This blog brought to you by…

Big News! This blog is now sponsored.

Oh, you didn’t know? You hadn’t seen the well-placed logos that I received in return for cash and products? You hadn’t seen me driving round town in my little mini with the logos on the roof or heard me promoting the wonders of the brands that sponsor my every moment – from nappy changing to washing to cooking? No?

Neither had I.

But apparently I am sponsored by P&G. Yes. I’m a mum and they’re my sponsor, my proud sponsor. They’ve made an ad about it so it must be true.

Except of course that they aren’t my sponsor at all.  I haven’t received any cash or products. But more importantly there is no mutually agreed relationship between us. I just happen to be a mum so therefore they have decided they can use that relationship to sell those products without giving anything one would usually expect from a sponsorship deal in return. And without asking me.

It’s like Wolowitz taking a picture of Penny asleep on his shoulder and loading it up on his Facebook wall entitled “Me and my girlfriend”.

The ad in question is the worst example of crassness. It uses the love that most of us have for our mums in the most blatant and, might I say, cheesy way.  Lots of lovely typography, white space and nostalgic crap family photos, with emotive messages about how mums are the air we breathe, and, oo would you look at that, all perfectly timed for Mother’s Day. Fine. But I’m not sure that means they can then appropriate mums and claim to sponsor them all.

Personally, I haven’t given my endorsement to the products they claim sponsor me. I could loosely be said to have a relationship with Pampers but in actual fact that relationship is via Bounty. In fact, I specifically avoid some of them because of their effects on the environment.  (And I’m not going to name any more of them because that would have the effect of promoting them of course.)

Now,  I could write to every brand manager at P&G who has participated in this advert and put a price on my sponsorship based on consumption, promotion, mutually agreed events etc. And you my lovely readers would of course be part of that equation. That approach works – see Paul McCrudden’s blog/experiment thing.

But I’m not interested in a sponsorship relationship with them.

The ad makes a point of using photos in which the  mums are cut out, by accident – only their legs or torsos or arms appear – making the point that mums are taken for granted. Ironic eh, given that they’ve taken my acquiesence in this ridiculous statement for granted?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s