Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed

291 replies

Wondermoomin · 05/05/2025 17:36

Welcome to part 2. The quote I’ve added in the title is actually a generic quote about MNHQ not specifically about product recommendations, but it’s very eloquent and quotable.

Here is part one: https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326652-mn-have-used-my-quote-to-promote-a-product-ive-never-bought

And here’s a brief summary so far:

  • MN were caught out, allegedly acting in breach of ASA guidelines among other things
  • The thread was temporarily hidden
  • MN then provided a few explanation posts saying that this was a one-off cock-up and sorry that we MNers were confused
  • Then we were told that in 99% of cases, the quotes refer to the specific products being featured; in a tiny minority, they are referring to a generic product category and will make that clearer
  • Several users easily discovered multiple other examples, suggesting that it wasn’t just 1% of cases, or a one-off cock-up
  • MN went on an editing spree of their swears by/recommendations sections (editing about 64 out of 75 things), also suggesting it’s not just 1% or an isolated cock-up
  • The thread largely disappeared from active and trending, suggesting it’s been suppressed
  • MN says it hasn’t been suppressed, threads appear in active based on popularity and how new they are
  • Another MN source shows that they do sometimes remove threads from active to give them a chance to “calm down”

Please feel free to use this thread to capture any other examples you find, to update on anything you hear back from ASA, to provide your own professional or common sense input.

If you don’t agree, it’s probably not the thread for you so please feel free to pass on by! An issue doesn’t have to be the most pressing matter of our times to be important, and I think it’s important that trusted brands don’t mislead consumers.

MN have used my quote to promote a product I’ve never bought 🤔 | Mumsnet

AIBU to expect MN recommendations, where they quote a poster/member, to be genuine? I like being able to rely on recommendations in MN swears by...

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5326652-mn-have-used-my-quote-to-promote-a-product-ive-never-bought

OP posts:
Thread gallery
24
PickAChew · 05/05/2025 23:12

Shynapple · 05/05/2025 21:37

Same with the heated socks, edited on May 2nd. It now says "type of product recommended" to stop me from getting confused.

Also sneaky that the original recommendation had the he word "cheapies" removed as at over £70 for socks, the ones being promoted were not.

Show quote history

Lots of arse covering, there.

Catchame · 05/05/2025 23:04

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 22:41

I see that the editing blitz has continued over the weekend - hadn’t realised that.

It’s really not a good look for MN that these topics on products for pregnancy and early parenthood apparently needed emergency attention over a Bank Holiday weekend.

I was chatting with a friend about this very thing. She was furious about the possibility people have been buying car seat/child safety-related equipment etc based on dodgy/fictional MN reviews.

Did no one, at any point, say 'hang on guys, isn't this really, really unethical?'

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 22:41

I see that the editing blitz has continued over the weekend - hadn’t realised that.

It’s really not a good look for MN that these topics on products for pregnancy and early parenthood apparently needed emergency attention over a Bank Holiday weekend.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Original poster
Wondermoomin · 05/05/2025 22:34

Some of these examples are indisputable breaches of the regulations.

I wonder what MN’s next steps will be.

OP posts:
soupyspoon · 05/05/2025 22:29

I found this in active, if that helps

Ive never opened a 'swears by' or 'promoted by MN' post

I assumed they would be marketing and a load of BS.

NamechangeforLCJ · 05/05/2025 22:27

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 22:05

There’s quite a bit more tidying up to do on the articles they didn’t get to on Friday.

Take shapewear. The “Best tummy and waist shapewear” award of 20 December 2024 goes to the Dorina Bridget Super High Control Brief, purchasable by clicky links from Very and ASOS.

The (sole) Mumsnetter who is supposed to have Tried and Tested this item is DSGR. Let’s see what DSGR actually said in the linked August 2022 thread about holding in a tummy:

“I find the M&S freecut shorts are brilliant for this. The high waisted ones. But if you truly want holding in, it has to be control pants!”

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/style_and_beauty/4603945-good-knickers-for-larger-middles?reply=118992653

Unfortunately DSGR’s first two sentences were omitted from the recommendation. Poor old M&S!

And here’s the photo of the SwearsBy article.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
NamechangeforLCJ · 05/05/2025 22:22

Getting ahead for 2025!

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 05/05/2025 22:17

financialmuddle · 05/05/2025 20:49

It seems very odd and - again - unprofessional to leave questions unanswered, presumably because it's a bank holiday weekend. I'm sure Justine & co are taking advice, but meanwhile the total silence is completely inadequate for a 24/7 forum.

As usual they will pretend like they're doing this from the back bedroom after having given the kid their tea and put DH on bedtime...

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 22:05

There’s quite a bit more tidying up to do on the articles they didn’t get to on Friday.

Take shapewear. The “Best tummy and waist shapewear” award of 20 December 2024 goes to the Dorina Bridget Super High Control Brief, purchasable by clicky links from Very and ASOS.

The (sole) Mumsnetter who is supposed to have Tried and Tested this item is DSGR. Let’s see what DSGR actually said in the linked August 2022 thread about holding in a tummy:

“I find the M&S freecut shorts are brilliant for this. The high waisted ones. But if you truly want holding in, it has to be control pants!”

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/style_and_beauty/4603945-good-knickers-for-larger-middles?reply=118992653

Unfortunately DSGR’s first two sentences were omitted from the recommendation. Poor old M&S!

Boiledbeetle · 05/05/2025 21:52

Shynapple · 05/05/2025 21:43

Next up, heated gloves. How strange... Debenhams and the price was removed from this one. I wonder why? The promoted were much more expensive. Funny that.

