THE BLOG

On Second Thoughts

06/03/2014 15:00 GMT | Updated 05/05/2014 10:59 BST

Dear Jon

Thanks for taking the time to write your post.

You make some valid points, I think it is important to discuss and the debate can't be a bad thing so here is my response.

Firstly it is important to clear something up, I'm not anti the awareness CoppaFeel has created. I'm not anti what the charity does on a whole. I think that despite how I feel about the way it was done; it is only fair to say creating awareness and conversations about breast cancer is a good thing.

But I don't agree with the idea of publicity at any cost, and think CoppaFeel have a responsibility to choose their media partnerships wisely.

Page3 was for me, not a clever one and in that context made me and many others very angry about what the charity were saying- hence the quite ranty blog post.

I could have waited till the rage had settled but it is a very emotive topic and I'm very passionate about the seriousness of breast cancer and how it should be communicated.

Like you I have people very close to me who have been affected by breast cancer, some have lost people to it and they were very sad about the way CoppaFeel and Page3 presented the message.

What is more disappointing about CoppaFeel's decision is that they should know better than to collude with what Page3 promotes.

You stick up for them as a charity very well as do most of their supporters and it leaves me very inclined to agree with you, the good they do clearly outweighs the bad.

I am familiar with their website and I think the information they provide there is great, but the collaboration with Page3 sent a terribly confusing message and not one that I support. - I could have articulated that better.

But I feel very strongly that for a charity with a duty of care to women, I am against the context in which they have chosen to do it.

And that's why my focus was more on them as a charity as opposed to Page3.

I don't expect a charity that has women's best interests at heart to partner with a platform that clearly doesn't, especially when there are plenty of platforms that do.

I think The Sun has manipulated a serious issue for women and the charity has supported that (albeit in the name of spreading awareness).

Understandably they want their message to be out there, I want their message out there too, but I want that message to be respectful to women and speak to me on a platform that respects me.

Yes, there is a time and a place for social media, by all means we should use it, but let's get the tone right when it really matters.

When I opened the first 3 pages, CoppaFeel's message wasn't there. It wasn't the CoppaFeel you see on the website.

It was The Sun's manipulation of a very serious topic for their own gain.

I felt let down to see a charity (who I would normally identify with and want to get behind and support) partner up with a platform that does nothing to promote a positive image of women.

I read the 8-page pull out with the helpful information in it.

But I had to search 30 pages into the paper to find it, and my blog was about the first 3 pages, because they are what the majority of people will have seen.

Why hide that life saving content deep into a paper and put an image of a naked model up front?

Surely if this issue is worth its weight to The Sun and CoppaFeel, it should have been the kind of content we saw on the front and inside?

I know that the editorial decisions do not lie with CoppaFeel but they have to take some responsibility.

They picked this paper and platform to tell their message I don't think it was the right platform.

I wonder how many women closed the page in disgust at the images and didn't get close to reading the 8-page pull out or even know it was there?

I think I might feel differently towards the decision to partner with page3 had I been able to see they had clearly worked with editors of the page to drop the dated format and show women with something to say and images that illustrated the seriousness of the topic, not ones of models in underpants posing sexily.

I'm sorry if my blog was harsh and scathing of a charity that has clearly done a lot for you.

That is good to read and it is important that you tell people your experience and I continue hearing about the good things they do because I'm very interested.

At risk of repeating my self as I know you didn't like that, I just don't agree with publicity at any cost.

I think they had a responsibility to pick a media partner that reflects their values, page3 doesn't offer support to women, it presents a sexualised image of them in a family newspaper right next to the news.

It says 'your boobs are a commodity on which we can trade'.

I'd love to see the charity work more with media partners in the future, and get the publicity they deserve.

But I hope they are ones who will reflect their message honestly and with dignity, because page3 didn't do that.