If you wanted to eat a healthy lunch, but had a craving to scarf down two Mars bars instead, would you call the Mars company for advice on how to curb your cravings? If you were trying to get in shape and exercise, but didn't feel like going for your morning run, would you call your couch potato friend who always tries to convince you to skip your workouts and join her on the couch? If you were struggling to remain faithful to your spouse, would you call the hot guy who is always flirting with you at work for advice? If you were struggling with breastfeeding, but really wanted to continue, would you call an infant formula manufacturer for advice?
I hope the answer in all cases is an emphatic "NO!"But if you were an online media property that is trying to turn a profit, would you be willing to sell-out your breastfeeding readers, by feeding them a wolf in sheep's clothing? Would you be willing to partner with Similac, an infant formula company, on your
Breastfeeding Guide?
I wouldn't. But apparently Babble and Similac see nothing wrong with this scenario.
Most of us (including Dou-la-la and I) realize that infant formula companies are not really there to support breastfeeding moms, they are there to sabotage them. The Similac sponsorship of the Babble guide goes beyond simple advertising and takes things to a whole new level. The Common Breastfeeding Problems section of the Breastfeeding Guide is clearly marked as being "brought to you by Similac". It includes a large banner at the top encouraging you to call a Feeding Expert for your baby's breastfeeding problems. They indicate that "lactation consultants" are available, but I doubt they are International Board Certified Lactation Consultants (IBCLC), since their Code of Ethics would prevent them from working for an infant formula company. The huge ad to the right of the content even encourages you to enter your mobile number so that someone from Similac can text you their phone number, but who knows what else they will do with your phone number.
Want to take action?
If you want to take action against this ridiculous pairing, I have a few suggestions.
Mystery Calls to Similac
The information in Babble's breastfeeding guide is lightweight at best and doesn't even begin to provide true guidance for dealing with breastfeeding problems. So if you are left wanting more, you may be tempted to pick up the phone and call that number for Similac, especially when they are promising lactation consultants and the text of the guide tells you over and over to contact a lactation consultant.
But what is the quality of the advice you would be getting?
I know a few people who have called already today and I have been told that the advice they were given was not necessarily wrong, but it also wasn't complete. They would give people one small tip that might help with a problem, rather than truly assessing the problem or giving full information on possible solutions to the problem.
Do you want to test the quality of the advice that Similac is giving?
If you do, here is what I would suggest:
Tell Babble this is not appropriate
For Similac and the other infant formula companies, this is nothing new. They will do anything they can to get breastfeeding moms to call them and talk to them. They would love nothing more than to have moms think that they will get good breastfeeding advice from them, while attempting to subtly sabotage their attempts at breastfeeding (see, for example, the quality of breastfeeding advice offered by Nestle). So telling them what you think of their marketing campaign may not get you very far.
However, as I've said before, it may be more effective to express our concerns to the intermediaries that help formula companies spread their message. So tell Babble that you do not think it is appropriate for them to have a Breastfeeding Concerns section that is sponsored by Similac because it is deceptive and because it violates the WHO Code of Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes.
You can do this by:
- Sending an e-mail to Babble: Send an e-mail to the Babble CEO Rufus Griscom at rufus@babble.com and copy Alisa Volkman at advertising@babble.com (she is listed on their website as being the contact for advertising).
- Expressing your concern on Babble.com's Facebook page: Tell Babble what you think of its infant formula sponsored breastfeeding guide by leaving a comment on the wall of the Babble Facebook page. You will have to become a "fan" of Babble to be able to leave a comment and need to go to the "Babble.com + Others" tab to see what people are saying about Babble.
I truly hope that this was a mistake by someone who obviously doesn't understand the role that infant formula companies play in trying to sabotage breastfeeding women and that once it is pointed out to them, that they will take down that section and consider linking to some real breastfeeding support websites like La Leche League or Kellymom or others.
Help spread the word
Please help inform people that breastfeeding support from a formula company is not okay and encourage them to put pressure on Babble too by sharing this post with your friends on facebook, twitter, StumbleUpon and elsewhere. Just click on the Share button at the bottom of this post for options on where to share it. Thank you.
