quote:

---

So, where do we call/email to complain?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janew:
Anyone else find this Bell flyer strange?

---

Yep. Strange doesn't begin to cover it.

That's exactly the problem with parental control software, is that it screens out things that you want your kids to see, like information on human reproduction and breast cancer, etc.

I hope they get an earful over this!

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: dokidoki ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by verbatim:
Yeah, there are probably some people deep within the bowels of Bell and/or the advertising company that made this flyer who figure they've pulled off the ultimate coup -- mocking the people who actually install parental control software..

---

Another tv ad in the series has a couple (maybe the same actors?) of lame-o parents trying to amuse their children with ukelele (sp?)sing-alongs. Surprise they get the Bell "package" and the kids now watch tv and the lame-o dad says: Now they like to spend time with us.

Also, in all of these ads, the homes in the backgrounds pale-coloured and kinda dead-looking. (=suburban?)

So, yeah, I think they are mocking the people who'd buy into this. Real smart marketing. . .

edited to fix spelling of hawaiian musical (?) instrument

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: fern hill ]

quote:

---

Thank you for your e-mail to Bell Canada's Executive
Office for Customer Relations.

A Consultant from the Executive Office will be investigating
your concerns and will contact you.

Please be advised that our hours of operation are Monday to Friday
8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, excluding holidays.

Should your concern be about the repair of your telephone line,
please call 611 or #611 from your Bell Mobility cellular phone.
The Repair office is available 24 hours a day, 7 days per week.

If your issue concerns Bell Sympatico, Bell Mobility, Bell World,
Bell Expressvu, Bell World or Bell Credit Services, please be assured that your
e-mail has been forwarded to the Executive Office of the applicable
company for resolution.

Sincerely,

Bell Canada
Executive Office for Customer Relations

1-866-317-3382

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by janew:
Anyone else find this Bell flyer strange?

---

According to Infopresse, the English and French ads that promote Sympatico's parental control feature are handled by different companies: Grip (Toronto) for the English market and Cossette Communication-Marketing (Québec & elsewhere) for the Quebec market. You can see both T.V. ads here: Infopresse

What's "interesting" is that the Quebec ad, while different, is just as sexist. It features "Rosa", an insecure "eternal célibataire" (they didn't go as far as to use the expression "vieille fille" (spinster), who is forever alarmed by everything around her and runs around in a constant state of panic.

The Quebec ad campaign for Bell services is fixated on a stereotypical view of the past and depicts Quebec "habitants" as stupid, backwards --and with physical defects (is there a hint of in-breeding here?). An ExpressVu ad currently appearing in French newspapers pictures a close-up shot of a severely "cock-eyed" habitant boy with prominent ears and a rounded open mouth.

Offensive and stupid.

[ 22 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

I was taken aback, and showed it to Rebecca West who was also more than miffed.

Yes, I've since seen the Bell commercials with the over protective parents (let your back bone slide) and in one commercial, you can see the book, complete with cut out gnarly bits as in the add posted by JaneW.

I find the images tasteless to the point of being crass but not really offensive. I don't see the images as promoting a particular viewpoint of naked bodies but rather of reflecting an already existing viewpoint.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:

Here's an interesting question. Would anyone here have reacted differently if the image had been of a male?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
Here's an interesting question. Would anyone here have reacted differently if the image had been of a male?

---

quote:

---

We have learned recently about an offensive ad for a well-known internet
provider, Bell Sympatico. We have received a number of phone calls and
emails from concerned feminists in the community. We would like to let
everyone know about the ad, what it depicts, and provide everyone with some
contact info for where to make complaints. We will also post a letter that
we have written to Bell Sympatico on behalf of the store.

The ad presents an image of an anatomy textbook opened to a page titled "The
Female Body". On the image of the woman's body, the breasts have been
covered with random text (that seems to be lifted from a Bell Sympatico ad),
and the pelvic/groin/reproductive area has also been covered with text. On
the sides of the image of the woman are various organs (heart, brain, liver,
etc) and "Ovary" is listed, but the image of the ovary is covered, again
with random text. Finally, what appears to be the colon is also covered,
including the name of the organ.

To the side of the image is the text: "You'll do anything to protect your
kids from inappropriate content. So will we. Bell. Making it simple."

