Posts Tagged ‘paperchase’
But itâs not so cool and groovy when theyâre rude and patronising to their customers, especially when said customer has raised a valid point about gender stereotyping in their advertising. So itâs hats back on (or whatever the opposite of hats off is) to Paperchase.
Blogger and Paperchase fan Nancy Smallwood took umbrage recently at the window display in their Tottenham Court Road branch in the centre of That Londonâs fashionable That London. Advertising âback to schoolâ stuff, Paperchase had deployed a âpink is for girlsâ and âblue is for boysâ theme, with pictures of the girls doing bakery and the boys playing with sharks and similar tough stuff and that.
An email of complaint was dashed off by Nancy, including points like…
âMore than ever now big companies need to be trying to advocate equality for both sexes, and break down gender stereotypes, and in this day and age I was pretty disappointed to see this ridiculous cop out.â
She ended with âI’m a big fan of your store, as I said, but I’d really hope in future you could try harder to avoid this kind of nonsense.â
Fair points, well made. Well, not according to Robert Warden, the Marketing Director of Paperchase. His reply, dispatched around twenty minutes later was this…
Thank you for your email. However you rather miss the point… we are more than aware of the gender stereotypes and were making an ironic point by using archive mail-order catalogue photos from the 1970s…
When we are trying to sell stationery (please note spelling) there are images that appeal to boys and images that appeal to girls – and we have had a very successful season with the designs that we chose. So presumably the majority of our customers approved of the products.
Presumably he also stuck out his tongue and waggled his fingers from either side of his head as he sent the email. Some nice pedantry regarding the spelling of âstationeryâ there as well. We like a bit of pedantry round these parts.
There was more to come. Naturally, Nancy was unhappy with Wardenâs response and probed him further on the inherent message in the Paperchase marketing merchandising. She sent a further email, pointing out that… âI wasn’t looking for you to argue that it sells well as a defence, rather an apology and demonstrate an awareness of the issues that I complained about (and not in the ironic 1970s – or should that be 1950s? – sense.â
A reply duly followed from Robert Warden.
Thank you for your email.
Consumerism is, first and foremost, a choice. Whether our campaign is subtle is not (âŚ it is always reassuring to know that customers assume they can be rude to us but do not like being corrected themselves) is in the eyes of the beholder.
Our customers specifically asked for âboysâ stationery â and as we are trying to run a commercial enterprise (one of the reasons being to keep people in employment) â we did our best to provide something we thought 7 year old boys might appreciate either buying or being given. No-one has forced them to buy it.
If 7 year old girls are keen on sharks they can buy it too ! I leave the disagreements between us there â we shall continue to try not to offend all our customers.
Since Nancy wrote about her interaction with Paperchase and Warden, the blogosphere has erupted with condemnation of the attitude the Marketing Director has taken towards a genuine complaint from a customer.
But how bad is it really? Should we be pleased that a âsuitâ has tried to engage directly with a customer for once and explain why the merchandising looks the way it does, even if his social skills left a little to be desired?
Or is it unacceptable behaviour from Paperchase and should an effigy of Robert Warden be hoisted up on a pole and burned outside the Tottenham Court Road store for crimes against gender equality?
What do YOU LOT reckon? Eh?
Paperchase stole a design from a little independent company. They thought they’d got away with it too… but then, in steps those pesky social networkers.
Yep, the artist called Hidden Eloise flagged up the copy and everyone on various social networking sites like Twitter went mental. Well, when I say ‘mental’, I actually mean that they typed angry words and said OMG That is soooo unfair *angryface* which is not that mental at all.
Anyway, Paperchase cottoned on to the fact that this was all very bad PR. For a period, the design studio used by Paperchase – a company called Gather No Moss, âcategorically denied any plagiarism.â However, if you click here you can see it clear as day. Naturally, Hidden Eloise wasn’t thrilled with the response.
Then, science fiction writer Neil Gaiman Tweeted about it to his 1.6 million followers on Twitter, which meant that the national press got wind and the inevitable happened.
Paperchase issued an initial statement in which it apologised to âany customers upset or angered by this allegation against us any ill-feeling caused,â and has since accepted that the design was indeed a copy.
Chief executive Timothy Melgund commented: âWe have been chastened by this experience and offer Hidden Eliose, our customers and those from the social network community our sincere apologies that we were not more rigorous in establishing the truth in the first instance.â
It’s not the first time accusations have been thrown around like this as TopShop got slated for (allegedly) ripping off a design a while back. More on that here. I’ve no idea whether TopShop apologised or if it all got sorted out because I can’t be bothered checking. I’m happy to simply assume that all major retailers are complete twunts without checking the facts at all.