Friday, September 3, 2010 
Reader Comments (232)
You know who I really want to hear from on this? Katie Allison Granju, one of their own bloggers and a wonderful writer. She's a longtime breastfeeding advocate, with a unique perspective - having had to use formula for her 5th child due to some heartbreaking circumstances (born just a few months ago). She wrote the classic "Formula for Disaster" for Salon over 10 years ago: http://www.salon.com/life/feature/1999/07/19/formula
Reglan gave me a rip roaring case of postpartum depression. But I did go on to nurse that baby for 28 months (including 9 while I was pregnant and 9 tandem with her little sister, who went on to nurse for a total of 22 months), so it does work.
I still regret not staging a sit-in in my doctor's office until he wrote me a script for domperidone. I even found a pharmacy that would compound it. No dice.
Dou-la-la:
I DMed a couple of Babble's bloggers alerting them to the situation and giving them a link to my blog post. Katie was one of them. I would understand if she didn't feel that she could speak out publicly about it, but I do hope that she will be able to work from the inside to have the sponsorship removed.
This is true, Brooke; I've known women for whom breastfeeding was more complex than it was worth for them to continue -- and that's fine. The complication for me was pumping; I've always had a really active let-down, but could not pump enough to keep him exclusively breastfed past six months. Eventually we decided that I would stop pumping, and he could have a couple bottles of formula a week. He was still able to eat plenty when I was home, and is nursing strong at 18 months now.
The validity of the language is less my concern than their use of it -- it seems clear that they're trying to build a certain image in your head.
I want to preface my comment by saying that I'm a new mom, breastfeeding for almost 4 months now after facing some challenges with a preterm baby. I worked really hard to make it work because I was determined to breastfeed and I was lucky I had lots of good support.
After learning about the WHO guidelines I was appalled when I received unsolicited formula samples frm two companies. That said, while I understand the sentiment behind throwing it away, I hope that you and others will think twice about doing that in the future. Instead, consider donating those samples to a shelter for mothers or your local food bank. In a perfect world, all mothers would breastfeed but in reality we know that's not the case. And formula is expensive. For those moms in difficult circumstances that are going to feed their babies formula anyway, a donation of formula saves them money that they can put to other use.
Brooke:
I agree that the conversation is important, but I also think that language is very important. Women should be prepared for the fact that breastfeeding may not be easy all the time, but they should also be given the confidence that most problems can be overcome. Not all, but most. The problem with the way that formula companies write about breastfeeding challenges is that they try to convince women that it will be icky, difficult, painful, and that their bodies are not capable of producing what their babies need.
Formula companies offering "lactation counseling" isn't anything new - their sponsored "breastfeeding guides" have been going out to new moms in many hospitals for years. It's frustrating, yes (and on the flip side isn't kind of like if La Leche League started branding themselves as the organization to call for support with formula feeding?)
But what truly disappoints me in this situation is the unethical behavior by Babble. I know that formula advertising is common on parenting websites, and brings in big bucks. I don't expect to see them not advertising Similac - ultimately they are a business and for them the dollar is the bottom line (whether I like that or not). But offering questionable resources to parents who look to them for accurate information is a different thing. Similac's breastfeeding info may not be all bad (I don't know, I haven't read it yet), but there ARE better resources. Sadly, just not ones that can afford to line the pockets of the people at Babble.
Did they change this already? When I go through the 15 pages on their site about breastfeeding the only one with the similac ad is the one regarding supplementing. On the breastfeeding problems page I'm getting a Totino's ad and all the others Medela. I agree that it's not really appropriate on any website that is talking about breastfeeding but it's certainly more appropriate on the supplementing section than anywhere else. I also think it's very underhanded to refer to these people as LC's. I took a breastfeeding counselor course and I have nowhere near the experience or knowledge of and LC (although I am learning new things everyday) so I don't refer to myself as one.
This turns my stomach. Ugh.
This? is sick.
