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!?

RainbowDropping - I think she is talking about the kind of thing the Status Takeover was MEANT to do - not linking the brand to porn.

BeerTricksPotter - I think it was a rhetorical turn of phrase rather than a serious offer of violence, and didn't offer an argument to be challenged in the way that the other posters did. I thought it was better to ignore it. I think that reporting that post to mumsnet might be the best course of action if you are concerned.

Oh dear.
LMFM sound like a bunch of pretentious twats.

It´s not exactly a Scottish story though is it-it´s about CC, DrP & and internet promotion.

I'm no leagle beagle but I have had issues with large companies before and can honestly say I have more than held my own.

As I understand the scottish bill, did it not define young children (being the sections you referenced) as being 13 or under? I therefore think you need to look at the sections related to older children (14-16 years I believe)

I would therefore direct you to the following offence: offence of
causing an older child to see or hear an indecent communication.

For this to be proven you're difficulty would be in proving that the company wished to cause distress or alarm to the child. The company would argue this was not their intent, their intent merely being to promote their brand. However the law might need to be satisfied that the company should reasonably expect that children would not get distressed.

An interesting test case? Maybe someone would fund it for you (a large multinational perhaps?)

MrsR just to say I'm so glad that you're sticking with this, and that there's a lot of people who are with you all the way. Glad that you are not letting all the noise and nonsense around this issue slow you down, but are staying focused on what matters. FWIW I find the stance you're taking inspirational.

I didn't actually mean linking to porn. I meant something likely to cause a pr'able stir with the target audience.

MrsR - thanks for the updates.
I would think that one way Coke could begin to make amends would be to commit a large wodge of money to a high profile campaign promoting safe internet use to children and parents.

Spot on piprabbit, excellent idea.

I still think MrsR should be the recipient, as compensation for emotional distress and being trawled through media.

There was a nasty facebook group BeerTricks earlier re MrsR, perhaps you missed it. Not nice stuff at all.

Anyway, it has been an ordeal for MrsR (and family) no one else.

I don't agree with you. MrsR can do as she wishes.

Also, some way to remind those who used the 'status takeover' application that they need to consider their privacy settings.

BeerTricksPotter - you challenged it, the poster didn't respond, so there was no traction to raise the issue further.

I guess that having some spokesman talk to a newspaper and give their apology for what happened is the so-called "public apology" which MrsR might have mistook for Coca-Cola simply "covering their backs"

Thanks BOF for explaining - had heard of a Glasgow Kiss but not the other - until today - clearly my life is somewhat sheltered after 20 years in this neck of the woods, ~200 miles from London.

Hope MB and BTP can agree to disagree and let MrsR decide what might be appropriate rather than fussing over whether cash would be an idea. Next you'll be debating 'how much' !

Don't be silly. I don't really care. I just think MrsR should do as she wishes.

BeerTricksPotter - I don't think MrsR has said that she wants compensation, has she?

No need to be suspicious of her motives when it is someone else opining that she deserves the money.

God does it matter! It was just a reaction to dragging the charity angle in. MrsR has had a hell of a time, she should decide what she wants to do with having to make it statement re Coke and the world.

Looks like your story is getting some coverage now. Look at this page...www.bing.com/news/search?q=coca+cola+apology&FORM=BNFD