As feminists, we find it sexist, offensive and problematic that particular
parts of a woman's body are being portrayed as inappropriate content.

To let Bell know how offensive this ad is, call the Bell Canada's Executive
Office of Customer Relations at 1-800-267-7734.

Bell Canada Enterprises Communications
1000, de La Gauchetière Ouest, Bureau 3700
Montréal (Québec) H3B 4Y7
Tel.: 1 888 932-6666
Email: [email protected]

If you want to file a complaint online, visit Mediawatch at

Call or write to Advertising Standards Canada
175 Bloor Street East, South Tower, Suite 1801
Toronto, ON M4W 3R8
Tel: (416) 961-6311 Fax: (416) 961-7904
Email: [email protected]

……………
To Bell Sympatico,

Regarding the recent ad campaign featuring a woman's body with various parts
covered up and the tag line "You'll do anything to protect your kids from
inappropriate content. So will we."

The portrayal of a woman's body as "inappropriate content" is offensive and
sexist. This ad needs to be pulled from use immediately, and a public
apology needs to be issued for using such an offensive image to promote your
company.

On behalf of the staff team of the Toronto Women's Bookstore,

Anjula Gogia, Store Manager
May Lui, Staff Manager

---

The TV and print ads are very funny.

quote:

---

Your outrage over the crucifiction torture scene at the end of the film would overwhelm the babble

---

Now that scene was hilarious. The cut-out female body is just plain dumb.

[ 24 February 2005: Message edited by: Jumble ]

[ 24 February 2005: Message edited by: Mophead C. Joseph ]

The captions you added would only make sense if you took the original ad to imply that a naked female body offends more than a naked male body. I don't get that at all.

In fact, I would go so far as to suggest the reason a female image was chosen is
because it is deemed less offensive than a male image. I would suggest that a naked male body is regarded in our society as more offensive if anything. The female image carries a lot of connotations, one of which is the nuturing, mother persona; a very powerful image indeed. I think the male image lacks the same compelling positive connotation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ReeferMadness:
... a naked female body offends more than a naked male body.

---

I also don't think the societal differences have anything to do with a man's body being 'off-limits'. When advertisers can sell things using men's bodies, they'll quite happily do it.

quote:

---

So, yeah, I think they are mocking the people who'd buy into this. Real smart marketing. . .

---

Well, if they can openly mock a demographic at the same time as they're selling to that same demographic, I'd say that IS pretty clever.

And I included the URL for this thread in my complaint!

quote:

---

Dear Mrs [Dadl]:

This is in response to your email correspondence regarding a recent advertisement for services offered by Bell Sympatico™. We thank you for taking the time to submit your concerns.

Please be advised that in no way does Bell Canada find the female body inappropriate. Our advertisement was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to show the lengths some people will go to in order to protect their children from “inappropriate” subject matter – the implication being that textbook diagrams of the human anatomy are the furthest thing from “inappropriate”. This message was intended to play off of some of our other recent television ads that poked fun at those that go to far. This was not meant to be taken literally.

On behalf of Bell Sympatico™ we would like to extend our apologies for any offense the advertisement in question may have caused. Surely, this was not the intent.

Once again, Mrs. [Dadl], we thank you for providing us with your valuable feedback.

Sincerely,



Jean-François Lafontaine
Executive Office of Customer Relations
Bell Sympatico™

---

Now, what the hell are we supposed to think about a mealy-mouthed response like that?

I think that we think that nothing but numbers will make a dent on the consciousness of functionaries who can write like that.

I think their mistake was that they don't realize that everyone might not have seen the television ads, and that they wouldn't associate the print ad (which is basically cut up female body without very much context of ha-ha-lookit-the-overprotective-parent) with the television ad necessarily.

How can Bell be selling with one hand but "parodying" with the other?

What is funny about making fun of your market?

quote:

---

Cher M Lafontaine:

Thank you for replying to my expression of outrage.

But I remain outraged. How can photographs of women with their genitals scissored out be considered a "tongue-in-cheek" advertising gambit? I mean: HOW???

Serial killers scissor out women's body parts from photographs. Is Bell Canada in the business of encouraging serial killers?