I just threw out an infant feeding survey that came in the mail this week claiming to try to get newer and better statistics about breastfeeding ... that then asked question after question about what formula we used and when. After getting suspicious, I googled it and got this:
http://tryingtofollow.com/2007/07/05/the-research-institute-of-mother-and-child-care-is-a-scam/
There's an older post at hipmama.com as well. I'm sure you've covered it in the past, but I'm always amazed at how sneaky the formula companies can be. Thought of you --
Susan
Note that the CEO and the Advertising Director at Babble are husband and wife. At least according to Facebook.
See, but comments like this are what is unhelpful to PhD's and Best for Babes' cause... can you see the difference? You're going on anecdotal information and swinging the conversation back to the "formula is poison" rhetoric rather than attacking the problem of supporting breastfeeding moms, which is a truly altruistic and positive way of approaching this...
As Brooke said, my formula-fed child (well, he was breastfed for a month) has been sick exactly twice - both after he was 15 mths old - and FAR less than his breastfed peers. But that is irrelevant, and unfair of me to use as an argument FOR formula, you know?
Ironically, I'm NAK, but Rufus at Babble put on thr facebook page that he had responded to Annie in her comments. I rushed over to read and found this has not been done. I am 10x disappointed.
Ah it has just been done. I am still unsatisfied. A. This goes beyond advertising into an unethical realm and B. The post is NOT unequivocally supportive of breastfeeding. The language and advice are both suspect.
Hi Rufus:
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
It seems that perhaps I haven't made myself clear. I am respectful of people's individual choices and I do not judge a formula feeding mom for needing to or choosing to use formula to feed her baby. However, the infant formula industry has a long history of predatory marketing practices that are aimed at convincing breastfeeding moms that exclusive breastfeeding is difficult or impossible and that they should give their "scientifically proven" and "super convenient" formula a try.
If you had a Formula Feeding Guide on Babble.com and had that sponsored by Similac, I wouldn't be thrilled about it (as I think formula promotion should be banned, as per the WHO Code), but I wouldn't be writing a post about it and calling for my readers (both formula feeders and breastfeeders) to take action. However, when you have a Breastfeeding Guide specifically with a section on Common Breastfeeding Problems and it is flanked (top and right) with a 1-800 number for an infant formula company, that is a major conflict of interest. Moms should not, under any circumstances, be encouraged to call an infant formula company for advice on breastfeeding. It is especially deceptive that they are claiming to have "lactation consultants" since any lactation consultant with the professional designation of their industry (IBCLC) would not be able to work for a formula company.
Babble and other media properties around the Web have plenty of advertisers that I'm not thrilled with. But this is one of the worst examples I have ever seen. I hope that you will reconsider the use of Similac ads within your Breastfeeding Guide and I would love to be able to announce to my readers and community that you have made this important change.
Lorien:
I moderate comments from first time commenters. I was out with my daughter when Rufus responded and had to wait until I got home to approve it.
I guess if it WAS just a dollar or two they wouldnt bother, but because it's millions, its worth putting a few noses out of joint from time to time.
You and me both, which is why we founded Best for Babes, to put pressure on the "Booby Traps", not moms! So glad you see that this is about unethical formula marketing, not about formula itself. I am sorry you had a terrible lactation specialist--some of them are imposters who are not truly certified or trained on how to work with moms, so they are a "booby trap"! See this article http://www.bestforbabes.org/2010/03/hidden-booby-trap-is-your-lactation-specialist-an-imposter/
And I'll just say that my bf baby had tubes put into his ears when he was 16 months old because of the endless amount of ear infections he had starting around 9 months. So, bf might have helped his immunity system but it could do nothing for his poor-draining tubes.
Rufus,
Thank you for participating in this dialogue. Please be aware that many of us used formula, and that many of us have actually followed and read almost every article that Babble has published on breastfeeding and formula-feeding, and have a very good feel for Babble's position. Before you assume we "pounce on" on mothers, you may notice that some of your articles "pounce on" -- or rather, negatively characterize--La Leche League, scientists, and breastfeeding advocates. Best for Babes advocates for ALL moms, and we hope you will too. I have left my specific concerns about your breastfeeding guide, which puts breastfeeding in a mostly negative light, in my post on Babble's facebook page and in response to your comment on the Best for Babes facebook page.
