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!?

why isn't all of this in the papers & news?

Is it because fbook, cc & porn are just ok for kids nowadays in the general view of the law, politicians & fbook/cc marketing? Shocking. There must be a law about these things?

Dittany - I don't think facebook charge to use the platform - so they won't have a direct relationship with the app creators. Posting to someones status is a standard feature of how apps can work. All the farmville nonsense relies on it.

Correct: as you say, they did not offer it, merely encouraged it. It's an important distinction.

If I had the time and know how, I'd go make a video for YouTube made of clips of people drinking Dr pepper interspersed with of some of the famous "reaction" clips.

Sip / disgusted face
Drink / horrified face
Gulp / crying face

Yes that would work to represent how I feel about it.

TheCoalitionNeedsYou, I disagree that this is not a Facebook issue. They 'hosted' the Ad campaign, and have to accept some responsibility. Shouldn't they have taken action when these Status updates began to appear?
I totally agree with you about parents needing to monitor their children's Facebook activity. That's why I took it upon myself to speak to my dn when my sister made it clear she wasn't interested. She's a great fan of accidental parenting, unfortunately, and there are alot more like her out there, who will have no idea and less interest in what their kids are up to online .

amistillsexy - they won't have hosted the app. That will have been on the ad companies servers which remotely call facebooks. And the app will not have been pre-veted by facebook - they respond to complaints instead. This leads to other problems such as malicious apps.

Essentially anyone can just create an app for facebook with no contact with facebook other than agreeing to abide by certain rules. Facebook then assumes all is well unless someone complains.

TCNY But in encouraging them to make their profiles public and then actively luring them towards sexual material only suitable for the most broad minded and experimental over-18s WITH REWARDS for participating, they are like people in the early stages of paedophile grooming. I know that may sound sensationalist and inflammatory - and it I'm quite sure it was never CocaCola's intention, but that is what they are doing.

FN - Yes I agree - but they weren't making it AVAILABLE. Unless we are accurate about what they sis do, they can just say, "well we didn't do that". And they would be right.

Sorry, just realised that last post sounded a bit hysterical. Finding it hard to keep perspective on this now!

FN, I agree with you, FWIW

this is beyond shocking....but hey, I cannot find myself very surprised by it all, tbh

how utterly depressing

At this stage I'd urge those who have media links to comment in the negative to any trade websites.

I've seen one or two media houses where there was praise at the start of the campaign (even a touch of envy at "gluelondon.com" from the June 2010 newsletter which I viewed online).

honestly the way to do this would have been picture of mother and daughter in the Daily Mail. I can see why you might not want that though....

Sorry tokyonambu but there's no way I can believe Coca-Cola were party to this vile filth being referenced in the status update "menu" of embarrassing messages. I agree it is the case (search for "chatroulette cheerleader") that they've used a young woman showing her cleavage (on YouTube) as a spoof for 1st April, so one might consider them pushing the boundaries (as described by a competitor of Lean Mean Fighting Machine, the agency which did both the cheerleader 'viral' and the 'status takeover' campaigns).

I'd guess the combined ages of the 4 on stage at Cannes 2008 might be under 100 (probably off a mobile phone, shame they couldn't get good quality video given it was being recorded), and are likely to come up with what they consider "acceptable" material.

It's the implication that Dr Pepper / Coca-Cola accepted, knew, or expected, the "status takeover" campaign to go further which I have to challenge. They can hardly have wanted to "pull" the campaign, and be named in the media (though not very widely, so far) as being associated with porn.

Elsewhere you wrote (regarding LMFM) "which has a history of offering fetish pornography". Unless you have strong, clear, proof of that, you might wish to have that post removed by MNHQ.

It's one thing for the person(s) responsible to lose their job(s), and there may be some mismanagement or lack of scrutiny within LMFM (so they need to "pull their socks up"), but we have no clear knowledge as to how the less acceptable comments came to be used.

For all I know, someone may have been 'let go' and done it in revenge, after the Dr Pepper / Coca-Cola marketing people had approved what they had been shown.

While "edgy" seems to be the "in word" these days, I'd hope that few who have any professionalism in their bones would do something like this, and there's sufficient comment in this thread that many who are in advertising would be disgusted, too.

the Daily Mail would want photos and a description of the OP's house, with its market value. Otherwise it's not really doing it for them

@dittany
?That blog post by Bill Green was also highly patronising.

"Don't mess with the moms" crap as if women can't possibly have logical, substantial arguments and a reasonable viewpoint - it's just "moms" getting shirty.

_

Unfortunately, you have totally misunderstood and misrepresented the nature and intent of the comment, not just because you took it out of context, but you clearly do not know the history of the two campaigns I referenced prior to that statement.

(One involved Tropicana orange juice redesigning their package. Consumers made up mostly of mothers who were outraged, resulting in a 20% drop in profits in one month for the brand.

The other involved Motrin and a negative remark they made in an ad about parents who use baby carriers needing their pain reliever, implying the baby carrier was a bad idea.)

Having done enough of these types of marketing promotions, I know all too well the impact that the person in American households who makes the buying decisions?the majority being moms?can have on a brand it if takes advantage of their trust relative to what they put on the table.

THAT?S what the reference is based on, in that it makes no sense for a brand to piss of its consumers.

Nowhere does it say or imply that any other demographic or group is NOT entitled to feel outrage over this. I am a white male father of two, and I WROTE this damn post as well as one expressing concern over this months before. It?s best to not let your emotion put words in my mouth.

Furthermore, MrsRickan was kind enough to respond to my questions and approved of the post, saying that she liked it. She strikes me as a person who would?ve said otherwise if she had felt as you that I was patronizing the issue.

(Typo, apologies. Should have been ...MrsRickman...)

