O2 supports the aims of 10:10 but we don’t ask for editorial control over its campaigns.On O2 in the UK's twitter feed.
It was in response to this request,
@O2 Has any public statement been issued with regard to O2's continued sponsorship of the 10:10 No Pressure video?They don't ask for control, and don't take responsibility for actions of those they use their customers money to fund. And one has to ask what an organisation supported by O2 would have to do to get support dropped by O2.
The O2 Website is entirely free of any reference to No pressure or indeed 10:10. Nor is there anything there on their Facebook Page.
So apart from some quite funny email exchanges with Richard North that cannot really count this looks like it is the only formal response from the Multinational on the whole affair.
An interesting take on the whole affair is this by Patricio Robles on Econsultancy,
Unfortunately, many brands make the same mistake Sony, Kyocera Mita and O2 made: they provide explicit endorsements to organizations and initiatives that have little to do with their businesses, and which they have little to no control over. While most individuals know that an advertisement doesn't represent an endorsement, corporate sponsorships are endorsements, so there's far more at stake...
Even more problematic: when brands let third parties control the messaging. After all, there's a huge difference between, say, promoting your own efforts to become a more energy efficient company and lending your name and financial support to a group that you have no control over. In the case of Sony, for instance, the company's desire "to reduce carbon emissions" isn't a good enough justification for putting the Sony brand in the hands of individuals who were clearly incapable of predicting the very predictable reaction to a film containing exploding children.Well quite