There's a definite pattern emerging isn't there!!

(They should have just taken down all the swears by stuff down over the bank holiday weekend!)

Shynapple · 05/05/2025 21:43

Next up, heated gloves. How strange... Debenhams and the price was removed from this one. I wonder why? The promoted were much more expensive. Funny that.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Shynapple · 05/05/2025 21:37

NamechangeforLCJ · 05/05/2025 21:16

For those who haven’t ploughed through the whole of the first thread, MNHQ said that only a tiny percentage of Swears By had used recommendations that weren’t for the specific items.

If you look at the Swears By articles on the site you will see that there has been a lot of “updating” going on since the first thread on 1 May. Including of an article about Black Friday 2024 deals on electric blankets….

Same with the heated socks, edited on May 2nd. It now says "type of product recommended" to stop me from getting confused.

Also sneaky that the original recommendation had the he word "cheapies" removed as at over £70 for socks, the ones being promoted were not.

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
RockyRogue1001 · 05/05/2025 21:27

LOVE your name 💕💕💕💕💕

NamechangeforLCJ · 05/05/2025 21:16

For those who haven’t ploughed through the whole of the first thread, MNHQ said that only a tiny percentage of Swears By had used recommendations that weren’t for the specific items.

If you look at the Swears By articles on the site you will see that there has been a lot of “updating” going on since the first thread on 1 May. Including of an article about Black Friday 2024 deals on electric blankets….

Part 2: MN misrepresentation in recommendations: a depressing blend of abject amateurism and outright greed
Catchame · 05/05/2025 21:07

No doubt we'll soon get a patronising 'Just popping our head round the door folks' type inane comment on this thread

That's the thing I'm dreading tbh. MNHQ tried that on the first thread. It would be the last straw for me.

I'm fairly sure that Justine et al are taking legal advice and seperately deciding what approach they're going to take with members.

I would urge them this time to be serious, transparent and NOT insult the intelligent women on MN once more by telling them that they're 'confused.'

Zonder · 05/05/2025 20:57

That's awful @Wondermoomin

Original poster
Wondermoomin · 05/05/2025 20:54

I’ve just remembered about something I bought years ago based on MN Swears By. The item never arrived, so I left a review to that effect about the seller.

The seller tried to pressure me to remove my review as a condition of getting a refund. It was an inexpensive item, so I could afford to be principled and refuse to remove my review. I shouldn’t have had to risk my money as a result of a MN Swears By recommendation.

Probably should have been my first clue that all was not as it was meant to be, but at that point I just assumed I was unlucky and it was an isolated incident.

OP posts:
financialmuddle · 05/05/2025 20:49

It seems very odd and - again - unprofessional to leave questions unanswered, presumably because it's a bank holiday weekend. I'm sure Justine & co are taking advice, but meanwhile the total silence is completely inadequate for a 24/7 forum.

CesarSoubreyon · 05/05/2025 19:47

After this I won't ever buy a product that Mumsnet recommends. Not that they're bothered by that of course, but it makes me feel better!

I rely on honest reviews to purchase things. Money is very tight and I like to know it's well spent. I hate the idea of false reviews or companies purposely misleading consumers, which Mumsnet have done whether they admit to it or not.

No doubt we'll soon get a patronising 'Just popping our head round the door folks' type inane comment on this thread.

GardenGaff · 05/05/2025 19:37

Oh wow this whole thing has passed me by, I definitely haven’t seen the other thread at all and only clicked on this because I was intrigued by the thread title… off to read the other thread!

Catchame · 05/05/2025 19:35

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 19:29

Let’s time-travel back to 2012 to see what Swears By was meant to be about:

https://www.marketingweek.com/will-mumsnet-get-consumers-social-shopping/

Good find. That aged well.

BassesAreBest · 05/05/2025 19:31

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 19:29

Let’s time-travel back to 2012 to see what Swears By was meant to be about:

https://www.marketingweek.com/will-mumsnet-get-consumers-social-shopping/

The only potential problem will be that in order for this to be a genuine peer-to-peer experience, it will have to be tightly policed to ensure that it is established Mumsnetters recommending items, rather than cheeky marketers logging on without being regular forum users to try and push people to brands.

Very true…

MNPopcornMonitor · 05/05/2025 19:29

Let’s time-travel back to 2012 to see what Swears By was meant to be about:

https://www.marketingweek.com/will-mumsnet-get-consumers-social-shopping/

TURNYOURCAPSLOCKOFF · 05/05/2025 19:20

Place marking

Catchame · 05/05/2025 19:16

I hope that before this thread gets suppressed by admin, as many MNers as possible understand what's going on.

Anyone who has, for years, trusted 'Mumsnet Swears By... and either saved up or spent hard-earned family money on a vacuum, shoes, bloody gazebo...anything, thinking that fellow MNers had bought, used and recommended it, have been roundly swizzled.

It turns out that 'Mumsnet Swears By...' is a money-making work of fiction. We all get - despite Justine thinking that we're not bright enough to understand How Websites Make Money - that money must be generated.

The issue here is the deceit. The business model that MN have adopted here is reliant on dishonesty and misleading every MN member. It's very deliberate.

When this was raised, Justine - as the OP says - claimed it was a 'cock-up' and only affected 1% of the recommendations. That was very easily and swiftly proved to be untrue.

The messages from MNEditor and Justine herself can be read on the first thread - the one that MN is trying to suppress - judge for yourself whether you think there is a fundamental honesty issue here.

MNers have trusted this site for years, and the site owners have taken huge advantage of that relationship, opting for profit over integrity.

I honestly expect better - more fool me.