I agree with @Fearless formula feeder and @Dou-la-la
This tactic of formula companies trying to give out breastfeeding information is all about perception. They do it to try and appear to be supportive breastfeeding, believing that this will win them customers when the majority of women encounter challenges to breastfeeding (not just supply/latch/ect but going back to work, non supportive community, ect. ect.) they will turn to their brand when they switch to formula. Bah. What we need is more support so we can weather those challenges and keep breastfeeding (if that is what we want, as individuals, to do).
But as someone who did have to switch to formula I too wish that the formula companies provide actual information about formula feeding and communicated why their brand was better then the other brands, instead of focusing on breastfeeding. Researching which brand is the 'least bad' when it comes to formula is near impossible. We ended up going with a store brand organic, hoping it was the best reasonably priced option.
Anyway, I digress. The point is: formula companies giving out breastfeeding information is insanity. But the only way to put them out of the business of doing this is to ensure every women has free access to good, kind, qualified lactation consultants. Period. They pray on this as a marketing tactic because good support is not available to all.
"Breastfeeding is a time-tested and efficient biological process, one that can not only provide a baby with all the nutrition she needs but also transfer the mother’s immunities and confer — according to various studies, all of which have been criticized for lacking double-blind status or for confusing correlation and causation — protection against illness, ear infections and SIDS"
I'm not sure I'd highlight that as one of your best examples of how your website is encouraging mothers to breastfeed. That little aside ("all of which have been criticized...") questions every study on breastfeeding's advantages, and makes it sound like none of the pro-breastfeeding research can be trusted to be valid.
I wrote babble an e-mail this morning and got a response. I thought I would share. Just so you know what they are responding to I will post what I wrote to them and then the response I got.
Me to Babble: "I am writing in concern of your new partnership with Similac. im sure you are receiving e-mails left and right from an enraged lactivist community for I hope you still take the time to listen to my concerns. It is inappropriate for a formula company to have a breastfeeding hotline. The breastfeeding companies do not have the breastfeeding mothers best interest at heart. They may claim to but they are a company, and like any company, their number one priority is selling their product. If they dont sell it, if breastfeeding moms have successful long-term breastfeeding experience, then they loss their jobs. Similac may have the resources to offer you a good deal that would appeal to you and make it very tempting to allow them on your site but it is not a good thing for your readers. If you care about your readers (and your reputation) you will fix this problem and remove similac in every aspect from your site. There are many wonderful, qualified lactation consultants out there that have no alternative motives that I'm sure would love to help you start a breastfeeding friendly hotline.
thank you for your time"
babbles response: Bess --
Thanks for your email. I understand where you are coming from. I think I am a little more optimistic about the potential for companies to do good — it may be the most successful formula company, ironically, will be the one that is most genuinely supportive of breastfeeding.
I have taken some time this morning to review the concern that Annie expressed in her blog post, and that you have expanded on below. My thoughts on the matter follow. If you don’t agree completely with what I have expressed, I hope it is at least clear that we at Babble take what we do very seriously, we work hard to address the subject of breastfeeding in a way that is responsible and helpful, and to clearly separate ad campaigns from our content so that moms can make their own assessment.
If you do have any further thoughts about how we can make the site better, please let me know. Thanks again for your input, and have a great labor day weekend.
-- Rufus
Rufus,
Thanks for responding, but name-dropping some of your great pro-breastfeeding writers and using them to characterize Babble's "breastfeeding friendly" stance is a bit like saying that you're not racist because you have black friends. It doesn't cut it. Actions speak louder than words in these cases. Defending the choice to allow a formula company to sponsor ads on your "Breastfeeding Guide" and to offer a (serious conflict of interest) help hotline to your breastfeeding readers speaks towards your "friendly" stance. The first two links on your "Breastfeeding Guide" are to two decidedly "breastfeeding UN-friendly" articles, which speaks to your stance. The beginning phrases of most of the paragraphs in your "Guide" highlight your stance:
"Women who hope to breastfeed are often frustrated when seeking help..."
"Like many contentious topics..."
"Despite the unreliability of breastfeeding statistics..."
"Demographics play a big role in who breastfeeds and who doesn't..."
