Proctor & Gamble - Proud sponsors of mums

[revolution saint]

I see P & G have been running this advertisement campaign for a while now. My question is can they legitimately make this claim? Obviously there are "Mums" but as far as I'm aware there isn't an organisation or entity that represents them so how can you sponsor something that doesn't exist?

 

I can see how you can sponsor events and organisations but can you sponsor something as disparate as Mums? And how do you prove it (or do you even have to prove it?)? Could you also theoretically sponsor black people, white people, Dads, etc, etc?

 

Just interested as it seemed a strange claim to be able to make.

[Guest Dark Sotonic Mills]

This would be the same Procter and Gamble who were fined 211 million Euros in April for price fixing and robbing mums?

[Deppo]

I wondered why my mum had 'Proctor & Gamble' emblazoned across her apron last time I saw her.

[revolution saint]

This would be the same Procter and Gamble who were fined 211 million Euros in April for price fixing and robbing mums?

 

That would be the same people (although I wasn't aware of it). It raises the question though - if I were to bring out an advert saying "Proctor & Gamble - proud exploiters of Mums" then I'd be expected to be able to back that up. Are they required to do the same when claming to sponsor something that can't ever be proved? And what constitutes sponsorship?

[scotty]

That would be the same people (although I wasn't aware of it). It raises the question though - if I were to bring out an advert saying "Proctor & Gamble - proud exploiters of Mums" then I'd be expected to be able to back that up. Are they required to do the same when claming to sponsor something that can't ever be proved? And what constitutes sponsorship?

 

Maybe they sponsor mumsnet.

[revolution saint]

Maybe they sponsor mumsnet.

 

Then they would be proud sponsors of Mumsnet.