A Proctor & Gamble ad I saw last night claimed that they’re the “proud sponsor of moms”. Are they really? So does that mean that they’re footing the bill for all moms, like a TV show sponsor is responsible for financing the expenses of the TV show they’re sponsoring? If that’s supposed to be the case, I have to say that they seem pretty negligent to me.
Please don’t misunderstand me; I’m not saying that it’s their responsibility to financially support every mother and child in the United States: they are! Or don’t they understand the idea of sponsorship? So basically, from their statement, they get to take credit for every mom in the country, but they’re not required to put in any investment toward that advertising relationship. That doesn’t seem fair to me. All moms should sue for denied back wages from when they’ve been exploited all this time by Procter & Gamble for advertising purposes!
Hey, it would be one thing if there were other companies saying they were co-sponsors or whatever. But even then, P&G would be disingenuous for suggesting that they were the ‘one and only’ sponsor of moms, right? They never said they’re co-sponsor or part sponsor. They said that they’re the sponsor of moms. And not only that, but they’re the proud sponsor of moms! Well, I wouldn’t be so quick to be proud if I were them. After they said that, every time a kid goes hungry or a mom gets evicted, it’s their fault for shirking their responsibility. Maybe from now on, every time anything ever goes wrong for a mom for any reason, the news should cover it as another example of the failed promise of P&G sponsorship. After all the free advertising they’ve been getting from all the moms everywhere, it seems fair to me.