"Although the majority of women stop breastfeeding earlier than the AAP recommendations..."
Of the 5 phrases, only ONE is neutral. #4. I think your stance is clear, and your pairing with Similac is disappointing but unsurprising.
In case you didn't take the time to read the comments here, I suggest you do. There are formula-feeding mothers who commented about being upset over this pairing as well.
Instead of dismissing the concerns of your readers and defending your stance, I suggest you take this as constructive criticism, and remove sponsorship ads from formula companies from your "Breastfeeding Guide." Then, perhaps, you can take a serious look at the language used in your guide and with the help of people like Bettina, make the guide itself more breastfeeding friendly in its language. Then you can truly serve your readership.
Sheri --
You are quite right, Alisa and I are married, and we have two boys that we breastfed (well, she breastfed) — not for 18 months, we’re not perfect, but for a good long while — and we have a third boy on the way who will also be breastfed. Here’s the mission statement that we wrote three years ago that describes why we first started Babble: http://www.babble.com/content/aboutus/missionstatement. Just because my wife is in the sales department does not mean that we don’t approach our content with integrity and a lot of care.
Annie --
I would like to take a moment to address a larger difference in perspective that we have. I think you, and some of the commenters here, believe that it’s impossible for a formula company to offer genuine advice on their website and elsewhere (not on Babble, our content is independent) that is genuinely seeking to help moms breastfeed more effectively. I disagree. I think it’s possible, however ironic that it may seem, that the formula company that is most genuine in it’s endorsement of breastfeeding will be the most successful. I am not a Similac spokesperson, but I don’t think you give them enough credit. I would be interested to know what you think of the breastfeeding page on their site (http://bit.ly/9UceeP), which does not once mention formula, and links to the WHO and the AAP for more information. Companies do make good decisions — Google pulled out of China which was not good for business but was the right thing to do. In the long run, ethical behavior is good business, and I believe that view is ascendant in the business community more broadly. You may consider this naïve; in my view, on the other hand, there is a guilty-until-proven-innocent assumption in this forum which is not necessarily right.
One other place we disagree is in the ability of women to make good decisions based on clearly demarcated advice from different sources. If the Similac help line were not clearly identified as such, I would consider that to be an ethical violation. It is clearly demarcated, however, and I think moms are smart enough to make their own assessments of what they read and hear with all the facts at hand.
Thanks again for your feedback, and keep up the good work with this blog — I have really enjoyed getting to know it better.
Best, Rufus
I just got a similar email from him. I'm trying to decide on a reply, or whether it will even be worth it, seeing as he has already told me that we have to "agree to disagree."
Maya --
Thanks for your email. I see it a little differently -- it may be that the formula company that is most successful in the long run will be the one that is most genuinely supportive of breastfeeding. No one argues that breastfeeding isn't better ... I think many people assume the worst when it's not true. You may think me naïve, but we can agree to disagree on this.
My post to Annie's blog follows. If you don’t agree completely with what I have expressed, I hope it is at least clear that we at Babble take what we do very seriously, we work hard to address the subject of breastfeeding in a way that is responsible and helpful, and to clearly separate ad campaigns from our content so that moms can make their own assessment.
If you do have any further thoughts about how we can make the site better, please let me know. Thanks again for your input, and have a great labor day weekend.
-- Rufus
Rufus:
Unfortunately, I am too well read on this topic to be as optimistic as you. If you do want to learn more, I would highly recommend that you read the book http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/08/26/quotable-unprofitable-breasts/" rel="nofollow">The Politics of Breastfeeding. Alternatively, since you employ and speak highly of Katie Allison Granju, perhaps you would like to ask her for her opinion on the tactics of infant formula companies. Like me, Katie is able to respect people's individual feeding choices while at the same time recognizing and calling out the predatory marketing practices of infant formula companies.
I don't have time to go through Similac's breastfeeding page line by line today, but perhaps that will be the subject of another post. I did, however, link to a http://www.phdinparenting.com/2009/11/04/helping-themselves-breastfeeding-advice-nestle-style/" rel="nofollow">guest post on Nestle's breastfeeding advice in this post.
