Similac makes fun of the "Mommy Wars" and it's pretty apalling

So, Similac, a company that stands to benefit from as few women breastfeeding (and breastfeeding women doing it as little as possible) has decided to position itself as the great peacemaker in the angry crossfire of deeply personal judgements of other peoples' parenting choices known as the "Mommy Wars."

I'm a big advocate of breastfeeding, when it works for the mother. But I also believe that women's bodies are theirs to do with as they choose. If they choose not to nurse, nobody gets to police them.

The problem I have with this ad is that by stereotyping the various conflicts between parent trends (including stay-at-home dads), then resolving with a message that none of it really matters, they are negating the very real and important discussions happening about these issues. The nursers feeling forced to cover up, working women with inadequate maternal leave or work flexibility, the challenges faced by lesbian moms? These are presented as no different than the arguments about diapers, baby wearing, and yoga for moms.

By positioning itself as the teller of this tale, Similac very sneakily invalidates lactivist criticisms of its product and marketing. Yeah, I saw what you did there!

But, you know, it's an American commercial. So the warring parties rally around a really bad example of parental neglect and hug it out.

H/T Adfreak

Mexico's breastfeeding campaign big on breasts, feeding not so much

Via La Grande

The text in the banner says, ""Don't turn your back on them ... Give them your breast."

The women are model and actress  Camila Sodi, TV presenter Cecilia Galiano, boxer Mariana "Barbie" Juarez and  actress Maribel Guardia. All are famous in Mexico.

NPR points out that while breastfeeding rates in Mexico are among the lowest in Latin America, the causes have more to do with a society that is not supportive of working women breastfeeding, and one in which formula companies ply their trade among rich and poor alike with little or no regulation.

Will saying, "Look! These sexy celebrities want you to give your breasts to your baby" be an effective way to turn this around? Unlikely. The whole idea that breasts only serve to turn us on is part of the problem in societies unfriendly to breastfeeding. This will probably only make things worse.

Here are some larger images of the ads, via mujereselsalvador.com:

Would you eat your dinner on the toilet?

Adfreak featured these hard-hitting ads, created by two students at the University of North Texas, Johnathan Wenske and Kris Haro.

The copy reads, "Would you eat here? By law, breastfeeding mothers are not protected from harassment and refusal of service in public, often forcing them to feed in secluded spaces such as public bathrooms. Contact your state and/or local representative to voice your support for breastfeeding mothers, because a baby should never be nurtured where nature calls."

From their Behance page:

Welcome to the When Nurture Calls campaign. This aims to protect a mother's right to breastfeed her baby in public by striving to pass the bill HB1706, which will protect breastfeeding mothers from harassment and discrimination when they choose to nurture their child in public.  To start off, there would be print ads placed on the back of bathroom stalls. These ads create a "reflection" of the stall facing it, and show mothers who have been harassed to the point where they feel they have no other option but to nurture their baby in the restroom as to not offend anyone.

It's an old argument, in lactivist circles, but the proposed media placement of these ads is brilliant, personalizing the message in a really powerful way.

You can support the campaign at whennurturecalls.org.

Weird juice bar campaign juxtaposes breastfeeding and sex

Weird, eh? It's a Lithuanian campaign for a juice bar by an agency called "New!" (You can see the original language version here.)

What's funny about these two is that one would presume that the woman was already being "pleased" by the remarkably similar oxytocin rushes of breastfeeding and orgasm. And they're saying that juice is better than that? Wow, that must be some drink!

The third execution is actually more puzzling, as it implies that a man gets no pleasure from comforting his upset partner:

Yeah, it's supposed to be lighthearted humour. I just don't think it's very clever.

Via Ads of The World

Vogue Netherlands shoots Ymre Stiekema breastfeeding, internet howls "NSFW"!

Vogue via HuffPo

My only concern is whether or not this pic features her own baby. Ms. Stiekema gave birth to a baby girl last December, but the one in the picture looks rather young.

I don't know why I'd think that a mother deciding to objectify her own baby is better than objectifying someone else's. But the idea of breastfeeding portraits is quite well established, from the Virgin Mary to Kate Hansen. And I think they do a society good, no matter how pretentious. (I'm looking at you, Erwin Olaf.)

