homosexual same-sex couple parents adverts

Same-sex Mamas & Papas adverts ‘celebrate modern family set-ups’

Ad campaign will feature same-sex and single-parent families to reflect modern British arrangements, and will inform the company’s marketing in the future

Hilary Osborne
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 30 October 2012 10.47 GMT
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/oct/30/mamas-papas-same-sex-adverts-modern-family-set-ups


The Mamas & Papas campaign reflects modern family set-ups, which will inform the company’s marketing in the future

The nursery chain Mamas & Papas has launched an advertising campaign which includes pictures of single- and same-sex parents alongside the standard image of a heterosexual couple with their baby. It said the adverts – for a pushchair – “celebrate the diversity and individualism that form the makeup of the British modern family”.

The campaign, which features photos next to the slogan “How we roll” is being launched in the UK and overseas at the weekend and will run online, on billboards and in stores. Olivia Robinson, creative director and youngest daughter of the Scacchetti family which owns the firm, said it was not just a bid to bring attention to the brand.

“It is certainly not just a publicity stunt – it comes from a belief that parents are changing,” she said. “We haven’t done much advertising recently, but prior to this our adverts tended to feature the beautiful Italian woman with the beautiful Italian man and the beautiful child.” Robinson said the new adverts were not just a one-off and that modern family set-ups would be informing the company’s marketing in the future.

Figures from the ONS underline the fact UK families are not all made up of a mum, dad and 2.4 children. In 2011 there were 8,000 families with a same-sex couple at the helm, either in a civil partnership or co-habiting, and almost 2 million families with a lone parent. The number of heterosexual couples with a family came in at 5.5 million.

Robinson said she wanted the Mamas & Papas brand to reflect modern life, but the company was “sensitive to the views of everybody”. The adverts are not being run in every country the company trades in – the one featuring a gay couple won’t be used in Saudi Arabia, for instance – but she said “the UK is quite modern and progressive.”

A survey by Mamas & Papas found that 65% of 18-34-year-olds were indifferent or positive towards same-sex parenting, and only 20% were particularly unfavourable. Of those questioned, 5% of 18-34-year-olds claimed to be in homosexual relationships and have children, compared to only 0.2% of the 35+ age range.

The chief executive of the single parenting charity Gingerbread, Fiona Weir, said: “Single-parent families are a normal part of modern family life, with one in four households with dependent children in the UK headed by a single parent.

“Reflecting this reality is not only an important way of tackling some of the stigma and stereotypes that still exist about single parents, but is also a way for businesses to ensure they recognise and reach out to all families.”

Mamas & Papas is not the first brand to move away from the traditional nuclear family in its advertising. In 2006 an Ikea campaign in the US featured a gay couple with their daughter and dog, and this year Amtrak, Gap and the department store JC Penney have all run adverts with same-sex couples. However, in the world of baby products advertising has tended to be fairly traditional and Mamas & Papas said this is the “first time a national nursery brand in the UK has used these types of images”.

2 comments

  • jimmy

    What I find infuriating is that most people see this and think it’s just a savvy advertising campaign without seeing what’s behind it. They see these things in popular culture, tv soaps, music, advertising, films etc as a reflection of society and not an influence which is what they are designed to be!
    And why are people so flimsy and easily influenced anyway? Programmed by school and popular culture I suppose. Only the few seem to maintain an independent thought process.

    • The thought processing is damaged by petrochemicals in the food, air, water and medicines especially injections such as 25mcg of mercury in Fluzone vaccines. What does mercury do to the brain? Is it any wonder people cannot think clearly? When one damages the Kidney function they hinder the brain. All synthetic drugs hinder Kidney function and also fear attacks the Kidneys which is why fear is known to shut down the brain thinking. Now does it make sense that they continually put fear in people so they no longer think for themselves? Most people learning truth come across the fluoride issues with brain function, it is well known that fluoride kills Kidneys and now its riddled in most waterways for population control. Do you honestly think the The Worshipful Company of Barbers gives a rats ass about your teeth? Of course not they make more money from bad teeth so why would they care? Fluoride does not protect teeth thats an excuse to veil the population control by the Club of Rome. This is all by grand design by the Tavistock Institute for Human Relations and their social engineering through predictive programming and thought reform (mind reframing). May I remind you the education system is run by The Worshipful Company of Mercers and The Worshipful Company of Haberdashers. Look at the shields logo of Gresham College for a clue to who created the Luciferian scientific dictatorship and education.

      -= The Unhived Mind

      “Education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible.”
      -Bertrand Russell
      – The Impact of Science on Society, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1953, p. 50.

Leave a Reply