I have never seen your fabled TV ads, and wouldn't pay attention to them anyway. I am given to understand, however, that they make fun of parents' -- and especially mothers' -- legitimate fears for their children.

So there we are, M Lafontaine -- as far as Bell Canada is concerned, women are nutbars, hysterically paranoid, and/or women's bodies are objects to laugh at or to be horrified by.

I don't think that Bell Canada is doing very well with this campaign, M Lafontaine.

Yours sincerely

---

I saw the print ad on the front of the metro a few days ago. There was a 'penis' and 'prostate' removed, too.

quote:

---

Dear sir or madam;

I am a long-timeand loyal Bell Canada customer. ( present tel. 519.***.****, Symp acct. b1****** ). Save for a period of a few years in which I lived in the west, I have used Bell exclusively for any and all of my telecommunication needs. I could not begin to estimate the number of tempting entreaties by your time-to-time competitors that I have rebuffed out of hand.

In the past 23 years as an Ontario resident, just roughly but conservativelt doing "the math", I am certain I hve spent well in excess of $60,000. on various Bell services: phone, fax, long distance, internet, directory advertising, etc. Moreover, I often find myself acting as something of an unpaid spokesperson (almost your own version of "Mr. Wendy"). Whenever I find myself in a conversation about telecom options with anyone, be it family, friends, business associates, I speak of the satisfaction I have generally found with Bell, and of my perception that over the long haul, consistent use of your services probably realizes best "value for money". Most, though not all, take my advice.

This week I noticed among my paper junk-mail a flier in the familiar Bell colours. As I wasn't immediately hungry for pizza nor planning to visit the casino that day, I examined it first. Another piece of mail was covering the lower part, but the seeming title "The Female Body" was visible. That certainly always a topic of some interest, I quickly looked closer. My first reaction was one one of disappointment and anger. Seemingly Camada Post's automation ad again glitched and mutilated my mail. But no, .... I soon realized that this was intended. So I set to truing to ubderstand what your message could possibly be.

To the right was wording about "inappropriate content". As I see nothing whatever inappropriate obout the female body in general or those parts that presumably were depicted in your pre-mutilation sketch, that interpretation made no sense to me. after several seconds of trying to decipher, and looking at the rest of the pamphlet for context, I gave up. Rather than litter, I crumpled it and stuffed it into a pocket. Thus, I still have it. I still have absolutely no idea what it's intended message might be.

Since then, I have encountered several associates, many of whom I steered to Bell services who are profoundly offended by the flier. Many, though not all, are women. Their anger with the imagery takes a variety of forms and directions, some of which I understand, some of which I don't. But certainly all are angry, and far too many have redirected their anger towards me, i.e. "How could you represent them as a good corporate citizen ?". I have no answer.

I'm becoming tired of fielding their questions and complaints. I also note, through some research and some media sources today that anger and even outrage over this promotional piece is not limited to my circle of personal associates. It would seem that a number of well subcribed web-sites are castigating it, and that mainstream media is likely to follow suit.

It would be easiest for me to be able to meet the personal flak by sayong "I agree with you, and tha is why I closed all my Bell accounts yesterday." I could then experiment with all of the competitors always claiming their product and pricing mto be superior. It laso concerns me that should the adverse publicity over this have effect, it is I, the consumer and shareholder who will pay the price.

I'd much prefer not to end our long relationship. Because of that, I am hoping that next week, I see a very public retraction of and apology for this very ill-conceived piece of advertising.

Yours very truly
James Martin

---

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

I wrote complaints to the two Bell email addresses suggested earlier in the thread, and received the IDENTICAL mealy-mouthed reply that was quoted earlier. In fact, when I responded to one, they sent back the same response again, even though the same text was already in the email message thread previously.

I've also written to CTV to complain about them carrying the ads, saying that the ads promote censorship. I'm interested to see the coverage of this in tomorrow's Star.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sandy Kemsley:
received the IDENTICAL mealy-mouthed reply that was quoted earlier.

---

Yeah, that is the standard "bot response",(heh, mine came back within 5 seconds, literally) always followed up later with something from a quasi-human. It will be very interesting to compare those here.

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

I see the ad as a deliberate poke at over-protective parents (and take it from a Jr High teacher) there are many. I could easily see some parents doing just this to such a diagram (or actually, probably just hiding the book).

