Plunket have sold their soul. Obviously they thought it disposable.
Related Link: Plunket in the poo over disposable values
After being contacted by the local Plunket Secretary and asked to advertise in the local Plunket newsletter, Snazzipants placed a $55 advert. However, a day later, Susan Rae, of the Milford branch of Plunket, phoned, embarrassed to admit that although she had sought the advertising, Plunket were not able to accept an advert from a cloth nappy company. Director and mother-of-two Pippa Jinks and her business partner Maria were astonished to be told that the head office of the Plunket Society had vetoed the advert as reusable nappies are in competition with Huggies. Kimberly-Clark is the largest sponsor of Plunket.Does Plunket give free and frank advice, or is it all based on corporate sponsorship directives? Shame.
Related Link: Plunket in the poo over disposable values
seems screwy.
ReplyDeletestill if the govt or private persons won't fund plunket sufficiently then they must find money somewhere.
and yet we all know that re-usables/mcn's are better for the environment, babys bottom and for the parents pocket so why are plunket promoting filling our landfills with toxic chemicals, inflicting our children with more chemicals and promoting more poverty for those that simply should not have to spend money on these products? Sponsorship?
ReplyDeleteBy the time a mother reads that Plunket newsletter she will have already made the decision between cloth or disposable. Advertising may influence the supplier of the nappy but not the type. I don't blame the local association for being careful but I think it was an over-reaction.
ReplyDelete