Nonetheless, The Huffington Post shared the pic with an "NSFW" (not safe for work) warning, and The Cut's headline was "Have You Seen Naked Breast-feeding Vogue Model Mom?"

The baby was unavailable for comment.

UNICEF promotes breastfeeding with minimalist mammaries

I'm not sure these really work. But they won two Bronze Outdoor Lions at Cannes this year for Y&R Beijing. 

Perhaps Chinese mothers will respond to the nutrition-labelling copy. But I still find the geometrical breasts (particularly below) a little bizarre.

Via Ads of The World.

What's the most offensive thing about this Cougar Life billboard?

Via Copyranter

Is it the sexualization of breastfeeding? The sleazification of motherhood?

Me, I'm offended most by the censorship. It's part of a much bigger problem.

Update: The billboard is being taken down, and for all the wrong reasons.

Pymes Magazine doesn't know what babies eat

I understand where the idea came from. But the all-male creative team at ADN Comunicación, in Buenos Aires,  don't seem to know the difference between human breastmilk, infant formula, and cow's milk.

While human milk is recognized by all health authorities as the ideal infant food for the first one-two years of life, manufactured formulas are a reasonable substitute. But while many formulas include cow's milk as an ingredient, it is highly processed to extract purified whey and casein as protein sources.

Normal cow's milk is actually bad for babies. From the American National Institutes of Health:

Cow's milk is not recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for children under 1 year old. Infants fed whole cow's milk don't get enough vitamin E, iron, and essential fatty acids. They also get too much protein, sodium, and potassium. These levels may be too high for the infant's system to handle. Also, whole cow's milk protein and fat are more difficult for an infant to digest and absorb.

Cow's milk could actually make a baby quite sick.

You could rationalize that the concept implies that more babies means a need for more formula, which will increase demand for cow's milk. But that's a rather indirect way of communicating the idea.

The other two ads in the series indicate that a much more direct link is intended:

I won't even get in to the other awkwardness here...

...or the fact that nobody has used quills for 200 years or so.

Overall, it's just bad advertising. But bedsides that, it might have unintended negative consequences of making women without good prenatal education think that giving "milk" to their baby is OK. And that's a bad idea.

Let's fix it, shall we?

Yay!

Campaign found on Ads of the World

Luvs loves breastfeeding moms

Not only is it a nice, socially-responsible consumer ad. It's also well-targeted and pushes forward a single-minded message that experienced moms choose their product.



Okay, you can tell me that disposable diapers aren't socially responsible. But I'm not convinced washing and bleaching cloth ones is all that much more enviro. Disagree with me if you want (I know my very baby-experienced sister does) but it's still a good ad.

There are three more (unembeddable) ads in the series, about rectal thermometers, transporting babies, and of course diaper changing. It's a refreshing change from their exploding diapers campaign.

Milk so good, it will put babies off breasts? (Nudity)

This is an old ad, from the '90s. As a pro-breastfeeding dude, I actually like it. The humour is based on the assumption that of course the baby would prefer mom's milk. The nudity is gratuitous, but doesn't feel sexualized.

Even 18 years later, I can't see this ad ever running on public media in the United States. It cas created by Waechter & Waechter Worldwide, Germany.

Via adgoodness

Lead nipple shields? What were they thinking?

The Museum of Healthcare is definitely going to be on the agenda of my next trip to Kingston, Ontario (my hometown). What could be more weirdly interesting than bad medical ideas of the not-so-distant past?

Case-in-point: Lead Nipple Shields, Circa 1920

Nipple shields are worn over a mother’s nipple during breastfeeding.  They have been manufactured since at least the 16th century and are used to help babies to latch on at the breast or to protect a mother’s sore or damaged nipples.  These shields are made of lead, but they have also been made from silver, wax, wood, pewter, tin, bone, ivory, and glass.  Today, nipples shields come in rubber, latex, or silicone. 

This pair of nipple shields come from Gananoque, Ontario where they were used in the general practices of Dr. C.H. Bird and his son Dr. H. Godfrey Bird in the first half of the 20th century.