What I read as the "message" is 'this is what you, as an overprotective, paranoid parent will do to protect your children from what you interpret as inappropriate material which in fact is quite appropriate and which they shoudl have access. On the other hand we at Bell will do our best to protect your kids from real danger. We are better parents than you are.'

Of course even if that is the message, that is very disturbing as well - not to mention the many points already made regarding violence, etc. that are part of the way in which these people decided to deliver this message - whatever it meant.

quote:

---

You'll do anything to protect your kids from inappropriate content.

So will we.

---

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: verbatim ]

quote:

---

You make a good point about in mentioning that women's bodies are more commonly displayed and thus more commodified but I think it's a stretch to say this particular image represents a sex object.

---

It doesn't. That's why it's "inappropriate."

here's some
links.

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: Mophead C. Joseph ]

Hello,

I'm not sure who I should be writing to, but please forward this message to the appropriate individual(s).

Please refer to the link below:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=12&t=000834

The Bell Sympatico advertisement featuring the female body with body parts cut out, also the subject of the discussion forum at the above link, is disturbing and inappropriate.

I could begin to describe why, but given that your company actually had the indiscretion to print and distribute it, I would almost feel like I'd be wasting my time. However, the discussion thread does a pretty good job
of touching on the main problems.

In all likelyhood, you may think that the ad was taken out of context and misinterpreted. However, it is important to recognize who your audience is and the social context within which your ad will be received.

My initial response to the ad was "disturbing" -- and that was before I looked at it carefully and tried to decide what it was that was wrong with it.

Given that I believe that you company is made up of intelligent persons, I am confident that you can think of an appropriate course of action to
rectify the situation. I encourage you to "do the right thing".

I am a bell client, by the way, and I would not want to be associated with a company that sees nothing wrong with distributing those horrible little flyers.

---

The reply:

Good day,

Your email has been forwarded to our Bell Advertising Team.

Please be advised that in no way does Bell Canada find the female body inappropriate. Our advertisement was a tongue-in-cheek attempt to show the lengths some people will go to in order to protect their children from "inappropriate" subject matter - the implication being that
textbook diagrams of the human anatomy are the furthest thing from "inappropriate". This message was intended to play off of some of our
other recent television ads that poked fun at those that go to far. This was not meant to be taken literally.

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your comments and take them very seriously.

Regards,

Bell Canada Entreprises
[email protected]

---

Same as the rest -- Bell people are lazy.

---

My two cents: This was a very poorly designed ad campaign. I sympathize with Bell somewhat, in that their intent was not malicious, but there were some serious problems in terms of judgement, which makes me wonder: "should these people be in a position to make such decisions in the first place?". Interestingly enough, most of my socially insensitive friends got Bell's joke and thought it was funny without seeing the TV ad. I, on the other hand, a strong advocate for equity and social responsibility, was horrified. The response to the ad also seemed to vary depending on whether it was viewed my a male or a female.

quote:

---

In all likelyhood, you may think that the ad was taken out of context and misinterpreted. However, it is important to recognize who your audience is and the social context within which your ad will be received.

---

Look at the commerical advertisments in the UK and Europe as compared to North America. They are, on the whole, a lot more intelligent, humourous and thought provoking than our commericals here. They don't pander to the lowest common denominator nearly as much as we do. They're not afraid to to use irony for fear that people won't get the joke and get offended. And even when the joke falls flat (like the Bell ad), people don't seem to get all up in arms and righteously offended about it.

All I can see coming out of this is even worse advertising. Where people have decided, we tried humour once, got terribly burned for it, so dumb it down even further, make it bigger, brighter, louder and shinier. Don't try to be funny, people won't get it and they'll just be offended.

Any quick ideas ?

quote:

---

Bell appears not to be mocking, but actually expressing solidarity with the neurotic parent who has scissored out the naughty bits, because Bell offers no separate definition of its own. It seems to be saying "Bell agrees that this is inappropriate content, and we'll help you protect your kids against it on the Internet."