With regards to women's abilities to make good decisions - I agree and disagree. I think women are capable of making good decisions, which is why the vast majority choose to breastfeed. I also think that women are human, which means that when they are in a vulnerable position (e.g. having breastfeeding trouble while sleep deprived), that their judgment is sometimes clouded. This isn't just my opinion, I have blogged before about http://www.phdinparenting.com/2010/03/17/new-study-on-impact-of-free-formula-on-breastfeeding-rates/" rel="nofollow">studies that demonstrate, for example, that women who take home formula samples from the hospital are much more likely to be supplementing a couple of weeks later than those who didn't take home any samples.
Although it appears as though Babble.com has removed some of the Similac ads, the official word from Rufus Griscom via e-mail is:
"We are not making any changes to the campaign, but I have read all the
comments by the community carefully and we will certainly keep all this in
mind as we proceed in the future."
Rufus,
I am sorely disappointed in your response, especially the quoted section from the Breastfeeding Guide. What grade level does this read at? I would imagine it is late high school, if not college-level. Long, convoluted sentences, the appearance of support, yet offering doubt at the science of breastmilk and dangers of formula. Yep, real classy there. Sounds just like the formula companies' breastfeeding promotional materials. Yes, much of what is said IS true. It is a living, changing substance, studies have been criticized, and it is studied by formula companies (who Can't Replicate it and are potentially causing further health issues - see the DHA issues - while increasing their bottom line and passing the costs on to WIC and every taxpayer).
I'll will believe your interest in your reader's well-being (and their babies!) when you refer them to La Leche League, Best for Babes, and Kellymom.com for better, more complete sources for information and support. While the one individual who called got "accurate" information, I believe it was incomplete and I was surprised to see Reglan mentioned in an initial phone consultation, as well as no mention of contacting a local IBCLC, not just a doctor, or of nursing more often, attempting to minimize distractions. A link for Similac-sponsored breastfeeding support in your breastfeeding guide is misplaced. It would be less offensive and misleading if it were only a Similac advertisement, though that is bad enough. Why does Similac want breastfeeding-page placement? It improves their bottom line. They are not being altruistic, how much are they paying for that placement? More for their hot-line ads? It had better pay off, directly or indirectly. Formula companies have high-paid marketing execs for a reason!
Somehow if they get your info you become part of their 'Welcome Additions' club. They called me 3 times since I had my daughter last December. Each time they ask if I'm still breastfeeding, tell me that it's great that I STILL am and ask me if I want more information on the convenience of formula. That's where the conversation usually turns because each time they throw out scenarios where formula would be convenient, I keep repeating 'not more commnvenient than me pulling out my boob'! I asked them to stop calling after their second call because they were providing inaccurate information and I had issues with their sales tactics. They called me one more time but I haven't heard back from them since June. We'll see if they try again.
Regulating midwifery has caused more problems than its prevented anywhere in Canada and the US where its been implemented; but at least in most they allow for both certified nurse midwives as well as direct-entry midwives. Regulations do not guarantee that customers will receive a better product or service, prevent fraud, or even ensure the product or service meets bare minimums.
The IBLC has lost a lost a lot of credibility for refusing to make allowances to allow a nursing woman to sit the exam.
I don't know about US formula companies, but most of the ones in the UK offer a free help line for their customers, they give advice about mixing it, how much to give in a day, etc. Now I haven't called and asked them anything because I'm not in the UK so it'd be long distance and I don't formula feed; so they may not be terribly accurate -I presume they don't mention that powdered formula isn't sterile, etc.
However I will say whenever I have written a UK formula company with technical questions about what their "new and improved" formulation is they respond promptly and give me relatively accurate information (sadly sometimes they can't tell you what oil/sugar they use because they get different ones depending on what's cheap/available at the time, nice eh?)
I'm in Canada and its usually pointless trying to deal with Canadian companies, I've given up trying. Its really sad.
I hate to be pessimistic, but we're talking about corporations here, so it's hard to believe that anything they say is truthful. No, a corporation cannot NOT have ulterior motives, IMO. It's the nature of the business.
