I do not subscribe to the current left-wing doctrine that the best way to improve the status of anyone brown, non-Christian or female is to absolve them of all criticism for anything they do.
I don't think homophobia is OK if you are called Tupac, female subjugation is fine if you are called Muhammad, or genocide is no problem if you're called Saddam. And so I don't think frivolity and trivialisation are OK if you are called Jane.
Rory Sutherland, www.brandrepublic.com/campaign
UNILEVER GETS REAL
(The move by Unilever to ban size-zero models) is a positive step forward, but speaking as a recovering anorectic/bulimic, who never wanted to look like a supermodel or Barbie, I doubt it'll do much to reduce eating disorders.
To address and correct the larger, underlying reasons why women develop eating disorders requires a far greater effort than banning bags of bones in the media.
A PITCHING NIGHTMARE
Kraft (in the US) is requiring agencies in a review to not only cede ownership of pitched concepts, but also to accept liability if they end up being used and cause legal problems (a new and completely stupid practice).
Someone please help us here. Kraft wants agencies to give up ownership of any presented idea. Then it wants to be able to sue the agency that presented those ideas if they cause legal trouble in the future ... even though the agency doesn't even own the idea any more! We have a headache.