---

I mean, that's why I haven't been able to see a joke here either. How can you be making fun of people but then trying to sell them a service that panders to the behaviour you were just mocking? I mean, I don't get it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:
I read an interview with a British entertainer once where he was lamenting the fact that Americans didn't have nearly as keen a grasp of irony as the British did. "Then there's Canadians" he said, "who have no sense of irony whatsoever". At the time I couldn't have disagreed more. These days, I think he was right on the money.

---

quote:

---

How can you be making fun of people but then trying to sell them a service that panders to the behaviour you were just mocking? I mean, I don't get it.

---

So, I say, kudos to babble.

quote:

---

p.s. I declined the invitation for a photo-op

---

Och, now, James, I call that a missed opportunity.

[ 28 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

Yeah, that is the standard "bot response",(heh, mine came back within 5 seconds, literally) always followed up later with something from a quasi-human. It will be very interesting to compare those here.

[ 26 February 2005: Message edited by: James ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by miss nomer:
At least they didn't cut out her brain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra trower williams:
Hey, it would help with trying to get this some coverage if we knew how many people had complained. If you have, can you say so here? If you haven't, could you?

---

I'm glad to see I'm not the only person upset about these ads!

I sent a complaint via http://www.adstandards.com almost immediately after finding the flier in my mailbox. Their online form requests an electronic image of the offending ad in question, so I searched for one via Google. That is how I came across this thread, which prompted me to send another complaint to [email protected].

My experience corresponding (if you can even call it that!) with Bell has given me an even worse opinion of that company. My initial email was given the one line response:

“Thank you, kindly provide your Bell Canada telephone number for this to documented/addressed.”

… to which I replied:

“I apologize, but I will *not* provide my telephone number – it is irrelevant to the case at hand, which is that Bell Canada has disseminated offensive advertising and is responsible to everyone in this country, not just its customers. I believe that my message can and *should* be addressed without that information. I anticipate your response.”

That message received the following response:

“Your comments have been documented.”

Naturally, that caused me to become even more irate. I simply could not believe the overall lack of seriousness by which Bell responded to the issue. In my next reply, I further expressed my anger and noted how surprised I was to not receive even a lowly standardized statement indicating that the ad was being pulled. I demanded a much more detailed reply to my valid complaints, and I wanted to know how the company planned to correct the situation. I suggested that a sizeable donation to a women's health charity would make a good, small start, and that another sizable donation to a charity that works to prevent violence against women would further that good, small start.

Beyond that, it has crossed my mind that Bell should send apology letters to as many addresses as they littered with those ads. Not that I want to advocate the waste of any more trees paper, but the standardized “we’re sorry” email they eventually did sent out can’t possibly reach as many people as the harmful ad itself. I wish I’d thought to mention it at the time.

I haven’t had a chance to look at the Saturday paper yet… did an article about this ever get published? I can’t believe it was slotted for the technology section, though… talk about adding insult to injury. This is serious matter concerning gender inequities, health care, education and censorship, and the overall lack of ethics in business and advertising, among other things. It shouldn’t be tucked away, neatly, in the “technology” section. Then again, how much can the news media be trusted to run an exposé on Bell? I’m sure Bell is a major client that pays paying for who knows what for who knows how many ads each week, month and year.

quote:

---

Originally posted by worker_drone:
I read an interview with a British entertainer once where he was lamenting the fact that Americans didn't have nearly as keen a grasp of irony as the British did. "Then there's Canadians" he said, "who have no sense of irony whatsoever". At the time I couldn't have disagreed more. These days, I think he was right on the money.

Look at the commerical advertisments in the UK and Europe as compared to North America. They are, on the whole, a lot more intelligent, humourous and thought provoking than our commericals here. They don't pander to the lowest common denominator nearly as much as we do. They're not afraid to to use irony for fear that people won't get the joke and get offended. And even when the joke falls flat (like the Bell ad), people don't seem to get all up in arms and righteously offended about it.

All I can see coming out of this is even worse advertising. Where people have decided, we tried humour once, got terribly burned for it, so dumb it down even further, make it bigger, brighter, louder and shinier. Don't try to be funny, people won't get it and they'll just be offended.

I don't love this Bell campaign or hate it, and I'm certainly not freaking out because I once saw a movie where a serial killer cut up pictures of women in magazines and thinking this ad will just encourage more of the same.