Rufus, by taking down the Similac ads, you definitely make the article seem more "official". Sadly, it doesn't change the content or the negative tones towards breastfeeding.
IBLCE - who administer the IBCLC exam - DO make allowances for nursing mothers who wish to take the exam. I agree that they may not be as generous as we would like, but many of us are working to change that.
Many food banks won't give out infant formula -because they can't guarantee that they will have any from week to week, let alone the same brand. Also food banks here will generally only give you enough food for 1-3 days out of any 7 day period, you aren't meant to live off them (though some people clearly do).
Its true that desperate moms will do unsafe things like use expired formula, take opened formula from people online, switch brands with every can, use powdered milk/homemade formula, etc but giving formula to food banks doesn't prevent that, it can actually encourage it.
There are charities which provide formula, they take money not donations, and sometimes they have a deal with a company so they can buy it at a reduced cost. But if formula companies really cared they do like drug companies and have programs to give it away free to people who can't afford it.
I cut and paste the quoted section into Word and checked the readability. Here's what I found:
Passive sentences: 80%
Flesch reading ease: 29.2 (100 point scale, the higher the score the easier to understand)
Flesch-Kincaid grade leve: 17.2 (way more than high school - master's level, maybe?).
Anyway, just wanted to point out that the language used is not accessible to the average reader - another issue and booby trap presented by the breastfeeding information on Babble's site.
Dear Rufus,
Maybe it was just a fluke that that specific formula ad was on that specific page when it was viewed by the person who took the screenshot, but that's beside the point. A websites has editorial control of its ads, unless it goes through some third party service such as google ads, and can and should preview ads before placing them on its site. It can ask for alterations or refuse ads.
Assuming that Babble is American and can presumably legally run formula ads you can certainly allow formula ads on your site. That being said it seems prudent to refuse to run and ad that advertises a so-called breast-feeding support line sponsored by a formula company. For one thing Babble ought to be aware that many will find that offensive; Babble should also be aware that the information provided on such a help line is probably not great because most if not all lactation consultants would not work for a formula company.
Its also a reasonable assumption that Babble allows advertisers to target their ads on its site, so its perfectly reasonable to assume that that specific ad was created specifically to run on articles about breastfeeding. Its also perfectly reasonable to assume that Babble could prohibit formula ads on breastfeeding articles, if it so chose. It seems clear that the formula company knew what kind of articles it would be viewed with or at least what kind of audience the articles would be read by. Clearly they wouldn't use a breastfeeding help line to lure formula customers from competing brands - it wouldn't be effective.
So even if Similac didn't have any input on your breastfeeding guide's text, you certainly allowed for it to support their "help line".
Rufus,
If you had a guild to the benefits of Coca Cola, would you have Pepsi ads on the page? If you had a guild to Walmart, would you have Target ads on the age? Obviously not, because the corporation would demand that you stop for conflict of interest. Pepsi understands that Coca Cola is not really trying to help, but to draw customers away.
What gain does Similac get from "sponsoring" the breastfeeding guild? The gain of driving mothers away from breastfeeding and right into formula. Unfortunately, Similac is a very rich company and breastfeeding has no billion dollar profit to sponsor ads. So it is up to you, the owner of the site, to realize there is a conflict of interest and refuse. Put Post It Note ads up, or Tortinos, or one of the other sponsors. Let Similac sponsor some other area of the site if you truly cannot live without their money.
Actions speak louder than words, and nothing you have shown us makes you seem breastfeeding friendly.
If you need another example of aggressive marketing:
I'm not even pregnant, nor do I plan to be in the near future, but the formula companies keep sending me stuff! I'm sure it's because I bought something somewhere online that was baby related (many of my friends are in their childbirthing/rearing days, and I've been giving a lot of shower gifts this year), someone got my address and sold it to the formula companies...
I like how the hotline made no mention of all the EASIEST ways to increase supply, like nursing more often and limiting distractions, but dove straight into buying this or taking that and referrals to doctors (many of whom are armed with formula samples to give you during your appointment).
If I were stressed out and unsure about my milk supply and someone basically told me to change my diet, drink a bunch of nasty teas, and get an expensive prescription from my doctor, I may just wonder if it wouldn't be cheaper and easier to supplement with formula.
