isn't like the 14 year old girl is asking to talk to you about those things at all! In signing up to the promotion she volunteered to have her profile hijacked and to be embarrassed, not to be subjected to hardcore pornographic totally inappropriate references! There was no mention beforehand of what the embarrassemnt would entail and even if there were, she is a minor and therefore not able to be fully repsonsible for taking that decision. The onus needs to be on the adult to protect children from inappropriate things - even if they seem willing to participate. What you've just said is the standard defence of paedophiles, I'm afraid. (not an attack on you, but just trying to make you understand how it is.)

Both FB and CC should have taken into account that many of their users who would be targeted in this campaign are under 16. And that is perfectly within the rules - they haven't lied in order to sign up. And frankly I think CC would be deliberately targeting the younger FB demographic with a Dr Pepper promo anyway so once again, to argue that they didn't realise the promotion was potentially unsuitable for minors holds no weight.

And when I made the reference to 'him being told off my his mum' I was talking about the comment posted on the other website someone linked to - the guy who said MN had insulted him and deleted his posts. No to you. Or was that you?!

I'm so disgusted by this, and I can't believe they would expose young people to such vile concepts. You almost get the feeling that it was a joke in the office that went too far...

I don't drink any Coca Cola products, so I'm supporting the boycott in kind.

For those who like Appletise - M&S have brought out fizzy apple and grape juices that are the same. Hopefully not made by Coca Cola!

bibbitybobbityhat, just because the majority of people in the world don't want to see it, doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed to exist. I don't believe this type of film is actually illegal, but someone can correct me on that if it is. The fact that MrsRickman's daughter almost accidentally saw it is unfortunate, and I do agree that it should have been censored if there were under 18's involved, but there is some bad stuff in the world, and it's better to educate about it than to pretend it doesn't exist, surely?

Well I have had plenty of ahem education, but this one cupping is a new one on me, and not something I'm keen to explore, frankly!

Umm, I'd be very careful if i were you, when implying that I'm a paedophile. I don't take too kindly to that when attempting to have a somewhat sensible discussion.

Jimbo are you seriously drawing an analogy between graphic, perverse pornography and a sport? I think that demonstrates a complete and absolute lack of understanding of how perverse this stuff actually is to most people, not just mums. I don't remember any kind of sport, dangerous or otherwise, that results in its particpants being degraded and dehumanised. And the women in the film were not being forced into it eh???? How on earth would you know? that is such a cliched defense of the institutionalised abuse within the pornography industry ......well they were definately not acting, they were really into it...etc etc

Our children weill learn about all the wierd and wonderful sexual variations available to them in the fullness of time, and hopefully in the context of a safe, consensual relationship - they really don't need CocaCola to bring the most extreme fetishist minority stuff to them on a plate before they've had a chance to get to grips with the healthy vanilla stuff, thank you very much.

Jimbo I think that if the people who made this film, tried to get it released in DVD format in the UK, even just for sale in licenced sex shops, the answer would be no.

Am happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.

Certainly traditionally material like this would have been "under the counter" ie illicit even in licenced sex shops.

Jimbo I was doing no such thing - I thought I made that quite clear. I was pointing out that there was a similarity in your reasoning - nothing more.

There are two conversations here.

One is about pornography, the internet, the availability of certain images, should there be restrictions and so on.

The other is about this specific campaign for a soft drink, aimed at 14yo and above (and knowing that statuses may be read by people younger than 14), referencing one of the most infamous porn clips on the net, and masturbation.

The first there is a discussion to be had.
The second I just don't see that there is. If this had happened through any other conduit people would be under arrest. The fact that the internet is full of porn and young people are accessing it, is not the point here. The point is that coke have been utterly irreponsible, in a way that no-one (including parents) could have possibly predcited, and children have been potentially been put at risk as a result (viewing the material/having their privacy settings altered).

the argument that if you can't handle hardcore scat porn then leave the internet alone is ludicrous. The internet is a part of our lives as much as telly. You would not expect people to be talking about extreme sex acts pre-watershed, nor should they be presented in a campaign aimed at children.

I never normally post on here but that is outrageous. My DP works in advertising and he is shocked that it's got through. Dr Pepper is an edgey brand but having worked in advertising this would have been signed off by their marketing team. Facebook should make it mandatory for all users to give their date of birth including year and all marketing should be streamed according to their age. Thank god for your filters. I'm going to remove my photos of my ds on facebook after this. I'm disgusted. Good on you for going for Coca Cola. If they're not privy to what their marketing agency is doing then they need to look at who's doing their work.