---

I am an individual who works with visual and media art every day, and I have written plenty of university papers about irony in contemporary literature and popular culture. That is to say, sarcasm, irony, satire, etc., are not beyond me. I do, however, find these ads appalling because they sympathize with neurotic parents, and right-wing fundamentalists who are already up in arms that the world is going straight to hell in hand basket because of lacking morals. To these people, censoring a scientific and medical representation of a human body is completely reasonable. It is thanks to these types of people that many women around the world (INCLUDING North America) have no idea how their bodies work, or how to stay healthy.

Beyond that, has the female body not been demonized enough? The dissection of female forms is found in all types of every-day imagery, but does that mean it’s reasonable, or intelligent?

To infer that it is inappropriate for a child to have a healthy and correctly educated understanding of our physicality, or that the body is shameful, is inexcusable. By aligning itself with these ideas (even to poke fun at them as a way of entertaining the few who will see the humor), Bell has neglected to acknowledge the effect of those ideas being taken literally by people who are looking for those very signals to validate their existing opinions.

As to other posters who say "whether I'm a customer doesn't matter" I don't think I agree. I think it important that they hear complaints from as many perspectives as possible. I wouid hope they get complaints from the general public, their customer base, and from their shareholders. It was a damned stupid campaign from any of those perspectives, They need to hear from all. That's why I framed my complaint as that of a formally loyal customer, one bow having difficulty justifying that position. My own readtion to the ed had nothing to do with "mass murderes". I was more a case of how syupid ir this" ?

I'm sure that shareholder, when they sebse the reaction will be expressing the sane sentiment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
As to other posters who say "whether I'm a customer doesn't matter" I don't think I agree. I think it important that they hear complaints from as many perspectives as possible. I wouid hope they get complaints from the general public, their customer base, and from their shareholders.

---

I think one of the problems is that Bell was the ONLY phone service for so long and, as a result, so many of us are -still- customers not because we like Bell, or want to be with Bell, but because there are no other options where we live, or because they are sometimes the lesser of a few other evils. I have a sympatico account only because it costs a few dollars less to have a landline and their service, than it does to have a landline and have cable. When I emailed Sprint for info about their local service and dial-up systems, they never responded. All that said, I’m not with Bell because I “want” to be. Sure, if I were more pro-active, I could find a way of ending my customer relationship with Bell but, as I'm only going to be living in Canada for a few more months, it's hardly worth the effort.

The central reason why I don't think it is necessary for Bell to know my telephone number (as if that's the only way possible to "identify" a human being!), is because I believe every individual has a responsibility to behave decently to every other individual. By extension, I believe corporations have a responsibility to behave decently, but that in many cases, since they have money and power, and enormous reach, they have an even greater responsibility to lead by example.

That is what I want bell to do. That would send a powerful message throughout the corporate world.

It would be "a very big thing" for Bell to do so. It would be not just writing off the millions spent on this campaign, but also spending very considerable money on the retraction/apology.

Boardroom people will not make that sort of a "back-down" decision on the basis of complaints from "a radical interest community". If it appearrs to be affecting their most loyal consumer base and the investment community, they have no choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

... I acknowledged that was true but said I expected that they would make a very public admission of the stupidity and insensitivity of the campaign.

It would be "a very big thing" for Bell to do so. It would be not just writing off the millions spent on this campaign, but also spending very considerable money on the retraction/apology.

---

I agree -- money should definitely be spent on the apology, and preferably in a way that has the potential to do real good. I believe they should make donations to non-profit organizations that are relevant to the political and social concerns maligned by their campaign (i.e. the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation or The White Ribbon Campaign).

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

... Boardroom people will not make that sort of a "back-down" decision on the basis of complaints from "a radical interest community". If it appearrs to be affecting their most loyal consumer base and the investment community, they have no choice.

That is why I framed my complaint letter as I did. Don't ever forget the concept of "realpolitik", because in the end, it is all that matters.

---

I also agree with you on this point. Ultimately, what I was hoping to do was emphasize that I am a human being, not a telephone number. I am 27 and have been supporting myself financially since I was 19 while putting myself through university and grad school… for most of those years, my monthly Bell bill was a thorn in my side, even if when was sharing a line with three other people but my point is that even if I haven’t given Bell piles of my money so far, I might have been a prime candidate to do so in the future. Which is to say, even if I don’t represent their loyal customer base now, my opinions about how they do business do matter.