I am assuming they took your personal information? I'd bet all the money in my bank account that you receive coupons and samples in the email within the week. Right about the time you'd be paying for that prescription and choking down the blessed thistle.
You know I have been disappointed im Babble lately and this just takes the cake. Buh bye Babble.
You have quotes. I have quotes too. From the guide you claim is "unequivocal in its endorsement of breastfeeding," I found the following quotes in just one section:
"As any mother can tell you, the pressure on moms to breastfeed their babies today is enormous." (This is, incidentally, the first sentence in a section purporting to tell mothers why they SHOULD breastfeed.)
"Sounds great, right? Sure, but there are also plenty of reasons why someone would choose to or have to bottle-feed their infant."
"Some women find that their bodies simply cannot produce enough milk to meet their baby's needs. If a baby isn't putting on weight because he or she is not receiving enough breast milk when nursing, even women who desperately wish to exclusively breastfeed their babies may find that they HAVE NO CHOICE [emphasis mine] but to supplement with formula or switch to the bottle (even if it contains pumped breast milk) in order to monitor their baby's intake."
"Pumping at work simply isn't always an appealing option."
"Some women find it difficult to breastfeed around people other than their family. Bottle-feeding may give them more freedom and flexibility. What's more, with bottle-feeding, your partner or family member can share the load, taking on a night feed or pitching in during the day. While many women love the complete interdependency between mother and baby that comes with breastfeeding, others prefer to — or need to — integrate help from others."
"Breastfeeding can be wonderful, but for some mothers it's truly painful. Some women find it easier to bottle-feed."
Seriously now. Can you honestly continue to say with a straight face that the guide is not intended to serve the interests of its corporate sponsors by discouraging breastfeeding? I should note that I pulled all the above quotes from the same page: "Why Breastfeed? (Breast vs. Bottle)". On this page, the negative claims about breastfeeding, which incidentally range in their veracity from incomplete to patently false, take up TWICE AS MUCH space as the list of breastfeeding's health benefits. If your site's writing team really wrote this guide without Similac's influence, and were intending for it to be supportive of breastfeeding, then you have a whole other set of problems to deal with, because it's pretty clear that this guide is not only equivocal in its support but at times downright discouraging of breastfeeding.
Rufus -
Similac may not mention formula at all during the text of the breastfeeding page but the bottom of the breastfeeding page includes an ad which encourages moms to sign up for StrongMoms and get $239 in offers. How is that ethical? How is the ad which encourages moms to purchase Similac online ethical as well? If it's a breastfeeding page there should be NO advertising whatsoever located on said page, even if hosted at the company's website.
I wouldn't have a problem with the page if it weren't for the advertising and free offers, regardless of clear demarcation. It's there and available to moms who are reading about breastfeeding and thinking - oh - look - I can get free formula to have on hand when nursing doesn't go so well. Brilliantly deceptive.
Warmest,
Lauren
You are irrational and reactionary. :Þ
Babble should change their name to Baffle.
Because they don't make any sense.
That's a bit of clever word-play.
They just sponsor the page on breastfeeding problems, which seems all the more slimy to me.
I've received free cans of formula, too, and I'm not even *trying* to get pregnant, nor have I ever been. I have only been buying baby stuff for my new niece and friend's who have had babies.
It's absolutely deplorable that Babble is allowing this to go on.
I'm even more shocked to hear about the licensing and designation issues of "Lactation Consultants."
At least now I know what to watch out for when I do have children.
That makes me so angry for you, Susan.
As much as this is definitely inappropriate, I seriously doubt the formula companies are looking to actively sabotage breastfeeding mothers. They don't need to; considering only something like 11% of moms make it to six months of breastfeeding, but the majority of women breastfeed at least a little, that's a huge segment of their market. So what they are doing is associating their company name with the "helping" so that when the majority of women inevitably fail or give up on breastfeeding anyway, they'll already be familiar with the Similac brand.
I am NOT saying I like it.... far, far from it. But I also don't see this as an active act of sabotage.
Bummer. What a disappointing response.