I am a bit concerned with Mrs. Rickman's attitude. Yes, she is your child, and it is good you want to protect her. But insisting she is your child as if you own her or you alone should make choices for her, seems very self centered.

It makes it seem if you are less concerned with her well being, and more concerned about what you think.

I don't agree with with this promotion. I don't condone what the company did. I don't consider this particular clip pornography to me, personally. The definition of that word is to entice arousement. Barring a very niche selection of people, this is not arousing. I guess it's defined, as such, regardless, but I don't object to pornography, and don't think anyone should. I only object to its de-evolution into fast and cheap sex. Sex is beautiful, and there is some porn out there that is loving, but sadly that's rare. I don't want it to be grouped into the word pornography, and certainly not films of this extreme nature.

Technicalities aside, I guess what I'm saying is, I'm concerned you want to shelter your child completely from sexuality, when that's a recipe for disaster, and what I would call bad parenting. I suggest you be open and casual about sex, and teach your children about responsibility and consequences.

I don't want your children having unprotected sex because you felt everything would be okay by not talking about it, or thinking you could sweep it under the carpet and make it go away. Sex isn't something that is taught. It's a natural instinct. They will engage in it whether or you like it or not, so I hope you're honest about it to them.

And that includes talking about films such as this, which can be done respectfully to both quench their curiosity and help them make better choices in life.

Sit her down, don't be angry, and tell her, "Recently you may know mom got into a panic over something called 2 girls, 1 cup. It's all over the news and such. I shouldn't have gotten into a hissy fit. I over-reacted. I should have just sat down and talked to you about it, instead of making a big deal. By making a big deal of it, I probably backfired everything by giving it more attention.

I was concerned for you. I didn't want you watching something like that. Such material goes out of the bounds of what is acceptable for someone as modest as us. It's not something that will make you feel good to see. I'd rather say it would make you feel very sick. If curiosity still gets the best of you, I can't stop you from watching it somewhere. But if you do, I want you to come talk to me about it. I want to know what you thought. If you felt sick, maybe it's a lesson to be learned that your mom isn't as dumb as you think. If you are un-phased, which I'd highly doubt, maybe you are more mature then I thought, and can handle things in a mature way. I could possibly even take a note from you.

I can only be a parent to you, but not everyone. I can't babysit the world, and I can't make choices for other families. Your mom loves you and wants to be a part of your life to help you grow. She also wants to make sure you can have the happiest and healthiest lifestyle you can until you get on your own, while still letting you be you. I don't want to impose on your life, but I do want you to impose on mine.

If you ever need to talk about something, please don't be shy. I know you may feel embarrassed or hard pressed to talk to me, but you don't have to be. If you need me, I'll be here."

MrsR, I'm in Australia and have sent a link to this thread to a journalist friend who writes for the local equivalent of Campaign and another friend who is a news journalist at the ABC. The former has already written something up and has highlighted both the obscenity side and the privacy settings issue.

Not much, I know, but thought I'd try and help spread the story just a little further round the world. After all, LMFM would tell you that's one of the benefits of social and viral marketing

RandomMuse, I don't think MrsRickman needs your incredibly patronising Parenting 101 script, actually. She did a brilliant job of dealing with a horrendous issue.

And goodness, when did telling your teenage daughter about extreme scatological pornography become part of a general sex education? You are seriously arguing that failing to introduce your daughter to the concept of 2 girls 1 cup is the same thing as taking your daughter to a Purity Ball?

And I know you know what a Purity Ball is, since you're clearly American, and have Opinions about the way other people bring up their children.

sorry but PMSL at RandomMuse

If you are un-phased, which I'd highly doubt, maybe you are more mature then I thought, and can handle things in a mature way. I could possibly even take a note from you.

Really? You think being un-phased by watching that shows maturity? Really?

RandomMuse - I don't think the issue is that MrsR "wants to shelter your child completely from sexuality"; she wants to shelter her child from seeing a clip of two women eating shit and vomit.

Finally someone halfway gets it (still too much emphasis on the theatre tickets bollox though). Ironically, perhaps, it's on a specifically, ahem, adult site, here

MrsR I just want to add my voice of support, I can see how this and its aftermath has been completely horrendous for you.

Can't believe I have only just come to this thread.

I applaud the OP for standing up for herself and her daughter. I don't think she has overreacted at all.

``Sorry tokyonambu but there's no way I can believe Coca-Cola were party to this vile filth being referenced in the status update "menu" of embarrassing messages.''

Whose product was being advertised? Who was paying the advertising agency? They may not have known, but they were most certainly party to the promotion and carry the ultimate responsibility. They signed off the campaign which made it clear that (a) children as young as 14 were being included in the scope (b) Facebook statuses would be updated and (c) the range of updates included references to sex and excretion. They're on notice from that point. The problem with being edgy is that someone might take you over it: that's the risk you run.

With regard to LMFM's history, the event is here laid out in front of us. I accept the nuanced distinction between offer and promote, and I retract the suggest that LMFM offered pornography to fourteen year olds; rather, they promoted pornography to fourteen year olds.

If the problem is that an employee was acting unofficially, it is open to Coca Cola or LMFM to state that they had inadequate processes such that they did not appropriately control the contents of status updates they were posting on behalf of fourteen year olds. It's a defence, of sorts, essentially stating that they're incompetent rather than malicious.

I shall be writing to my MP in the morning with the history of this event, asking if LMFM are an appropriate company for government departments responsible for children to use. Irrespective of whether this was done deliberately, accidentally or by a disgruntled employee, it would clearly be inappropriate to have the company behind this debacle advertising to promote reading in schools.

LMFM appear inordinately pleased with themselves, and have made no comment. They still boast of the success of the promotion: www.leanmeanfightingmachine.co.uk/blog/2010/05/the-status-takeover/