Yes, I completely understand that economics drives everything (except for when I’m making the more subtle argument that social/behavioural structure creates economic agendas , but what I hope is that my correspondence speaks for me as one individual who is utterly shocked that a company that seeks the *trust* of it’s customers would take such a socially regressive, and thereby potentially harmful, stance.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
So, I just did the interview. Apparently the reporter got her copy in the mail on Thursday and was herself offended. That led her to do some googling over the week-end, where she discovered rabble, and the rest is history. She says she has interviewed a number of people, and has requested an interview with someone from Sympatico. She is hoping that her story will run tomorrow, so is working against a tight dead-line.

So, I say, kudos to babble.

p.s. I declined the invitation for a photo-op

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

before anyone jumps the gun can this picture be authenticated? is it a spoof? a hoax? let's discount these possibilities before hammering bell with possibly out of left field complaints when we may not have all the facts. If we can verify authenticity then we can complain.

---

quote:

---

is it a spoof? a hoax?

---

No. And, no.

quote:

---

If we can verify authenticity then we can complain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
before anyone jumps the gun can this picture be authenticated? is it a spoof? a hoax? let's discount these possibilities before hammering bell with possibly out of left field complaints when we may not have all the facts. If we can verify authenticity then we can complain.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

---

"Bell ad brings call for apology"
"Image on flyer angers customers"

quoted, (in order of appearance) :

moi

MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti, who apparently is presenting a petition in the Legislature today:
"I don't see the humour in it at all. It's degading to everyone, particulary women ..... We need to know the appropriatness of this and whether it violates decency laws."

Sungee John, interim president of NACoSoW:
"In the future, Bell may decide to do more consulting with women, especially those groups who specialize in advocating for women; they need to do better outreach before they put out such clumsy advertising. ... mixed messages ....If you look at it through various lenses, it would be perceived as anti-woman"

our Audra, (she has a Windsor connection, ; who knew?) :
"I'ts appalling, Getting a flyer showing a body hacked to bits is unsettling. There already are so mant products out there depicting women's bodies as unclean and dysfunctional"

Lori Kontros, single parent of Ywo, including 13 yr. old daughter :
"At first I laughed, then I thought'This is not funny at all; it's disturbing that a woman's body would be depicted this way ..... there really are issues of pornography and violence: that's not one of them. It's shocking that a woman's body should be seen as something shameful that should be cut out. I thought we were past that as a society, but apparently not"

But, as to universal demand for retraction - Bell spokesman Mohammad Nakhooda:
(after remarking on the attempt at humour)"Beyond stating that the advertisement or direct mail piece was not intended to be offensive in any way ... Bell has nothing further to add."

He did note that the "campaign has ended"

Gee, ya think ?

edited to add byline -Star staff reporter Crace Macaluso ( here, rara; babbler # 8357) with my compliments

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: James ]

quote:

---

MPP Lorenzo Berardinetti,

---

Is there some way we can do follow-up on this?

Excellent development.

I think they should make a donation to Mediawatch.

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

Regardless of whether they say that the campaign is over, keep applying pressure by stating your complaint to Bell, to make sure that this sort of nonsense doesn't happen again. It's never too late to throw in your two cents worth.

Has anyone seen if this has made the Toronto Star today? Looks like the Ottawa Citizen is carrying it as well as the Windsor Star. And yes (agreeing with the previous poster), if anyone can scan in the Windor Star article, great!!

[ 01 March 2005: Message edited by: Sandy Kemsley ]

quote:

---

ure enough I found the culprit flyer and decided I'd take a closer look to see what evil was depicted. Sure enough I saw intention.

I saw the picture of a medical book. Yes, the picture depicted that someone had cut out portions, tastefully, of the book. Even organ descriptions like the stomach were removed. Was it a rapist, a murderer? I doubt that, perhaps an individual that didn't feel the reader was ready or appropriated to the material.

After reading the flyer, I came to the conclusion there was nothing morally wrong with the ad. Ms. Kerr had claimed this to be some sort of "hate" literature, and I became appalled that she had loosely used that term.

---