Lead? The very element that sends parents today into paroxysms of fear and outrage when it shows up in toys or household products was purposely inserted into a nursing infant's mouth.

"Recommended by the most Eminent Medical Men"

As we head into the weekend, don't forget...

My mom doesn't drink. I guess that's why I was such a grouchy kid.

Time cover features preschooler breastfeeding

Via BuzzFeed

So that was unexpected.

As the United States continues to struggle with the social and health issues around breastfeeding, Time Magazine decides to run a cover photo of a nursing three-year-old.

It's for a piece on attachment parenting, which we practice to some extent at our house (even though the boy weaned himself at about 20 months). I'm sure the picture is meant to shock some people who think breastfeeding a kid old enough to talk is weird or even perverse.

"Supermom" Jamie Lynne Grumet (the woman in the picture) told Huffington Post:

“When you think of breast-feeding, you think of mothers holding their children, which was impossible with some of these older kids. I liked the idea of having the kids standing up to underline the point that this was an uncommon situation.”

But hey — in the struggle to normalize natural baby feeding, such a prominent portrayal can only help.

My only question is, now that breastfeeding is considered "SFW" enough for the cover of Time, can Facebook stop calling it "obscene"?

See more photos from the shoot here.

Louisville's bizarre breastfeeding ad is not helping the cause #FdAdFriday

Great. Many Americans are already weirded out by breastfeeding because they see breasts as single-function male titillators. But with this completely effed take on the unfortunate and played out "animated talking baby" format, they're just creeping people out even more.



Worst of all is the sped-up baby voice. It reminds me of "that high squeaky voice" of evil Toon in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Not a good association.

The campaign means well, at least. In the United States, women of African ancestry have some of the lowest breastfeeding rates. It's an issue that needs addressing. But is the the best the mayor's Healthy Hometown initiative could come up with?

If you read this blog, you know how I feel about the issue. Breastfeeding is a marvellous and deeply human thing. This ad... is not.

Via Adfreak

A much more clever cynical exploitation of breastfeeding to move product

That Oreo ad I posted last night is probably spec anyway, but on Ads of The World's (uncensored) Google+ posting of the campaign, Stefaan Galle shared this much more clever ad:

He describes it as an ad for online data back-up that reads, "Because nature also provides a backup."

Heh.

Oreos and breastmilk? At least one is good for baby (but not for Facebook)

UPDATE (from HuffPo, via FB! Stop harassing Emma Kwasnica over her breastfeeding pics):

"A representative from Kraft Foods reached out to HuffPost Food to clarify the origins of this ad. The ad was created by Kraft's ad agency, Cheil Worldwide, for a one-time use at an advertising forum and was not intended for public distribution or use with consumers."

Hmmmm...

It's a cute ad, even if it's using something sacred to sell cookies.

But here's the real story: When my friend Ivan, from Ads of The World, posted it on Facebook, he felt compelled to censor the image:

Why? I can't blame him. He was just protecting his social presence, because Facebook is notorious for censoring breastfeeding pictures.

It's like Facebook gets kickback from Enfamil.

And they ban people who don't follow the rules. Even mighty FEMEN have acquiesced and censored their "weapons" of protest.

Now, this example is not so virtuous. But it's interesting that Facebook has made everyone afraid of posting breasts, even in their least sexual context. And how perverted is that?

Creating an international symbol for homebirth

Emma Kwasnica, the now-famous breastfeeding activist, shared this interesting link on Facebook.

Apparently, the Peaceful Parenting blog has been trying to crowdsource a symbol that homebirth advocates and organizations could use as an identifier. It's a good idea, since causes need symbols just like nations need flags.

A good bar has been set, both in similar cause and public acceptance, by the "you're welcome to breastfeed here" signs that are now common.

Here is an explanation of how they are doing it:

"The finalists for the International Homebirth Symbol have been chosen by a panel of birth and babies professionals and mothers alike (see panel members here). They are presented here for your vote. Graphics are drafts and may be brushed up or altered slightly for finalization. Color/shade will also be voted on publicly once the symbol is selected. All are presented here in the same shade for voting purposes only. Artists will remain anonymous to the panel and public until voting is complete. The top symbols will go on to Round Three where they will be voted on by a panel of graphic design artists."

