The banner ad for the flowers: is it just meant to be degrading to men or insulting to women's intelligence too?

[CelineMcBean]

The bizarre banner ad with the semi naked men (probably described as "hunks" by the ad agency). Erm, seriously? On Mumsnet? You know we have a full compliment of brain cells yes?

Scantily clad men to advertise a product is fairly insulting all round. Tell me there's something witty and ironic I'm missing in this campaign please because I am baffled as to why you're permitting sexist crap like this on the site.

Not to mention no man looks good in dungarees

Cripes I've just realised there's a whole blooming campaign linked to in sponsored discussions with some semi-naked men being used to promote.

Did you look at this before you took their money? Grim MN and not what I'd expect from you.

Bump

Agreed. It's no different from "Hey, Lads! What's your favourite beer?" with half-dressed female models.

Quite. Or draping a woman in a bikini across a car bonnet...

I think we deserve more than some reverse sexism. That's not equality. It just makes us all look a bit thick.

Morning. Thanks for raising this - we'll take a look.

Thanks Helen

Well its just taken me 5 minutes clicking through links to figure out what it is actually advertising.

Apparently, the ad is for the The Flower Council, which is the marketing agency for the Dutch floricultural sector.

I think they are trying to get us to buy flowers? Am I right?

I could think of better adverts but as a bloke I am not especially offended although probably I get a sort of low grade feeling.

You mean the sight of a naked man's nipples doesn't make you want to by MrsBeta a bunch of roses?

The banner ad comes round every so often but is stickied at the top of the sponsored discussion thread and the campaign is linked to in the first post on that thread written by a MN staffer.

The last time I bought MrsBeta flowers which was a long time ago she narrowed her eyes, gave me a suspicious look and asked "What have you done?"

Arf

I did exactly the same thing, MoreBeta, when dh last bought me flowers (which also happened to be the first time, too).

That ad and 'game' are awful, MNHQ. I love my computer and love having excuses to play with it, but I couldn't do that game. The voices, the twee script, the ghastly men, and the smallness of the flowers (small so we can see semi-naked men, FFS, pissing about); I felt queasy! I wish I'd stuck pins in my eyes.

Remind me not to buy tulips

Any update HQ?

Hello. We believe that campaign has now ended.

So all round? (With clothes on)

helenmn

Actually your link on the op in sponsored discussions is still here: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/sponsored_discussions/a1577314-Nominate-a-MNer-to-receive-flowers-and-talk-about-flowers-with-The-Flower-Council#34578739 and the "hunks" and their flowers were still popping up yesterday.

Don't make me poke the rad fems awake or stray into AIBU...

Afternoon Celine/Bonnie

Not sure we can retrospectively changed the OP of a sponsored discussion, tbh (bit like rewriting history) but I'm pretty sure that discussion has run its course now and is no longer appearing on Active etc.

Ads should no longer to appearing, either. But do please let us know if you spot one - and we'll investigate.

One has appeared in the box ad above MN latest. Just now on Threads I'm On.

It's a flipping new one!

And there's the banner ad on active convos!

Ah! OK, shall investigate...

Thank you :)

Hi CelineMcBean ,

Apologies, it was our mistake. The ads will be turned off this Friday.

Does purchasing flowers make mens clothes fall off then? Perhaps that's why they don't do it?

But why are you running them? How can you have all these fabulous campaigns against scantily clad ladies on lads mags and the we believe you anti-rape campaign then accept the money from a company who are suggesting we're so dim we might buy more flowers from an ad campaign that features scantily clad men in exactly the same gratuitous fashion that we (quite rightly) complain about when women are depicted that way?

No apparently we will buy more flowers if a hunky man is clutching them to his bare chest Honey. At least I think that's the idea. You know, what with us being simple wimmins.

@CelineMcBean

But why are you running them? How can you have all these fabulous campaigns against scantily clad ladies on lads mags and the we believe you anti-rape campaign then accept the money from a company who are suggesting we're so dim we might buy more flowers from an ad campaign that features scantily clad men in exactly the same gratuitous fashion that we (quite rightly) complain about when women are depicted that way?

No apparently we will buy more flowers if a hunky man is clutching them to his bare chest Honey. At least I think that's the idea. You know, what with us being simple wimmins.

We don't actually vet ads before they're booked. We rarely see creative beforehand. So the answer in it's most simplistic sense is that we're running it because it was booked in - it's not that we'd had input into it and given it our blessing.

That said we wouldn't decide not to run an ad campaign or indeed pull one because it was a bit crass/ unsubtle/ patronising/ silly. If so we'd barely have an ad on the site.

Thanks for your reply Justine but it was more than a few banner ads. There was a whole campaign in Sponsored Discussions with an OP written by a MN staffer.

Would you have run the campaign if it was for, say cars, with some ladies posing without all their clothes? Or some other stereotypical male product?

While I don't expect you to preview all advertising before it goes up, I do think if the sexes had been reversed you would, quite rightly, have been all over this once it was pointed out.