I like that they are putting these forward as abstract symbols, without consideration for colour or perfection of execution.

In situations like these, I try to ask myself WWPAD? (What Would Paul Arthur Do?). The sadly-missed godfather of pictograms, signage and wayfinding could have really helped these folks. I briefly knew the man,  who famously decided it was a good idea to use symbols instead of "men" and "women" at Expo 67 — something we cannot today imagine a world without. (He was my S-I-L Laura's stepfather.) But since he died when I was just starting to enter the fullness of my creative career, I never got to work with him professionally. Instead, I am inspired by skimming his books and reading others' memories, like this frank critique of proposed icons for the "World Wide Web."

I am no designer — and certainly no Paul. But I would like to bring this interesting exercise to the attention of my fellow professionals.

Here are the entries:

A: I get it, but it has an unfortunate resemblance to the internet shock meme goatse man.
(If you don't know what that is, you're lucky. Here's the Wikipedia link.

B: Sweet, but says "healthy pregnancy" more than "birth" to me.

C: The addition of the partner is nice, but not inclusive.
Single women and gay women also homebirth, an the supporter is not always a partner.

D: Not bad. I like the "yoga" look and the simplicity.
I only wish the house icon were simpler.

E: Too abstract for me. Pretty sure this would fail comprehension tests.

F: A literal attempt to say "home birth". Kind of confusing.
I also associate realistic foetus silhouettes with anti-abortion causes.

G: A nice thought, but overly simplistic.
The heart as mother and child has been done before, and does not necessarily
communicate "birth".

H: As with others, this shows motherhood but could be post-partum at home.

I: Getting closer, but the shapes might not be 100% clear.

J: The "woman birthing" icon is clearer, but looks a little nuclear.
The lines in the house are superfluous.

K: The human idea is communicated well, and the style could easily be simplified.
Not sure if the window is intuitive enough (would need to be tested) but it's nice to
see something other than the obvious house icon.

L: Overly abstract, like G, but with more of a "birthing" feel.

M: An attempt to make pictograms out of "H" and "B".
Besides being really abstract, it is language exclusive,
and not international.

N: Like the breastfeeding symbol, but with umbilical cord and house added.
Might lead to confusion with the BF symbol, and cord might be too subtle
to communicate the moment of birth.

O: This says "loving nuclear family" to me, not birth.
Also has the same heteronormative issue as C.

P: A "primitive" (petroglyph-inspired) symbol that says "motherhood"
more than anything. No implication of "birth" and "home".

And no, folks, I am not being too mean. I am actually being very gentle, in Creative Director trms, because I know that these are earnest efforts by people from a variety of backgrounds.

But that's the whole problem here. Functional design, such as this, should never be croudsourced or contested. It should be developed by specialized professionals, and tested extensively in controlled market research, to make sure it is understood.

The opinions I gave above are just first reactions — the kind of advice I would give to designers at an initial creative review, to help them refine their ideas and avoid wasting time on non-starters (like M).

Since Peaceful Parenting have already committed to this selection process, they can't stop now. But if they want to stand any chance of having the result widely adopted as a recognized symbol of homebirth, I hope they will turn the results over to professionals for final design, testing, and change if needed.

Trust me, it's the right thing to do. Because when symbolic logos fail, they fail hard.

What the hell is in this baby formula?

Copy says, "New! A natural solution that keeps your facial skin revitalized. A better sleep for your baby with Materna's Good Night infant formula."

Does it have Benadryl in it? Gravol? Morphine? According to this source, the secret ingredient is "special composition of carbohydrates, giving the baby a longer feeling of fullness."

What a terrible idea. Babies wake up and cry because they aren't really supposed to be left alone. (Think about it — in a state of nature, they'd be eaten by wolves.)

I understand that not everyone can or wants to breastfeed or cosleep. But an ad promoting a formula that keeps your inconvenient baby quiet so you can get your beauty sleep really irks me. It's playing to selfishness and vanity.

By JWT, Tel Aviv, Israel

Via Ads of The World